Jugoinfo
* Uno scambio di vedute su diritto internazionale e legalita' borghese
* Amnesty International sul Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia
* Carla del Ponte, criminale di guerra impunita
* Richiesta di dimissioni per Carla del Ponte
* Il governo olandese sotto processo
---
DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE E LEGALITA' BORGHESE
In seguito al nostro ultimo messaggio sui crimini della NATO
(http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/286?&start=263)
abbiamo ricevuto da Luca il seguente commento:
> Ho letto l' articolo sulle leggi di guerra.
> A me pare pericoloso appoggiare le critiche alla guerra ed alla nato in
> particolare seguendo un approccio "legalitario".
>
> Le forze borghesi amano le cosiddette convenzioni di guerra perche' esse
> fanno parte della copertura ideologica della guerra ....Forse si
> dovrebbero mostrare le inconsistenze logiche insite negli argomenti
> legalisti. Soprattutto per quanto concerne
> i "coccodrilli " del manifesto
>
> o no?
Sicuramente! Tuttavia sottolineare queste come altre violazioni della
legalita' borghese commesse da parte della stessa borghesia ha un suo
significato. In pratica si tratta del "sovversivismo
delle classi dirigenti", lo stesso fenomeno che ci ha portato al
fascismo ed al nazismo, quando la classe dirigente rompe le leggi che
essa stessa ha formulato. Questo puo' avere due ricadute:
- o si prefigura come scontro inter-borghese (inter-imperialista);
- oppure semplicemente significa una deriva autoritaria, quando anche le
garanzie, gli spazi della democrazia borghese ci vengono sottratte;
oppure tutte e due le cose insieme. Percio' ci sembra importante
evidenziare quando questo succede. CRJ
---
Subject: YUGOSLAVIA: Amnesty International's initial comments
on the review by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia of NATO's Operation Allied Force
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:06:13 -0400
From: amnesty@...
Reply-To: owner-amnesty-l@...
To: amnesty-L@...
* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *
Amnesty International Public document
AI Index EUR 70/029/2000
News Service Nr. 116
13 June 2000
Amnesty International's initial comments on the review by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of NATO's
Operation Allied Force
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has
published today the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee
Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. The report examines general issues and five
specific incidents and recommends to the ICTY Prosecutor not to commence
a criminal investigation "in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or
incidents occurring during the campaign" (para 91).
Ms Carla Del Ponte, ICTY's Prosecutor, informed the United Nations'
Security Council on 2 June 2000 that she had decided to accept this
recommendation. She specifies that although some mistakes were made by
NATO, "the Prosecutor is satisfied that there was no deliberate
targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the
campaign".
Amnesty International has received a copy of the 45-page ICTY report and
is examining it carefully. All five incidents examined in the report by
ICTY's review committee were included in the Amnesty International
report, Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings?, Violations of the Laws
of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, published last week (AI
Index: EUR 70/18/00).
Amnesty International welcomes the unusual publication by the ICTY of
the reasoning behind the decision not to open an investigation related
to NATO's bombing campaign. The organization believes that this step
contributes greatly to the Tribunal's transparency, offering important
perspectives on the interpretation of the laws of war.
Amnesty International also respects the discretion enjoyed by the ICTY's
Prosecutor in deciding whether or not to open criminal investigations.
The organization understands that, as with other cases, the Prosecutor
may still decide to open an investigation into the NATO bombing should
additional relevant information become available.
Amnesty International notes that the report of the ICTY assessment
indicates that when NATO was requested "to answer specific questions
about specific incidents, the NATO reply was couched in general terms
and failed to address the specific incidents." The report also points
out that the "committee has not spoken to those involved in directing or
carrying out the bombing campaign". These facts must have contributed to
the information gaps that the committee itself acknowledges in its
report. Amnesty International also notes the following overall
conclusion of the review committee (para 90):
"NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign;
errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain
objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. On the basis of
the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that
neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a
whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In
all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations
are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to
substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused
for particularly heinous offences."
The report does not explain what difficulties are envisaged by the
Office of the Prosecutor in gathering sufficient evidence against any
NATO or NATO member state official.
With regard to the bombing of the headquarters and studios of Serbian
state television and radio (Radio Televisija Srbije, RTS) in Belgrade on
23 April 1999, the report states (para 76):
"The committee finds that if the attack on the RTS was justified by
reference to its propaganda purpose alone, its legality might well be
questioned by some experts in the field of international humanitarian
law. It appears, however, that NATO's targeting of the RTS building for
propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its
primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control
system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps
Milosevic in power."
Earlier (para 55) the report made the following observation regarding
the role of the media in general:
"The media as such is not a traditional target category. To the extent
particular media components are part of the C3 (command, control and
communications) network they are military objectives. If media
components are not part of the C3 network then they may become military
objectives depending upon their use. As a bottom line, civilians,
civilian objects and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military
objectives. The media does have an effect on civilian morale. If that
effect is merely to foster support for the war effort, the media is not
a legitimate military objective. If the media is used to incite crimes,
as in Rwanda, it can become a legitimate military objective. If the
media is the nerve system that keeps a war-monger in power and thus
perpetuates the war effort, it may fall within the definition of a
legitimate military objective."
Amnesty International reiterates that the explanation it sought and
received by NATO regarding the attack on the RTS headquarters was that
the attack was carried out because the RTS was a propaganda organ. In a
letter to Amnesty International dated 17 May 1999 and quoted in ICTY's
report (para 73), NATO's then Secretary General Javier Solana said that
NATO made "every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and
collateral damage by exclusively and carefully targeting the military
infrastructure of President Milocevic", adding that the RTS facilities
"are being used as radio relay stations and transmitters to support the
activities of the FRY military and special police forces, and therefore
they represented legitimate military targets". However, as also
indicated in the Amnesty International report published last week, at a
meeting with Amnesty International in Brussels on 14 February 2000 NATO
officials clarified that this reference to relay stations and
transmitters was to other attacks on RTS infrastructure and not this
particular attack on the RTS headquarters. They insisted that the attack
on the RTS headquarters was carried out because RTS was a propaganda
organ and argued that propaganda is direct support for military action.
