Jugoinfo
E' recentemente uscita la terza edizione del libro
"IO ACCUSO - Note critiche sul ruolo della Unione Europea, della NATO e
degli USA in Jugoslavia - Scandali ed inganni in Kosovo"
di Rajko Dolecek, Ed. Dauphin / Studio Forma, Praga 2000 (in lingua
inglese: "I ACCUSE!").
Il testo e' disponibile anche in lingua ceca - ZALUJI! - Ed. Futura,
Praga 1999, oppure in lingua serbocroata - OPTUZUJEM! - Ed. Rivel Co.,
Belgrado 1998. Dolecek, medico e professore universitario, nel suo paese
e' anche un noto saggista e scrittore: ha pubblicato centinaia di
articoli scientifici ma persino tre libri di fantascienza, ed e' stato
spesso presente sui media. Negli ultimi sette anni si e' dedicato in
particolare alla crisi jugoslava, anche per i vincoli affettivi che lo
legano a quel paese e a quei popoli.
Il testo inglese della precedente edizione di "I ACCUSE", che e'
aggiornata al marzo 1999 e dunque non contiene le vergogne sulla
aggressione della NATO e sulla occupazione coloniale della provincia del
Kosmet, si puo' leggere in internet alla URL:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Dolecek.html
Di seguito riproduciamo invece un suo articolo che puo' essere
considerato quasi una sintesi dell'intero libro.
---
http://www.inaffairs.org.yu
Review of International Affairs
April-June 2000
THE LOSS OF CREDIBILITY BY THE WEST AND BY ITS INSTITUTIONS AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF NATO AGGRESSION
By Prof. Dr. Rajko Dolecek Ostrava, Czech Republic
I am now almost 75 and, to be frank - in spite of many disappointments
(e.g.
Vietnam) - I dreamt the dream of Western democracy all the way to 1991.
But
the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, a campaign of denigration of the Serbs,
so
wholeheartedly prepared and supported by the official West
(NATO, the European Community, later Union, the USA), taught me really a
harsh lesson. It started with all this fantastic disinformation, even
lies
about the events in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, spread by
Western leaders and media, including all those frame-ups about the three
big
explosions in Sarajevo, about rape and death camps run by the Serbs,
about
Srebrenica, etc. In the sad story about refugees, the western
politicians
and media almost forgot that around a million Serbs had been expelled
from
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Then came the illegal and unjust
sanctions,
the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the World Health Organization. The ad
hoc
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was
created, mainly to show how bad the Serbs are. However, nobody here
argues
that some were innocent in the civil-ethnic-religious war in Yugoslavia,
but
it was utterly unfair, almost criminal, to blame just one side for all
the
crimes that happened there. The Dayton dictate opened the door to the
despotism of the occupiers of Bosnia-Herzegovina who undemocratically
manipulated the elections there; whose high civilian representatives
even
sacked the freely elected president of the Republika Srpska.
But the final blow to the credibility of the present official West was
its
dirty role in Kosovo and Metohija, which culminated in the NATO
aggression
against the sovereign state of Yugoslavia.
The tragedy of Kosovo and Metohija, of its inhabitants, was meticulously
prepared by a part of the West, by a part of its leadership. Germany as
a
front-runner helped organize and train the "KLA" (Kosovo Liberation
Army) or
"UCK" terrorists whose aim was to destroy and kill in Kosovo and
Metohija,
to expell all non-Albanians from there, to secede the province from
Serbia,
Yugoslavia. The Germans had the full support of the USA - they finally
accepted the "KLA" terrorists as their allies, with a lot of support
from
the British, the official European Union (EU) as a whole. Nobody stopped
the
continuous flow of money, volunteers, uniforms and weapons from the West
(and from some Islamic countries) to the "KLA". To prepare the terrain
ideologically, most Western media started their work, even historians in
vogue successfully manipulated history to show inconspicuously the need
to
re-assess the situation in Kosovo, to present its Albanian population in
bright colors, to make the Serbs bad guys. The book by Noel Malcolm
KOSOVO -
A Short History1 of 1998 may be used as an example. It is intelligently
written, but it manipulates history. Some historians even used glaring
lies
to denigrate the Serbs. The British historian David Price-Jones wrote
such a
flat-out lie when he published his article "Kosovo, from Scratch".2 He
wrote
there that the Serbs had operated the most notorious concentration camp
Jasenovac in the fascist, Ustasha Croatia (1941-1945). It is the same as
if
he would write that the Jews had operated the Auschwitz concentration
camp
where they tortured and killed the poor SS soldiers. Even now, when many
fabrications of the Western media and leaders about Kosovo had been
exposed,
the well known National Geographic magazine published two absolutely
biased,
one-sided articles3, without objectivity, about Kosovo: "Albanians", and
"Eyewitness Kosovo" spreading desinformation and ignorance of history.
But let us turn now to the events of 1999. It is quite clear that NATO
committed a criminal act of aggression when its air planes started to
rain
bombs on civilian and military targets throughout Yugoslavia, Serbia,
killing and wounding many civilians and destroying a lot of property and
facilities. Western leaders and media, bragging about democracy,
nicknamed
that crime a "humanitarian", "just", even "ethical" war. (Hitler used to
call the war he had started in 1939, a "just" war too). The pretext for
the
NATO aggression was the alleged protection of the Albanian civilians,
threatened by ethnic cleansing carried out by the Serbs all over Kosovo
and
Metohija. The Rambouillet fraud, engineered by Mrs. Albright, had the
same
objective. The Racak affair, so aptly orchestrated by the "KLA" and Mr.
William Walker ("the veteran of criminal intervention of the State
Department in Central America"4) should have helped to persuade the
world
public of the criminal behavior of Serbs in Kosovo. Thus the criminal
NATO
aggression started. As a consequence of heavy aerial bombardment, day
and
night, and due heavy fighting between the Yugoslav army and police
against
the "KLA" terrorists, hundreds of thousands of refugees started to flee
from
Kosovo and Metohija, not only Albanians, but Serbs, Montenegrins, Roma,
ethnic Turks, Goranies, as well. To make palatable the heavy losses of
civilian lives, called "collateral damage", Western leaders and media
started to talk about an incredible genocide that was taking place in
Kosovo
and Metohija, some of them even talked about a holocaust. The Albanian
refugees, in refugee camps in Albania and Macedonia, well indoctrinated
by
the omnipresent "KLA" members, told hair-raising stories about
atrocities
perpetrated by the Serbs in Kosovo (alas, there were atrocities
perpetrated
by all sides in the Kosovo conflict, not by one side only and not in the
monstrous proportions as misrepresented by the refugees). Hardly anyone
ever
mentioned the plight of the pro-Yugoslav Albanians who were especially
cruelly killed by "KLA" squads.
A really terrifying "eyewitness account" told about the bodies of 700
Albanians that the Serbs dumped in the shafts of Trepca mines. That
story
was officially accepted by the West, by NATO. The British Daily Mirror
even
wrote: "Trepca - the name will live alongside those of Belsen, Auschwitz
and
Treblinka", while the New York Times (to give its report more
authenticity)
informed about an "unusual, pungent bitter-sweet smell... to be burning
bodies... the bodies were disposed of entirely in the mine's huge vats
of
hydrochloric acid". The above information was spread when the bombs were
still being dropped on Kosovo. But, alas, when the investigators from
ICTY, from The Hague came there, their spokeswoman Ms. Kelly Moore had
to
say that nothing was found there, no corpses. What a fantastic
fabrication!
But there were many such fabrications. The "eyewitnesses" told during
the
aggression, that in Ljubenic, near Pec, Serbs killed 350 Albanians and
that
their dead bodies were buried in a mass grave. When the investigators
went
there, they found just 7 bodies. In Pusto Selo, another "eyewitness
account"
referred to about 106 villagers killed by the Serbs, whose bodies may be
found in mass graves there - but nothing was found. An American
journalist,
Mr. Alexander Cockburn, listed such "eyewitness accounts" in his article
"Where's the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar Albanians?"5 The Spanish
forensic and police experts went to Kosovo and published (Mr. Pablo
Ordaz)
an article in El Pais (September 23, 1999), with the headline "Crimes of
war-Yes; Genocide-No". They were told that they were going to the worst
zone
in Kosovo, that more then 2,000 autopsies awaited them - but they found
only
187 bodies, in nine villages, in individual graves, turned towards
Mecca,
there were no signs of torture. Mr. Emilio Perez Pujo, a forensic
expert,
ridiculed the successive counts of the dead in Kosovo by the "allies".
The
UN started with 44,000, then it lowered it to 22,000, and still later to
11,000. But the official count (not yet from all the graves) was in
November
1999, is just 2,108, including the Serbs and other nationalities.6
The eyewitness accounts from Kosovo are incredibly exaggerated, but,
unfortunately, people died there, not in thousands but in hundreds,
because
the "KLA" terrorists started there their bloody campaign at the
beginning of
1998 that prompted the authorities to restore law and order. And people
died, because the NATO bombs were killing them, destroying their
property
and infrastructure, because NATO used prohibited weapons, such as
cluster
bombs and depleted uranium ammunition.
However, the real records in disseminating disinformation were achieved
by
the top leaders of the West, Mrs. Albright's gang being one of the most
successful. The US Defense Secretary said (May 16, 1999) on CBS' "Face
the
Nation", about the Kosovo Albanians: "We've now seen about 100,000
militarily-capable men missing. They may have been murdered". Mrs.
Albright's "speaking-trumpet", Mr. J. Rubin, was even more outspoken:
"Based
on past practice, it is chilling to think where those 100,000 men are.
We
don't know, but what we do know is that civilian casualties are the
objective of president Milosevic's policy".7 But the real climax of all
this
disinformation (lies) was reached by Mr. David Scheffer ("Ambassador at
large for War Crimes Issues", from the State Department). He said in
mid-May
1999:8 "A total of 225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59
(it is
strange how he got those figures) are missing". Then the lie continued:
"With the exception of Rwanda in 1994 and Cambodia in 1975, you would be
hard pressed to find a crime scene anywhere in the world since World War
II
where a defenceless civilian population has been assaulted with such
ferrocity and criminal intent", blah, blah, blah. Mr. Robin Cook was
also
among those who spoke about those 100,000 feared dead. Mr. Robertson
(the
British Minister of Defense) spread more fabrications of the eyewitness
accounts, like Mr. R. Scharping, the German Defense Minister. President
Clinton wasn't narrow-minded either. During a press conference (June 25,
1999) he spoke about tens of thousands of people (Albanians) killed in
Kosovo on Yugoslav president Milosevic's orders. What epithets could a
normal man or woman give to all those Clintons, Albrights, Cooks,
Cohens,
Blairs, Robertsons, Scharpings, etc.
If somebody would like to portray briefly a big part of the Western
activities in Kosovo (EU, USA, NATO, and even OSCE during 1998-99), he
would
need only three letters to begin with: LIE, then disinformation, fraud,
one-sidedness, frame-ups. It must be stressed again that nobody is
innocent,
with bloodless hands during the Kosovo ordeal. But the spectacle,
masterminded by the so-called West, in addition to all those lies,
disinformation, fabrications, deceptions, etc., was followed by murder
and
devastation, well orchestrated in advance - just to get bases in Kosovo
and
Metohija.
As for the excessive and more or less absurd use of emotion laden
expressions like genocide and even holocaust, those who use them,
including
presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, journalists and their
editors, ought to consult dictionaries about their meaning beforehand,
or
read the words of Mr. Ellie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner: "Serbian
acts in
Kosovo do not constitute genocide... Genocide is the intent and desire
to
annihilate a people..." He continues: "As early as 1992, media coverage
of
the war in Bosnia mistakenly compared Serbian ethnic cleansing to the
Holocaust... Holocaust was conceived to annihilate the last Jew on the
planet. Does anybody believe that Milosevic and his accomplices
seriously
planned to exterminate all the Bosnians, all the Albanians, all the
Muslims
in the World?" That is why, "the Kosovo genocide" appears now to be the
most
outrageous lie, not only in the last two years, but even in the last
decade.
But a sort of genocide did start in Kosovo, after the NATO-led KFOR took
over from the Yugoslav army. When talking about the "KLA" leaders, the
well
known American journalist, Chris Hedges (Foreign Affairs, May-June
1999),
had this to say: "... they are wary of the outside world and given to
secrecy, paranoia and appalling mendacity..."
It is strange that all those framers, disinformers, liars, etc. never
mentioned the fact, that during the bloody "KLA" campaign in the spring
of
1998, the Serbian Ministry of Health (with some help from WHO)
vaccinated
100,000 children of all nationalities in Kosovo and Metohija against
poliomyelitis (there had been an epidemic of polio in Albania during
1995-96). Would the government in Belgrade have done this,
time-consuming
and dangerous, (the "KLA" squads were roaming around and shooting
indiscriminately), had it planned to commit genocide?
Isn't it funny - and very sad, that the NATO's chief executioner in
Yugoslavia, general Wesley Clark, accused the Serbs and the government
in
Belgrade, and president Milosevic, naturally too, of being responsible
for
the troubles in Kosovska Mitrovica, because the nasty Serbs did not want
to
allow the return of the Albanians, expelled from the northern part of
the
town. Neither the general nor the media have ever mentioned that more
than
500 Serb families had been expelled from the southern part of Kosovska
Mitrovica. But, who cares for them?! Nobody talks about their ordeal,
nobody
tried to do something about their return.
The NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, that made it into a criminal
organization (it was a honest organization until the 1990s), has
affected
various levels of the Western community.
1. The people - too many people swallowed quite easily the hook of the
propaganda machine in the West. Nobody defended the poor people from
various
frame-ups and lies, or from crazy articles like the article in the most
popular British tabloid, The Sun, of April 14, 1999, which proclaimed
that
Serbian soldiers should be killed like mad dogs.
2. Media - a big part of the media failed the exam in the Yugoslav
tragedy.
Their lack of objectivity was a consequence of ignorance, arrogance,
"received wisdom", or it was for - money. They did not want to hear the
other side.
3. The leaders - who could trust them after all the disinformation that
they
had spread, after all those criminal acts they had committed, after so
many
international conventions, agreements, treaties that they had violated.
Who
could trust president Clinton who lied under oath during the Lewinsky
affair?
4. Institutions - The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) is incredibly one-sided, biased, paid and organized by
the
USA (and some Islamic countries), whose partiality for the Muslims, and
now
for the Albanians, is now evident. It was created to prove how bad the
Serbs
are. The United Nations did not fulfil its obligations, mostly thanks to
its
Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who is "more like an Under-Secretary
of
State (of Mrs. Albright)" (Raju Thomas, 2000). Now it is quite evident
why
he received so strong support for his present job by president Clinton's
administration.
5. The Army - The NATO pilots behaved like executioners, because they
did
not fight to protect their country or to help a friendly nation,
according
to the UN Charter, that had been attacked. They just showed how it was
possible to destroy and kill in "electronic" games, at an altitude of
15,000
feet, without courage, without ideals, where neither human life nor
traditional values are respected. OSCE failed too - it obeyed too much
the
powerful, it did not hesitate to throw away its ideals.
Will NATO and the EU and the USA apologize to Yugoslavia for their
crimes,
will they pay the damages?
1 Noel Malcolm, KOSOVO - A Short History, 1998.
2 David Price-Jones, "Kosovo, from Scratch", National Review, July 12,
1999.
3 "Albanians" & "Eyewitness Kosovo", National Geographic, February
2000.
4 Balkan Infos, Paris, No. 42, March 2000.
5 Alexander Cockburn, "Where's the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar
Albanians?", Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1999.
6 Maggie Farley, "2,108 corpes dug up in Kosovo effort so far", Los
Angeles
Times, November 11, 1999.
7 J. Rubin, State Department Briefing, April 19, 1999.
8 AIM Report, December A and B, 1999.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
"IO ACCUSO - Note critiche sul ruolo della Unione Europea, della NATO e
degli USA in Jugoslavia - Scandali ed inganni in Kosovo"
di Rajko Dolecek, Ed. Dauphin / Studio Forma, Praga 2000 (in lingua
inglese: "I ACCUSE!").
Il testo e' disponibile anche in lingua ceca - ZALUJI! - Ed. Futura,
Praga 1999, oppure in lingua serbocroata - OPTUZUJEM! - Ed. Rivel Co.,
Belgrado 1998. Dolecek, medico e professore universitario, nel suo paese
e' anche un noto saggista e scrittore: ha pubblicato centinaia di
articoli scientifici ma persino tre libri di fantascienza, ed e' stato
spesso presente sui media. Negli ultimi sette anni si e' dedicato in
particolare alla crisi jugoslava, anche per i vincoli affettivi che lo
legano a quel paese e a quei popoli.
Il testo inglese della precedente edizione di "I ACCUSE", che e'
aggiornata al marzo 1999 e dunque non contiene le vergogne sulla
aggressione della NATO e sulla occupazione coloniale della provincia del
Kosmet, si puo' leggere in internet alla URL:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Dolecek.html
Di seguito riproduciamo invece un suo articolo che puo' essere
considerato quasi una sintesi dell'intero libro.
---
http://www.inaffairs.org.yu
Review of International Affairs
April-June 2000
THE LOSS OF CREDIBILITY BY THE WEST AND BY ITS INSTITUTIONS AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF NATO AGGRESSION
By Prof. Dr. Rajko Dolecek Ostrava, Czech Republic
I am now almost 75 and, to be frank - in spite of many disappointments
(e.g.
Vietnam) - I dreamt the dream of Western democracy all the way to 1991.
But
the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, a campaign of denigration of the Serbs,
so
wholeheartedly prepared and supported by the official West
(NATO, the European Community, later Union, the USA), taught me really a
harsh lesson. It started with all this fantastic disinformation, even
lies
about the events in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, spread by
Western leaders and media, including all those frame-ups about the three
big
explosions in Sarajevo, about rape and death camps run by the Serbs,
about
Srebrenica, etc. In the sad story about refugees, the western
politicians
and media almost forgot that around a million Serbs had been expelled
from
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Then came the illegal and unjust
sanctions,
the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the World Health Organization. The ad
hoc
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was
created, mainly to show how bad the Serbs are. However, nobody here
argues
that some were innocent in the civil-ethnic-religious war in Yugoslavia,
but
it was utterly unfair, almost criminal, to blame just one side for all
the
crimes that happened there. The Dayton dictate opened the door to the
despotism of the occupiers of Bosnia-Herzegovina who undemocratically
manipulated the elections there; whose high civilian representatives
even
sacked the freely elected president of the Republika Srpska.
But the final blow to the credibility of the present official West was
its
dirty role in Kosovo and Metohija, which culminated in the NATO
aggression
against the sovereign state of Yugoslavia.
The tragedy of Kosovo and Metohija, of its inhabitants, was meticulously
prepared by a part of the West, by a part of its leadership. Germany as
a
front-runner helped organize and train the "KLA" (Kosovo Liberation
Army) or
"UCK" terrorists whose aim was to destroy and kill in Kosovo and
Metohija,
to expell all non-Albanians from there, to secede the province from
Serbia,
Yugoslavia. The Germans had the full support of the USA - they finally
accepted the "KLA" terrorists as their allies, with a lot of support
from
the British, the official European Union (EU) as a whole. Nobody stopped
the
continuous flow of money, volunteers, uniforms and weapons from the West
(and from some Islamic countries) to the "KLA". To prepare the terrain
ideologically, most Western media started their work, even historians in
vogue successfully manipulated history to show inconspicuously the need
to
re-assess the situation in Kosovo, to present its Albanian population in
bright colors, to make the Serbs bad guys. The book by Noel Malcolm
KOSOVO -
A Short History1 of 1998 may be used as an example. It is intelligently
written, but it manipulates history. Some historians even used glaring
lies
to denigrate the Serbs. The British historian David Price-Jones wrote
such a
flat-out lie when he published his article "Kosovo, from Scratch".2 He
wrote
there that the Serbs had operated the most notorious concentration camp
Jasenovac in the fascist, Ustasha Croatia (1941-1945). It is the same as
if
he would write that the Jews had operated the Auschwitz concentration
camp
where they tortured and killed the poor SS soldiers. Even now, when many
fabrications of the Western media and leaders about Kosovo had been
exposed,
the well known National Geographic magazine published two absolutely
biased,
one-sided articles3, without objectivity, about Kosovo: "Albanians", and
"Eyewitness Kosovo" spreading desinformation and ignorance of history.
But let us turn now to the events of 1999. It is quite clear that NATO
committed a criminal act of aggression when its air planes started to
rain
bombs on civilian and military targets throughout Yugoslavia, Serbia,
killing and wounding many civilians and destroying a lot of property and
facilities. Western leaders and media, bragging about democracy,
nicknamed
that crime a "humanitarian", "just", even "ethical" war. (Hitler used to
call the war he had started in 1939, a "just" war too). The pretext for
the
NATO aggression was the alleged protection of the Albanian civilians,
threatened by ethnic cleansing carried out by the Serbs all over Kosovo
and
Metohija. The Rambouillet fraud, engineered by Mrs. Albright, had the
same
objective. The Racak affair, so aptly orchestrated by the "KLA" and Mr.
William Walker ("the veteran of criminal intervention of the State
Department in Central America"4) should have helped to persuade the
world
public of the criminal behavior of Serbs in Kosovo. Thus the criminal
NATO
aggression started. As a consequence of heavy aerial bombardment, day
and
night, and due heavy fighting between the Yugoslav army and police
against
the "KLA" terrorists, hundreds of thousands of refugees started to flee
from
Kosovo and Metohija, not only Albanians, but Serbs, Montenegrins, Roma,
ethnic Turks, Goranies, as well. To make palatable the heavy losses of
civilian lives, called "collateral damage", Western leaders and media
started to talk about an incredible genocide that was taking place in
Kosovo
and Metohija, some of them even talked about a holocaust. The Albanian
refugees, in refugee camps in Albania and Macedonia, well indoctrinated
by
the omnipresent "KLA" members, told hair-raising stories about
atrocities
perpetrated by the Serbs in Kosovo (alas, there were atrocities
perpetrated
by all sides in the Kosovo conflict, not by one side only and not in the
monstrous proportions as misrepresented by the refugees). Hardly anyone
ever
mentioned the plight of the pro-Yugoslav Albanians who were especially
cruelly killed by "KLA" squads.
A really terrifying "eyewitness account" told about the bodies of 700
Albanians that the Serbs dumped in the shafts of Trepca mines. That
story
was officially accepted by the West, by NATO. The British Daily Mirror
even
wrote: "Trepca - the name will live alongside those of Belsen, Auschwitz
and
Treblinka", while the New York Times (to give its report more
authenticity)
informed about an "unusual, pungent bitter-sweet smell... to be burning
bodies... the bodies were disposed of entirely in the mine's huge vats
of
hydrochloric acid". The above information was spread when the bombs were
still being dropped on Kosovo. But, alas, when the investigators from
ICTY, from The Hague came there, their spokeswoman Ms. Kelly Moore had
to
say that nothing was found there, no corpses. What a fantastic
fabrication!
But there were many such fabrications. The "eyewitnesses" told during
the
aggression, that in Ljubenic, near Pec, Serbs killed 350 Albanians and
that
their dead bodies were buried in a mass grave. When the investigators
went
there, they found just 7 bodies. In Pusto Selo, another "eyewitness
account"
referred to about 106 villagers killed by the Serbs, whose bodies may be
found in mass graves there - but nothing was found. An American
journalist,
Mr. Alexander Cockburn, listed such "eyewitness accounts" in his article
"Where's the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar Albanians?"5 The Spanish
forensic and police experts went to Kosovo and published (Mr. Pablo
Ordaz)
an article in El Pais (September 23, 1999), with the headline "Crimes of
war-Yes; Genocide-No". They were told that they were going to the worst
zone
in Kosovo, that more then 2,000 autopsies awaited them - but they found
only
187 bodies, in nine villages, in individual graves, turned towards
Mecca,
there were no signs of torture. Mr. Emilio Perez Pujo, a forensic
expert,
ridiculed the successive counts of the dead in Kosovo by the "allies".
The
UN started with 44,000, then it lowered it to 22,000, and still later to
11,000. But the official count (not yet from all the graves) was in
November
1999, is just 2,108, including the Serbs and other nationalities.6
The eyewitness accounts from Kosovo are incredibly exaggerated, but,
unfortunately, people died there, not in thousands but in hundreds,
because
the "KLA" terrorists started there their bloody campaign at the
beginning of
1998 that prompted the authorities to restore law and order. And people
died, because the NATO bombs were killing them, destroying their
property
and infrastructure, because NATO used prohibited weapons, such as
cluster
bombs and depleted uranium ammunition.
However, the real records in disseminating disinformation were achieved
by
the top leaders of the West, Mrs. Albright's gang being one of the most
successful. The US Defense Secretary said (May 16, 1999) on CBS' "Face
the
Nation", about the Kosovo Albanians: "We've now seen about 100,000
militarily-capable men missing. They may have been murdered". Mrs.