The point relating to propaganda has been made repeatedly, most recently
by General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe at the time
of Operation Allied Force. In an address at the Brookings Institution on
8 June 2000 he is quoted as saying:
"I noticed on the news today there is criticism of the attack on the
Serb media. Well, of course, that was a controversial target. But the
Serb media engine was feeding the war. It was a crucial instrument of
Milosevic's control over the Serb population. And it exported fear,
hatred and instability into neighbouring regions. And so it was a
legitimate target of war, validated by lawyers in many countries and
validated by the International Criminal Tribunal. But it sure eased our
minds a lot to know that our elected political leaders took the
responsibility for that strike."
As explained in its report last week, Amnesty International recognizes
that disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale
of the population and the armed forces. However, the organization
believes that justifying an attack on such grounds stretches the meaning
of "effective contribution to military action" and "definite military
advantage" -- essential requirements of the definition of a military
objective -- beyond the acceptable bounds of interpretation. As such,
Amnesty International takes the view that the attack on the RTS
headquarters was directed at a civilian object and points out that
"[I]ntentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" is a war
crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Amnesty International regrets the lack of full cooperation by NATO in
resposnding to ICTY's inquiries. The organization stresses that the fact
that the ICTY Prosecutor has decided not to open a criminal
investigation against NATO should not lead NATO to ignore the detailed
and nuanced contents of the ICTY report, or dismiss recommendations made
by Amnesty International and other organizations.
Amnesty International calls again on NATO and NATO member states to heed
the recommendations it made in its report published last week, including
the need for all NATO member states to ratify without reservations
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949; ensure a common
interpretation of international humanitarian law in line with the
highest international standards; reflect these standards in NATO's rules
of engagement; and clarify NATO's chain of command, so as to ensure
clear lines of responsibility.
NATO and NATO member states should also conduct their own investigation
into reported breaches of the rules of war during Operation Allied
Force, whether or not they may amount to war crimes, so as to take
appropriate measures against anyone found responsible, provide redress,
including compensation, to victims of such violations, and learn lessons
for the future. ...
ENDS.../
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
To subscribe to amnesty-L, send a message to <majordomo@...>
with "subscribe amnesty-L" in the message body. To unsubscribe,
send a message to <majordomo@...> with "unsubscribe amnesty-L"
in the message body. If you have problem signing off, contact
<owner-amnesty-L@...>. <owner-amnesty-L@...> handles
only messages concerning list administration. Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at <http://www.amnesty.org/news/>.
Visit <http://www.amnesty.org> for information about Amnesty
International
and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@... if you
need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International.
---
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indexe.htm
The Emperor's New Clothes
Louise Arbour: Unindicted War Criminal
by Christopher Black and Edward S. Herman (6-14-00)
Among the many ironies of the NATO war against Yugoslavia was the role
of the International Criminal Tribunal and its chief prosecutor, Louise
Arbour, elevated by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to Canada's
highest court in 1999. It will be argued here that as Arbour and her
Tribunal played a key role in EXPEDITING war crimes, an excellent case
can be made that in a just world she would be in the dock rather than in
judicial robes.
Arbour To NATO's Rescue
In the midst of NATO's 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia,
Arbour participated in an April 20 press conference with British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook to receive from him documentation on Serb war
crimes. Then on May 27, Arbour announced the indictment of Serb
President Slobodan Milosevic and four of his associates for war crimes.
The inappropriateness of a supposedly judicial body doing this when
Germany, Russia and other powers were trying to find a diplomatic
resolution to the conflict, was staggering.
At the April 20 appearance with Cook, Arbour stated that
"It is inconceivable...that we would agree to be guided by the political
will of those who may want to advance an agenda."
But her appearance with Cook and the followup indictments fitted
perfectly the needs of the NATO leadership. There had been growing
criticism of NATO's increasingly civilian infrastructure-oriented
bombing of Serbia. Arbour's and the Tribunal's intervention declaring
the Serb leadership to be guilty of war crimes was a public relations
coup that justified the NATO policies and helped permit the bombing to
continue and escalate. This was pointed out repeatedly by NATO leaders
and propagandists: for example, Madeleine Albright noted that the
indictments
"make very clear to the world and the publics in our countries that this
[NATO policy] is justified because of the crimes committed, and I think
also will enable us to keep moving all these processes [i.e., bombing]
forward" (CNN, May 27).
Arbour herself noted that "I am mindful of the impact that this
indictment may have on the peace process," and although indicted
individuals are "entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are
convicted, the evidence upon which this indictment was confirmed raises
serious questions about their suitability to be guarantors of any deal,
let alone a peace agreement." (CNN, May 27). So Arbour not only
understood the political significance of her indictment, she suggested
that interference with diplomatic efforts was justified because the
indicted individuals, though not yet found guilty, were not suitable to
negotiate. This hugely unjudicial political judgment, along with the
convenient timing of the indictments, points up Arbour's and the
Tribunal's highly political role.
The Tribunal's Politicization
Arbour's service to NATO in indicting Milosevic was the logical outcome
of the Tribunal's de facto control and purpose. Established by the
Security Council in the early 1990s to serve the Balkan policy ends of
its dominant members, the Tribunal's funding and interlocking functional
relationship with the leading NATO powers have made it NATO's
instrument. (1)
Although Article 32 of the Tribunal's Charter declares that its expenses
shall be provided in the general budget of the United Nations, this
proviso has been regularly violated. In 1994-1995 the U.S. government
provided it with $700,000 in cash and $2.3 million in equipment, and
numerous other U.S.-based governmental and non- governmental agencies
have provided the Tribunal with resources.