Albright's "speaking-trumpet", Mr. J. Rubin, was even more outspoken:
"Based
on past practice, it is chilling to think where those 100,000 men are.
We
don't know, but what we do know is that civilian casualties are the
objective of president Milosevic's policy".7 But the real climax of all
this
disinformation (lies) was reached by Mr. David Scheffer ("Ambassador at
large for War Crimes Issues", from the State Department). He said in
mid-May
1999:8 "A total of 225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59
(it is
strange how he got those figures) are missing". Then the lie continued:
"With the exception of Rwanda in 1994 and Cambodia in 1975, you would be
hard pressed to find a crime scene anywhere in the world since World War
II
where a defenceless civilian population has been assaulted with such
ferrocity and criminal intent", blah, blah, blah. Mr. Robin Cook was
also
among those who spoke about those 100,000 feared dead. Mr. Robertson
(the
British Minister of Defense) spread more fabrications of the eyewitness
accounts, like Mr. R. Scharping, the German Defense Minister. President
Clinton wasn't narrow-minded either. During a press conference (June 25,
1999) he spoke about tens of thousands of people (Albanians) killed in
Kosovo on Yugoslav president Milosevic's orders. What epithets could a
normal man or woman give to all those Clintons, Albrights, Cooks,
Cohens,
Blairs, Robertsons, Scharpings, etc.
If somebody would like to portray briefly a big part of the Western
activities in Kosovo (EU, USA, NATO, and even OSCE during 1998-99), he
would
need only three letters to begin with: LIE, then disinformation, fraud,
one-sidedness, frame-ups. It must be stressed again that nobody is
innocent,
with bloodless hands during the Kosovo ordeal. But the spectacle,
masterminded by the so-called West, in addition to all those lies,
disinformation, fabrications, deceptions, etc., was followed by murder
and
devastation, well orchestrated in advance - just to get bases in Kosovo
and
Metohija.
As for the excessive and more or less absurd use of emotion laden
expressions like genocide and even holocaust, those who use them,
including
presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, journalists and their
editors, ought to consult dictionaries about their meaning beforehand,
or
read the words of Mr. Ellie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner: "Serbian
acts in
Kosovo do not constitute genocide... Genocide is the intent and desire
to
annihilate a people..." He continues: "As early as 1992, media coverage
of
the war in Bosnia mistakenly compared Serbian ethnic cleansing to the
Holocaust... Holocaust was conceived to annihilate the last Jew on the
planet. Does anybody believe that Milosevic and his accomplices
seriously
planned to exterminate all the Bosnians, all the Albanians, all the
Muslims
in the World?" That is why, "the Kosovo genocide" appears now to be the
most
outrageous lie, not only in the last two years, but even in the last
decade.
But a sort of genocide did start in Kosovo, after the NATO-led KFOR took
over from the Yugoslav army. When talking about the "KLA" leaders, the
well
known American journalist, Chris Hedges (Foreign Affairs, May-June
1999),
had this to say: "... they are wary of the outside world and given to
secrecy, paranoia and appalling mendacity..."
It is strange that all those framers, disinformers, liars, etc. never
mentioned the fact, that during the bloody "KLA" campaign in the spring
of
1998, the Serbian Ministry of Health (with some help from WHO)
vaccinated
100,000 children of all nationalities in Kosovo and Metohija against
poliomyelitis (there had been an epidemic of polio in Albania during
1995-96). Would the government in Belgrade have done this,
time-consuming
and dangerous, (the "KLA" squads were roaming around and shooting
indiscriminately), had it planned to commit genocide?
Isn't it funny - and very sad, that the NATO's chief executioner in
Yugoslavia, general Wesley Clark, accused the Serbs and the government
in
Belgrade, and president Milosevic, naturally too, of being responsible
for
the troubles in Kosovska Mitrovica, because the nasty Serbs did not want
to
allow the return of the Albanians, expelled from the northern part of
the
town. Neither the general nor the media have ever mentioned that more
than
500 Serb families had been expelled from the southern part of Kosovska
Mitrovica. But, who cares for them?! Nobody talks about their ordeal,
nobody
tried to do something about their return.
The NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, that made it into a criminal
organization (it was a honest organization until the 1990s), has
affected
various levels of the Western community.
1. The people - too many people swallowed quite easily the hook of the
propaganda machine in the West. Nobody defended the poor people from
various
frame-ups and lies, or from crazy articles like the article in the most
popular British tabloid, The Sun, of April 14, 1999, which proclaimed
that
Serbian soldiers should be killed like mad dogs.
2. Media - a big part of the media failed the exam in the Yugoslav
tragedy.
Their lack of objectivity was a consequence of ignorance, arrogance,
"received wisdom", or it was for - money. They did not want to hear the
other side.
3. The leaders - who could trust them after all the disinformation that
they
had spread, after all those criminal acts they had committed, after so
many
international conventions, agreements, treaties that they had violated.
Who
could trust president Clinton who lied under oath during the Lewinsky
affair?
4. Institutions - The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) is incredibly one-sided, biased, paid and organized by
the
USA (and some Islamic countries), whose partiality for the Muslims, and
now
for the Albanians, is now evident. It was created to prove how bad the
Serbs
are. The United Nations did not fulfil its obligations, mostly thanks to
its
Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who is "more like an Under-Secretary
of
State (of Mrs. Albright)" (Raju Thomas, 2000). Now it is quite evident
why
he received so strong support for his present job by president Clinton's
administration.
5. The Army - The NATO pilots behaved like executioners, because they
did
not fight to protect their country or to help a friendly nation,
according
to the UN Charter, that had been attacked. They just showed how it was
possible to destroy and kill in "electronic" games, at an altitude of
15,000
feet, without courage, without ideals, where neither human life nor
traditional values are respected. OSCE failed too - it obeyed too much
the
powerful, it did not hesitate to throw away its ideals.
Will NATO and the EU and the USA apologize to Yugoslavia for their
crimes,
will they pay the damages?
1 Noel Malcolm, KOSOVO - A Short History, 1998.
2 David Price-Jones, "Kosovo, from Scratch", National Review, July 12,
1999.
3 "Albanians" & "Eyewitness Kosovo", National Geographic, February
2000.
4 Balkan Infos, Paris, No. 42, March 2000.
5 Alexander Cockburn, "Where's the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar
Albanians?", Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1999.
6 Maggie Farley, "2,108 corpes dug up in Kosovo effort so far", Los
Angeles
Times, November 11, 1999.
7 J. Rubin, State Department Briefing, April 19, 1999.
8 AIM Report, December A and B, 1999.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
VIGNETTE SATIRICHE (IN FRANCESE)
http://balkans.infos.free.fr/dessins.htm
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
http://balkans.infos.free.fr/dessins.htm
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Da "Il Manifesto" del 18 Luglio 2000:
Contro la Nato denuncia a Strasburgo
Appello alla Corte europea per i diritti umani dei
familiari delle vittime del raid sulla tv serba
S. D. B.
Non fu e non venne giustificato come un "effetto
collaterale". Anzi, i vertici dell'Alleanza atlantica
affermarono che la sede della televisione di stato serba,
colpita nell'aprile del 1999 durante la campagna di
bombardamenti contro la Jugoslavia, era un legitimate
target. Nell'attacco morirono 16 giornalisti e tecnici e
tutti i reporter occidentali a Belgrado definirono il
bombardamento un crimine di guerra e contro la libertà di
stampa.
Esattamente con questa accusa e chiamando in causa
l'articolo 2 del trattato istitutivo della Corte europea
per i diritti umani, che protegge il diritto alla vita, le
famiglie di quei giornalisti e di quei tecnici si sono
rivolte a uno studio legale inglese per denunciare alla
Corte che ha sede a Strasburgo i governi di 17 paesi della
Nato. Nella stesura dei capi d'accusa convergono i
risultati dei dossier sui crimini della Nato preparati da
Amnesty international e da Human rights watch e rifiutati,
nonostante la mole di prove e argomentazioni addotte, dal
procuratore generale del Tribunale dell'Aja, Carla Del
Ponte, che ha deciso, senza nemmeno aprire un'indagine, per
l'innocenza della Nato.
Ma la battaglia legale per portare davanti ad un tribunale
internazionale i vertici politici e militari dell'Alleanza
non è conclusa, nonostante il "non luogo a procedere" della
Del Ponte. Dopo i risultati del "Tribunale indipendente
Ramsey Clark" (ex ministro della giustizia Usa, da non
confondere con il generale Wesley Clark, ex comandante
della Nato), che ha "condannato" la Nato per i crimini di
genocidio, distruzione ambientale e violazione delle
Convenzioni di Ginevra sulle regole di guerra, la denuncia
presentata ieri apre la concreta possibilità (anche se con
i tempi del tribunale di Strasburgo, che rivaleggia in
lentezza con i tribunali italiani) che i governi della Nato
siano condannati per aver deliberatamente ucciso dei civili
e debbano risarcire le famiglie delle vittime; alle quali,
per di più, si tentò anche di negare la qualifica
professionale.
Al momento della "conta dei caduti" che ogni anno fa la
stampa internazionale, Information sans frontières li
incluse nella lista dei professionisti dell'informazione
caduti in guerra, mentre Reporter sans frontières accolse
la tesi della Nato: uccidere un giornalista o un addetto al
montaggio è colpire la propaganda.
---
[Please send this to others who might be interested]
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia
Rode Kruislaan 709
1111 NX Diemen
The Netherlands
phone/fax: +206900742
e-mail: despot@...
INTERNATIONAL PRESS COMMUNIQUÉ
Dutch court in Amsterdam: war crimes not ruled out; war against
Yugoslavia being against international law
not ruled out
First decision in appeal to higher court
On 6 July 2000, the court in Amsterdam decided on the lawsuit, brought
by Dedovic and 28 other Yugoslav citizens,
mainly living in Serbia. This lawsuit is directed directly against the
Dutch Prime Minister Kok, Foreign Minister Van
Aartsen, and Defence Minister De Grave.
This was the first decision in appeal to higher court of a series of
lawsuits, organized by the PC [“Permanente Commissie”;
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia].
The PC was founded on the initiative of the Anti-Fascist Former
Resistance [against Nazi occupation of The Netherlands,
1940-1945] Fighters’ League, the Lawyers for Peace League, and the
Balkan Peace Coalition.
The PC’s lawsuits
So far, the PC has organized four lawsuits in Dutch courts, as summary
proceedings. In all those cases, different groups of
Yugoslav persons, mainly living in Yugoslavia, were plaintiffs.
The first case was organized in February 1999, when NATO aggression was
still only a threat. The demand, then asked
from Dutch judges, was that The Netherlands should no longer support
NATO in those threats, which violated the United
Nations Charter, point 2 sub 4.
The second summary proceedings were in April 1999, when the NATO
aggression against Yugoslavia had already
started. This time, ten Yugoslavs, who had received a call up to serve
as conscripts in the army, were plaintiffs. They
demanded before the Dutch judges that The Netherlands, as a NATO member,
would stop participating in the war, stop
using them as targets in this unlawful war.
The third and fourth cases were shortly after one another in the
beginning of May 1999, as it became clear that NATO
aggression was directed more and more against civilians and civilian
targets, and also in other respects was completely
disproportional. The third summary proceedings were at the The Hague
court, the fourth summary proceedings were at
the Amsterdam court.
Also in these two latest summary proceedings, different groups of
Yugoslav persons were plaintiffs. The demand at the
The Hague court was directed against the State of The Netherlands, and
at the Amsterdam court against the Dutch
government ministers Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave personally. In the
last case, this was because of the Nuremburg
trial 1945 rules, saying that everyone involved in war crimes is also
personally responsible and individually liable, also
if they are government functionaries. In these two latest court cases,
the demand was that the defendants - the State of the
Netherlands, and the three ministers personally- would do everything in
their power to get The Netherlands out of this
dirty war.
What happened at these court cases
In all cases, the demand was refused. However, also in all these cases,
the plaintiffs appealed to higher courts in The
Hague and Amsterdam. This happened when the bombings had already
stopped.
Of course, in all these cases the demands had to be adapted, as, of
course, now it could no longer be demanded that the
court would force the State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
to end the Dutch participation in the war. That war
had already stopped.
So, the new demand on appeal became that the court would oblige the
State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
not to start again a war against Yugoslavia without explicit permission
from the Security Council of the United Nations.
And also, that the court would rule post facto that the war had been
against international law, and as a consequence had
hurt the interests of the Yugoslav plaintiffs.
The PC arranged that the appeal of the fourth summary proceedings would
come first: at the Amsterdam court, with a
more ‘liberal’ reputation than the court in the [Government city] The
Hague; where the appeals in the three other lawsuits
will have to be.
The decision by the Amsterdam court
So, the Amsterdam court made a decision in the case Dedovic and others
vs. Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave, on 6
July 2000. The court did not take it easy. In a 26 pages long decision
the Amsterdam court discusses the case extensively.
Such an extensive decision is really unique for summary proceedings.
In itself, this is important and a striking gain: so, judges in The
Netherlands state that they have the right to judge on the
participation of the Dutch state in the NATO bombings. And even on the
personal roles in this of the Dutch ministers.
And that they can call them to account for this.
The Dutch state and the ministers in all lawsuits had stated as their
first line of defence that Dutch judges should keep
out of all those issues. These were ‘political affairs.’ However, this
defence was rejected in all the court cases so far;
including now, again, at the Amsterdam court.
The issues at stake in the case Dedovic versus Kok
In this case, basically four issues were at stake. The three most
important ones were:
1. The demand by the Yugoslav plaintiffs that the court should order Kok
c.s. to do everything possible to not get The
Netherlands involved again in a possible new NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from the
Security Council of the United Nations.
2. The question whether the war, in which The Netherlands participated
within the NATO alliance, and which was waged
without explicit permission from the Security Council of the United
Nations, was, or was not, against international law.
3. The question whether, once that war had started in March 1999, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like
attacks on civilian targets and the use of disproportional violence.
The fourth issue was the question whether the Dutch ministers, might, or
might not, be held personally responsible for war
crimes.
In the extensive decision, the Amsterdam court dealt at length with all
those issues.
The court decision on two of these issues
On the fourth issue, the court concluded that the Dutch ministers could
not be held personally responsible for this war.
According to the court, the 29 Yugoslav plaintiffs should sue the Dutch
state, not the ministers personally. So, the court
here rejected the personal liability of the Dutch ministers.
It was different with the three other issues.
On the first issue - so, asking that the court should forbid that The
Netherlands would ever again participate in a possible
new NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from
the Security Council of the United Nations,
the court found that no decision on this might be made now. Because
right now, new aggression is not yet already a really
concrete threat. If there would come an acute threat of new NATO
accession, then first the state should have the chance
to make a decision on this. Only then the judges can decide, according
to the court.
So, the court does not reject the demand definitively. The court
basically says: on this point, the plaintiffs are too early with
their demand. Just let them come back with their demand if there will be
real decision making by the Dutch state about
new aggression against Yugoslavia.
The court decision on the issues 2 and 3
In the two other issues -so, the question whether waging war against
Yugoslavia without explicit permission from the
Security Council was, or was not, against international law, and the
question whether, once that war had started, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like attacks on civilian targets
and the use of disproportional violence- the decision
by the lower level courts had always been, in all four court cases, that
in no way the law had been violated in this. And
that, of course, The Netherlands and NATO had been fully justified in
their attacks on Yugoslavia.
However, the higher level court turns out to think very differently on
this. In both questions, that court decides that it is
unable to decide either for or against.
So, the court indicates that possibly, the Yugoslav plaintiffs are right
here. And that this war was against international law,
and that war crimes were as well committed during this war. Another
possibility is that NATO and The Netherlands are
right, that this war was allowed, and that no war crimes were committed.
The court continues to say: in order to decide who is right here, the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or the Dutch state and the ministers,
really much more research is needed. However, for that, such concise
circumstances like summary proceedings are not
really fitting.
Because the court does not know for whom it should decide on those most
important points of the court case, for the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or for the Dutch ministers, finally still all
demands are not upheld. Because if the court cannot
decide who is right, then the plaintiff loses; as usually in court
cases.
Differently from when lower level courts decided on this case, this
higher level court on the two most crucial points at
stake during this court case, no longer takes the side of the Dutch
state and NATO.
Here, the court says: I do not know. Both sides have a point. More
research is needed in other, more extensive legal
proceedings.
Further perspectives
The Dutch state and the Dutch ministers will certainly not be happy with
this! It is a big blow for them. Because it shows
that the support in the courts for their criminal war policy is clearly
crumbling.
Concerning the issue that the court thinks that new, more extensive
proceedings are needed to come to conclusions on
the core questions, we can bring important news.
In this, the court will get what it asked for.
Shortly, the PC will start with lawsuits, for compensation for the
victims of the bombing of the RTS broadcasting studio in
Belgrade. Now, with the backing of the higher level court in Amsterdam,
that the war was possibly against international
law, and that during this war, possibly war crimes were committed!
However, there will also be an appeal in the case Dedovic versus Kok, to
the highest Dutch court, the Hoge Raad
[‘Supreme Court’]. There will also be appeals in the three other cases
which are still going on.
Historical duty
Really, in every NATO country the fight should be waged at national
level courts on the question whether war may be
waged just like that against small countries like Yugoslavia. While we
have international laws, explicitly prohibiting this.
We know that after the Second World War, all nations and peoples have
committed themselves in the United Nations
charter to outlaw ‘the scourge of war’.
The PC in The Netherlands makes a start. For the first time since the
Nuremburg and Tokyo trials against the
German and Japanese war criminals, government leaders have to take
responsibility at a court of law for
possible war crimes and crimes against peace.
It is an historical mission of lawyers and all supporters of the rule of
law, to also in the other NATO countries make the
government leaders take responsibility at their national courts of law.
This is possible at lawsuits for indemnities for the
victims of the bombings of Yugoslavia.
The PC asks urgently, to make the front against the NATO leaders
broader, as soon as possible!
The PC
---
Subject: Nato-Verbrecher müssen vor ordentliche Gerichte
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:07:50 +0200
From: Jug Öster Solibeweg <joesb@...>
Die JÖSB unterstützt folgende Resolution, denn wenn die westlichen
Länder
für sich in Anspruch nehmen rechtsstaatlich zu sein, dann muss die NATO
zumindest vor Gericht gestellt (und zweifellos auch verurteilt) werden.
Dass
es sich weder um rechtsstaatliche noch demokratische Länder, sondern um
die
Diktatur der Neuen Weltordnung handelt, beweist die Farce des Haager
Tribunals, das eine Anklage gegen die NATO trotz erdrückender Beweise
für
den Bruch der elementarsten Normen des Völkerrechts rundweg abgelehnt
hat.
**********
Resolution:
Die nachfolgenden Organisationen und Einzelpersonen fordern auf
Grundlage
der Ergebnisse der Tribunale [siehe weiter unten]:
* Unverzüglich Strafverfahren gegen die in der Anklageschrift genannten
Angeklagten vor ordentlichen Gerichten einzuleiten
* Beobachter aus unabhängigen Staaten zu diesen Verfahren zuzulassen, da
die
Befangenheit der nationalen Gerichte zu befürchten ist
* Die Angeklagten für die Dauer der Verfahren unverzüglich aus ihren
Ämtern
zu entfernen
Wir schließen uns auch den sich aus den Urteilen ergebenden politischen
Forderungen der Tribunale an:
* Sofortige Beendigung aller Embargos, Sanktionen und sonstiger
Strafmaßnahmen gegen Jugoslawien
* Rückzug aller NATO-Truppen aus der Balkanregion und die Beendigung
aller
Operationen gegen Jugoslawien
* Vollständige Reparationen für Tod, Verletzung, wirtschaftliche und
ökologische Zerstörungen durch Krieg und Sanktionen
Falls es vorerst keine strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen für die
Verantwortlichen des NATO-Krieges geben sollte, so geben wir hiermit
unserer
Hoffnung Ausdruck, daß die Verbrecher dieses Krieges ihr Leben mit der
wachsenden Sorge verbringen mögen, daß man sie eines Tages wie Augusto
Pinochet doch noch für ihre Verbrechen auf die Anklagebank bringen
wird. In
diesem Fall wird es historisches Beweismaterial geben, das dafür
garantieren
wird, daß der Gerechtigkeit Genüge getan wird.
Erstunterzeichner:
Heidelberger Forum gegen Militarismus und Krieg · VVN/Bund der
AntifaschistInnen HD · DGB·Rhein-Neckar-Heidelberg · AKAS (Arbeitskreis
antiimperialistische Solidarität) · Friedensladen HD · Prof. Dr. Dieter
Fehrenz, Heidelberg · Dr. theol. Hannelis Schulte, PDS, Stadträtin
Heidelberg · DKP Heidelberg · Freidenker Heidelberg · Eckart Spoo,
Journalist, IG Medien, Berlin · Prof. Dr. Ulrich Duchrow, Heidelberg ·
CONTRASTE - Monatszeitung für Selbstorganisation · „Freiheit f. Mumia
Jamal
HD“ · H. Rick, Gesundheitspartei · Cuba Solidarität Heidelberg e.V. ·
DFG/VK Heidelberg · A. de Jager, DGB HD · Janine Hebert ÖTV HD · Günter
Zink ÖTV HD · Sabine Ritzberger SPD HD · Angelo Taurino ÖTV HD
sowie 45 weitere Einzelpersonen aus HD
********
Es sei uns, der JÖSB, noch eine Anmerkung gestattet: Wir würden
bevorzugen
den Fall Pinochet nicht als Vorbild zu verwenden. Denn mit dieser
Anklage
und dem Prozess wollen sich jene reinwaschen, die in 100%er Kontinuität
mit
den Pinochet-Verbrechern stehen, allen voran die USA und die EU. Wohin
es
führt, wenn sich diese als Hüter der Menschenrechte aufspielen haben wir
an
den humanitären Bomben im Jugoslawienkrieg gesehen. Wir dürfen die
Herstellung einer weiteren Geschichtslüge nicht zulassen, laut der der
Imperialismus weder für den Faschismus noch für die Diktatur in Chile
verantwortlich wäre. Die Herrschenden haben angesichts ihrer Verbrechen
allen Grund ihre eigene Geschichte zu verleugnen.
Die Wahrheit ist eine Waffe im Kampf gegen das westliche Monster und
kann
nur von Volksgerichten angewandt werden, nicht von käuflichen Gerichten
wie
jenem in Den Haag und in Santiago de Chile.
********
INTERNATIONALE TRIBUNALE ÜBER DEN NATO-KRIEG GEGEN JUGOSLAWIEN
Führer der NATO-Staaten wegen Kriegsverbrechen schuldig gesprochen!
Unabhängige Tribunale
Bisher haben sich die nationalen Gerichte der NATO-Staaten geweigert,
strafrechtlichen Ermittlungen gegen die Verantwortlichen des Krieges
gegen
Jugoslawien aufzunehmen. Auch das von den westlichen Staaten getragene,
sehr
parteiische Jugoslawientribunal in Den Haag hat trotz der Vorlage von
erdrückendem Beweismaterial durch namhafte internationale JuristInnen
sich
bisher geweigert, ein Verfahren einzuleiten.
Aus 16 Ländern (u.a. USA, Kanada, Deutschland, Italien, Griechenland,
Rußland und Österreich) haben sich daher JuristInnen,
WissenschaftlerInnen,
Parlamentsausschüsse und NGOs zusammengetan, um in der Tradition der
Russel-Tribunale gegen den Vietnamkrieg, in eigener Regie internationale
Tribunale über den NATO-Krieg abzuhalten. Eine große Zahl namhafter
Persönlichkeiten haben sich an der Durchführung beteiligt. Neben dem
ehemaligen Justizminister der USA, Ramsey Clark, der frühere kanadische
Außenminister James Bisset, der ehem. Botschafter in Jugoslawien Ralph
Hartmann, der Hamburger Völkerrechtler Prof. Norman Paech, der
Umweltforscher Prof. Knut Krusewitz, der frühere Admiral E. Schmähling,
und
viele andere.
Angeklagte
Angeklagt sind die Regierungschefs, Außenminister und
Verteidigungsminister
der beteiligten NATO-Staaten, die verantwortlichen Funktionsträger der
NATO
und des Militärs dieser Länder, sowie die Parlamentarier die dem Krieg
zustimmten, obwohl er offensichtlich gegen Völkerrecht, nationale
Verfassungen und internationale Verträge verstieß.
Die Anklage erstreckte sich auf Verbrechen gegen den Frieden,
Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit und anderer
Verletzungen
der Prinzipien des Nürnberger Tribunals, der Haager Abkommen, der Genfer
Abkommen, der Charta der Vereinten Nationen und anderer Normen des
Völkerrechts und nationaler Gesetze.
* der Vorbereitung und Durchführung eines Angriffskrieges, bei dem
mindestens 500, wahrscheinlich mehr als 2.000 unbeteiligte Menschen
getötet
wurden, mehr als ein Drittel davon Kinder.