Article 16 of the Tribunal's charter states that the Prosecutor shall
act independently and shall not seek or receive instruction from any
government. This section also has been systematically violated. NATO
sources have regularly made claims suggesting their authority over the
Tribunal: "We will make a decision on whether Yugoslav actions against
ethnic Albanians constitute genocide," states a USIA Fact Sheet, and
Cook asserted at his April 20 press conference with Arbour that "we are
going to focus on the war crimes being committed in Kosovo and our
determination to bring those responsible to justice, " as if he and
Arbour were a team jointly deciding on who should be charged for war
crimes.
Tribunal officials have even bragged about "the strong support of
concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright," further referred to as "mother of the Tribunal" (by Judge
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, president of the Tribunal). In 1996 Arbour met
with the Secretary-General of NATO and its supreme commander to
"establish contacts and begin discussing modalities of cooperation and
assistance." Numerous other meetings have occurred between prosecutor
and NATO, which was given the function of Tribunal gendarme.
Arbour acknowleged (April 20) that "the real danger is whether we would
fall into [following somebody's political agenda] inadvertently by being
in the hands of information-providers who might have an agenda that we
would not be able to discern." But even an imbecile could discern that
NATO had an agenda and that simply accepting the flood of documents
offered by Cook and Albright entailed ADVERTENTLY following that agenda.
Arbour's April 20 reference to the "morality of the [NATO] enterprise"
and her remarks on Milosevic's possible lack of character disqualifying
him from negotiations, as well as her rush to help NATO with an
indictment, point to quite clearly understood political service.
The Arbour-Tribunal bias was dramatically illustrated by the disposition
of an internal Tribunal report on Operation Storm, which described war
crimes committed by the Croatian armed forces in their expulsion of more
than 200,000 Serbs from Krajina in August 1995. (6) In only four days
"at least 150 Serbs were summarily executed, and many hundreds
disappeared," totals that exceeded the 241 victims of the Serbs named in
the indictment of Milosevic. But as the United States supported the
Croat's ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina, and refused to provide
requested information, no indictment of any Croat officer named in the
report, or head of state Tudjman, was ever brought by the Tribunal.
Tribunal's Kangaroo Court Processes
According to Arbour, the Tribunal was "subject to extremely stringent
rules of evidence with respect to the admissibility and the credibility
of the product that we will tender in court," thus precluding
"unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncorroborated allegations" (April 20).
This is a gross misrepresentation of what John Laughland described in
the Times (London) as "a rogue court with rigged rules" (June 17, 1999).
The Tribunal violates virtually every standard of due process: among
others, it fails to separate prosecution and judge; witnesses can
testify anonymously; confessions are presumed free and voluntary unless
the contrary can be established by the prisoner; and "rules against
hearsay, deeply entrenched in Common Law, are not observed and the
Prosecutor's office has even suggested not calling witnesses to give
evidence but only the tribunal's own 'war crimes investigators'"
(Laughland).
As noted, Arbour presumes guilt before trial; the concept of "innocent
till convicted" is rejected, and she can declare that people linked with
Arkan "will be tainted by their association with an indicted war
criminal" (March 31). Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules
of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the
Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto
Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more
liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials. (2) The consequent corruption
of the Canadian justice system, both by her appointment and her impact,
mirrors that in the Canadian political system, whose leading members
supported the NATO war without question.
NATO's Crimes
In bombing Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8 1999, NATO violated the UN
Charter requirement that it not use force without UN Security Council
sanction. (3) It was also guilty of aggression in attacking a sovereign
state that was not going beyond its borders. In its defense, NATO
claimed that "humanitarian" concerns demanded these actions and
justified seemingly serious law violations. (4) This reply sanctions law
violations on the basis of self-serving judgments that contradict the
rule of law, but it is also dubious on its own grounds. The NATO bombing
made "an internal humanitarian problem into a disaster" in the words of
Rollie Keith, the returned Canadian OSCE human rights monitor in Kosovo.
Furthermore, NATO refused to negotiate a settlement in Kosovo and
insisted on a violent solution; in the words of one State Department
official, NATO deliberately "raised the bar" and precluded a compromise
resolution because Serbia "needed to be bombed." These counter- facts
suggest that the alleged humanitarian basis of the law violations was a
cover for starkly political and geopolitical objectives.
NATO was also guilty of more traditional war crimes, including some that
the Tribunal had found indictable when [allegeldy] carried out by Serbs.
Thus on March 8, 1996, the Serb leader Milan Martic was indicted for
[allegeldy] launching a rocket cluster-bomb attack on military targets
in Zagreb in May 1995, on the ground that the rocket was "not designed
to hit military targets but to terrorize the civilians of Zagreb." But
the same case could be made for numerous NATO bombing raids, as in the
cluster-bombing of Nis on May 7, 1999, in which a market and hospital
far from any military target were hit in separate strikes--but no
indictment has yet been handed down against NATO.
But NATO was also guilty of bombing non-military targets as systematic
policy. On March 26, 1999, General Wesley Clark said that "We are going
to very systematically and progressively work on his military
forces...[to see] how much pain he is willing to suffer." But this focus
on "military forces" wasn't effective, so NATO quickly turned to "taking
down...the economic apparatus supporting" Serb military forces
(Clinton's words); targets were gradually extended to factories of all
kinds, electric power stations, water and sewage processing facilities,
transport, public buildings, and even schools and hospitals. In effect,
it was NATO's strategy to bring Serbia to its knees by gradually
escalating its attacks on the civil society.