* der massiven Irreführung der Öffentlichkeit und der Parlamente
sowie folgender Kriegsverbrechen:
* Bombardierung überwiegend ziviler Ziele und Zerstörung der
Lebensgrundlagen des ganzen Landes
* Schwere Schädigung von Menschen und Umwelt durch die Bombardierung von
Anlagen und Fabriken bei denen vorhersehbar umweltschädliche (z.T.
hochgiftige) Chemikalien freigesetzt wurden.
* Einsatz geächteter Waffen, wie Uranmunition, die das Einsatzgebiet auf
lange Zeit radioaktiv verseucht haben oder sogenannte Clusterbomben,
deren
nicht explodierte Submunition ganze Landstriche vermint hat.
Weitere Anklagen
Auch Amnesty International (AI) wirft der NATO Kriegsverbrechen bei den
Luftangriffen auf Jugoslawien 1999 vor. Durch die Tötung von
Zivilpersonen
habe die NATO das humanitäre Völkerrecht verletzt, erklärte die
Menschenrechtsorganisation am 6. Juni in Bonn und fordert die
verdächtigen
NATO-Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht zu stellen. Ganz klar sei die
Bombardierung der Zentrale des serbischen Staatsrundfunks im April
vergangenen Jahres ein bewußter Angriff auf ein ziviles Objekt und damit
ein
Kriegsverbrechen gewesen Ebenso wie die Angriffe auf Brücken, die nicht
gestoppt wurden, obwohl bemerkt wurde, daß sie Zivilisten treffen.
****
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische Solidaritätsbewegung (JÖSB)
PF 217, A-1040 Wien, Österreich
Tel/Fax +43 1 924 31 61
joesb@...
www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
Kto-Nr. 9282, RB Schwechat, BLZ 32823
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Contro la Nato denuncia a Strasburgo
Appello alla Corte europea per i diritti umani dei
familiari delle vittime del raid sulla tv serba
S. D. B.
Non fu e non venne giustificato come un "effetto
collaterale". Anzi, i vertici dell'Alleanza atlantica
affermarono che la sede della televisione di stato serba,
colpita nell'aprile del 1999 durante la campagna di
bombardamenti contro la Jugoslavia, era un legitimate
target. Nell'attacco morirono 16 giornalisti e tecnici e
tutti i reporter occidentali a Belgrado definirono il
bombardamento un crimine di guerra e contro la libertà di
stampa.
Esattamente con questa accusa e chiamando in causa
l'articolo 2 del trattato istitutivo della Corte europea
per i diritti umani, che protegge il diritto alla vita, le
famiglie di quei giornalisti e di quei tecnici si sono
rivolte a uno studio legale inglese per denunciare alla
Corte che ha sede a Strasburgo i governi di 17 paesi della
Nato. Nella stesura dei capi d'accusa convergono i
risultati dei dossier sui crimini della Nato preparati da
Amnesty international e da Human rights watch e rifiutati,
nonostante la mole di prove e argomentazioni addotte, dal
procuratore generale del Tribunale dell'Aja, Carla Del
Ponte, che ha deciso, senza nemmeno aprire un'indagine, per
l'innocenza della Nato.
Ma la battaglia legale per portare davanti ad un tribunale
internazionale i vertici politici e militari dell'Alleanza
non è conclusa, nonostante il "non luogo a procedere" della
Del Ponte. Dopo i risultati del "Tribunale indipendente
Ramsey Clark" (ex ministro della giustizia Usa, da non
confondere con il generale Wesley Clark, ex comandante
della Nato), che ha "condannato" la Nato per i crimini di
genocidio, distruzione ambientale e violazione delle
Convenzioni di Ginevra sulle regole di guerra, la denuncia
presentata ieri apre la concreta possibilità (anche se con
i tempi del tribunale di Strasburgo, che rivaleggia in
lentezza con i tribunali italiani) che i governi della Nato
siano condannati per aver deliberatamente ucciso dei civili
e debbano risarcire le famiglie delle vittime; alle quali,
per di più, si tentò anche di negare la qualifica
professionale.
Al momento della "conta dei caduti" che ogni anno fa la
stampa internazionale, Information sans frontières li
incluse nella lista dei professionisti dell'informazione
caduti in guerra, mentre Reporter sans frontières accolse
la tesi della Nato: uccidere un giornalista o un addetto al
montaggio è colpire la propaganda.
---
[Please send this to others who might be interested]
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia
Rode Kruislaan 709
1111 NX Diemen
The Netherlands
phone/fax: +206900742
e-mail: despot@...
INTERNATIONAL PRESS COMMUNIQUÉ
Dutch court in Amsterdam: war crimes not ruled out; war against
Yugoslavia being against international law
not ruled out
First decision in appeal to higher court
On 6 July 2000, the court in Amsterdam decided on the lawsuit, brought
by Dedovic and 28 other Yugoslav citizens,
mainly living in Serbia. This lawsuit is directed directly against the
Dutch Prime Minister Kok, Foreign Minister Van
Aartsen, and Defence Minister De Grave.
This was the first decision in appeal to higher court of a series of
lawsuits, organized by the PC [“Permanente Commissie”;
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia].
The PC was founded on the initiative of the Anti-Fascist Former
Resistance [against Nazi occupation of The Netherlands,
1940-1945] Fighters’ League, the Lawyers for Peace League, and the
Balkan Peace Coalition.
The PC’s lawsuits
So far, the PC has organized four lawsuits in Dutch courts, as summary
proceedings. In all those cases, different groups of
Yugoslav persons, mainly living in Yugoslavia, were plaintiffs.
The first case was organized in February 1999, when NATO aggression was
still only a threat. The demand, then asked
from Dutch judges, was that The Netherlands should no longer support
NATO in those threats, which violated the United
Nations Charter, point 2 sub 4.
The second summary proceedings were in April 1999, when the NATO
aggression against Yugoslavia had already
started. This time, ten Yugoslavs, who had received a call up to serve
as conscripts in the army, were plaintiffs. They
demanded before the Dutch judges that The Netherlands, as a NATO member,
would stop participating in the war, stop
using them as targets in this unlawful war.
The third and fourth cases were shortly after one another in the
beginning of May 1999, as it became clear that NATO
aggression was directed more and more against civilians and civilian
targets, and also in other respects was completely
disproportional. The third summary proceedings were at the The Hague
court, the fourth summary proceedings were at
the Amsterdam court.
Also in these two latest summary proceedings, different groups of
Yugoslav persons were plaintiffs. The demand at the
The Hague court was directed against the State of The Netherlands, and
at the Amsterdam court against the Dutch
government ministers Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave personally. In the
last case, this was because of the Nuremburg
trial 1945 rules, saying that everyone involved in war crimes is also
personally responsible and individually liable, also
if they are government functionaries. In these two latest court cases,
the demand was that the defendants - the State of the
Netherlands, and the three ministers personally- would do everything in
their power to get The Netherlands out of this
dirty war.
What happened at these court cases
In all cases, the demand was refused. However, also in all these cases,
the plaintiffs appealed to higher courts in The
Hague and Amsterdam. This happened when the bombings had already
stopped.
Of course, in all these cases the demands had to be adapted, as, of
course, now it could no longer be demanded that the
court would force the State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
to end the Dutch participation in the war. That war
had already stopped.
So, the new demand on appeal became that the court would oblige the
State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
not to start again a war against Yugoslavia without explicit permission
from the Security Council of the United Nations.
And also, that the court would rule post facto that the war had been
against international law, and as a consequence had
hurt the interests of the Yugoslav plaintiffs.
The PC arranged that the appeal of the fourth summary proceedings would
come first: at the Amsterdam court, with a
more ‘liberal’ reputation than the court in the [Government city] The
Hague; where the appeals in the three other lawsuits
will have to be.
The decision by the Amsterdam court
So, the Amsterdam court made a decision in the case Dedovic and others
vs. Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave, on 6
July 2000. The court did not take it easy. In a 26 pages long decision
the Amsterdam court discusses the case extensively.
Such an extensive decision is really unique for summary proceedings.
In itself, this is important and a striking gain: so, judges in The
Netherlands state that they have the right to judge on the
participation of the Dutch state in the NATO bombings. And even on the
personal roles in this of the Dutch ministers.
And that they can call them to account for this.
The Dutch state and the ministers in all lawsuits had stated as their
first line of defence that Dutch judges should keep
out of all those issues. These were ‘political affairs.’ However, this
defence was rejected in all the court cases so far;
including now, again, at the Amsterdam court.
The issues at stake in the case Dedovic versus Kok
In this case, basically four issues were at stake. The three most
important ones were:
1. The demand by the Yugoslav plaintiffs that the court should order Kok
c.s. to do everything possible to not get The
Netherlands involved again in a possible new NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from the
Security Council of the United Nations.
2. The question whether the war, in which The Netherlands participated
within the NATO alliance, and which was waged
without explicit permission from the Security Council of the United
Nations, was, or was not, against international law.
3. The question whether, once that war had started in March 1999, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like
attacks on civilian targets and the use of disproportional violence.
The fourth issue was the question whether the Dutch ministers, might, or
might not, be held personally responsible for war
crimes.
In the extensive decision, the Amsterdam court dealt at length with all
those issues.
The court decision on two of these issues
On the fourth issue, the court concluded that the Dutch ministers could
not be held personally responsible for this war.
According to the court, the 29 Yugoslav plaintiffs should sue the Dutch
state, not the ministers personally. So, the court
here rejected the personal liability of the Dutch ministers.
It was different with the three other issues.
On the first issue - so, asking that the court should forbid that The
Netherlands would ever again participate in a possible
new NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from
the Security Council of the United Nations,
the court found that no decision on this might be made now. Because
right now, new aggression is not yet already a really
concrete threat. If there would come an acute threat of new NATO
accession, then first the state should have the chance
to make a decision on this. Only then the judges can decide, according
to the court.
So, the court does not reject the demand definitively. The court
basically says: on this point, the plaintiffs are too early with
their demand. Just let them come back with their demand if there will be
real decision making by the Dutch state about
new aggression against Yugoslavia.
The court decision on the issues 2 and 3
In the two other issues -so, the question whether waging war against
Yugoslavia without explicit permission from the
Security Council was, or was not, against international law, and the
question whether, once that war had started, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like attacks on civilian targets
and the use of disproportional violence- the decision
by the lower level courts had always been, in all four court cases, that
in no way the law had been violated in this. And
that, of course, The Netherlands and NATO had been fully justified in
their attacks on Yugoslavia.
However, the higher level court turns out to think very differently on
this. In both questions, that court decides that it is
unable to decide either for or against.
So, the court indicates that possibly, the Yugoslav plaintiffs are right
here. And that this war was against international law,
and that war crimes were as well committed during this war. Another
possibility is that NATO and The Netherlands are
right, that this war was allowed, and that no war crimes were committed.
The court continues to say: in order to decide who is right here, the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or the Dutch state and the ministers,
really much more research is needed. However, for that, such concise
circumstances like summary proceedings are not
really fitting.
Because the court does not know for whom it should decide on those most
important points of the court case, for the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or for the Dutch ministers, finally still all
demands are not upheld. Because if the court cannot
decide who is right, then the plaintiff loses; as usually in court
cases.
Differently from when lower level courts decided on this case, this
higher level court on the two most crucial points at
stake during this court case, no longer takes the side of the Dutch
state and NATO.
Here, the court says: I do not know. Both sides have a point. More
research is needed in other, more extensive legal
proceedings.
Further perspectives
The Dutch state and the Dutch ministers will certainly not be happy with
this! It is a big blow for them. Because it shows
that the support in the courts for their criminal war policy is clearly
crumbling.
Concerning the issue that the court thinks that new, more extensive
proceedings are needed to come to conclusions on
the core questions, we can bring important news.
In this, the court will get what it asked for.
Shortly, the PC will start with lawsuits, for compensation for the
victims of the bombing of the RTS broadcasting studio in
Belgrade. Now, with the backing of the higher level court in Amsterdam,
that the war was possibly against international
law, and that during this war, possibly war crimes were committed!
However, there will also be an appeal in the case Dedovic versus Kok, to
the highest Dutch court, the Hoge Raad
[‘Supreme Court’]. There will also be appeals in the three other cases
which are still going on.
Historical duty
Really, in every NATO country the fight should be waged at national
level courts on the question whether war may be
waged just like that against small countries like Yugoslavia. While we
have international laws, explicitly prohibiting this.
We know that after the Second World War, all nations and peoples have
committed themselves in the United Nations
charter to outlaw ‘the scourge of war’.
The PC in The Netherlands makes a start. For the first time since the
Nuremburg and Tokyo trials against the
German and Japanese war criminals, government leaders have to take
responsibility at a court of law for
possible war crimes and crimes against peace.
It is an historical mission of lawyers and all supporters of the rule of
law, to also in the other NATO countries make the
government leaders take responsibility at their national courts of law.
This is possible at lawsuits for indemnities for the
victims of the bombings of Yugoslavia.
The PC asks urgently, to make the front against the NATO leaders
broader, as soon as possible!
The PC
---
Subject: Nato-Verbrecher müssen vor ordentliche Gerichte
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:07:50 +0200
From: Jug Öster Solibeweg <joesb@...>
Die JÖSB unterstützt folgende Resolution, denn wenn die westlichen
Länder
für sich in Anspruch nehmen rechtsstaatlich zu sein, dann muss die NATO
zumindest vor Gericht gestellt (und zweifellos auch verurteilt) werden.
Dass
es sich weder um rechtsstaatliche noch demokratische Länder, sondern um
die
Diktatur der Neuen Weltordnung handelt, beweist die Farce des Haager
Tribunals, das eine Anklage gegen die NATO trotz erdrückender Beweise
für
den Bruch der elementarsten Normen des Völkerrechts rundweg abgelehnt
hat.
**********
Resolution:
Die nachfolgenden Organisationen und Einzelpersonen fordern auf
Grundlage
der Ergebnisse der Tribunale [siehe weiter unten]:
* Unverzüglich Strafverfahren gegen die in der Anklageschrift genannten
Angeklagten vor ordentlichen Gerichten einzuleiten
* Beobachter aus unabhängigen Staaten zu diesen Verfahren zuzulassen, da
die
Befangenheit der nationalen Gerichte zu befürchten ist
* Die Angeklagten für die Dauer der Verfahren unverzüglich aus ihren
Ämtern
zu entfernen
Wir schließen uns auch den sich aus den Urteilen ergebenden politischen
Forderungen der Tribunale an:
* Sofortige Beendigung aller Embargos, Sanktionen und sonstiger
Strafmaßnahmen gegen Jugoslawien
* Rückzug aller NATO-Truppen aus der Balkanregion und die Beendigung
aller
Operationen gegen Jugoslawien
* Vollständige Reparationen für Tod, Verletzung, wirtschaftliche und
ökologische Zerstörungen durch Krieg und Sanktionen
Falls es vorerst keine strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen für die
Verantwortlichen des NATO-Krieges geben sollte, so geben wir hiermit
unserer
Hoffnung Ausdruck, daß die Verbrecher dieses Krieges ihr Leben mit der
wachsenden Sorge verbringen mögen, daß man sie eines Tages wie Augusto
Pinochet doch noch für ihre Verbrechen auf die Anklagebank bringen
wird. In
diesem Fall wird es historisches Beweismaterial geben, das dafür
garantieren
wird, daß der Gerechtigkeit Genüge getan wird.
Erstunterzeichner:
Heidelberger Forum gegen Militarismus und Krieg · VVN/Bund der
AntifaschistInnen HD · DGB·Rhein-Neckar-Heidelberg · AKAS (Arbeitskreis
antiimperialistische Solidarität) · Friedensladen HD · Prof. Dr. Dieter
Fehrenz, Heidelberg · Dr. theol. Hannelis Schulte, PDS, Stadträtin
Heidelberg · DKP Heidelberg · Freidenker Heidelberg · Eckart Spoo,
Journalist, IG Medien, Berlin · Prof. Dr. Ulrich Duchrow, Heidelberg ·
CONTRASTE - Monatszeitung für Selbstorganisation · „Freiheit f. Mumia
Jamal
HD“ · H. Rick, Gesundheitspartei · Cuba Solidarität Heidelberg e.V. ·
DFG/VK Heidelberg · A. de Jager, DGB HD · Janine Hebert ÖTV HD · Günter
Zink ÖTV HD · Sabine Ritzberger SPD HD · Angelo Taurino ÖTV HD
sowie 45 weitere Einzelpersonen aus HD
********
Es sei uns, der JÖSB, noch eine Anmerkung gestattet: Wir würden
bevorzugen
den Fall Pinochet nicht als Vorbild zu verwenden. Denn mit dieser
Anklage
und dem Prozess wollen sich jene reinwaschen, die in 100%er Kontinuität
mit
den Pinochet-Verbrechern stehen, allen voran die USA und die EU. Wohin
es
führt, wenn sich diese als Hüter der Menschenrechte aufspielen haben wir
an
den humanitären Bomben im Jugoslawienkrieg gesehen. Wir dürfen die
Herstellung einer weiteren Geschichtslüge nicht zulassen, laut der der
Imperialismus weder für den Faschismus noch für die Diktatur in Chile
verantwortlich wäre. Die Herrschenden haben angesichts ihrer Verbrechen
allen Grund ihre eigene Geschichte zu verleugnen.
Die Wahrheit ist eine Waffe im Kampf gegen das westliche Monster und
kann
nur von Volksgerichten angewandt werden, nicht von käuflichen Gerichten
wie
jenem in Den Haag und in Santiago de Chile.
********
INTERNATIONALE TRIBUNALE ÜBER DEN NATO-KRIEG GEGEN JUGOSLAWIEN
Führer der NATO-Staaten wegen Kriegsverbrechen schuldig gesprochen!
Unabhängige Tribunale
Bisher haben sich die nationalen Gerichte der NATO-Staaten geweigert,
strafrechtlichen Ermittlungen gegen die Verantwortlichen des Krieges
gegen
Jugoslawien aufzunehmen. Auch das von den westlichen Staaten getragene,
sehr
parteiische Jugoslawientribunal in Den Haag hat trotz der Vorlage von
erdrückendem Beweismaterial durch namhafte internationale JuristInnen
sich
bisher geweigert, ein Verfahren einzuleiten.
Aus 16 Ländern (u.a. USA, Kanada, Deutschland, Italien, Griechenland,
Rußland und Österreich) haben sich daher JuristInnen,
WissenschaftlerInnen,
Parlamentsausschüsse und NGOs zusammengetan, um in der Tradition der
Russel-Tribunale gegen den Vietnamkrieg, in eigener Regie internationale
Tribunale über den NATO-Krieg abzuhalten. Eine große Zahl namhafter
Persönlichkeiten haben sich an der Durchführung beteiligt. Neben dem
ehemaligen Justizminister der USA, Ramsey Clark, der frühere kanadische
Außenminister James Bisset, der ehem. Botschafter in Jugoslawien Ralph
Hartmann, der Hamburger Völkerrechtler Prof. Norman Paech, der
Umweltforscher Prof. Knut Krusewitz, der frühere Admiral E. Schmähling,
und
viele andere.
Angeklagte
Angeklagt sind die Regierungschefs, Außenminister und
Verteidigungsminister
der beteiligten NATO-Staaten, die verantwortlichen Funktionsträger der
NATO
und des Militärs dieser Länder, sowie die Parlamentarier die dem Krieg
zustimmten, obwohl er offensichtlich gegen Völkerrecht, nationale
Verfassungen und internationale Verträge verstieß.
Die Anklage erstreckte sich auf Verbrechen gegen den Frieden,
Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit und anderer
Verletzungen
der Prinzipien des Nürnberger Tribunals, der Haager Abkommen, der Genfer
Abkommen, der Charta der Vereinten Nationen und anderer Normen des
Völkerrechts und nationaler Gesetze.
* der Vorbereitung und Durchführung eines Angriffskrieges, bei dem
mindestens 500, wahrscheinlich mehr als 2.000 unbeteiligte Menschen
getötet
wurden, mehr als ein Drittel davon Kinder.
* der massiven Irreführung der Öffentlichkeit und der Parlamente
sowie folgender Kriegsverbrechen:
* Bombardierung überwiegend ziviler Ziele und Zerstörung der
Lebensgrundlagen des ganzen Landes
* Schwere Schädigung von Menschen und Umwelt durch die Bombardierung von
Anlagen und Fabriken bei denen vorhersehbar umweltschädliche (z.T.
hochgiftige) Chemikalien freigesetzt wurden.
* Einsatz geächteter Waffen, wie Uranmunition, die das Einsatzgebiet auf
lange Zeit radioaktiv verseucht haben oder sogenannte Clusterbomben,
deren
nicht explodierte Submunition ganze Landstriche vermint hat.
Weitere Anklagen
Auch Amnesty International (AI) wirft der NATO Kriegsverbrechen bei den
Luftangriffen auf Jugoslawien 1999 vor. Durch die Tötung von
Zivilpersonen
habe die NATO das humanitäre Völkerrecht verletzt, erklärte die
Menschenrechtsorganisation am 6. Juni in Bonn und fordert die
verdächtigen
NATO-Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht zu stellen. Ganz klar sei die
Bombardierung der Zentrale des serbischen Staatsrundfunks im April
vergangenen Jahres ein bewußter Angriff auf ein ziviles Objekt und damit
ein
Kriegsverbrechen gewesen Ebenso wie die Angriffe auf Brücken, die nicht
gestoppt wurden, obwohl bemerkt wurde, daß sie Zivilisten treffen.
****
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische Solidaritätsbewegung (JÖSB)
PF 217, A-1040 Wien, Österreich
Tel/Fax +43 1 924 31 61
joesb@...
www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
Kto-Nr. 9282, RB Schwechat, BLZ 32823
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK - BERLIN
>Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the June 22, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>
>
>U.S. /NATO GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES IN YUGOSLAVIA
> By John Catalinotto New York
>
>An international panel of judges has found that U.S. and NATO
>political and military leaders were guilty of war crimes against
>Yugoslavia during and before the March 24- June 10, 1999, assault on
>that country.
>
>Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark was the lead prosecutor at
>the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes against
>Yugoslavia, which met here on June 10. He urged the 500 people
>attending the all-day event to carry out this verdict by organizing a
>campaign to abolish the NATO military pact.
>
>Ben Dupuy, a former ambassador-at-large from Haiti, the Rev. Kiyul
>Chung, representing the Korean movement for democracy and
>reunification, and auto worker Martha Grevatt, national secretary of
>Pride At Work, the AFL-CIO's constituency group of lesbian, gay, bi,
>and trans workers, read the three parts of the verdict.
>
>A panel of 16 judges from 11 countries heard eyewitnesses and
>researchers who had visited Yugoslavia, renowned political and
>economic analysts, historians, physicists, biologists, military
>experts, journalists and lay researchers.
>
>Over the past 15 months, speaking to worldwide audiences, many of
>these witnesses have presented a complete picture of the war NATO
>waged against Yugoslavia. For this tribunal, however, all limited
>themselves to a single area of expertise.
>
>Together, they provided comprehensive evidence against the political
>and military leaders of the United States and the other NATO
>countries.
>
>The judges decided that the individual testimonies taken together
>constructed a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are
>guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war
>crimes.
>
>MANIPULATION OF THE MEDIA
>
>The witnesses described how NATO used the media to spread lies
>demonizing the Serbs and their leadership, and to prepare Western
>public opinion for a war. Speakers detailed the real economic and
>geopolitical motives of the imperialist powers of the United States
>and Western Europe: to seize economic control of the area, from the
>Balkans to the oil-rich Caspian Sea.
>
>A pattern of similar criminal behavior by the United States, most
>notably in the Korean and Vietnam wars, was established.
>
>Speakers demonstrated how Washington rigged the phony "Racak
>massacre" for the media and then used the so-called Rambouillet
>accord--in reality an ultimatum demanding military control of all
>Yugoslavia for NATO--to provoke the war. Taken together, this all
>proved a crime against peace.
>
>They also showed that using illegal weapons, purposely choosing
>civilian targets, and destroying the environment and the civilian
>infrastructure added up to war crimes.
>
>Expelling hundreds of thousands of people from Kosovo and Metohija,
>after the NATO bombing began, were crimes against humanity.
>
>The witnesses' presentations were accompanied in many cases by slides
>and videotape displayed on a large screen on the stage of the
>auditorium at Martin Luther King Jr.High School in Manhattan. They
>were visible to the judges, who sat on the stage, and to the hundreds
>in the audience.
>
>In addition, pictures and videotapes were on display in the hall
>outside the auditorium. Documentary evidence was offered in books and
>research papers.
>
>The material illustrated deliberate targeting of civilians: the
>bombing of a Belgrade television station; the bombing of refugees;
>the bombing of the Chinese Embassy; the bombing of hospitals,
>schools, railroads and bridges; the destruction of the industrial and
>civil infrastructure; the use of pellet bombs and depleted uranium;
>damage to the environment through bombing petrochemical plants; and
>the tactic of repeat bombing of the same target after 10 to 15
>minutes to kill and wound members of emergency rescue teams.
>
>MANY TRIBUNALS CULMINATE IN NEW YORK
>
>The International Action Center, founded by Ramsey Clark and other
>activists in 1992, organized this final session of the tribunal.
>Similar tribunal hearings have taken place in Germany, Italy,
>Austria, Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Greece. In Athens last
>November, thousands declared U.S. President Bill Clinton a war
>criminal.
>
>Some of the witnesses in New York had also participated in these
>European tribunals.
>
>Representatives of the governments of Yugoslavia and Cuba made
>important presentations.
>
>Ismael Guadalupe from Vieques, Puerto Rico, explained in a powerful
>speech that U.S. Navy bombing exercises against his small island have
>laid the basis for U.S./NATO aggression around the world, including
>in Kosovo, Yugoslavia.
>
>The IAC registered 511 people at the event, including justices,
>witnesses and staff. Invited speakers, witnesses and judges came from
>Haiti, Spain, Turkey, Korea, Puerto Rico, India, Germany, United
>States, Canada, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Britain, Belgium, Iraq,
>Greece, Austria, France and Portugal.
>
>The U.S. government refused visas to four people from Ukraine,
>including three parliamentary deputies. Their message was read from
>the stage.
>
>There were also representatives of the Roma people--often referred to
>by the derogatory term "gypsy." Shani Rifati, a Roma witness who was
>born in Pristina, capital of Kosovo, told how NATO occupation has led
>to the expulsion of 100,000 Romas. He pointed out that the verdict
>condemned the persecution of Roma people, the first time this has
>happened in any international tribunal.
>
>Five television crews taped the entire proceedings. They included
>Serbian television and a three-camera crew from Australia, as well as
>alternate media sources in the United States such as the Peoples
>Video Network.
>
>WITNESSES IN PART I: CRIMES AGAINST PEACE * LENORA FOERSTEL of Women
>for Mutual Security and editor of the recently published book "War,
>Lies * Videotape: How media monopoly stifles truth."
>
>* JARED ISRAEL, producer of the film "Judgment" showing how the
>corporate media distorted a photograph taken in Bosnia.
>
>* JEAN HATTON Britain--anti-war activist, on how massacre stories
>were used to justify the war.
>
>* CHRISTOPHER BLACK Canada--one of a group of Canadian attorneys who
>filed a suit charging NATO with war crimes at what is called the
>International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia at the Hague,
>on how that court was part of the preparation for war.
>
>* MONICA MOOREHEAD, of Millions for Mumia and contributing editor to
>Workers World newspaper, on the prison-industrial complex in the
>United States.
>
>* MICHEL COLLON Belgium--author of two books on the Balkans, "Liar's
>Poker" and "Monopoly," and contributor to the weekly newspaper
>Solidaire, on the geopolitical aims of the war--to dominate the
>Caspian oil pipelines.
>
>* KADOURI AL KAYSI Iraqi-American--on the impact of sanctions on
>Iraq.
>
>* STRATIS KOUNIAS Greece--vice-president of the Greek Committee for
>Peace and Professor at the University of Athens, on NATO's role in
>Greece and the Greek anti-war movement.
>
>* JOHN CATALINOTTO, journalist and researcher who represented the IAC
>at tribunals in Vienna and Belgrade, on Washington's premeditated
>plan regarding NATO and the attack on Yugoslavia.
>
>* ROLAND KEITH Canada--monitor for the Observer Mission that was
>supposed to maintain the peace in Kosovo in 1998 before the war, on
>the real role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
>Europe.
>
>* PRESTON WOOD, who participated in hearings in Novi Sad and who
>organized opposition to the war in Los Angeles, especially in the
>lesbian/gay/bi/trans community, on the supposed massacre in Racak,
>Kosovo, used to justify the attack on Yugoslavia.
>
>* RICHARD BECKER, West Coast co-coordinator for the IAC, on the role
>of talks held in Rambouillet, France, in February and March 1999.
>
>* GREGOR KNEUSSEL Austria--on Austria's role in delivering the NATO
>ultimatum to Yugoslavia.
>
>WITNESSES IN PART II: WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
>
>*Prosecutor GLORIA LA RIVA on how U.S./NATO bombs hit civilian
>targets, from hospitals to bridges to factories, using the video she
>produced, "NATO Targets."
>
>*SARAH SLOAN, IAC Commission of Inquiry researcher, on NATO's claim
>that it tried to minimize damage to civilian facilities in
>Yugoslavia.
>
>* ELLEN CATALINOTTO, a midwife who has delivered over 1,200 babies to
>mostly poor women in New York City, on the NATO bombing of 33
>hospitals including damage to the maternity ward at Dragisa Micovic
>hospital in Belgrade.
>
>* PROF. IVAN YATSENKO Russia--former Soviet officer and foreign
>representative who now teaches law in Moscow, on damage to Yugoslav
>industrial infrastructure and how it cost half a million jobs.
>
>*ELMAR SCHMAEHLING Germany--former West German admiral and leading
>spokesperson for the German tribunal movement, on the aggressive
>posture of NATO since the collapse of the USSR and its illegal attack
>on Yugoslavia.
>
>*JUDI CHENG, IAC researcher, on the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in
>Belgrade.
>
>*DR. JANET EATON Canada--biologist and environment expert, on
>destruction of the environment in Yugo slavia, especially the damage
>from attacks on the petrochemical plant at Pancevo and other
>industrial targets.
>
>*DR. CARLO PONA Italy--physicist who participated in a conference in
>Belgrade about depleted uranium, on why DU is dangerous to humans
>and how it was used in Yugoslavia.
>
>* FULVIO GRIMALDI Italy--videographer and journalist who recently
>completed editing a film on Iraq and Yugoslavia, on the combined
>impact of bombing and sanctions on the population of Yugoslavia.
>
>* DEIRDRE GRISWOLD, editor of Workers World newspaper who recently
>visited sites of U.S. war crimes in south Korea, on the pattern of
>criminal conduct of the U.S. military in Korea and Vietnam.
>
>* SHANI RIFATI, originally from the Romani community in Kosovo and
>publisher of an English-language newsletter about Romani affairs, on
>the horrors faced by the Roma people in Kosovo under K-FOR and KLA
>occupation.
>
>* MILOS RAICKOVICH Serb-American--composer and anti-war activist, on
>the destruction of churches and cultural sites in occupied Kosovo and
>Metohija.
>
>* PROF. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY Canada--historian and economist, on the
>role of the KLA and its ties to U.S. and German intelligence
>services, NATO and UN Rep. Bernard Kouchner.
>
>* SCOTT TAYLOR Canada--former Canadian soldier and publisher of
>magazine Esprit de Corps, on the expulsion of the Serb population
>from the Krajina in Croatia by an army led by KLA General Ceku.
>
>* PROF. BARRY LITUCHY, recently returned from Yugoslavia, on how K-
>FOR participated in expelling people from Kosovo.
>
>*PROF. GREGORY ELICH, recently returned from the Balkans, on the
>anti-humanitarian nature of NATO's occupation of Kosovo.
>
>* GILLES TROUDE France--member of the editorial board of Balkans-
>Info, on France's role in the war and in suppressing dissent at home.
>
>* PROFESSOR JORGE CADIMA Portugal--a regular contributor to Avante,
>the weekly newspaper of the Portuguese Communist Party, on the role
>of NATO in Portugal since 1949 and on popular resistance to the war.
>
>MESSAGES OF SOLIDARITY AND STRUGGLE
>
>* ISMAEL GUADALUPE Puerto Rico, Committee for the Rescue and
>Development of Vieques, on how the U.S. used Vieques for target
>practice to prepare for the war against Yugoslavia.
>
>* SORAYA ALVAREZ Cuba, First Secretary of the Cuban Mission to the
>United Nations, on Cuba's suit against the U.S. for the costs of the
>embargo.
>
>* VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC, Yugoslav Ambassador to the UN, on his own
>government's charges against the U.S. and NATO for war crimes.
>
>
>JUDGES & PROSECUTORS
>
>1. BEN DUPUY Haiti--former Ambassador at Large for Haiti under the
>first government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and currently secretary
>general of the Popular National Party (PPN) of Haiti.
>
>2. ANGELES MAESTRO MARTIN Spain--elected member of Spanish
>parliament from Madrid and a leader in the movement to end sanctions
>against Iraq.
>
>3. CIMILE CAKIR Turkey--journalist for newspaper serving Kurdish
>community and member of Turkish Human Rights Association. Imprisoned
>four years in Turkey for human rights activity.
>
>4. REV. KIYUL CHUNG Korea--chairperson of the Executive Committee of
>the Congress for Korean Unification in North America.
>
>5. JOHN NICKELS Roma--U.S. representative of the International
>Romani Union and also a judge in the Romani community in the U.S.
>
>6. JORGE FARINACCI Puerto Rico--leader of the Socialist Front of
>Puerto Rico and a long-time leader of the independence movement in
>Puerto Rico.
>
>7. RAY LAFOREST Haitian-American--labor unionist in the American
>Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a leader of
>the Haitian Coalition for Justice, an organization that fights police
>brutality in New York.
>
>8. UMA KUTWAL United States, originally from India-- president of
>Local 375 of the Civil Service Technical Union District Council 37 of
>American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
>
>9. DR. CHRISTA ANDERS Germany--doctor of medicine and an organizer
>of the German/European Tribunal.
>
>10. RANIERO LA VALLE Italy--former senator who has served 14 years
>in the Italian parliament, an anti-war leader in Catholic circles and
>spokesperson for the Italian War Crimes Tribunal movement.
>
>11. DR. WOLFGANG RICHTER Germany--Chairperson of the Society for the
>Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity and a leader of the War
>Crimes Tribunal movement in Germany.
>
>12. MARTHA GREVATT United States--National Secretary of Pride at
>Work, the AFL-CIO organization for lesbian/gay/bi/trans workers'
>rights, and active in the United Auto Workers.
>
>13. MICHAEL RATNER United States--civil rights attorney on the
>National Board of the Center for Constitutional Rights who took the
>U.S. government to court for violating the War Powers Act in its
>undeclared war against Yugoslavia.
>
>14. YOLE STANESIC Yugoslavia & Russia--Montenegrin poet and writer
>living in Russia, member of the tribunals in Yaroslav, Kiev and
>Belgrade.
>
>15. JOHN BLACK United States--retired President of the Health and
>Hospital Workers Union in Pennsylvania, responsible for bringing many
>thousands of hospital workers into the union. As a teenager in
>Germany he was active in the anti-Nazi underground resistance.
>
>16. DR. BERTA JOUBERT-CECI Puerto Rico & U.S.--psychiatrist working
>in public health and organizer of Puerto Rican and African American
>anti-racist activities in Philadelphia.
>
>THE PROSECUTOR TEAM
>
>* RAMSEY CLARK, former U.S. attorney general and founder of the
>International Action Center.
>
>* PAT CHIN, Jamaican-American, International Action Center
>spokesperson for solidarity with Haiti and Yugoslavia and other
>issues.
>
>* SARA FLOUNDERS, International Action Center national co-director,
>participant in numerous tribunal hearings.
>
>* GLORIA LA RIVA, a leader of International Peace for Cuba Appeal,
>producer of video "NATO Targets."
>
>All were in Yugoslavia, either during the war or as participants in
>seminars or meetings after the war.
>
>FINDINGS
>
>The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate
>U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia, meeting in
>New York, having considered the Initial Charges and Complaint of the
>Commission dated July 31, 1999, against President William J.
>Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
>Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, President
>Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema, Prime Minister Jose
>Maria Azmar, the Governments of the United States and the other NATO
>member states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO
>leaders, and others with 19 separate Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes
>and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter of the United
>Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international agreements
>and customary international law, find the accused Guilty on the basis
>of the evidence against them and that each of the 19 separate crimes
>alleged in the Initial Complaint has been established to have been
>committed beyond a reasonable doubt. These are:
>
>1. Planning and executing the dismemberment, segregation and
>impoverishment of Yugoslavia.
>
>2. Inflicting, inciting and enhancing violence between and among
>Muslims and Slavs.
>
>3. Disrupting efforts to maintain unity, peace and stability in
>Yugoslavia.
>
>4. Destroying the peace-making role of the United Nations.
>
>5. Using NATO for military aggression against, and occupation of,
>non-compliant poor countries.
>
>6. Killing and injuring a defenseless population throughout
> Yugoslavia.
>
>7. Planning, announcing and executing attacks intended to assassinate
>the head of government, other government leaders and selected
>civilians in Yugoslavia.
>
>8. Destroying and damaging economic, social, cultural, medical,
>diplomatic--including the embassy of the People's Republic of China
>and other embassies--and religious resources, properties and
>facilities throughout Yugoslavia.
>
>9. Attacking objects indispensable to the survival of the population
>of Yugoslavia.
>
>10. Attacking facilities containing dangerous substances and forces.
>
>11. Using depleted uranium, cluster bombs and other prohibited
>weapons.
>
>12. Waging war on the environment.
>
>13. Imposing sanctions through the United Nations that are a
>genocidal crime against humanity.
>
>14. Creating an illegal ad-hoc criminal tribunal to destroy and
>demonize the Serbian leadership. The illegitimacy of this tribunal is
>further demonstrated by its failure to bring any case regarding the
>oppression of the Romani people, who have suffered the highest rate
>of casualties of any people in the region.
>
>15. Using controlled international media to create and maintain
>support for the U.S. assault and to demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs, Serbs
>and Muslims as genocidal murderers.
>
>16. Establishing the long-term military occupation of strategic parts
>of Yugoslavia by NATO forces.
>
>17. Attempting to destroy the sovereignty, right to self-
>determination, democracy and culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma and
>other peoples of Yugoslavia.
>
>18. Seeking to establish U.S. domination and control of Yugoslavia
>and to exploit its people and resources.
>
>19. Using the means of military force and economic coercion in order
>to achieve U.S. domination.
>
>The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders accountable
>for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in the
>strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO bombardments,
>denounce the international crimes and violations of international
>humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and through other
>means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted lawlessly and has
>attempted to abolish international law.
>
> RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION The Members urge the immediate revocation
>of all embargoes, sanctions and penalties against Yugoslavia because
>they constitute a continuing crime against humanity. The Members call
>for the immediate end to the NATO occupation of all Yugoslav
>territory, the removal of all NATO and U.S. bases and forces from the
>Balkans region, and the cessation of overt and covert operations,
>including the "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
>Yugoslavia" in The Hague, aimed at overthrowing the government of
>Yugoslavia.
>
>The Members further call for full reparations to be paid to the
>Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for death, injury, economic and
>environmental damage resulting from the NATO bombing, economic
>sanctions and blockades. Further, other states in the region which
>have suffered economic and environmental damage due to the NATO
>bombing and economic sanctions on Yugoslavia must also be awarded
>reparations. The Members condemn the threat or use of military
>technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by
>the NATO powers against the people of Yugoslavia.
>
>The Members urge public action and mobilization to stop new and
>continued sanctions and aggressions by the U.S. and other NATO powers
>against Iraq, Cuba, north Korea, the countries of Eastern Europe and
>the former Soviet Union, Puerto Rico, Asia, Sudan, Colombia and other
>countries. We ask for the immediate cessation of overt/covert
>activities by the U.S. and NATO in such countries.
>
>The Members believe that the interests of peace, justice and human
>progress require the abolition of NATO, which has proved itself
>beyond any doubt to be an instrument of aggression for the dominant,
>colonizing powers, particularly the United States. The Pentagon, the
>central and key element of NATO and the greatest single threat to the
>people of the world, must be disbanded.
>
>The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent
>preservation of the reports, evidence and materials gathered to make
>them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest
>possible distribution of the truth about the U.S./NATO war on
>Yugoslavia.
>
>We urge all people of the world to act on recommendations developed
>by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social
>justice on which lasting peace must be based.
>
>Done in New York this 10th day of June, 2000.
>
> - END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to copy and
>distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
>allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St.,
>NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@.... For subscription info send
>message to: info@.... Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
============================================================
International European Tribunal
Concerning the NATO War against Yugoslavia
Verdict
June 3, 2000:
At the conclusion of two days of hearing, with testimony presented by
various witnesses from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia1) and numerous
international experts2) and based upon the material derived from 2
previous hearings - Oct. 1999 in Berlin and April 2000 in Hamburg - the
jury of this International European Tribunal has reached the following
verdict.
The heads of governments and the foreign and defense ministers of the
NATO member states3), the commanding officials of NATO4), the members of
the Federal Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany, who voted in
favor of the participation of the German armed forces in the military
intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia5),
have been found guilty of serious violations of International Law
through the military aggression carried out against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia from March 24, to June 10, 1999.
1) The aggression is a violation of the absolute prohibition of the use
of force as formulated in the UN Charter, Art. 2 Nr. 4, in connection
with interdiction of aggression as contained in the UN General Assembly
(G.A.) Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (14. Dec. 1974), as well as a violation of
the territorial sovereignty of a sovereign state, as formulated in Art.
2 number 4 of the UN Charter in connection with the interdiction of the
violation of the territorial integrity and the political independence of
a state as laid out in the Declaration of International Principles for
Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in the spirit of the
Charter of the United Nations, Resolution of the UN G.A. 2625 (XXV) (24.
Oct. 1970) and Art. 2 Statutes of the International European Tribunal.
Without themselves having been attacked by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and while consciously and deliberately circumventing a
Security Council mandate, as called for in Art. 39, and 42, 48 of the UN
Charter, NATO states carried out military aggression against a sovereign
state. This constitutes a serious violation of prevailing, compulsory
International Law.
Nor was this aggression to be justified as being - as the Federal
Republic of Germany and other NATO member states allege - an act of
emergency aid through a so-called humanitarian intervention. Aside from
the fact that in prevailing International Law emergency aid to a state,
victim of aggression, exists only in the framework of self-defense in
the context of Art. 51 of the UN Charter, which does not apply in the
present case, in the opinion of this Tribunal, formed after intensive
examination of the evidence and expert testimony presented here, that
even the factual prerequisites for such an "humanitarian intervention"
are lacking.
The Tribunal reached the conviction, that a humanitarian catastrophe, as
was invoked particularly by the German ministers Fischer and Scharping,
never existed. The instrumentalization of the Holocaust through the
insinuation of a genocide comparable to what took place in Auschwitz
concentration camp, as was done by the German Foreign Minister, is
viewed by this Tribunal as being highly irresponsible and disgraceful
behavior. It is true that the civil war in Kosovo, that ignited between
the separatist movement of the KLA and the police and army of
Yugoslavia, led to a large number of casualties on both sides, led to
the destruction of houses and villages, to the displacement of people -
Albanians, as well as Serbs, Croats, Romany and members of other ethnic
groups - and to serious human rights violations. As deplorable as this
is, the plight of these victims does not justify the superlative
characterization of the situation as being a "humanitarian catastrophe".
NATO and its member governments stand exposed for their innumerable
exaggerations, dramatizations and falsifications.
But even if this Tribunal would assume — which it does not — that a
"humanitarian catastrophe" had existed in the years 1998, 1999,
preceding the bombing, this would not have legitimated a military
intervention as was carried out by NATO. In the customs of states, from
which international common law has evolved, as well as in the vast
majority of international legal opinion, humanitarian intervention is
not recognized as an institution legitimating an exemption from the
absolute prohibition of the use of force. The verdict handed down by the
World Court in The Hague in the lawsuit Nicaragua vs. the United States
on 27 June 1986 has lost nothing of its validity concerning
"humanitarian interventions": "The use of force could not be the
appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for human rights. With
regard to the steps actually taken, the protection of human rights, a
strictly humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible with the mining of
ports, the destruction of oil installations, (...). The Court concludes
that the argument derived from the preservation of human rights in
Nicaragua cannot afford a legal justification for the conduct of the
United States." (ICJ Rep. 1986 §268) In spite of what some would have us
believe, this standpoint of international law prevails.
Even if "humanitarian intervention" could be admitted as a legitimate
exemption from the absolute prohibition of the use of force, - which
this Tribunal does not do — one cannot overlook the fact that NATO not
only has failed to attain its proclaimed goal, the re-establishment of
acceptable conditions for human rights, but has dramatically
deteriorated the already precarious situation. The number of dead, of
wounded and of those robbed of all their possessions was multiplied
through the initiation of the bombing campaign. For this suffering of
the Yugoslavian people, NATO alone bears full responsibility in
accordance with Art. 3, IV Hague Convention concerning the Laws and
Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907.
2) The bombing of Yugoslavia violated even the NATO Treaty itself. Art.
5 stipulates that NATO's exclusive function is defense, not military
interventions in regions of civil war and interstate strife. This
responsibility lies solely within the framework of the powers granted
the UN Security Council, particularly through Chapter 7 of the UN
Charter. Art. 7 of the NATO Treaty explicitly recognizes this
responsibility of the Security Council. For the prevention or subsequent
pacification of crisis regions, states have a multitude of non-violent
political and economic instruments at their disposal within the
frameworks of the UN and OSCE. They were deliberately circumvented. The
NATO Treaty does not mandate military intervention outside of the
defense of the territorial boundaries of the alliance.
3) Beyond these, particularly the Federal German Republic is guilty of
violating the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany "4
+ 2 Treaty" of 12 Sept. 1990, in which it committed itself that only
peace "will emanate from German territory". Both governments - the
former Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic -
in proclaiming their unification also declared in Art. 2 that "the
United Germany will never employ any of its weapons except in accordance
with its constitution and the Charter of the United Nations." Through
its substantial participation in the war against Yugoslavia, the FRG
consciously violated these obligations.
4) The Tribunal is also of the opinion that the accusations concerning
the German Government's violations of constitutional (particularly Art.
26 GG) and penal law (§ 80 StGB.) were confirmed. There are also good
grounds for presuming violations of martial law by the German military.
But in accordance with the limitations imposed by its Statutes, this
Tribunal cannot pronounce a verdict concerning these violations. It
rather transmits these questions for subsequent investigations and
Tribunals to the legal systems of all participating nations and appeal
for a continuation of the search for the truth concerning this war.
5) This Tribunal would like to express its apprehension that the war
against Yugoslavia has played a role in the formulation of NATO's new
strategic concept in April 1999, attaining a geostrategic significance
extending far beyond the Balkans and Eurasia to become a model for
future military interventions in the name of a new world order. To
thwart the globalization of these military imperial instruments, it is
absolutely necessary to further examine the prerequisites, objectives
and consequences of the war against Yugoslavia and simultaneously draw
attention to these possible geostrategic perspectives.
6) After hearing extensive testimony of witnesses and experts, the
Tribunal has arrived at the conviction that the methodology of warfare
employed by the defendants also constituted serious and repeated
violations of international humanitarian law, as spelled out in the
Statutes of this Tribunal based upon the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
The Tribunal intensively deliberated the question of whether the
parliamentarians of the Federal German Parliament bare the same
responsibility for the violations of international law in how the war
was waged, as those members of government administrations, who had
ordered the expansion of the bombing from the targeting of purely
military objects to include civilian targets, as provided for in the
so-called 3-phase plan. The members of the Tribunal could not ignore the
fact, that even though the parliamentarians had not directly
participated in deciding how the war would be waged, they took no
initiative to halt the gross violations of international law, as the
consequences of the bombing campaign became evident.
The Tribunal could not be convinced by NATO and its governments'
defense, that the heavy damages of civilian objects were only
unintentional collateral damages. All witnesses and experts confirm that
the hospitals, villages or the RTS radio station were attacked
repeatedly, which, due to the repeatedly praised precision of the bombs
and guided missiles, excludes the element of error. The prosecution
presented statements of high-ranking military and government
representatives, sufficient to prove a strategic plan to destroy civil
structures, in order to pressure the population into opposing, in one
way or another, the Milosevic administration. Solely in the case of the
bombardment of the Dragisa Misovic Hospital Complex in Belgrade (Point 3
of the indictment) could no evidence be presented substantiating
repeated bombing attacks. Other eye witnesses and expert witnesses
furnished evidence to the fact that several hospitals in various cities,
including Belgrade had suffered repeated bombing attacks.
The Tribunal has also arrived at the conclusion, that none of the
civilian targets listed in the indictment or mentioned by the experts
and witnesses housed or were in the vicinity of military establishments.
In only one case, was it reported that a police academy was at a
distance of 6-800 meters, but this hospital in question, was clearly
discernible - even from the air - through the Red Cross symbol.
The proceedings have led to the conclusion that the prosecution's
selection of attacked civilian targets and persons, are only exemplary
for a war strategy that evidently in its third stage, systematically
attempted to implicate the civil population in order to reach its
political goal: the overthrow of the government of President Milosevic.
This war strategy is in clear violation of the central norms of the IV
Geneva Convention concerning the protection of civilians in times of war
(12. Aug. 1949) and its First Additional Protocol to the Geneva
Conventions (8. June 1977) (Art. 5a, b, Statute of the International
European Tribunal).