But international law makes civilian targets off limits; the "wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages or devastation not justified by
military necessity" is prohibited (Sixth Principle of Nuremberg,
formulated in 1950 by a UN-sponsored international law commission).
"Military necessity" does not allow the destruction of a civil society
to make it more difficult for the country to support its armed forces,
any more than civilians can be killed directly because they pay taxes
supporting the war machine or might some day become soldiers. Making an
entire population a hostage is a blatant violation of international law
and its implementing acts are war crimes.
In December 1999, it was finally reported that post-Arbour prosecutor
Carla Del Ponte was reviewing the conduct of NATO, at the urging of
Russia and several other "interested parties" ("U.N. Court Examines
NATO's Yugoslavia War," NYT, Dec. 29, 1999). But the news report
indicates that the focus is on the conduct of NATO pilots and their
commanders, not the NATO decision-makers who decided to target the
civilian infrastructure. It also suggests the public relations nature of
the inquiry, which would "go far in dispelling the belief...that the
tribunal is a tool used by Western leaders to escape accountability."
The report also indicates the delicate matter that the tribunal "depends
on the military alliance to arrest and hand over suspects." It also
quotes Del Ponte saying that "It's not my priority, because I have
inquiries about genocide, about bodies in mass graves." We may rest
assured that no indictments will result from this inquiry.
Beyond Orwell
NATO's leaders, frustrated in attacking the Serb military machine, quite
openly turned to smashing the civil society of Serbia as their means of
attaining the desired quick victory. Arbour and the Tribunal helped NATO
by indicting Milosevic, thereby giving NATO the moral cover needed for
escalated attacks on the hostage population.
Arbour and the Tribunal thus present us with the amazing spectacle of an
institution supposedly organized to contain, prevent, and prosecute for
war crimes actually knowingly facilitating them. Furthermore, petitions
submitted to the Tribunal during Arbour's tenure had called for
prosecution of the leaders of NATO, including Canadian Prime Minister
Jean Chretien, for the commission of war crimes. If she had been a
prosecutor in Canada, Britain or the United States, she would have been
subject to disbarment for considering and then accepting a job from a
person she had been asked to charge. But Arbour was elevated to the
Supreme Court of Canada by Chretien with hardly a mention of this
conflict of interest and immorality. **
About the authors...
Christopher Black (5) is part of the team of Canadian lawyers who have
attempted to bring war crimes charges against NATO before the War Crimes
Tribunal. At present, Mr. Black is serving as the attorney for one of
the defendant at the Rwandan war crimes hearings. He believes that
Western meddling is in large measure responsible for the horrendous
killing in Rwanda. He plans to write an article for Emperors-Clothes on
the subject.
Edward S. Herman is the author of many books including 'Real Terror
Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda' (June 1998) and 'Triumph of
the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media' (October
1995).
Further reading...
(1) See Money Talks - US Funds ICTY Public Relations at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/press.htm
(2) Back to the dark ages by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/bac.htm
(3) See NATO's War & World Security by Prof. Raju G. C. Thomas at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/security.htm
(4) See HUMANITARIAN WAR: Making the Crime Fit the Punishment by Diana
Johnstone at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/crime.htm
(5) See An Impartial Tribunal? Really? by Christopher Black at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
(6)See Conditions of Serbs in Croatia, by Alice Mahon, MP at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/mahon/croatia.htm
---
>Tribunal Watch archives are on-line at:
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/
>==========================================
>
>CANA (Christians Against NATO Aggression)
>Statement from William Spring, Director
>
>CARLA DEL PONTE SHOULD RESIGN AS WAR CRIMES PROSECUTOR
>
>Carla del Ponte should resign as war crimes prosecutor for the Hague
>Tribunal responsible for War Crimes in the area of the Former Yugoslavia.
>She has brought international law into disrepute by her decision announced
>to the Security Council June 2nd not to prosecute NATO leaders for war
>crimes committed by NATO forces in relation to the illegal military attack
>on Yugoslavia last year.
>
>Thomas Fuller, as quoted by the late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls,
>said: "whoever you are the law is above you." In effect Carla del Ponte has
>put NATO civilian & military leaders beyond the law - has given them
>immunity to engage in whatever criminal action they like. A disgrace to
>the legal profession she should be replaced forthwith by the UN Secretary
>General.
>
>Her investigation into allegations made, not only by the Russian, Yugoslav
>& Chinese Governments concerning NATO war crimes, but also by ordinary
>people across the world, (in which I include CANA, as we detailed specific
>NATO atrocities in a dossier sent to her January 28th this year) was at
>best cursory; at worst her inaction can be interpreted as the frantic
>manoeuvrings of a mafia judge eager to please her mafia paymasters.
>Someone should do an investigation into the War Crimes Tribunal & her
>role, & that of of her predecessor, Ms Arbour. How is this body financed?
>Is it a legal entity? Does the UN Charter allow for new Institutions to be
>created simply on the say so of the Security Council?
>
>What has happened is a juridical nightmare; a nominally independent
>prosecutor, who in fact is leaned on, & responds to pressure from
>representatives of whatever coalition of powers happens to hold most
>influence in the Security Council at any one time.
>
>Her willingness to receive Jamie Shea, & Robin Cook, in her office at the
>Hague, while still theoretically engaged in an investigation as to whether
>NATO had committed war crimes was reprehensible, indicating collusion &
>undue influence. She should have had the courage to stand up to gangsters
>who 'fix' international Courts in the same way as Clinton fixed Congress to
>avoid impeachment.