7) The use of depleted uranium and so called cluster bombs constitutes a
particularly serious violation. According to recent reports, NATO is
said to have dropped approximately 31,000 bombs over Yugoslavia leaving
behind 10 tons of depleted uranium residue. Experience with the United
States' and Great Britain's deployment of this material in Iraq, shows
that this weapon constitutes a time bomb of incalculable health
impairment. Such weapons are inadmissible under terms of the prohibition
of weapons inflicting superfluous injury and unnecessary and long term
suffering as well as the prohibition of weapons of indiscriminate
destruction. The use of these weapons represents a grave violation of
international humanitarian law as prescribed by the First Additional
Protocol to the Geneva Convention (Art. 35. ff. I and Art. 48 ff,;
Additional Protocol I; Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of Poisonous
Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (17. June 1925); Art. 5 and
5c of the Statutes of the International European Tribunal). The same
applies to the so-called cluster bombs - who's unexploded remnants left
on the ground have the effect of landmines - are also prohibited. Both
of these weapons fall supplementary under the prohibition of weapons of
indiscriminate destruction and particularly cruel weapons (Art. 51 First
Additional Protocol, Art. 5b, j, k, Statutes of the International
European Tribunal).
8) The aggression carried out against the radio/television station RTS
represents not only a forbidden attack against a civilian installation -
which, as confirmed by witness testimony, was never used for military
communications - but also an infringement upon the freedom of
information. This was one of those targets which, as the bombing
continued, was pushed ever higher on NATO's scale of priorities, not
only in order the Yugoslav viewers and listeners, but also to deprive
the viewers and listeners outside Yugoslavia of the information
broadcast by the Yugoslav government. The question of the objectivity of
the content of this information is, in this respect, of no importance.
In the final analysis the answer would hardly be different when raised
concerning NATO's information and broadcasts from NATO states.
9) The Tribunal is well aware that the examples presented by the
prosecution and those supplemented during the course of these
proceedings, represent only a segment of the war scenario, that evolved
during the 78 days of bombardment, which with growing awareness of its
failure, distanced itself ever further from the norms of humanitarian
international law, until finally placing Might over Right. That NATO
propaganda could seduce so many into passive - even active - support for
this lawless war, is a particularly sad aspect. We cannot avoid
mentioning that several of Yugoslavia's neighboring states, such as
Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and others by
granting over-flight rights, by placing bases and other facilities at
the disposal of the aggressors, have made themselves guilty of at least
aiding and abetting these violations.
10) These Tribunal proceedings must not be allowed to constitute a
conclusion to efforts to learn the truth about that war against
Yugoslavia. The problems that brought war to the entire region, are far
too serious and remain completely unresolved. It is imperative not only
that the physical and material damage, but also the psychological
wounds, the humiliation, be further researched and unambiguously exposed
to the public. This war must not be permitted to become a model for a
new world order. We must make it absolutely clear to politicians and the
military, that with warfare neither human rights nor civilization can be
saved, that warfare can no longer be an instrument of politics.
Berlin, June 3, 2000
Jury:
Prof. Dr. Norman Paech (Germany) - President
Prof. Dr. Claudia von Werlhof (Austria) - Vice President
Wolfgang Schulz (Germany) - Tribunal Secretary
Dr. Reszö Banyasz (Hungary)
Prof. Dr. Svetomir Skaric (Macedonia)
Paolo Pioppi (Italy)
Dr. Barbara Krygier (Poland)
Lea Launokari (Finland)
Heinz Moll (Switzerland)
Dr. Stanislav Patejdl (Czech Republic)
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Richter (Germany)
Dr. Wilja Nikolajewitsch Romastschenko (Ukraine)
Laura von Wimmersperg (Germany)
Prosecution:
Ulrich Dost, (Germany)
Pierre Kaldor (France)
Prof. Dr. Velko Valkanoff (Bulgaria)
Defense:
Valentina Strauss (Russia)
Defendants:
1. The following states in their functions as members of both the United
Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (4. April 1949),
represented through their heads of state, their foreign and defense
ministers:
a) the USA,
represented by: William J. Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen
b) the Federal Republic of Germany,
represented by: Gerhard Schröder, Joseph Fischer, Rudolf Scharping
c) the United Kingdom,
represented by: Tony Blair, Robin Cook, George Robertson
d) France,
represented by: Jacques Chirac, Hubert Védrine, Alain Richard
e) Belgium,
represented by: Jean-Luc Dehaene, B. Derycke, J.-P. Poncelet
f) Portugal,
represented by: A. Guterres, Jaime Jose Matos da Gama, V. Simao
g) Italy,
represented by: D’Alema, Lamberto Dini, C. Scognamiglio
h) Spain,
represented by: J. M. Aznar, Abel Matutes, Eduardo Serra Rexach
i) Canada,
represented by: Jean Chrétien, Lloyd Axworthy, Arthur Eggleton
j) Netherlands,
represented by: Willem Kok, Jozias van Aartsen, Frank de Grave
k) Denmark
represented by: P. N. Rassmussen, Niels Helveg Petersen, Hans Haekkerup
l) Greece
represented by: K. Simitis, George Panpandreou, Akis Tsohatzopoulus
m) Island
represented by: D. Oddson, Halldor Asgrimsson, Gunnar Palson
n) Luxemburg
represented by: J.-C. Juncker, J. Poos, Alex Bodry
o) Norway
represented by: K. M. Bonderik, K. Vollebaek, D.-J. Fjaervoll
p) Poland
represented by: J. Buzek, Bronislaw Geremek, Janusz Onyszkiewicz
q) Czech Republic
represented by: Milos Zeman, Jan Kavan, Vladimir Verchy
r) Turkey
represented by: E. Ecevit, Ismail Cem, H. S. Turk
s) Hungary
represented by Viktor Orban, János Martony, Janos Szabo
2. following members of the German Federal Parliament:
MPs of the Social Democratic Party of Germany
Brigitte Adler, Gerd Andres, Robert Antretter, Rainer Arnold, Hermann
Bachmaier, Ernst Bahr, Doris Barnett, Dr. Hans-Peter Bartels, Eckhardt
Barthel (Berlin), Gerd Bauer, Ingrid Becker-Inglau, Wolfgang Behrendt,
Dr. Axel Berg, Hans Berger, Hans-Werner Bertl, Friedhelm Julius Beucher,
Petra Bierwirth, Rudolf Bindig, Kurt Bodewig, Klaus Brandner, Anni
Brandt-Elsweier, Willi Brase, Tilo Braune, Dr. Eberhard Brecht, Rainer
Brinkmann (Detmold), Bernhard Brinkmann (Hildesheim), Hans-Günter
Bruckmann, Edelgard Buhlmahn, Ursula Burchardt, Dr. Michael Bürsch, Hans
Büttner (Ingolstadt), Hans Martin Bury, Marion Caspers-Merk,
Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, Peter Conradi, Dr. Herta Däubler-Gmelin,
Christel Deichmann, Karl Diller, Peter Dreßen, Rudolf Dreßler, Detlef
Dzembritzki, Dieter Dzewas, Dr. Peter Eckardt, Sebastian Edathy, Ludwig
Eich, Marga Elser, Peter Enders, Gernot Erler, Petra Ernstberger,
Annette Faße, Elke Ferner, Lothar Fischer (Homburg), Gabriele
Fograscher, Iris Follak, Eva Folta, Norbert Formanski, Rainer Fornahl,
Hans Forster, Dagmar Freitag, Peter Friedrich (Altenburg), Lilo
Friedrich (Mettmann), Harald Friese, Anke Fuchs (Köln), Arne Fuhrmann,
Monika Ganseforth, Konrad Gilges, Iris Gleicke, Günter Gloser, Uwe
Göllner, Renate Gradistanac, Günter Graf (Friesoythe), Angelika Graf
(Rosenheim), Dieter Grasedieck, Monika Griefahn, Achim Großmann,
Wolfgang Grotthaus, Karl-Hermann Haack (Extertal), Hans-Joachim Hacker,
Klaus Hagemann, Manfred Hampel, Christel Hanewinckel, Alfred Hartenbach,
Klaus Hasenfratz, Dr. Ingomar Hauchler, Nina Hauer, Hubertus Heil,
Dieter Heistermann, Reinhold Hemker, Frank Hempel, Dr. Barbara
Hendricks, Gustav Herzog, Monika Heubaum, Reinhold Hiller (Lübeck),
Stephan Hilsberg, Gerd Höfer, Jelena Hoffmann (Chemnitz), Walter
Hoffmann (Darmstadt), Iris Hoffmann (Wismar), Frank Hofmann (Volkach),
Ingrid Holzhüter, Erwin Horn, Eike Hovermann, Christel Humme, Lothar
Ibrügger, Wolfgang Ilte, Barbara Imhof, Brunhilde Irber, Gabriele
Iwersen, Renate Jäger, Jann-Peter Janssen, Ilse Janz, Dr. Uwe Jens,
Volker Jung (Düsseldorf), Johannes Kahrs, Ulrich Kasparick, Sabine
Kaspereit, Susanne Kastner, Ernst Kastning, Hans-Peter Kemper, Klaus
Kirschner, Marianne Klappert, Siegrun Klemmer, Hans-Ulrich Klose, Dr.
Hans-Hinrich Knaape, Walter Kolbow, Fritz Rudolf Körper, Karin Kortmann,
Anette Kramme, Nicolette Kressl, Volker Kröning, Thomas Krüger, Angelika
Krüger-Leißner, Horst Kubatschka, Ernst Küchler, Eckart Kuhlwein, Helga
Kühn-Mengel, Ute Kumpf, Dr. Uwe Küster, Werner Labsch, Oskar Lafontaine,
Christine Lambrecht, Brigitte Lange, Christian Lange (Backnang), Detlev
von Larcher, Christine Lehder, Waltraud Lehn, Robert Leidinger, Klaus
Lennartz, Dr. Elke Leonhard, Eckhart Lewering, Götz-Peter Lohmann
(Neubrandenburg), Klaus Lohmann (Witten), Erika Lotz, Dr. Christine
Lucyga, Dieter Maaß (Herne), Winfried Mante, Dirk Manzewski, Tobias
Marhold, Lothar Mark, Dorle Marx, Ulrike Mascher, Christoph Matschie,
Ingrid Matthäus-Maier, Heide Mattischeck, Markus Meckel, Ulrike Mehl,
Ulrike Merten, Herbert Meißner, Angelika Mertens, Dr. Jürgen Meyer
(Ulm), Ursula Mogg, Christoph Moosbauer, Siegmar Mosdorf, Michael Müller
(Düsseldorf), Jutta Müller (Völklingen), Christian Müller (Zittau),
Franz Müntefering, Andrea Nahles, Volker Neumann (Bramsche), Gerhard
Neumann (Gotha), Dr. Edith Niehuis, Dr. Rolf Niese, Dietmar Nietan,
Günter Oesinghaus, Eckhard Ohl, Leyla Onur, Manfred Opel, Holger Ortel,
Adolf Ostertag, Kurt Palis, Albrecht Papenroth, Dr. Willfried Penner,
Dr. Martin Pfaff, Georg Pfannenstein, Johannes Pflug, Dr. Eckhart Pick
,Joachim Poß, Rudolf Purps, Hermann Rappe (Hildesheim), Karin
Rehbock-Zureich, Margot von Renesse, Bernd Reuter, Dr. Edelbert Richter,
Reinhold Robbe, Dr. Ernst Dieter Rossmann, Michael Roth (Heringen),
Birgit Roth (Speyer), Gerhard Rübenkönig, Thomas Sauer, Dr. Hansjörg
Schäfer, Gudrun Schaich-Walch, Dieter Schanz, Rudolf Scharping, Bernd
Scheelen, Dr. Hermann Scheer, Siegfried Scheffler, Horst Schild, Otto
Schily, Dieter Schloten, Günter Schluckebier, Horst Schmidbauer
(Nürnberg), Ulla Schmidt (Aachen), Silvia Schmidt (Eisleben), Dagmar
Schmidt (Meschede), Wilhelm Schmidt (Salzgitter), Regina Schmidt-Zadel,
Heinz Schmitt (Berg), Carsten Schneider, Dr. Emil Schnell, Walter
Schöler, Olaf Scholz, Karsten Schönfeld, Fritz Schösser, Ottmar
Schreiner, Gerhard Schröder, Gisela Schröter, Dr. Mathias Schubert,
Richard Schuhmann (Delitzsch), Brigitte Schulte (Hameln), Reinhard
Schultz (Everswinkel), Volkmar Schultz (Köln), Ilse Schumann, Ewald
Schurer, Dr. R. Werner Schuster, Dietmar Schütz (Oldenburg), Dr.
Angelica Schwall-Düren, Ernst Schwanhold, Rolf Schwanitz, Bodo
Seidenthal, Lisa Seuster, Erika Simm, Johannes Singer, Dr. Cornelie
Sonntag-Wolgast, Wieland Sorge, Wolfgang Spanier, Dr. Margrit Spielmann,
Jörg-Otto Spiller, Dr. Ditmar Staffelt, Antje-Marie Stehen, Ludwig
Stiegler, Rolf Stöckel, Rita Streb-Hesse, Dr. Peter Struck, Joachim
Stünker, Joachim Tappe, Jörg Tauss, Dr. Bodo Teichmann, Jella Teuchner,
Dr. Gerald Thalheim, Wolfgang Thierse, Franz Thönnes, Uta Titze-Stecher,
Adelheid Tröscher, Hans-Eberhard Urbaniak, Rüdiger Veit, Siegfried
Vergin, Günter Verheugen, Karsten D. Voigt (Frankfurt), Simone Violka,
Ute Vogt (Pforzheim), Hans Georg Wagner, Hedi Wegener, Dr. Konstanze
Wegner, Wolfgang Weiermann, Reinhard Weis (Stendal), Matthias Weisheit,
Gunter Weißgerber, Gert Weisskirchen (Wiesloch), Dr. Ernst Ulrich von
Weizsäcker, Hans-Joachim Welt, Dr. Rainer Wend, Hildegard Wester, Lydia
Westrich, Inge Wettig-Danielmeier, Dr. Margrit Wetzel, Dr. Norbert
Wieczorek, Helmut Wieczorek (Duisburg), Jürgen Wieczorek (Leipzig),
Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Dieter Wiefelspütz, Heino Wiese (Hannover),
Klaus Wiesehügel, Brigitte Wimmer (Karlsruhe), Engelbert Wistuba,
Barbara Wittig, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Verena Wohlleben, Hanna Wolf
(München), Waltraud Wolff (Zielitz), Heidemarie Wright, Uta Zapf, Dr.
Christoph Zöpel, Peter Zumkley,
MPs of the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union
Ulrich Adam, Ilse Aigner, Peter Altmaier, Anneliese Augustin, Jürgen
Augustinowitz, Dietrich Austermann, Franz Peter Basten, Norbert Barthle,
Dr. Wolf Bauer, Günter Baumann, Brigitte Baumeister, Meinrad Belle, Dr.
Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, Otto Bernhardt, Hans-Dirk Bierling, Dr.
Joseph-Theodor Blank, Renate Blank, Dr. Heribert Blens, Peter Bleser,
Dr. Norbert Blüm, Friedrich Bohl, Dr. Maria Böhmer, Sylvia Bonitz,
Jochen Borchert, Wolfgang Börnsen (Bönstrup), Wolfgang Bosbach, Dr.
Wolfgang Bötsch, Klaus Brähmig, Dr. Ralf Brauksiepe, Paul Breuer, Georg
Brunnhuber, Klaus Bühler (Bruchsal), Hartmut Büttner (Schönebeck),
Dankward Buwitt, Peter Harry Carstensen (Nordstrand), Cajus Caesar, Leo
Dautzenberg, Wolfgang Dehnel, Hubert Deittert, Gertrud Dempwolf, Albert
Deß, Renate Diemers, Wilhelm Dietzel, Thomas Dörflinger, Werner
Dörflinger, Marie-Luise Dött, Dr. Alfred Dregger, Maria Eichhorn,
Wolfgang Engelmann, Rainer Eppelmann, Anke Eymer, Ilse Falk, Dr. Hans
Georg Faust, IJochen Feilcke, Ulf Fink, Ingrid Fischbach, Axel Fischer
(Karlsruhe-Land), Dirk Fischer (Hamburg), Leni Fischer (Unna), Herbert
Frankenhauser, Dr. Gerhard Friedrich (Erlangen), Dr. Hans-Peter
Friedrich (Naila), Erich G. Fritz, Jochen-Konrad Fromme, Hans-Joachim
Fuchtel, Dr. Jürgen Gehb, Norbert Geis, Dr. Heiner Geißler, Georg
Girisch, Michael Glos, Wilma Glücklich, Dr. Reinhard Göhner, Peter Götz,
Dr. Wolfgang Götzer, Joachim Gres, Kurt-Dieter Grill, Hermann Gröhe,
Claus-Peter Grotz, Manfred Grund, Horst Günther (Duisburg), Carl-Detlev
Freiherr von Hammerstein, Gottfried Haschke (Großhennersdorf), Gerda
Hasselfeldt, Norbert Hauser (Bonn), Hansgeorg Hauser (Rednitzhembach),
Otto Hauser (Esslingen), Klaus-Jürgen Hedrich, Helmut Heiderich, Ursula
Heinen, Manfred Heise, Siegfried Helias, Dr. Renate Hellwig, Hans Jochen
Henke, Ernst Hinsken, Peter Hintze, Klaus Hofbauer, Martin Hohmann,
Klaus Holetschek, Josef Hollerith, Elke Holzapfel, Dr. Karl-Heinz
Hornhues, Siegfried Hornung, Joachim Hörster, Hubert Hüppe, Peter
Jacoby, Susanne Jaffke, Georg Janovsky, Helmut Jawurek, Dr. Dionys
Jobst, Dr.-Ing. Rainer Jork, Michael Jung (Limburg), Ulrich Junghanns,
Dr. Egon Jüttner, Dr. Harald Kahl, Bartholomäus Kalb, Steffen Kampeter,
Dr. Dietmar Kansy, Manfred Kanther, Irmgard Karwatzki, Volker Kauder,
Eckart von Klaeden, Ulrich Klinkert, Dr. Helmut Kohl, Hans-Ulrich Köhler
(Hainspitz), Manfred Kolbe, Norbert Königshofen, Eva-Maria Kors, Hartmut
Koschyk, Manfred Koslowski, Thomas Kossendey, Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer, Rudolf Kraus, Wolfgang Krause (Dessau), Andreas
Krautscheid, Arnulf Kriedner, Dr. Martina Krogmann, Dr. Paul Krüger, Dr.
Hermann Kues, Werner Kuhn, Karl Lamers, Dr. Karl A. Lamers (Heidelberg),
Dr. Norbert Lammert, Helmut Johannes Lamp, Armin Laschet, Herbert
Lattmann, Dr. Paul Laufs, Karl-Josef Laumann, Vera Lengsfeld, Werner
Lensing, Peter Letzgus, Ursula Lietz, Editha Limbach, Walter Link
(Diepholz), Eduard Lintner, Dr. Klaus Lippold (Offenbach), Dr. Manfred
Lischewski, Wolfgang Lohmann (Lüdenscheid), Julius Louven, Sigrun
Löwisch, Heinrich Lummer, Dr. Michael Luther, Erich Maaß
(Wilhelmshaven), Dr. Dietrich Mahlo, Erwin Marschewski, Günter Marten,
Dr. Martin Mayer (Siegertsbrunn), Wolfgang Meckelburg, Rudolf Meinl, Dr.
Michael Meister, Dr. Angela Merkel, Friedrich Merz, Rudolf Meyer
(Winsen), Hans Michelbach, Meinolf Michels, Dr. Gerd Müller, Bernward
Müller (Jena), Elmar Müller (Kirchheim), Engelbert Nelle, Bernd Neumann
(Bremen), Johannes Nitsch, Claudia Nolte, Günter Nooke, Franz Obermeier,
Dr. Rolf Olderog, Friedhelm Ost, Eduard Oswald, Norbert Otto (Erfurt),
Dr. Gerhard Päselt, Dr. Peter Paziorek, Hans-Wilhelm Pesch, Ulrich
Petzold, Anton Pfeifer, Dr. Friedbert Pflüger, Beatrix Philipp, Dr.
Winfried Pinger, Ronald Pofalla, Dr. Hermann Pohler, Ruprecht Polenz,
Marlies Pretzlaff, Dr. Albert Probst, Dr. Bernd Protzner, Dieter
Pützhofen, Hans Raidel, Dr. Peter Ramsauer, Peter Rauen, Otto
Regenspurger, Christa Reichard (Dresden), Klaus Dieter Reichardt
(Mannheim), Erika Reinhardt, Hans-Peter Repnik, Dr. Norbert Rieder,
Klaus Riegert, Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber, Franz Romer, Hannelore Rönsch
(Wiesbaden), Heinrich-Wilhelm Ronsöhr, Dr. Klaus Rose, Kurt Rossmanith,
Adolf Roth (Gießen), Norbert Röttgen, Dr. Christian Ruck, Volker Rühe,
Dr. Jürgen Rüttgers, Roland Sauer (Stuttgart), Anita Schäfer, Ortrun
Schätzle, Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, Hartmut Schauerte, Norbert Schindler,
Ulrich Schmalz, Heinz Schemken, Karl-Heinz Scherhag, Gerhard Scheu,
Dietmar Schlee, Bernd Schmidbauer, Andreas Schmidt (Mühlheim), Christian
Schmidt (Fürth), Dr.-Ing. Joachim Schmidt (Halsbrücke), Hans-Otto
Schmiedeberg, Michael von Schmude, Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Dr. Andreas
Schockenhoff, Dr. Rupert Scholz, Reinhard Freiherr von Schorlemer, Dr.
Erika Schuchardt, Wolfgang Schulhoff, Dr. Dieter Schulte (Schwäbisch
Gmünd), Gerhard Schulz (Leipzig), Frederik Schulze (Sangershausen),
Diethard W. Schütze (Berlin), Clemens Schwalbe, Dr. Christian
Schwarz-Schilling, Wilhelm Josef Sebastian, Horst Seehofer, Marion Seib,
Heinz Seiffert, Rudolf Seiters, Johannes Selle, Bernd Siebert, Werner
Siemann, Jürgen Sikora, Johannes Singhammer, Bärbel Sothmann, Margarete
Späte, Carl-Dieter Spranger, Wolfgang Steiger, Erika Steinbach, Dr.
Wolfgang Freiherr von Stetten, Dr. Gerhard Stoltenberg, Andreas Storm,
Dorothea Störr-Ritter, Max Straubinger, Matthäus Strebl, Thomas Strobl,
Michael Stübgen, Egon Susset, Dr. Rita Süssmuth, Dr. Susanne Tiemann,
Gottfried Tröger, Dr. Klaus-Dieter Uelhoff, Dr. Hans-Peter Uh,l Gunnar
Uldall, Arnold Vaatz, Angelika Volquartz, Andrea Voßhoff, Dr. Horst
Waffenschmidt, Dr. Theodor Waigel, Alois Graf von Waldburg-Zeil, Peter
Weiß (Emmendingen), Gerald Weiß (Groß-Gerau), Kersten Wetzel, Annette
Widmann-Mauz, Heinz Wiese (Ehingen), Hans-Otto Wilhelm (Mainz),
Klaus-Peter Willsch, Matthias Wissmann, Werner Wittlich, Dr. Fritz
Wittmann, Dagmar Wöhrl, Elke Wülfing, Peter Kurt Würzbach, Cornelia
Yzer, Wolfgang Zeitlmann, Benno Zierer, Wolfgang Zöller,
MPs of the Alliance 90/ The Greens
Elisabeth Altmann (Pommelsbrunn), Marieluise Beck (Bremen), Volker Beck
(Köln), Angelika Beer, Matthias Berninger, Ekin Deligöz, Dr. Thea
Dückert, Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig, Dr. Uschi Eid, Hans-Josef Fell,
Andrea Fischer (Berlin), Joseph Fischer (Frankfurt), Katrin
Göring-Eckardt, Rita Grießhaber, Winfried Hermann, Antje Hermenau,
Kristin Heyne, Uli Höfken, Ulrike Höfken, Michaele Hustedt, Dr. Manuel
Kiper, Dr. Angelika Köster-Loßack, Dr. Helmut Lippelt, Dr. Reinhard
Loske, Oswald Metzger, Klaus Wolfgang Müller (Kiel), Kerstin Müller
(Köln), Winfried Nachtwei, Christa Nickels, Egbert Nitsch (Rendsburg),
Cem Özdemir, Gerd Poppe, Simone Probst, Christine Scheel, Rezzo
Schlauch, Albert Schmidt (Hitzhofen), Wolfgang Schmitt (Langenfeld),
Waltraud Schoppe, Werner Schulz (Leipzig), Christian Sterzing, Jürgen
Trittin, Dr. Antje Vollmer, Ludger Volmer, Sylvia Ingeborg Voß, Helmut
Wilhelm (Amberg), Margareta Wolf (Frankfurt),
MPs of the Free Democratic Party
Ina Albowitz, Dr. Gisela Babel, Hildebrecht Braun (Augsburg), Rainer
Brüderle, Ernst Burgbacher, Jörg van Essen, Dr. Olaf Feldmann, Ulrike
Flach, Paul K. Friedhoff, Horst Friedrich (Bayreuth), Rainer Funke, Dr.