>
>Her Office wrote to me 15th March stating "aerial warfare is a complex
>area of military international law involving difficult issues of targeting
>& execution." That may be so, but is not an excuse to duck the moral
>questions involved. The Prosecutor gets NATO off the hook by saying she is
>not satisfied there was 'intent' on the part of the NATO authorities to
>cause civilian casualties, which misses the point entirely: all deaths
>caused by those responsible for a war of aggression, whether they be
>military or civilian, are unlawful homicides, & it's not necessary to prove
>intent for every act which flowed from the decision to engage in aggressive
>war. But in the 15th March letter Gavin Ruxton said "The Prosecutor has no
>locus to consider the lawfulness or otherwise of the NATO decision to
>launch its air campaign": which means the Tribunal is disqualified from
>making any finding acquitting NATO of war crimes. (There is of course
>unambiguous evidence of NATO's intent to cause civilian casualties.)
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>For further info tel 02088022144 cana@... also diarise
>House of Lords Cttee Room 4 12 noon 28th June 2000 Press Conference by
>Justin/Cana/Planning for Peace
>
>===========================================================================
=
>To unsubscribe from TWATCH-L: Send an e-mail to
LISTSERV@...
> In your message, type in the command: SIGNOFF TWATCH-L
>
>To resubscribe to TW, send this message to the same address: SUBSCRIBE
TWATCH-L [name of person]
>Send questions, comments, suggestions to:
> twatch-l-request@...
---
From: Herman de Tollenaere <hermantl@...>
To: right-left@...,Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.;,
Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
Subject: 9 June Amsterdam: report on Dutch ministers on trial for NATO
bombing
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:24:20 +0200
[Unofficial report, hastily written by a non-lawyer]
On Friday 9 June, at the "Paleis van Justitie" [court house] in
Amsterdam,
Dutch Government Ministers were on trial for the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia
in 1999.
As I walk to the court house, posters of a beer brand proclaim
"Yugoslavs
like our drink". Maybe, like people in Colombia or in Sierra Leone. All
these people, however, might think one drinks more safely if there is
less
chance of dying by a bomb or other weapon made in a NATO country.
Opening
headline of the day of daily De Volkskrant: the Dutch UN representative
says
that the Netherlands armed forces should get over their Balkans trauma
by
sending a thousand soldiers to Sierra Leone. The British NATO allies
would
like that. Might the Dutch soldiers not find out too late they go there,
like to the Balkans, not really for peace; but maybe for British diamond
millionaires, fighting out their conflict with French diamond
millionaires
at the cost of lives of European soldiers and [especially] African
soldiers,
including child soldiers, and civilians? Remember racism and escalating
violence, when troops from NATO countries were supposed to bring peace
to
Somalia?
Police had not allowed a demonstration, which would have started at 10
o'clock. The case starts 11 o'clock at the "Paleis van Justitie",
Prinsengracht 434 in Amsterdam. Long before the start, people gather
outside. Pro peace leaflets change hands. A big banner goes aloft: NATO
OUT
OF THE BALKANS. It is held by a local anti war committee member, and by
a
twentyish Amsterdam university student. She is here with others of De
Socialist magazine, also present at earlier peace demonstrations.
Celine is there as well. Though more than fifty-five years ago, the Nazi
occupiers of The Netherlands put her in a camp, today she still fights
against racism and war. She is of De Anti Fascist. This is the magazine
of
the Bond van Anti Fascisten [Anti Fascist League], founded by ex members
of
the 1940-1945 resistance against German Nazi occupation. Later, younger
fighters against present day racism and other forms of discrimination
joined. The Anti Fascist League is a main source making it financially
possible to have this case: as the Yugoslav plaintiffs are very poor,
having
often lost jobs and everything by the war.
Speaking of media: a TV crew of the local [multicultural] Amsterdam TV
records the scene outside and the court case inside. Radio The
Netherlands
World Broadcasting is there; as are correspondents of De Volkskrant and
Bosnian media. Yesterday, an article in Ganashakti daily, all the way in
India, told its readers of the case.
In 1999, 29 citizens of Yugoslavia, victims of the bombs, started this
civil
court case against Ministers Kok [Prime Minister], Van Aartsen [Foreign
Affairs], and De Grave [Defense]. In May/June 1999, the judge did not
grant
their request for summary proceedings. However, he also did not throw
out
the case, as pro-war politicians might have liked. Similar court cases
are
on their way in other NATO countries; though often, in these countries
the
legal system works a little slower, or is more expensive for plaintiffs,
than in The Netherlands. In The Netherlands, there are now also cases
against the State [so, not against ministers individually, like in this
case]; other Dutch civil cases against individuals; and World Court
cases
for violation of UN Charter point 2 sub 4, against military aggression.
In a
few months' time, the case brought by surviving families of the bombed
Belgrade television studio crew members will start in The Netherlands.
Before a full big court room, Mr Van Schendel, court president, first
arranges for the media representatives' reporting. Then, he calls upon
the
bombs victims' lawyers to speak. He grants them one hour. As twenty
minutes
is usual for lawyers in civil cases, this indicates some sense of the
juridical importance of this case.
These lawyers are Mr Steijnen and Mr Olof, of Juristen voor de Vrede
[Lawyers for Peace] and the Permanente Commissie [Permanent Legal
Commission
against Dutch War Crimes]. Lawyers for Peace have a long history of
legal
challenges to the Dutch government for allowing NATO nuclear weapons in
The
Netherlands [officially, the people are not allowed to know whether the
nuclear weapons are there or not].
Mr Olof pointed out NATO's war was against the United Nations charter
and
international law. Mr Steijnen pointed out that the Dutch government,
like
NATO, claims NATO's targets were all military. The civilian victims
supposedly were "collateral damage". Really? asked Mr Steijnen. NATO
destroyed fifty churches and monasteries, over three hundred schools;
many
bridges unsuited for military vehicles; buses; passenger trains; TV
studios;
cigarette factories; 100% of chemical industry and 100% of agricultural
fertilizer industry in Yugoslavia; even apart from depleted uranium
ammunition radiation, creating enormous environmental damage. NATO used
cluster bombs.