Wolfgang Gerhardt, Hans-Michael Goldmann, Dr. Karlheinz Guttmacher,
Klaus Haupt, Dr. Helmut Haussmann, Ulrich Heinrich, Walter Hirche,
Birgit Homburger, Dr. Werner Hoyer, Ulrich Irmer, Dr. Klaus Kinkel,
Detlef Kleinert (Hannover), Roland Kohn, Dr. Heinrich Kolb, Jürgen
Koppelin, Dr.-Ing. Karl-Hans Laermann, Ina Lenke, Uwe Lühr, Jürgen W.
Möllemann, Dirk Niebel, Günther Friedrich Nolting, Hans-Joachim Otto
(Frankfurt), Detlef Parr, Lisa Peters, Cornelia Pieper, Dr. Günter
Rexrodt, Dr. Klaus Röhl, Dr. Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig, Gerhard Schüßler,
Dr. Irmgard Schwaetzer, Marita Sehn, Dr. Hermann Otto Solms, Carl-Ludwig
Thiele, Dr. Dieter Thomae, Jürgen Türk, Dr. Wolfgang Weng (Gerlingen),
Dr. Guido Westerwelle;
3. the commanding functionaries of NATO,
Secretary General, Javier Solana, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Gen.
Wesley K. Clark, Commander Allied Air Forces, Lt. Gen. Michael C. Short
and the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Gen. Klaus Naumann;
4. The commanding functionaries of the German militar (Bundeswehr),
Air Force Inspector Gen. Rolf Portz and the deployed air squadron
commander, Col. Jochen Both und Col. Peter Schelzig.
==================================================
>Here is the English language version of my report on the Berlin Tribunal,
>for ZNet.
>Diana.
>
>THE BERLIN TRIBUNAL: MORE SERIOUS THAN THE HAGUE
>
> Last June 3, two tribunals reached opposite conclusions concerning
>accusations of war crimes brought against NATO for its 1999 bombing
>campaign against Yugoslavia. In The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, chief
>prosecutor at the "International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia"
>(ICTY), created by the UN Security Council at the initiative of the United
>States, announced that she saw no grounds even to open an inquiry. NATO
>made "some mistakes", she acknowledged. But Ms Del Ponte was "very
>satisfied" that there had been no deliberate targeting of civilians during
>NATO's bombing campaign.
> No wonder. Indicting NATO would have meant biting the hand that
>feeds this Tribunal, whose former presiding judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald
>once described Madeleine Albright as its "mother". It was hardly
>conceivable that the ICTY would allow itself to get too interested in
>crimes committed by the NATO powers who provide it with funding, equipment
>and investigators... not to mention its basic political agenda, which is to
>justify the diplomatic isolation of Serbian leaders by labeling them as
>"indicted war criminals".
> In Berlin, on the same day, another Tribunal concluded a far more
>serious examination of the charges against NATO. This unofficial "European
>Tribunal" was genuinely independent of all the governments involved in the
>1999 war. In contrast to The Hague, the conclusions were based on several
>public hearings (already published in two illustrated volumes*), precise
>references to international law, detailed presentation and analysis of the
>relevant facts and finally the direct testimony of six victims who came
>from Yugoslavia to recount their experience as civilian targets under the
>78-day rain of NATO bombs and missiles.
> The Berlin Tribunal was presided by a distinguished Hamburg
>University professor of international law, Dr. Norman Paech, who insisted
>that the verdict would be based on strictly legal criteria. And indeed the
>deliberations of this European Tribunal in Berlin, supported by over sixty
>peace, civic and human rights groups, stuck very strictly to the subject of
>the NATO war against Yugoslavia, to the exclusion of other political issues
>(in contrast to the similar Tribunal organized by the International Action
>Center in New York on June 10, which chose to link issues). Berlin's
>proximity to Eastern Europe was reflected in the composition of the panel
>of jurists, who had come from Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Belarus, the
>Czech Republic, Russia and Macedonia.
> The long and detailed indictment, presented by lawyer Ulrich Dost,
>was divided into two main sections: first, responsibility for deliberately
>preparing the war against Yugoslavia to the exclusion of peaceful
>negotiated solutions to the Kosovo problem, and second, violations of
>international law in the conduct of the war. The former East German
>ambassador to Belgrade, Ralph Hartmann, a genuine expert on the region,
>presented a recapitulation of key events and statements that clearly
>demonstrated the major responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany in
>preparing the war, both by actively encouraging armed ethnic Albanian
>separatists and by pushing other NATO allies toward military intervention.
> Retired Bundeswehr General Heinz Loquai, who served as German
>military observer at the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
>(OSCE) headquarters in Vienna, contributed a damning report on how the
>German Defense Ministry itself invented "Operation Horseshoe", the supposed
>Serbian plan to expel the Albanian population from Kosovo, which was
>"revealed" by Defense Minister Scharping in April 1999 to justify the
>bombing as it began to lose public support. Hartmann and Loquai are among
>the authors of a growing number of German books which are devastating in
>their refutation of NATO claims. Indeed, if certain German media and the
>German government bear major international responsibility for initiating
>the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991, by the same token German
>critics of the process are perhaps the best informed and most thorough in
>their denunciations. Nobody understands the German right better than the
>German left.
> Such a "people's tribunal", like the Russell Tribunal formed to
>condemn the U.S. war in Vietnam, obviously has no power to carry out a
>sentence. Its verdict is purely moral, and serves to point up two things:
>the existence of flagrant violations of the law, and the absence of any
>existing institutional recourse. It does not settle but rather raises a
>number of questions.
> The verdict, as expected, found the top officials of NATO and its
>member states guilty of having committed an aggression in violation of all
>the relevant treaties and international agreements, from the United Nations
>Charter to the NATO Treaty itself, as well as numerous conventions. Far
>from being legitimately "humanitarian", NATO's intervention ignored and
>blocked Belgrade's various compromise offers and dramatically worsened an
>already difficult situation, causing a sharp increase in the number of
>victims.
> Such a verdict is similar to the finding of a "truth commission",
>and shows at least that a prima facie case exists against NATO. A careful
>examination of the Berlin results, as well as those of other "people's
>tribunals", is enough to expose the uselessness of Ms Del Ponte's ICTY when
>it comes to establishing the facts, let alone justice.
> The Berlin Tribunal pinpointed an important treaty violation
>scarcely mentioned in other NATO countries: by sending its warplanes to
>bomb Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of German was in flagrant violation
>of the so-called "4 plus 2" treaty of 1990 by which Moscow consented to the
>unification of the two German states. By that Treaty, the German government
>undertook a solemn commitment that "never again would war emanate from
>German territory" and that Germany's military engagements would remain
>strictly within the norms of the United Nations Charter.
> The Berlin Tribunal condemned not only Chancellor Gerhard
>Schroeder, defense minister Rudolf Scharping and foreign minister Joschka
>Fischer, but also all the members of the Bundestag who had voted in favor
>of a military engagement that clearly violated the Federal Republic's
>international engagements.
> The Tribunal expressed concern at the role played by the war
>against Yugoslavia in the formulation of NATO's new "strategic concept",
>whose significance "extends far beyond the Balkans and across Eurasia as a
>model for a future world military order". To prevent such military
>globalization, the Tribunal said it was imperative to pursue examination of
>the preconditions, objectives and consequences of the war against
>Yugoslavia and to draw attention to its eventual geostrategic implications.
> On the matter of civilian targets, the Berlin Tribunal cited
>statements from various NATO officials and military officers proving that
>the choice of civilian targets was indeed part of the "third stage" of a
>strategy aimed at putting pressure on the civilian population to rise up
>against its own government, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.
>Moreover, the use of such weapons as depleted uranium and cluster bombs
>clearly endangered the civilian population, both during and after the
>actual bombing, and constituted a particularly grave violation of
>international humanitarian law.
> About 600 people attended the two-day proceedings in the handsome
>Protestant Church of the Holy Cross in the Kreuzberg section of Berlin,
>whose pastor Jürgen Quandt in his welcoming speech rejected the concept of
>"just" war.
> The Berlin Tribunal condemned the deliberate destruction of the
>Belgrade studios of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) not only as an attack
>against a civilian installation, but also as an assault on freedom of
>information. The purpose was to deprive not only the Yugoslavs but also
>audiences around the world of the pictures and information concerning the
>bombing broadcast by RTS. Whether or not that information was "objective"
>was irrelevant, the verdict stated, since the same could be said of
>information broadcast by NATO media.
> This condemnation of the bombing of RTS was echoed a few days later
>by Amnesty International which, accusing NATO of war crimes, specifically
>cited the deliberate bombing of the Belgrade television studies, which
>killed 16 employees -- a flagrant crime which failed to interest Ms Del
>Ponte.
> In conclusion, the Tribunal presided by Dr. Paech emphasized the
>need to pursue the search for truth. The underlying problems in the Balkans
>remain serious and unresolved. "It is imperative for the public to be
>informed not only of the physical and material damage, but also of the
>psychological wounds inflicted ... This war must not be the model for a new
>world order. We must finally make it clear to politicians and the military
>that neither human rights nor civilization are to be saved by war, that war
>must no longer be used as a political instrument."
>
>* The two volumes are published by Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
>Badeweg 1, 04435 Schkeuditz, Federal Republic of Germany.
>Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmaehling, Eckart Spoo (editors),
>(1) _Die Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien_.
>(2) _Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien_.
>
> Diana Johnstone, 19 June 2000
---
>Hallo Leute,
>
>Es ist da! Unser "Message Board" für http://nato-tribunal.de ist jetzt
>eingebaut worden. Also, ganz unten an der "Startseite" oder "Logoseite"
>clicked man
>einfach auf die Ikone "VISIT OUR MESSAGE BOARD". Man kommt auch direkt
>ans Message Board durch die URL:
>http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/list.html?u=jost&f=1
>
>Also, schreibt was rein! Und laß die anderen davon wissen...
>
>Alles Gute,
>
>Alant Jost
>
>
>
>Hello People,
>
>The Message Board for our website http://nato-tribunal.de is installed.
>Since the site is in the languages German, English and French, postings
>in these languages are of course welcomed, but why not post in whatever
>language you want?
>
>Just click on the icon "VISIT OUR MESSAGE BOARD" at the bottom of the
>website page and start writing! Or you can enter the Message board
>directly at: http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/list.html?u=jost&f=1
>
>
>Enjoy the message board, and let the discussions begin.
>
>Alant Jost
Bericht vom Berliner und New Yorker Tribunal
New York
Am 10. Juni fand vor über 500 Zuhörern in New York das Internationale
Tribunal zu den USA/NATO-Kriegsverbrechen gegen Jugoslawien statt. Rund
30
Zeugen aus 14 Ländern sagten vor dem Richtergremium aus. Zunächst wurde
un<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
>Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the June 22, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>
>
>U.S. /NATO GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES IN YUGOSLAVIA
> By John Catalinotto New York
>
>An international panel of judges has found that U.S. and NATO
>political and military leaders were guilty of war crimes against
>Yugoslavia during and before the March 24- June 10, 1999, assault on
>that country.
>
>Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark was the lead prosecutor at
>the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes against
>Yugoslavia, which met here on June 10. He urged the 500 people
>attending the all-day event to carry out this verdict by organizing a
>campaign to abolish the NATO military pact.
>
>Ben Dupuy, a former ambassador-at-large from Haiti, the Rev. Kiyul
>Chung, representing the Korean movement for democracy and
>reunification, and auto worker Martha Grevatt, national secretary of
>Pride At Work, the AFL-CIO's constituency group of lesbian, gay, bi,
>and trans workers, read the three parts of the verdict.
>
>A panel of 16 judges from 11 countries heard eyewitnesses and
>researchers who had visited Yugoslavia, renowned political and
>economic analysts, historians, physicists, biologists, military
>experts, journalists and lay researchers.
>
>Over the past 15 months, speaking to worldwide audiences, many of
>these witnesses have presented a complete picture of the war NATO
>waged against Yugoslavia. For this tribunal, however, all limited
>themselves to a single area of expertise.
>
>Together, they provided comprehensive evidence against the political
>and military leaders of the United States and the other NATO
>countries.
>
>The judges decided that the individual testimonies taken together
>constructed a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are
>guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war
>crimes.
>
>MANIPULATION OF THE MEDIA
>
>The witnesses described how NATO used the media to spread lies
>demonizing the Serbs and their leadership, and to prepare Western
>public opinion for a war. Speakers detailed the real economic and
>geopolitical motives of the imperialist powers of the United States
>and Western Europe: to seize economic control of the area, from the
>Balkans to the oil-rich Caspian Sea.
>
>A pattern of similar criminal behavior by the United States, most
>notably in the Korean and Vietnam wars, was established.
>
>Speakers demonstrated how Washington rigged the phony "Racak
>massacre" for the media and then used the so-called Rambouillet
>accord--in reality an ultimatum demanding military control of all
>Yugoslavia for NATO--to provoke the war. Taken together, this all
>proved a crime against peace.
>
>They also showed that using illegal weapons, purposely choosing
>civilian targets, and destroying the environment and the civilian
>infrastructure added up to war crimes.
>
>Expelling hundreds of thousands of people from Kosovo and Metohija,
>after the NATO bombing began, were crimes against humanity.
>
>The witnesses' presentations were accompanied in many cases by slides
>and videotape displayed on a large screen on the stage of the
>auditorium at Martin Luther King Jr.High School in Manhattan. They
>were visible to the judges, who sat on the stage, and to the hundreds
>in the audience.
>
>In addition, pictures and videotapes were on display in the hall
>outside the auditorium. Documentary evidence was offered in books and
>research papers.
>
>The material illustrated deliberate targeting of civilians: the
>bombing of a Belgrade television station; the bombing of refugees;
>the bombing of the Chinese Embassy; the bombing of hospitals,
>schools, railroads and bridges; the destruction of the industrial and
>civil infrastructure; the use of pellet bombs and depleted uranium;
>damage to the environment through bombing petrochemical plants; and
>the tactic of repeat bombing of the same target after 10 to 15
>minutes to kill and wound members of emergency rescue teams.
>
>MANY TRIBUNALS CULMINATE IN NEW YORK
>
>The International Action Center, founded by Ramsey Clark and other
>activists in 1992, organized this final session of the tribunal.
>Similar tribunal hearings have taken place in Germany, Italy,
>Austria, Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Greece. In Athens last
>November, thousands declared U.S. President Bill Clinton a war
>criminal.
>
>Some of the witnesses in New York had also participated in these
>European tribunals.
>
>Representatives of the governments of Yugoslavia and Cuba made
>important presentations.
>
>Ismael Guadalupe from Vieques, Puerto Rico, explained in a powerful
>speech that U.S. Navy bombing exercises against his small island have
>laid the basis for U.S./NATO aggression around the world, including
>in Kosovo, Yugoslavia.
>
>The IAC registered 511 people at the event, including justices,
>witnesses and staff. Invited speakers, witnesses and judges came from
>Haiti, Spain, Turkey, Korea, Puerto Rico, India, Germany, United
>States, Canada, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Britain, Belgium, Iraq,
>Greece, Austria, France and Portugal.
>
>The U.S. government refused visas to four people from Ukraine,
>including three parliamentary deputies. Their message was read from
>the stage.
>
>There were also representatives of the Roma people--often referred to
>by the derogatory term "gypsy." Shani Rifati, a Roma witness who was
>born in Pristina, capital of Kosovo, told how NATO occupation has led
>to the expulsion of 100,000 Romas. He pointed out that the verdict
>condemned the persecution of Roma people, the first time this has
>happened in any international tribunal.
>
>Five television crews taped the entire proceedings. They included
>Serbian television and a three-camera crew from Australia, as well as
>alternate media sources in the United States such as the Peoples
>Video Network.
>
>WITNESSES IN PART I: CRIMES AGAINST PEACE * LENORA FOERSTEL of Women
>for Mutual Security and editor of the recently published book "War,
>Lies * Videotape: How media monopoly stifles truth."
>
>* JARED ISRAEL, producer of the film "Judgment" showing how the
>corporate media distorted a photograph taken in Bosnia.
>
>* JEAN HATTON Britain--anti-war activist, on how massacre stories
>were used to justify the war.
>
>* CHRISTOPHER BLACK Canada--one of a group of Canadian attorneys who
>filed a suit charging NATO with war crimes at what is called the
>International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia at the Hague,
>on how that court was part of the preparation for war.
>
>* MONICA MOOREHEAD, of Millions for Mumia and contributing editor to
>Workers World newspaper, on the prison-industrial complex in the
>United States.
>
>* MICHEL COLLON Belgium--author of two books on the Balkans, "Liar's
>Poker" and "Monopoly," and contributor to the weekly newspaper
>Solidaire, on the geopolitical aims of the war--to dominate the
>Caspian oil pipelines.
>
>* KADOURI AL KAYSI Iraqi-American--on the impact of sanctions on
>Iraq.
>
>* STRATIS KOUNIAS Greece--vice-president of the Greek Committee for
>Peace and Professor at the University of Athens, on NATO's role in
>Greece and the Greek anti-war movement.
>
>* JOHN CATALINOTTO, journalist and researcher who represented the IAC
>at tribunals in Vienna and Belgrade, on Washington's premeditated
>plan regarding NATO and the attack on Yugoslavia.
>
>* ROLAND KEITH Canada--monitor for the Observer Mission that was
>supposed to maintain the peace in Kosovo in 1998 before the war, on
>the real role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
>Europe.
>
>* PRESTON WOOD, who participated in hearings in Novi Sad and who
>organized opposition to the war in Los Angeles, especially in the
>lesbian/gay/bi/trans community, on the supposed massacre in Racak,
>Kosovo, used to justify the attack on Yugoslavia.
>
>* RICHARD BECKER, West Coast co-coordinator for the IAC, on the role
>of talks held in Rambouillet, France, in February and March 1999.
>
>* GREGOR KNEUSSEL Austria--on Austria's role in delivering the NATO
>ultimatum to Yugoslavia.
>
>WITNESSES IN PART II: WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
>
>*Prosecutor GLORIA LA RIVA on how U.S./NATO bombs hit civilian
>targets, from hospitals to bridges to factories, using the video she
>produced, "NATO Targets."
>
>*SARAH SLOAN, IAC Commission of Inquiry researcher, on NATO's claim
>that it tried to minimize damage to civilian facilities in
>Yugoslavia.
>
>* ELLEN CATALINOTTO, a midwife who has delivered over 1,200 babies to
>mostly poor women in New York City, on the NATO bombing of 33
>hospitals including damage to the maternity ward at Dragisa Micovic
>hospital in Belgrade.
>
>* PROF. IVAN YATSENKO Russia--former Soviet officer and foreign
>representative who now teaches law in Moscow, on damage to Yugoslav
>industrial infrastructure and how it cost half a million jobs.
>
>*ELMAR SCHMAEHLING Germany--former West German admiral and leading
>spokesperson for the German tribunal movement, on the aggressive
>posture of NATO since the collapse of the USSR and its illegal attack
>on Yugoslavia.
>
>*JUDI CHENG, IAC researcher, on the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in
>Belgrade.
>
>*DR. JANET EATON Canada--biologist and environment expert, on
>destruction of the environment in Yugo slavia, especially the damage
>from attacks on the petrochemical plant at Pancevo and other
>industrial targets.
>
>*DR. CARLO PONA Italy--physicist who participated in a conference in
>Belgrade about depleted uranium, on why DU is dangerous to humans
>and how it was used in Yugoslavia.
>
>* FULVIO GRIMALDI Italy--videographer and journalist who recently
>completed editing a film on Iraq and Yugoslavia, on the combined
>impact of bombing and sanctions on the population of Yugoslavia.
>
>* DEIRDRE GRISWOLD, editor of Workers World newspaper who recently
>visited sites of U.S. war crimes in south Korea, on the pattern of
>criminal conduct of the U.S. military in Korea and Vietnam.
>
>* SHANI RIFATI, originally from the Romani community in Kosovo and
>publisher of an English-language newsletter about Romani affairs, on
>the horrors faced by the Roma people in Kosovo under K-FOR and KLA
>occupation.
>
>* MILOS RAICKOVICH Serb-American--composer and anti-war activist, on
>the destruction of churches and cultural sites in occupied Kosovo and
>Metohija.
>
>* PROF. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY Canada--historian and economist, on the
>role of the KLA and its ties to U.S. and German intelligence
>services, NATO and UN Rep. Bernard Kouchner.
>
>* SCOTT TAYLOR Canada--former Canadian soldier and publisher of
>magazine Esprit de Corps, on the expulsion of the Serb population
>from the Krajina in Croatia by an army led by KLA General Ceku.
>
>* PROF. BARRY LITUCHY, recently returned from Yugoslavia, on how K-
>FOR participated in expelling people from Kosovo.
>
>*PROF. GREGORY ELICH, recently returned from the Balkans, on the
>anti-humanitarian nature of NATO's occupation of Kosovo.
>
>* GILLES TROUDE France--member of the editorial board of Balkans-
>Info, on France's role in the war and in suppressing dissent at home.
>
>* PROFESSOR JORGE CADIMA Portugal--a regular contributor to Avante,
>the weekly newspaper of the Portuguese Communist Party, on the role
>of NATO in Portugal since 1949 and on popular resistance to the war.
>
>MESSAGES OF SOLIDARITY AND STRUGGLE
>
>* ISMAEL GUADALUPE Puerto Rico, Committee for the Rescue and
>Development of Vieques, on how the U.S. used Vieques for target
>practice to prepare for the war against Yugoslavia.
>
>* SORAYA ALVAREZ Cuba, First Secretary of the Cuban Mission to the
>United Nations, on Cuba's suit against the U.S. for the costs of the
>embargo.
>
>* VLADISLAV JOVANOVIC, Yugoslav Ambassador to the UN, on his own
>government's charges against the U.S. and NATO for war crimes.
>
>
>JUDGES & PROSECUTORS
>
>1. BEN DUPUY Haiti--former Ambassador at Large for Haiti under the
>first government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and currently secretary
>general of the Popular National Party (PPN) of Haiti.
>
>2. ANGELES MAESTRO MARTIN Spain--elected member of Spanish
>parliament from Madrid and a leader in the movement to end sanctions
>against Iraq.
>
>3. CIMILE CAKIR Turkey--journalist for newspaper serving Kurdish
>community and member of Turkish Human Rights Association. Imprisoned
>four years in Turkey for human rights activity.
>
>4. REV. KIYUL CHUNG Korea--chairperson of the Executive Committee of
>the Congress for Korean Unification in North America.
>
>5. JOHN NICKELS Roma--U.S. representative of the International
>Romani Union and also a judge in the Romani community in the U.S.
>
>6. JORGE FARINACCI Puerto Rico--leader of the Socialist Front of
>Puerto Rico and a long-time leader of the independence movement in
>Puerto Rico.
>
>7. RAY LAFOREST Haitian-American--labor unionist in the American
>Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a leader of
>the Haitian Coalition for Justice, an organization that fights police
>brutality in New York.
>
>8. UMA KUTWAL United States, originally from India-- president of
>Local 375 of the Civil Service Technical Union District Council 37 of
>American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
>
>9. DR. CHRISTA ANDERS Germany--doctor of medicine and an organizer
>of the German/European Tribunal.
>
>10. RANIERO LA VALLE Italy--former senator who has served 14 years
>in the Italian parliament, an anti-war leader in Catholic circles and
>spokesperson for the Italian War Crimes Tribunal movement.
>
>11. DR. WOLFGANG RICHTER Germany--Chairperson of the Society for the
>Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity and a leader of the War
>Crimes Tribunal movement in Germany.
>
>12. MARTHA GREVATT United States--National Secretary of Pride at
>Work, the AFL-CIO organization for lesbian/gay/bi/trans workers'
>rights, and active in the United Auto Workers.
>
>13. MICHAEL RATNER United States--civil rights attorney on the
>National Board of the Center for Constitutional Rights who took the
>U.S. government to court for violating the War Powers Act in its
>undeclared war against Yugoslavia.
>
>14. YOLE STANESIC Yugoslavia & Russia--Montenegrin poet and writer
>living in Russia, member of the tribunals in Yaroslav, Kiev and
>Belgrade.
>
>15. JOHN BLACK United States--retired President of the Health and
>Hospital Workers Union in Pennsylvania, responsible for bringing many
>thousands of hospital workers into the union. As a teenager in
>Germany he was active in the anti-Nazi underground resistance.
>
>16. DR. BERTA JOUBERT-CECI Puerto Rico & U.S.--psychiatrist working
>in public health and organizer of Puerto Rican and African American
>anti-racist activities in Philadelphia.
>
>THE PROSECUTOR TEAM
>
>* RAMSEY CLARK, former U.S. attorney general and founder of the
>International Action Center.
>
>* PAT CHIN, Jamaican-American, International Action Center
>spokesperson for solidarity with Haiti and Yugoslavia and other
>issues.