Conservative pro NATO estimates say 1000 civilians died, 6000 were
wounded.
The MEAT report of the United States Air Force, quoted by Newsweek and
others, says all the weeks of air war destroyed 14 Yugoslav tanks, 18
armed
vehicles, 20 pieces of artillery. If we base ourselves on the
conservative
estimate of civilian victims: then, 70 civilians died for every Yugoslav
tank. Would it not be more accurate to say civilians and civilian
targets
were the real targets, and the damage against Yugoslav army vehicles and
artillery really was "collateral" damage? NATO leaders themselves
basically
admitted this [eg, when asked: why did the Yugoslav government finally
admit NATO troops in Kosovo? Eg, General Short said on BBC television
the
first target [to his regret, only destroyed later] should have been the
"rock and roll bridge" in Belgrade, where young people had concerts
against
the bombing].
Concluding, Mr Steijnen named three random examples of the plaintiffs.
One
worked as a car mechanic in Montenegro. The war started; very worried
about
his family in Belgrade, he went there, and parked his car. NATO bombs
fell
and destroyed the car. This loss meant also the loss of his mechanic's
job.
Now, he has nothing.
Another plaintiff worked in a small businessman's garage. A bomb
destroyed
the garage and the cars in it. Now, the employer is jobless and hungry.
So
is the employee.
A third example: this man used to work in a metal working factory. Bombs
totally destroyed the factory. Like its other 8000 workers, now he is
jobless.
For the ministers, Mr Houtzagers spoke. He quoted from a political
government statement, claiming NATO became involved as it worried about
stability of Albania and Macedonia [both non NATO members; and how did
the
war 'help stability' of these countries, let alone of Kosovo? Mr
Steijnen
replied]. And 'Yugoslavia had refused to negotiate seriously in
Rambouillet
[and how about NATO's proposed Appendix B, amounting to de facto
occupation
of all Yugoslavia?]'. Repeatedly interrupted by judges' critical
questions,
Mr Houtzagers talked about the legal base for the NATO attack. He
admitted
that UN Resolution 1199 was not such a legal base; nevertheless, the
government used it as justification. Mr Steijnen pointed out that only
one
member of the Dutch parliament, Mr Van Middelkoop, had known about
Resolution 1199. So, then, how about democratic control by parliament on
whether The Netherlands were at war or not [not even Prime Minister Kok
knew
when the bombing started]?
Mr Houtzagers also said the ministers could not be sued, 'as they had
acted
as organs of the State'. In reply, Mr Steijnen pointed out that at the
1945
Nuremberg trials, the court had rejected such a defense. *Individuals*
commit war crimes. The Nuremburg decisions are important in
international
law; though in its defence the Dutch government now more or less tries
to
dismiss them. They were part of the precedents claimed, by, for
instance,
the 1993 establishment of the court on Yugoslavia in The Hague. Mr
Steijnen
said: "How would a court react to General Pinochet claiming he had not
been
an individual, only '"an organ of the state"?
To the argument: "the war is over now, so the plaintiffs have no case
anymore. [Two of the plaintiffs last year complained, as the war had
made
them join the Yugoslav army as conscripts, thus putting them in danger
involuntarily]", Mr Steijnen replied the plaintiffs still were in
danger,
also if they would all continue to be civilians as at the moment; as
there
was only a cease fire, not peace. If one listens today to Dutch and
other
NATO leaders they may not yet have learned not to start a similar war
again
against Yugoslavia [or against another country].
President Van Schendel concluded the session by saying that the court
decision will, in principle, become public at 6 July, at 11.30 in the
same
court house. However, Mr Van Schendel left open the possibility that the
court would need more time for the legal complexities of the case; then,
the
verdict would be later.
Even if Lawyers for Peace lose the case in Amsterdam, they will appeal,
all
the way up to the European Court.
After the court case, Mr Houtzagers, contrary to the bombs victims'
lawyers,
refused to answer media questions. Later that day, there was a meeting.
Other Dutch ministers may also face civil cases. So may F16 pilots. So
may
pro-war Members of Parliament like Mr Blaauw of the ["Rightist Liberal"]
VVD
government party: Blaauw, during the Balkan war, talked of glorious
profit
opportunities for Dutch construction millionaires in Kosovo, after the
NATO
bombs would have done their job. Mr Blaauw is also a leader of the Press
Now
organization; officially for 'independent' [in fact, NATOish] media in
the
Balkans. Maybe, also a civil case by people hurt by the bombs, against
Mr De
Hoop Scheffer of the ["Christian Democrat"] CDA [very pro bombing,
though
officially in opposition].
And, maybe also civil damages claims against Marcel Rüter, businessman,
and
leader of the extreme Rightist Voorpost ["Vanguard"] movement, not
represented in government or parliament, which made pro bombing
propaganda.
Mr Rüter is an ex leader of the Centrumpartij'86, members of which used
to
rally for Adolf Hitler and his deputy, Rudolf Hess. Used to, *as
Centrumpartij'86 people*; because a few years ago, the courts banned
this
party for racism; after members had gone to jail for violence. In 1999
Voorpost tried a political comeback on the wave of pro-war and
anti-Serb-anti-Roma-and-anti-other-foreigner propaganda in the 'popular'
media. Maybe an opportunity for the Anti Fascist League to figuratively
"kill the two birds, of war and racism, with one stone"?
Best wishes,
Herman de Tollenaere
---
http://www.counterpunch.com
CounterPunch [Originally published at Swans: http://www.swans.com]
June 4, 2000
An Impartial Tribunal, Really?