>
>* SARA FLOUNDERS, International Action Center national co-director,
>participant in numerous tribunal hearings.
>
>* GLORIA LA RIVA, a leader of International Peace for Cuba Appeal,
>producer of video "NATO Targets."
>
>All were in Yugoslavia, either during the war or as participants in
>seminars or meetings after the war.
>
>FINDINGS
>
>The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate
>U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia, meeting in
>New York, having considered the Initial Charges and Complaint of the
>Commission dated July 31, 1999, against President William J.
>Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
>Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, President
>Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema, Prime Minister Jose
>Maria Azmar, the Governments of the United States and the other NATO
>member states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO
>leaders, and others with 19 separate Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes
>and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter of the United
>Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international agreements
>and customary international law, find the accused Guilty on the basis
>of the evidence against them and that each of the 19 separate crimes
>alleged in the Initial Complaint has been established to have been
>committed beyond a reasonable doubt. These are:
>
>1. Planning and executing the dismemberment, segregation and
>impoverishment of Yugoslavia.
>
>2. Inflicting, inciting and enhancing violence between and among
>Muslims and Slavs.
>
>3. Disrupting efforts to maintain unity, peace and stability in
>Yugoslavia.
>
>4. Destroying the peace-making role of the United Nations.
>
>5. Using NATO for military aggression against, and occupation of,
>non-compliant poor countries.
>
>6. Killing and injuring a defenseless population throughout
> Yugoslavia.
>
>7. Planning, announcing and executing attacks intended to assassinate
>the head of government, other government leaders and selected
>civilians in Yugoslavia.
>
>8. Destroying and damaging economic, social, cultural, medical,
>diplomatic--including the embassy of the People's Republic of China
>and other embassies--and religious resources, properties and
>facilities throughout Yugoslavia.
>
>9. Attacking objects indispensable to the survival of the population
>of Yugoslavia.
>
>10. Attacking facilities containing dangerous substances and forces.
>
>11. Using depleted uranium, cluster bombs and other prohibited
>weapons.
>
>12. Waging war on the environment.
>
>13. Imposing sanctions through the United Nations that are a
>genocidal crime against humanity.
>
>14. Creating an illegal ad-hoc criminal tribunal to destroy and
>demonize the Serbian leadership. The illegitimacy of this tribunal is
>further demonstrated by its failure to bring any case regarding the
>oppression of the Romani people, who have suffered the highest rate
>of casualties of any people in the region.
>
>15. Using controlled international media to create and maintain
>support for the U.S. assault and to demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs, Serbs
>and Muslims as genocidal murderers.
>
>16. Establishing the long-term military occupation of strategic parts
>of Yugoslavia by NATO forces.
>
>17. Attempting to destroy the sovereignty, right to self-
>determination, democracy and culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma and
>other peoples of Yugoslavia.
>
>18. Seeking to establish U.S. domination and control of Yugoslavia
>and to exploit its people and resources.
>
>19. Using the means of military force and economic coercion in order
>to achieve U.S. domination.
>
>The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders accountable
>for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in the
>strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO bombardments,
>denounce the international crimes and violations of international
>humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and through other
>means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted lawlessly and has
>attempted to abolish international law.
>
> RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION The Members urge the immediate revocation
>of all embargoes, sanctions and penalties against Yugoslavia because
>they constitute a continuing crime against humanity. The Members call
>for the immediate end to the NATO occupation of all Yugoslav
>territory, the removal of all NATO and U.S. bases and forces from the
>Balkans region, and the cessation of overt and covert operations,
>including the "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
>Yugoslavia" in The Hague, aimed at overthrowing the government of
>Yugoslavia.
>
>The Members further call for full reparations to be paid to the
>Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for death, injury, economic and
>environmental damage resulting from the NATO bombing, economic
>sanctions and blockades. Further, other states in the region which
>have suffered economic and environmental damage due to the NATO
>bombing and economic sanctions on Yugoslavia must also be awarded
>reparations. The Members condemn the threat or use of military
>technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by
>the NATO powers against the people of Yugoslavia.
>
>The Members urge public action and mobilization to stop new and
>continued sanctions and aggressions by the U.S. and other NATO powers
>against Iraq, Cuba, north Korea, the countries of Eastern Europe and
>the former Soviet Union, Puerto Rico, Asia, Sudan, Colombia and other
>countries. We ask for the immediate cessation of overt/covert
>activities by the U.S. and NATO in such countries.
>
>The Members believe that the interests of peace, justice and human
>progress require the abolition of NATO, which has proved itself
>beyond any doubt to be an instrument of aggression for the dominant,
>colonizing powers, particularly the United States. The Pentagon, the
>central and key element of NATO and the greatest single threat to the
>people of the world, must be disbanded.
>
>The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent
>preservation of the reports, evidence and materials gathered to make
>them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest
>possible distribution of the truth about the U.S./NATO war on
>Yugoslavia.
>
>We urge all people of the world to act on recommendations developed
>by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social
>justice on which lasting peace must be based.
>
>Done in New York this 10th day of June, 2000.
>
> - END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to copy and
>distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
>allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St.,
>NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@.... For subscription info send
>message to: info@.... Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
============================================================
International European Tribunal
Concerning the NATO War against Yugoslavia
Verdict
June 3, 2000:
At the conclusion of two days of hearing, with testimony presented by
various witnesses from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia1) and numerous
international experts2) and based upon the material derived from 2
previous hearings - Oct. 1999 in Berlin and April 2000 in Hamburg - the
jury of this International European Tribunal has reached the following
verdict.
The heads of governments and the foreign and defense ministers of the
NATO member states3), the commanding officials of NATO4), the members of
the Federal Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany, who voted in
favor of the participation of the German armed forces in the military
intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia5),
have been found guilty of serious violations of International Law
through the military aggression carried out against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia from March 24, to June 10, 1999.
1) The aggression is a violation of the absolute prohibition of the use
of force as formulated in the UN Charter, Art. 2 Nr. 4, in connection
with interdiction of aggression as contained in the UN General Assembly
(G.A.) Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (14. Dec. 1974), as well as a violation of
the territorial sovereignty of a sovereign state, as formulated in Art.
2 number 4 of the UN Charter in connection with the interdiction of the
violation of the territorial integrity and the political independence of
a state as laid out in the Declaration of International Principles for
Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in the spirit of the
Charter of the United Nations, Resolution of the UN G.A. 2625 (XXV) (24.
Oct. 1970) and Art. 2 Statutes of the International European Tribunal.
Without themselves having been attacked by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and while consciously and deliberately circumventing a
Security Council mandate, as called for in Art. 39, and 42, 48 of the UN
Charter, NATO states carried out military aggression against a sovereign
state. This constitutes a serious violation of prevailing, compulsory
International Law.
Nor was this aggression to be justified as being - as the Federal
Republic of Germany and other NATO member states allege - an act of
emergency aid through a so-called humanitarian intervention. Aside from
the fact that in prevailing International Law emergency aid to a state,
victim of aggression, exists only in the framework of self-defense in
the context of Art. 51 of the UN Charter, which does not apply in the
present case, in the opinion of this Tribunal, formed after intensive
examination of the evidence and expert testimony presented here, that
even the factual prerequisites for such an "humanitarian intervention"
are lacking.
The Tribunal reached the conviction, that a humanitarian catastrophe, as
was invoked particularly by the German ministers Fischer and Scharping,
never existed. The instrumentalization of the Holocaust through the
insinuation of a genocide comparable to what took place in Auschwitz
concentration camp, as was done by the German Foreign Minister, is
viewed by this Tribunal as being highly irresponsible and disgraceful
behavior. It is true that the civil war in Kosovo, that ignited between
the separatist movement of the KLA and the police and army of
Yugoslavia, led to a large number of casualties on both sides, led to
the destruction of houses and villages, to the displacement of people -
Albanians, as well as Serbs, Croats, Romany and members of other ethnic
groups - and to serious human rights violations. As deplorable as this
is, the plight of these victims does not justify the superlative
characterization of the situation as being a "humanitarian catastrophe".
NATO and its member governments stand exposed for their innumerable
exaggerations, dramatizations and falsifications.
But even if this Tribunal would assume — which it does not — that a
"humanitarian catastrophe" had existed in the years 1998, 1999,
preceding the bombing, this would not have legitimated a military
intervention as was carried out by NATO. In the customs of states, from
which international common law has evolved, as well as in the vast
majority of international legal opinion, humanitarian intervention is
not recognized as an institution legitimating an exemption from the
absolute prohibition of the use of force. The verdict handed down by the
World Court in The Hague in the lawsuit Nicaragua vs. the United States
on 27 June 1986 has lost nothing of its validity concerning
"humanitarian interventions": "The use of force could not be the
appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for human rights. With
regard to the steps actually taken, the protection of human rights, a
strictly humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible with the mining of
ports, the destruction of oil installations, (...). The Court concludes
that the argument derived from the preservation of human rights in
Nicaragua cannot afford a legal justification for the conduct of the
United States." (ICJ Rep. 1986 §268) In spite of what some would have us
believe, this standpoint of international law prevails.
Even if "humanitarian intervention" could be admitted as a legitimate
exemption from the absolute prohibition of the use of force, - which
this Tribunal does not do — one cannot overlook the fact that NATO not
only has failed to attain its proclaimed goal, the re-establishment of
acceptable conditions for human rights, but has dramatically
deteriorated the already precarious situation. The number of dead, of
wounded and of those robbed of all their possessions was multiplied
through the initiation of the bombing campaign. For this suffering of
the Yugoslavian people, NATO alone bears full responsibility in
accordance with Art. 3, IV Hague Convention concerning the Laws and
Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907.
2) The bombing of Yugoslavia violated even the NATO Treaty itself. Art.
5 stipulates that NATO's exclusive function is defense, not military
interventions in regions of civil war and interstate strife. This
responsibility lies solely within the framework of the powers granted
the UN Security Council, particularly through Chapter 7 of the UN
Charter. Art. 7 of the NATO Treaty explicitly recognizes this
responsibility of the Security Council. For the prevention or subsequent
pacification of crisis regions, states have a multitude of non-violent
political and economic instruments at their disposal within the
frameworks of the UN and OSCE. They were deliberately circumvented. The
NATO Treaty does not mandate military intervention outside of the
defense of the territorial boundaries of the alliance.
3) Beyond these, particularly the Federal German Republic is guilty of
violating the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany "4
+ 2 Treaty" of 12 Sept. 1990, in which it committed itself that only
peace "will emanate from German territory". Both governments - the
former Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic -
in proclaiming their unification also declared in Art. 2 that "the
United Germany will never employ any of its weapons except in accordance
with its constitution and the Charter of the United Nations." Through
its substantial participation in the war against Yugoslavia, the FRG
consciously violated these obligations.
4) The Tribunal is also of the opinion that the accusations concerning
the German Government's violations of constitutional (particularly Art.
26 GG) and penal law (§ 80 StGB.) were confirmed. There are also good
grounds for presuming violations of martial law by the German military.
But in accordance with the limitations imposed by its Statutes, this
Tribunal cannot pronounce a verdict concerning these violations. It
rather transmits these questions for subsequent investigations and
Tribunals to the legal systems of all participating nations and appeal
for a continuation of the search for the truth concerning this war.
5) This Tribunal would like to express its apprehension that the war
against Yugoslavia has played a role in the formulation of NATO's new
strategic concept in April 1999, attaining a geostrategic significance
extending far beyond the Balkans and Eurasia to become a model for
future military interventions in the name of a new world order. To
thwart the globalization of these military imperial instruments, it is
absolutely necessary to further examine the prerequisites, objectives
and consequences of the war against Yugoslavia and simultaneously draw
attention to these possible geostrategic perspectives.
6) After hearing extensive testimony of witnesses and experts, the
Tribunal has arrived at the conviction that the methodology of warfare
employed by the defendants also constituted serious and repeated
violations of international humanitarian law, as spelled out in the
Statutes of this Tribunal based upon the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
The Tribunal intensively deliberated the question of whether the
parliamentarians of the Federal German Parliament bare the same
responsibility for the violations of international law in how the war
was waged, as those members of government administrations, who had
ordered the expansion of the bombing from the targeting of purely
military objects to include civilian targets, as provided for in the
so-called 3-phase plan. The members of the Tribunal could not ignore the
fact, that even though the parliamentarians had not directly
participated in deciding how the war would be waged, they took no
initiative to halt the gross violations of international law, as the
consequences of the bombing campaign became evident.
The Tribunal could not be convinced by NATO and its governments'
defense, that the heavy damages of civilian objects were only
unintentional collateral damages. All witnesses and experts confirm that
the hospitals, villages or the RTS radio station were attacked
repeatedly, which, due to the repeatedly praised precision of the bombs
and guided missiles, excludes the element of error. The prosecution
presented statements of high-ranking military and government
representatives, sufficient to prove a strategic plan to destroy civil
structures, in order to pressure the population into opposing, in one
way or another, the Milosevic administration. Solely in the case of the
bombardment of the Dragisa Misovic Hospital Complex in Belgrade (Point 3
of the indictment) could no evidence be presented substantiating
repeated bombing attacks. Other eye witnesses and expert witnesses
furnished evidence to the fact that several hospitals in various cities,
including Belgrade had suffered repeated bombing attacks.
The Tribunal has also arrived at the conclusion, that none of the
civilian targets listed in the indictment or mentioned by the experts
and witnesses housed or were in the vicinity of military establishments.
In only one case, was it reported that a police academy was at a
distance of 6-800 meters, but this hospital in question, was clearly
discernible - even from the air - through the Red Cross symbol.
The proceedings have led to the conclusion that the prosecution's
selection of attacked civilian targets and persons, are only exemplary
for a war strategy that evidently in its third stage, systematically
attempted to implicate the civil population in order to reach its
political goal: the overthrow of the government of President Milosevic.
This war strategy is in clear violation of the central norms of the IV
Geneva Convention concerning the protection of civilians in times of war
(12. Aug. 1949) and its First Additional Protocol to the Geneva
Conventions (8. June 1977) (Art. 5a, b, Statute of the International
European Tribunal).
7) The use of depleted uranium and so called cluster bombs constitutes a
particularly serious violation. According to recent reports, NATO is
said to have dropped approximately 31,000 bombs over Yugoslavia leaving
behind 10 tons of depleted uranium residue. Experience with the United
States' and Great Britain's deployment of this material in Iraq, shows
that this weapon constitutes a time bomb of incalculable health
impairment. Such weapons are inadmissible under terms of the prohibition
of weapons inflicting superfluous injury and unnecessary and long term
suffering as well as the prohibition of weapons of indiscriminate
destruction. The use of these weapons represents a grave violation of
international humanitarian law as prescribed by the First Additional
Protocol to the Geneva Convention (Art. 35. ff. I and Art. 48 ff,;
Additional Protocol I; Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of Poisonous
Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (17. June 1925); Art. 5 and
5c of the Statutes of the International European Tribunal). The same
applies to the so-called cluster bombs - who's unexploded remnants left
on the ground have the effect of landmines - are also prohibited. Both
of these weapons fall supplementary under the prohibition of weapons of
indiscriminate destruction and particularly cruel weapons (Art. 51 First
Additional Protocol, Art. 5b, j, k, Statutes of the International
European Tribunal).
8) The aggression carried out against the radio/television station RTS
represents not only a forbidden attack against a civilian installation -
which, as confirmed by witness testimony, was never used for military
communications - but also an infringement upon the freedom of
information. This was one of those targets which, as the bombing
continued, was pushed ever higher on NATO's scale of priorities, not
only in order the Yugoslav viewers and listeners, but also to deprive
the viewers and listeners outside Yugoslavia of the information
broadcast by the Yugoslav government. The question of the objectivity of
the content of this information is, in this respect, of no importance.
In the final analysis the answer would hardly be different when raised
concerning NATO's information and broadcasts from NATO states.
9) The Tribunal is well aware that the examples presented by the
prosecution and those supplemented during the course of these
proceedings, represent only a segment of the war scenario, that evolved
during the 78 days of bombardment, which with growing awareness of its
failure, distanced itself ever further from the norms of humanitarian
international law, until finally placing Might over Right. That NATO
propaganda could seduce so many into passive - even active - support for
this lawless war, is a particularly sad aspect. We cannot avoid
mentioning that several of Yugoslavia's neighboring states, such as
Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and others by
granting over-flight rights, by placing bases and other facilities at
the disposal of the aggressors, have made themselves guilty of at least
aiding and abetting these violations.
10) These Tribunal proceedings must not be allowed to constitute a
conclusion to efforts to learn the truth about that war against
Yugoslavia. The problems that brought war to the entire region, are far
too serious and remain completely unresolved. It is imperative not only
that the physical and material damage, but also the psychological
wounds, the humiliation, be further researched and unambiguously exposed
to the public. This war must not be permitted to become a model for a
new world order. We must make it absolutely clear to politicians and the
military, that with warfare neither human rights nor civilization can be
saved, that warfare can no longer be an instrument of politics.
Berlin, June 3, 2000
Jury:
Prof. Dr. Norman Paech (Germany) - President
Prof. Dr. Claudia von Werlhof (Austria) - Vice President
Wolfgang Schulz (Germany) - Tribunal Secretary
Dr. Reszö Banyasz (Hungary)
Prof. Dr. Svetomir Skaric (Macedonia)
Paolo Pioppi (Italy)
Dr. Barbara Krygier (Poland)
Lea Launokari (Finland)
Heinz Moll (Switzerland)
Dr. Stanislav Patejdl (Czech Republic)
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Richter (Germany)
Dr. Wilja Nikolajewitsch Romastschenko (Ukraine)
Laura von Wimmersperg (Germany)
Prosecution:
Ulrich Dost, (Germany)
Pierre Kaldor (France)
Prof. Dr. Velko Valkanoff (Bulgaria)
Defense:
Valentina Strauss (Russia)
Defendants:
1. The following states in their functions as members of both the United
Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (4. April 1949),
represented through their heads of state, their foreign and defense
ministers:
a) the USA,
represented by: William J. Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen
b) the Federal Republic of Germany,
represented by: Gerhard Schröder, Joseph Fischer, Rudolf Scharping
c) the United Kingdom,
represented by: Tony Blair, Robin Cook, George Robertson
d) France,
represented by: Jacques Chirac, Hubert Védrine, Alain Richard
e) Belgium,
represented by: Jean-Luc Dehaene, B. Derycke, J.-P. Poncelet
f) Portugal,
represented by: A. Guterres, Jaime Jose Matos da Gama, V. Simao
g) Italy,
represented by: D’Alema, Lamberto Dini, C. Scognamiglio
h) Spain,
represented by: J. M. Aznar, Abel Matutes, Eduardo Serra Rexach
i) Canada,
represented by: Jean Chrétien, Lloyd Axworthy, Arthur Eggleton
j) Netherlands,
represented by: Willem Kok, Jozias van Aartsen, Frank de Grave
k) Denmark
represented by: P. N. Rassmussen, Niels Helveg Petersen, Hans Haekkerup
l) Greece
represented by: K. Simitis, George Panpandreou, Akis Tsohatzopoulus
m) Island
represented by: D. Oddson, Halldor Asgrimsson, Gunnar Palson
n) Luxemburg
represented by: J.-C. Juncker, J. Poos, Alex Bodry
o) Norway
represented by: K. M. Bonderik, K. Vollebaek, D.-J. Fjaervoll
p) Poland
represented by: J. Buzek, Bronislaw Geremek, Janusz Onyszkiewicz
q) Czech Republic
represented by: Milos Zeman, Jan Kavan, Vladimir Verchy
r) Turkey
represented by: E. Ecevit, Ismail Cem, H. S. Turk
s) Hungary
represented by Viktor Orban, János Martony, Janos Szabo
2. following members of the German Federal Parliament:
MPs of the Social Democratic Party of Germany
Brigitte Adler, Gerd Andres, Robert Antretter, Rainer Arnold, Hermann
Bachmaier, Ernst Bahr, Doris Barnett, Dr. Hans-Peter Bartels, Eckhardt
Barthel (Berlin), Gerd Bauer, Ingrid Becker-Inglau, Wolfgang Behrendt,
Dr. Axel Berg, Hans Berger, Hans-Werner Bertl, Friedhelm Julius Beucher,
Petra Bierwirth, Rudolf Bindig, Kurt Bodewig, Klaus Brandner, Anni
Brandt-Elsweier, Willi Brase, Tilo Braune, Dr. Eberhard Brecht, Rainer
Brinkmann (Detmold), Bernhard Brinkmann (Hildesheim), Hans-Günter
Bruckmann, Edelgard Buhlmahn, Ursula Burchardt, Dr. Michael Bürsch, Hans
Büttner (Ingolstadt), Hans Martin Bury, Marion Caspers-Merk,
Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, Peter Conradi, Dr. Herta Däubler-Gmelin,
Christel Deichmann, Karl Diller, Peter Dreßen, Rudolf Dreßler, Detlef
Dzembritzki, Dieter Dzewas, Dr. Peter Eckardt, Sebastian Edathy, Ludwig
Eich, Marga Elser, Peter Enders, Gernot Erler, Petra Ernstberger,
Annette Faße, Elke Ferner, Lothar Fischer (Homburg), Gabriele
Fograscher, Iris Follak, Eva Folta, Norbert Formanski, Rainer Fornahl,
Hans Forster, Dagmar Freitag, Peter Friedrich (Altenburg), Lilo
Friedrich (Mettmann), Harald Friese, Anke Fuchs (Köln), Arne Fuhrmann,
Monika Ganseforth, Konrad Gilges, Iris Gleicke, Günter Gloser, Uwe
Göllner, Renate Gradistanac, Günter Graf (Friesoythe), Angelika Graf
(Rosenheim), Dieter Grasedieck, Monika Griefahn, Achim Großmann,
Wolfgang Grotthaus, Karl-Hermann Haack (Extertal), Hans-Joachim Hacker,
Klaus Hagemann, Manfred Hampel, Christel Hanewinckel, Alfred Hartenbach,
Klaus Hasenfratz, Dr. Ingomar Hauchler, Nina Hauer, Hubertus Heil,
Dieter Heistermann, Reinhold Hemker, Frank Hempel, Dr. Barbara
Hendricks, Gustav Herzog, Monika Heubaum, Reinhold Hiller (Lübeck),
Stephan Hilsberg, Gerd Höfer, Jelena Hoffmann (Chemnitz), Walter
Hoffmann (Darmstadt), Iris Hoffmann (Wismar), Frank Hofmann (Volkach),
Ingrid Holzhüter, Erwin Horn, Eike Hovermann, Christel Humme, Lothar
Ibrügger, Wolfgang Ilte, Barbara Imhof, Brunhilde Irber, Gabriele
Iwersen, Renate Jäger, Jann-Peter Janssen, Ilse Janz, Dr. Uwe Jens,
Volker Jung (Düsseldorf), Johannes Kahrs, Ulrich Kasparick, Sabine
Kaspereit, Susanne Kastner, Ernst Kastning, Hans-Peter Kemper, Klaus
Kirschner, Marianne Klappert, Siegrun Klemmer, Hans-Ulrich Klose, Dr.
Hans-Hinrich Knaape, Walter Kolbow, Fritz Rudolf Körper, Karin Kortmann,
Anette Kramme, Nicolette Kressl, Volker Kröning, Thomas Krüger, Angelika
Krüger-Leißner, Horst Kubatschka, Ernst Küchler, Eckart Kuhlwein, Helga
Kühn-Mengel, Ute Kumpf, Dr. Uwe Küster, Werner Labsch, Oskar Lafontaine,
Christine Lambrecht, Brigitte Lange, Christian Lange (Backnang), Detlev
von Larcher, Christine Lehder, Waltraud Lehn, Robert Leidinger, Klaus
Lennartz, Dr. Elke Leonhard, Eckhart Lewering, Götz-Peter Lohmann
(Neubrandenburg), Klaus Lohmann (Witten), Erika Lotz, Dr. Christine
Lucyga, Dieter Maaß (Herne), Winfried Mante, Dirk Manzewski, Tobias
Marhold, Lothar Mark, Dorle Marx, Ulrike Mascher, Christoph Matschie,
Ingrid Matthäus-Maier, Heide Mattischeck, Markus Meckel, Ulrike Mehl,
Ulrike Merten, Herbert Meißner, Angelika Mertens, Dr. Jürgen Meyer
(Ulm), Ursula Mogg, Christoph Moosbauer, Siegmar Mosdorf, Michael Müller
(Düsseldorf), Jutta Müller (Völklingen), Christian Müller (Zittau),
Franz Müntefering, Andrea Nahles, Volker Neumann (Bramsche), Gerhard
Neumann (Gotha), Dr. Edith Niehuis, Dr. Rolf Niese, Dietmar Nietan,
Günter Oesinghaus, Eckhard Ohl, Leyla Onur, Manfred Opel, Holger Ortel,
Adolf Ostertag, Kurt Palis, Albrecht Papenroth, Dr. Willfried Penner,
Dr. Martin Pfaff, Georg Pfannenstein, Johannes Pflug, Dr. Eckhart Pick
,Joachim Poß, Rudolf Purps, Hermann Rappe (Hildesheim), Karin
Rehbock-Zureich, Margot von Renesse, Bernd Reuter, Dr. Edelbert Richter,
Reinhold Robbe, Dr. Ernst Dieter Rossmann, Michael Roth (Heringen),
Birgit Roth (Speyer), Gerhard Rübenkönig, Thomas Sauer, Dr. Hansjörg
Schäfer, Gudrun Schaich-Walch, Dieter Schanz, Rudolf Scharping, Bernd
Scheelen, Dr. Hermann Scheer, Siegfried Scheffler, Horst Schild, Otto
Schily, Dieter Schloten, Günter Schluckebier, Horst Schmidbauer
(Nürnberg), Ulla Schmidt (Aachen), Silvia Schmidt (Eisleben), Dagmar
Schmidt (Meschede), Wilhelm Schmidt (Salzgitter), Regina Schmidt-Zadel,
Heinz Schmitt (Berg), Carsten Schneider, Dr. Emil Schnell, Walter
Schöler, Olaf Scholz, Karsten Schönfeld, Fritz Schösser, Ottmar
Schreiner, Gerhard Schröder, Gisela Schröter, Dr. Mathias Schubert,
Richard Schuhmann (Delitzsch), Brigitte Schulte (Hameln), Reinhard
Schultz (Everswinkel), Volkmar Schultz (Köln), Ilse Schumann, Ewald
Schurer, Dr. R. Werner Schuster, Dietmar Schütz (Oldenburg), Dr.