By Christopher Black
-
http://www.serbianna.com/dorich/stories/00_06_09.html
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
By William Dorich
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* Amnesty International sul Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia
* Carla del Ponte, criminale di guerra impunita
* Richiesta di dimissioni per Carla del Ponte
* Il governo olandese sotto processo
---
DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE E LEGALITA' BORGHESE
In seguito al nostro ultimo messaggio sui crimini della NATO
(http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/286?&start=263)
abbiamo ricevuto da Luca il seguente commento:
> Ho letto l' articolo sulle leggi di guerra.
> A me pare pericoloso appoggiare le critiche alla guerra ed alla nato in
> particolare seguendo un approccio "legalitario".
>
> Le forze borghesi amano le cosiddette convenzioni di guerra perche' esse
> fanno parte della copertura ideologica della guerra ....Forse si
> dovrebbero mostrare le inconsistenze logiche insite negli argomenti
> legalisti. Soprattutto per quanto concerne
> i "coccodrilli " del manifesto
>
> o no?
Sicuramente! Tuttavia sottolineare queste come altre violazioni della
legalita' borghese commesse da parte della stessa borghesia ha un suo
significato. In pratica si tratta del "sovversivismo
delle classi dirigenti", lo stesso fenomeno che ci ha portato al
fascismo ed al nazismo, quando la classe dirigente rompe le leggi che
essa stessa ha formulato. Questo puo' avere due ricadute:
- o si prefigura come scontro inter-borghese (inter-imperialista);
- oppure semplicemente significa una deriva autoritaria, quando anche le
garanzie, gli spazi della democrazia borghese ci vengono sottratte;
oppure tutte e due le cose insieme. Percio' ci sembra importante
evidenziare quando questo succede. CRJ
---
Subject: YUGOSLAVIA: Amnesty International's initial comments
on the review by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia of NATO's Operation Allied Force
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:06:13 -0400
From: amnesty@...
Reply-To: owner-amnesty-l@...
To: amnesty-L@...
* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *
Amnesty International Public document
AI Index EUR 70/029/2000
News Service Nr. 116
13 June 2000
Amnesty International's initial comments on the review by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of NATO's
Operation Allied Force
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has
published today the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee
Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. The report examines general issues and five
specific incidents and recommends to the ICTY Prosecutor not to commence
a criminal investigation "in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or
incidents occurring during the campaign" (para 91).
Ms Carla Del Ponte, ICTY's Prosecutor, informed the United Nations'
Security Council on 2 June 2000 that she had decided to accept this
recommendation. She specifies that although some mistakes were made by
NATO, "the Prosecutor is satisfied that there was no deliberate
targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the
campaign".
Amnesty International has received a copy of the 45-page ICTY report and
is examining it carefully. All five incidents examined in the report by
ICTY's review committee were included in the Amnesty International
report, Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings?, Violations of the Laws
of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, published last week (AI
Index: EUR 70/18/00).
Amnesty International welcomes the unusual publication by the ICTY of
the reasoning behind the decision not to open an investigation related
to NATO's bombing campaign. The organization believes that this step
contributes greatly to the Tribunal's transparency, offering important
perspectives on the interpretation of the laws of war.
Amnesty International also respects the discretion enjoyed by the ICTY's
Prosecutor in deciding whether or not to open criminal investigations.
The organization understands that, as with other cases, the Prosecutor
may still decide to open an investigation into the NATO bombing should
additional relevant information become available.
Amnesty International notes that the report of the ICTY assessment
indicates that when NATO was requested "to answer specific questions
about specific incidents, the NATO reply was couched in general terms
and failed to address the specific incidents." The report also points
out that the "committee has not spoken to those involved in directing or
carrying out the bombing campaign". These facts must have contributed to
the information gaps that the committee itself acknowledges in its
report. Amnesty International also notes the following overall
conclusion of the review committee (para 90):
"NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign;
errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain
objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. On the basis of
the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that
neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a
whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In
all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations
are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to
substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused
for particularly heinous offences."
The report does not explain what difficulties are envisaged by the
Office of the Prosecutor in gathering sufficient evidence against any
NATO or NATO member state official.
With regard to the bombing of the headquarters and studios of Serbian
state television and radio (Radio Televisija Srbije, RTS) in Belgrade on
23 April 1999, the report states (para 76):
"The committee finds that if the attack on the RTS was justified by
reference to its propaganda purpose alone, its legality might well be
questioned by some experts in the field of international humanitarian
law. It appears, however, that NATO's targeting of the RTS building for
propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its
primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control
system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps
Milosevic in power."
Earlier (para 55) the report made the following observation regarding
the role of the media in general:
"The media as such is not a traditional target category. To the extent
particular media components are part of the C3 (command, control and
communications) network they are military objectives. If media
components are not part of the C3 network then they may become military
objectives depending upon their use. As a bottom line, civilians,
civilian objects and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military
objectives. The media does have an effect on civilian morale. If that
effect is merely to foster support for the war effort, the media is not
a legitimate military objective. If the media is used to incite crimes,
as in Rwanda, it can become a legitimate military objective. If the
media is the nerve system that keeps a war-monger in power and thus
perpetuates the war effort, it may fall within the definition of a
legitimate military objective."
Amnesty International reiterates that the explanation it sought and
received by NATO regarding the attack on the RTS headquarters was that
the attack was carried out because the RTS was a propaganda organ. In a
letter to Amnesty International dated 17 May 1999 and quoted in ICTY's
report (para 73), NATO's then Secretary General Javier Solana said that
NATO made "every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and
collateral damage by exclusively and carefully targeting the military
infrastructure of President Milocevic", adding that the RTS facilities
"are being used as radio relay stations and transmitters to support the
activities of the FRY military and special police forces, and therefore
they represented legitimate military targets". However, as also
indicated in the Amnesty International report published last week, at a
meeting with Amnesty International in Brussels on 14 February 2000 NATO
officials clarified that this reference to relay stations and
transmitters was to other attacks on RTS infrastructure and not this
particular attack on the RTS headquarters. They insisted that the attack
on the RTS headquarters was carried out because RTS was a propaganda
organ and argued that propaganda is direct support for military action.