Angelica Schwall-Düren, Ernst Schwanhold, Rolf Schwanitz, Bodo
Seidenthal, Lisa Seuster, Erika Simm, Johannes Singer, Dr. Cornelie
Sonntag-Wolgast, Wieland Sorge, Wolfgang Spanier, Dr. Margrit Spielmann,
Jörg-Otto Spiller, Dr. Ditmar Staffelt, Antje-Marie Stehen, Ludwig
Stiegler, Rolf Stöckel, Rita Streb-Hesse, Dr. Peter Struck, Joachim
Stünker, Joachim Tappe, Jörg Tauss, Dr. Bodo Teichmann, Jella Teuchner,
Dr. Gerald Thalheim, Wolfgang Thierse, Franz Thönnes, Uta Titze-Stecher,
Adelheid Tröscher, Hans-Eberhard Urbaniak, Rüdiger Veit, Siegfried
Vergin, Günter Verheugen, Karsten D. Voigt (Frankfurt), Simone Violka,
Ute Vogt (Pforzheim), Hans Georg Wagner, Hedi Wegener, Dr. Konstanze
Wegner, Wolfgang Weiermann, Reinhard Weis (Stendal), Matthias Weisheit,
Gunter Weißgerber, Gert Weisskirchen (Wiesloch), Dr. Ernst Ulrich von
Weizsäcker, Hans-Joachim Welt, Dr. Rainer Wend, Hildegard Wester, Lydia
Westrich, Inge Wettig-Danielmeier, Dr. Margrit Wetzel, Dr. Norbert
Wieczorek, Helmut Wieczorek (Duisburg), Jürgen Wieczorek (Leipzig),
Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Dieter Wiefelspütz, Heino Wiese (Hannover),
Klaus Wiesehügel, Brigitte Wimmer (Karlsruhe), Engelbert Wistuba,
Barbara Wittig, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Verena Wohlleben, Hanna Wolf
(München), Waltraud Wolff (Zielitz), Heidemarie Wright, Uta Zapf, Dr.
Christoph Zöpel, Peter Zumkley,
MPs of the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union
Ulrich Adam, Ilse Aigner, Peter Altmaier, Anneliese Augustin, Jürgen
Augustinowitz, Dietrich Austermann, Franz Peter Basten, Norbert Barthle,
Dr. Wolf Bauer, Günter Baumann, Brigitte Baumeister, Meinrad Belle, Dr.
Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, Otto Bernhardt, Hans-Dirk Bierling, Dr.
Joseph-Theodor Blank, Renate Blank, Dr. Heribert Blens, Peter Bleser,
Dr. Norbert Blüm, Friedrich Bohl, Dr. Maria Böhmer, Sylvia Bonitz,
Jochen Borchert, Wolfgang Börnsen (Bönstrup), Wolfgang Bosbach, Dr.
Wolfgang Bötsch, Klaus Brähmig, Dr. Ralf Brauksiepe, Paul Breuer, Georg
Brunnhuber, Klaus Bühler (Bruchsal), Hartmut Büttner (Schönebeck),
Dankward Buwitt, Peter Harry Carstensen (Nordstrand), Cajus Caesar, Leo
Dautzenberg, Wolfgang Dehnel, Hubert Deittert, Gertrud Dempwolf, Albert
Deß, Renate Diemers, Wilhelm Dietzel, Thomas Dörflinger, Werner
Dörflinger, Marie-Luise Dött, Dr. Alfred Dregger, Maria Eichhorn,
Wolfgang Engelmann, Rainer Eppelmann, Anke Eymer, Ilse Falk, Dr. Hans
Georg Faust, IJochen Feilcke, Ulf Fink, Ingrid Fischbach, Axel Fischer
(Karlsruhe-Land), Dirk Fischer (Hamburg), Leni Fischer (Unna), Herbert
Frankenhauser, Dr. Gerhard Friedrich (Erlangen), Dr. Hans-Peter
Friedrich (Naila), Erich G. Fritz, Jochen-Konrad Fromme, Hans-Joachim
Fuchtel, Dr. Jürgen Gehb, Norbert Geis, Dr. Heiner Geißler, Georg
Girisch, Michael Glos, Wilma Glücklich, Dr. Reinhard Göhner, Peter Götz,
Dr. Wolfgang Götzer, Joachim Gres, Kurt-Dieter Grill, Hermann Gröhe,
Claus-Peter Grotz, Manfred Grund, Horst Günther (Duisburg), Carl-Detlev
Freiherr von Hammerstein, Gottfried Haschke (Großhennersdorf), Gerda
Hasselfeldt, Norbert Hauser (Bonn), Hansgeorg Hauser (Rednitzhembach),
Otto Hauser (Esslingen), Klaus-Jürgen Hedrich, Helmut Heiderich, Ursula
Heinen, Manfred Heise, Siegfried Helias, Dr. Renate Hellwig, Hans Jochen
Henke, Ernst Hinsken, Peter Hintze, Klaus Hofbauer, Martin Hohmann,
Klaus Holetschek, Josef Hollerith, Elke Holzapfel, Dr. Karl-Heinz
Hornhues, Siegfried Hornung, Joachim Hörster, Hubert Hüppe, Peter
Jacoby, Susanne Jaffke, Georg Janovsky, Helmut Jawurek, Dr. Dionys
Jobst, Dr.-Ing. Rainer Jork, Michael Jung (Limburg), Ulrich Junghanns,
Dr. Egon Jüttner, Dr. Harald Kahl, Bartholomäus Kalb, Steffen Kampeter,
Dr. Dietmar Kansy, Manfred Kanther, Irmgard Karwatzki, Volker Kauder,
Eckart von Klaeden, Ulrich Klinkert, Dr. Helmut Kohl, Hans-Ulrich Köhler
(Hainspitz), Manfred Kolbe, Norbert Königshofen, Eva-Maria Kors, Hartmut
Koschyk, Manfred Koslowski, Thomas Kossendey, Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer, Rudolf Kraus, Wolfgang Krause (Dessau), Andreas
Krautscheid, Arnulf Kriedner, Dr. Martina Krogmann, Dr. Paul Krüger, Dr.
Hermann Kues, Werner Kuhn, Karl Lamers, Dr. Karl A. Lamers (Heidelberg),
Dr. Norbert Lammert, Helmut Johannes Lamp, Armin Laschet, Herbert
Lattmann, Dr. Paul Laufs, Karl-Josef Laumann, Vera Lengsfeld, Werner
Lensing, Peter Letzgus, Ursula Lietz, Editha Limbach, Walter Link
(Diepholz), Eduard Lintner, Dr. Klaus Lippold (Offenbach), Dr. Manfred
Lischewski, Wolfgang Lohmann (Lüdenscheid), Julius Louven, Sigrun
Löwisch, Heinrich Lummer, Dr. Michael Luther, Erich Maaß
(Wilhelmshaven), Dr. Dietrich Mahlo, Erwin Marschewski, Günter Marten,
Dr. Martin Mayer (Siegertsbrunn), Wolfgang Meckelburg, Rudolf Meinl, Dr.
Michael Meister, Dr. Angela Merkel, Friedrich Merz, Rudolf Meyer
(Winsen), Hans Michelbach, Meinolf Michels, Dr. Gerd Müller, Bernward
Müller (Jena), Elmar Müller (Kirchheim), Engelbert Nelle, Bernd Neumann
(Bremen), Johannes Nitsch, Claudia Nolte, Günter Nooke, Franz Obermeier,
Dr. Rolf Olderog, Friedhelm Ost, Eduard Oswald, Norbert Otto (Erfurt),
Dr. Gerhard Päselt, Dr. Peter Paziorek, Hans-Wilhelm Pesch, Ulrich
Petzold, Anton Pfeifer, Dr. Friedbert Pflüger, Beatrix Philipp, Dr.
Winfried Pinger, Ronald Pofalla, Dr. Hermann Pohler, Ruprecht Polenz,
Marlies Pretzlaff, Dr. Albert Probst, Dr. Bernd Protzner, Dieter
Pützhofen, Hans Raidel, Dr. Peter Ramsauer, Peter Rauen, Otto
Regenspurger, Christa Reichard (Dresden), Klaus Dieter Reichardt
(Mannheim), Erika Reinhardt, Hans-Peter Repnik, Dr. Norbert Rieder,
Klaus Riegert, Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber, Franz Romer, Hannelore Rönsch
(Wiesbaden), Heinrich-Wilhelm Ronsöhr, Dr. Klaus Rose, Kurt Rossmanith,
Adolf Roth (Gießen), Norbert Röttgen, Dr. Christian Ruck, Volker Rühe,
Dr. Jürgen Rüttgers, Roland Sauer (Stuttgart), Anita Schäfer, Ortrun
Schätzle, Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, Hartmut Schauerte, Norbert Schindler,
Ulrich Schmalz, Heinz Schemken, Karl-Heinz Scherhag, Gerhard Scheu,
Dietmar Schlee, Bernd Schmidbauer, Andreas Schmidt (Mühlheim), Christian
Schmidt (Fürth), Dr.-Ing. Joachim Schmidt (Halsbrücke), Hans-Otto
Schmiedeberg, Michael von Schmude, Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Dr. Andreas
Schockenhoff, Dr. Rupert Scholz, Reinhard Freiherr von Schorlemer, Dr.
Erika Schuchardt, Wolfgang Schulhoff, Dr. Dieter Schulte (Schwäbisch
Gmünd), Gerhard Schulz (Leipzig), Frederik Schulze (Sangershausen),
Diethard W. Schütze (Berlin), Clemens Schwalbe, Dr. Christian
Schwarz-Schilling, Wilhelm Josef Sebastian, Horst Seehofer, Marion Seib,
Heinz Seiffert, Rudolf Seiters, Johannes Selle, Bernd Siebert, Werner
Siemann, Jürgen Sikora, Johannes Singhammer, Bärbel Sothmann, Margarete
Späte, Carl-Dieter Spranger, Wolfgang Steiger, Erika Steinbach, Dr.
Wolfgang Freiherr von Stetten, Dr. Gerhard Stoltenberg, Andreas Storm,
Dorothea Störr-Ritter, Max Straubinger, Matthäus Strebl, Thomas Strobl,
Michael Stübgen, Egon Susset, Dr. Rita Süssmuth, Dr. Susanne Tiemann,
Gottfried Tröger, Dr. Klaus-Dieter Uelhoff, Dr. Hans-Peter Uh,l Gunnar
Uldall, Arnold Vaatz, Angelika Volquartz, Andrea Voßhoff, Dr. Horst
Waffenschmidt, Dr. Theodor Waigel, Alois Graf von Waldburg-Zeil, Peter
Weiß (Emmendingen), Gerald Weiß (Groß-Gerau), Kersten Wetzel, Annette
Widmann-Mauz, Heinz Wiese (Ehingen), Hans-Otto Wilhelm (Mainz),
Klaus-Peter Willsch, Matthias Wissmann, Werner Wittlich, Dr. Fritz
Wittmann, Dagmar Wöhrl, Elke Wülfing, Peter Kurt Würzbach, Cornelia
Yzer, Wolfgang Zeitlmann, Benno Zierer, Wolfgang Zöller,
MPs of the Alliance 90/ The Greens
Elisabeth Altmann (Pommelsbrunn), Marieluise Beck (Bremen), Volker Beck
(Köln), Angelika Beer, Matthias Berninger, Ekin Deligöz, Dr. Thea
Dückert, Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig, Dr. Uschi Eid, Hans-Josef Fell,
Andrea Fischer (Berlin), Joseph Fischer (Frankfurt), Katrin
Göring-Eckardt, Rita Grießhaber, Winfried Hermann, Antje Hermenau,
Kristin Heyne, Uli Höfken, Ulrike Höfken, Michaele Hustedt, Dr. Manuel
Kiper, Dr. Angelika Köster-Loßack, Dr. Helmut Lippelt, Dr. Reinhard
Loske, Oswald Metzger, Klaus Wolfgang Müller (Kiel), Kerstin Müller
(Köln), Winfried Nachtwei, Christa Nickels, Egbert Nitsch (Rendsburg),
Cem Özdemir, Gerd Poppe, Simone Probst, Christine Scheel, Rezzo
Schlauch, Albert Schmidt (Hitzhofen), Wolfgang Schmitt (Langenfeld),
Waltraud Schoppe, Werner Schulz (Leipzig), Christian Sterzing, Jürgen
Trittin, Dr. Antje Vollmer, Ludger Volmer, Sylvia Ingeborg Voß, Helmut
Wilhelm (Amberg), Margareta Wolf (Frankfurt),
MPs of the Free Democratic Party
Ina Albowitz, Dr. Gisela Babel, Hildebrecht Braun (Augsburg), Rainer
Brüderle, Ernst Burgbacher, Jörg van Essen, Dr. Olaf Feldmann, Ulrike
Flach, Paul K. Friedhoff, Horst Friedrich (Bayreuth), Rainer Funke, Dr.
Wolfgang Gerhardt, Hans-Michael Goldmann, Dr. Karlheinz Guttmacher,
Klaus Haupt, Dr. Helmut Haussmann, Ulrich Heinrich, Walter Hirche,
Birgit Homburger, Dr. Werner Hoyer, Ulrich Irmer, Dr. Klaus Kinkel,
Detlef Kleinert (Hannover), Roland Kohn, Dr. Heinrich Kolb, Jürgen
Koppelin, Dr.-Ing. Karl-Hans Laermann, Ina Lenke, Uwe Lühr, Jürgen W.
Möllemann, Dirk Niebel, Günther Friedrich Nolting, Hans-Joachim Otto
(Frankfurt), Detlef Parr, Lisa Peters, Cornelia Pieper, Dr. Günter
Rexrodt, Dr. Klaus Röhl, Dr. Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig, Gerhard Schüßler,
Dr. Irmgard Schwaetzer, Marita Sehn, Dr. Hermann Otto Solms, Carl-Ludwig
Thiele, Dr. Dieter Thomae, Jürgen Türk, Dr. Wolfgang Weng (Gerlingen),
Dr. Guido Westerwelle;
3. the commanding functionaries of NATO,
Secretary General, Javier Solana, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Gen.
Wesley K. Clark, Commander Allied Air Forces, Lt. Gen. Michael C. Short
and the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Gen. Klaus Naumann;
4. The commanding functionaries of the German militar (Bundeswehr),
Air Force Inspector Gen. Rolf Portz and the deployed air squadron
commander, Col. Jochen Both und Col. Peter Schelzig.
==================================================
>Here is the English language version of my report on the Berlin Tribunal,
>for ZNet.
>Diana.
>
>THE BERLIN TRIBUNAL: MORE SERIOUS THAN THE HAGUE
>
> Last June 3, two tribunals reached opposite conclusions concerning
>accusations of war crimes brought against NATO for its 1999 bombing
>campaign against Yugoslavia. In The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, chief
>prosecutor at the "International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia"
>(ICTY), created by the UN Security Council at the initiative of the United
>States, announced that she saw no grounds even to open an inquiry. NATO
>made "some mistakes", she acknowledged. But Ms Del Ponte was "very
>satisfied" that there had been no deliberate targeting of civilians during
>NATO's bombing campaign.
> No wonder. Indicting NATO would have meant biting the hand that
>feeds this Tribunal, whose former presiding judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald
>once described Madeleine Albright as its "mother". It was hardly
>conceivable that the ICTY would allow itself to get too interested in
>crimes committed by the NATO powers who provide it with funding, equipment
>and investigators... not to mention its basic political agenda, which is to
>justify the diplomatic isolation of Serbian leaders by labeling them as
>"indicted war criminals".
> In Berlin, on the same day, another Tribunal concluded a far more
>serious examination of the charges against NATO. This unofficial "European
>Tribunal" was genuinely independent of all the governments involved in the
>1999 war. In contrast to The Hague, the conclusions were based on several
>public hearings (already published in two illustrated volumes*), precise
>references to international law, detailed presentation and analysis of the
>relevant facts and finally the direct testimony of six victims who came
>from Yugoslavia to recount their experience as civilian targets under the
>78-day rain of NATO bombs and missiles.
> The Berlin Tribunal was presided by a distinguished Hamburg
>University professor of international law, Dr. Norman Paech, who insisted
>that the verdict would be based on strictly legal criteria. And indeed the
>deliberations of this European Tribunal in Berlin, supported by over sixty
>peace, civic and human rights groups, stuck very strictly to the subject of
>the NATO war against Yugoslavia, to the exclusion of other political issues
>(in contrast to the similar Tribunal organized by the International Action
>Center in New York on June 10, which chose to link issues). Berlin's
>proximity to Eastern Europe was reflected in the composition of the panel
>of jurists, who had come from Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Belarus, the
>Czech Republic, Russia and Macedonia.
> The long and detailed indictment, presented by lawyer Ulrich Dost,
>was divided into two main sections: first, responsibility for deliberately
>preparing the war against Yugoslavia to the exclusion of peaceful
>negotiated solutions to the Kosovo problem, and second, violations of
>international law in the conduct of the war. The former East German
>ambassador to Belgrade, Ralph Hartmann, a genuine expert on the region,
>presented a recapitulation of key events and statements that clearly
>demonstrated the major responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany in
>preparing the war, both by actively encouraging armed ethnic Albanian
>separatists and by pushing other NATO allies toward military intervention.
> Retired Bundeswehr General Heinz Loquai, who served as German
>military observer at the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
>(OSCE) headquarters in Vienna, contributed a damning report on how the
>German Defense Ministry itself invented "Operation Horseshoe", the supposed
>Serbian plan to expel the Albanian population from Kosovo, which was
>"revealed" by Defense Minister Scharping in April 1999 to justify the
>bombing as it began to lose public support. Hartmann and Loquai are among
>the authors of a growing number of German books which are devastating in
>their refutation of NATO claims. Indeed, if certain German media and the
>German government bear major international responsibility for initiating
>the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991, by the same token German
>critics of the process are perhaps the best informed and most thorough in
>their denunciations. Nobody understands the German right better than the
>German left.
> Such a "people's tribunal", like the Russell Tribunal formed to
>condemn the U.S. war in Vietnam, obviously has no power to carry out a
>sentence. Its verdict is purely moral, and serves to point up two things:
>the existence of flagrant violations of the law, and the absence of any
>existing institutional recourse. It does not settle but rather raises a
>number of questions.
> The verdict, as expected, found the top officials of NATO and its
>member states guilty of having committed an aggression in violation of all
>the relevant treaties and international agreements, from the United Nations
>Charter to the NATO Treaty itself, as well as numerous conventions. Far
>from being legitimately "humanitarian", NATO's intervention ignored and
>blocked Belgrade's various compromise offers and dramatically worsened an
>already difficult situation, causing a sharp increase in the number of
>victims.
> Such a verdict is similar to the finding of a "truth commission",
>and shows at least that a prima facie case exists against NATO. A careful
>examination of the Berlin results, as well as those of other "people's
>tribunals", is enough to expose the uselessness of Ms Del Ponte's ICTY when
>it comes to establishing the facts, let alone justice.
> The Berlin Tribunal pinpointed an important treaty violation
>scarcely mentioned in other NATO countries: by sending its warplanes to
>bomb Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of German was in flagrant violation
>of the so-called "4 plus 2" treaty of 1990 by which Moscow consented to the
>unification of the two German states. By that Treaty, the German government
>undertook a solemn commitment that "never again would war emanate from
>German territory" and that Germany's military engagements would remain
>strictly within the norms of the United Nations Charter.
> The Berlin Tribunal condemned not only Chancellor Gerhard
>Schroeder, defense minister Rudolf Scharping and foreign minister Joschka
>Fischer, but also all the members of the Bundestag who had voted in favor
>of a military engagement that clearly violated the Federal Republic's
>international engagements.
> The Tribunal expressed concern at the role played by the war
>against Yugoslavia in the formulation of NATO's new "strategic concept",
>whose significance "extends far beyond the Balkans and across Eurasia as a
>model for a future world military order". To prevent such military
>globalization, the Tribunal said it was imperative to pursue examination of
>the preconditions, objectives and consequences of the war against
>Yugoslavia and to draw attention to its eventual geostrategic implications.
> On the matter of civilian targets, the Berlin Tribunal cited
>statements from various NATO officials and military officers proving that
>the choice of civilian targets was indeed part of the "third stage" of a
>strategy aimed at putting pressure on the civilian population to rise up
>against its own government, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.
>Moreover, the use of such weapons as depleted uranium and cluster bombs
>clearly endangered the civilian population, both during and after the
>actual bombing, and constituted a particularly grave violation of
>international humanitarian law.
> About 600 people attended the two-day proceedings in the handsome
>Protestant Church of the Holy Cross in the Kreuzberg section of Berlin,
>whose pastor Jürgen Quandt in his welcoming speech rejected the concept of
>"just" war.
> The Berlin Tribunal condemned the deliberate destruction of the
>Belgrade studios of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) not only as an attack
>against a civilian installation, but also as an assault on freedom of
>information. The purpose was to deprive not only the Yugoslavs but also
>audiences around the world of the pictures and information concerning the
>bombing broadcast by RTS. Whether or not that information was "objective"
>was irrelevant, the verdict stated, since the same could be said of
>information broadcast by NATO media.
> This condemnation of the bombing of RTS was echoed a few days later
>by Amnesty International which, accusing NATO of war crimes, specifically
>cited the deliberate bombing of the Belgrade television studies, which
>killed 16 employees -- a flagrant crime which failed to interest Ms Del
>Ponte.
> In conclusion, the Tribunal presided by Dr. Paech emphasized the
>need to pursue the search for truth. The underlying problems in the Balkans
>remain serious and unresolved. "It is imperative for the public to be
>informed not only of the physical and material damage, but also of the
>psychological wounds inflicted ... This war must not be the model for a new
>world order. We must finally make it clear to politicians and the military
>that neither human rights nor civilization are to be saved by war, that war
>must no longer be used as a political instrument."
>
>* The two volumes are published by Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
>Badeweg 1, 04435 Schkeuditz, Federal Republic of Germany.
>Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmaehling, Eckart Spoo (editors),
>(1) _Die Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien_.
>(2) _Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien_.
>
> Diana Johnstone, 19 June 2000
---
>Hallo Leute,
>
>Es ist da! Unser "Message Board" für http://nato-tribunal.de ist jetzt
>eingebaut worden. Also, ganz unten an der "Startseite" oder "Logoseite"
>clicked man
>einfach auf die Ikone "VISIT OUR MESSAGE BOARD". Man kommt auch direkt
>ans Message Board durch die URL:
>http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/list.html?u=jost&f=1
>
>Also, schreibt was rein! Und laß die anderen davon wissen...
>
>Alles Gute,
>
>Alant Jost
>
>
>
>Hello People,
>
>The Message Board for our website http://nato-tribunal.de is installed.
>Since the site is in the languages German, English and French, postings
>in these languages are of course welcomed, but why not post in whatever
>language you want?
>
>Just click on the icon "VISIT OUR MESSAGE BOARD" at the bottom of the
>website page and start writing! Or you can enter the Message board
>directly at: http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/list.html?u=jost&f=1
>
>
>Enjoy the message board, and let the discussions begin.
>
>Alant Jost
Bericht vom Berliner und New Yorker Tribunal
New York
Am 10. Juni fand vor über 500 Zuhörern in New York das Internationale
Tribunal zu den USA/NATO-Kriegsverbrechen gegen Jugoslawien statt. Rund
30
Zeugen aus 14 Ländern sagten vor dem Richtergremium aus. Zunächst wurde
un<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