The point relating to propaganda has been made repeatedly, most recently
by General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe at the time
of Operation Allied Force. In an address at the Brookings Institution on
8 June 2000 he is quoted as saying:
"I noticed on the news today there is criticism of the attack on the
Serb media. Well, of course, that was a controversial target. But the
Serb media engine was feeding the war. It was a crucial instrument of
Milosevic's control over the Serb population. And it exported fear,
hatred and instability into neighbouring regions. And so it was a
legitimate target of war, validated by lawyers in many countries and
validated by the International Criminal Tribunal. But it sure eased our
minds a lot to know that our elected political leaders took the
responsibility for that strike."
As explained in its report last week, Amnesty International recognizes
that disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale
of the population and the armed forces. However, the organization
believes that justifying an attack on such grounds stretches the meaning
of "effective contribution to military action" and "definite military
advantage" -- essential requirements of the definition of a military
objective -- beyond the acceptable bounds of interpretation. As such,
Amnesty International takes the view that the attack on the RTS
headquarters was directed at a civilian object and points out that
"[I]ntentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" is a war
crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Amnesty International regrets the lack of full cooperation by NATO in
resposnding to ICTY's inquiries. The organization stresses that the fact
that the ICTY Prosecutor has decided not to open a criminal
investigation against NATO should not lead NATO to ignore the detailed
and nuanced contents of the ICTY report, or dismiss recommendations made
by Amnesty International and other organizations.
Amnesty International calls again on NATO and NATO member states to heed
the recommendations it made in its report published last week, including
the need for all NATO member states to ratify without reservations
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949; ensure a common
interpretation of international humanitarian law in line with the
highest international standards; reflect these standards in NATO's rules
of engagement; and clarify NATO's chain of command, so as to ensure
clear lines of responsibility.
NATO and NATO member states should also conduct their own investigation
into reported breaches of the rules of war during Operation Allied
Force, whether or not they may amount to war crimes, so as to take
appropriate measures against anyone found responsible, provide redress,
including compensation, to victims of such violations, and learn lessons
for the future. ...
ENDS.../
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
To subscribe to amnesty-L, send a message to <majordomo@...>
with "subscribe amnesty-L" in the message body. To unsubscribe,
send a message to <majordomo@...> with "unsubscribe amnesty-L"
in the message body. If you have problem signing off, contact
<owner-amnesty-L@...>. <owner-amnesty-L@...> handles
only messages concerning list administration. Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at <http://www.amnesty.org/news/>.
Visit <http://www.amnesty.org> for information about Amnesty
International
and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@... if you
need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International.
---
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indexe.htm
The Emperor's New Clothes
Louise Arbour: Unindicted War Criminal
by Christopher Black and Edward S. Herman (6-14-00)
Among the many ironies of the NATO war against Yugoslavia was the role
of the International Criminal Tribunal and its chief prosecutor, Louise
Arbour, elevated by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to Canada's
highest court in 1999. It will be argued here that as Arbour and her
Tribunal played a key role in EXPEDITING war crimes, an excellent case
can be made that in a just world she would be in the dock rather than in
judicial robes.
Arbour To NATO's Rescue
In the midst of NATO's 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia,
Arbour participated in an April 20 press conference with British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook to receive from him documentation on Serb war
crimes. Then on May 27, Arbour announced the indictment of Serb
President Slobodan Milosevic and four of his associates for war crimes.
The inappropriateness of a supposedly judicial body doing this when
Germany, Russia and other powers were trying to find a diplomatic
resolution to the conflict, was staggering.
At the April 20 appearance with Cook, Arbour stated that
"It is inconceivable...that we would agree to be guided by the political
will of those who may want to advance an agenda."
But her appearance with Cook and the followup indictments fitted
perfectly the needs of the NATO leadership. There had been growing
criticism of NATO's increasingly civilian infrastructure-oriented
bombing of Serbia. Arbour's and the Tribunal's intervention declaring
the Serb leadership to be guilty of war crimes was a public relations
coup that justified the NATO policies and helped permit the bombing to
continue and escalate. This was pointed out repeatedly by NATO leaders
and propagandists: for example, Madeleine Albright noted that the
indictments
"make very clear to the world and the publics in our countries that this
[NATO policy] is justified because of the crimes committed, and I think
also will enable us to keep moving all these processes [i.e., bombing]
forward" (CNN, May 27).
Arbour herself noted that "I am mindful of the impact that this
indictment may have on the peace process," and although indicted
individuals are "entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are
convicted, the evidence upon which this indictment was confirmed raises
serious questions about their suitability to be guarantors of any deal,
let alone a peace agreement." (CNN, May 27). So Arbour not only
understood the political significance of her indictment, she suggested
that interference with diplomatic efforts was justified because the
indicted individuals, though not yet found guilty, were not suitable to
negotiate. This hugely unjudicial political judgment, along with the
convenient timing of the indictments, points up Arbour's and the
Tribunal's highly political role.
The Tribunal's Politicization
Arbour's service to NATO in indicting Milosevic was the logical outcome
of the Tribunal's de facto control and purpose. Established by the
Security Council in the early 1990s to serve the Balkan policy ends of
its dominant members, the Tribunal's funding and interlocking functional
relationship with the leading NATO powers have made it NATO's
instrument. (1)
Although Article 32 of the Tribunal's Charter declares that its expenses
shall be provided in the general budget of the United Nations, this
proviso has been regularly violated. In 1994-1995 the U.S. government
provided it with $700,000 in cash and $2.3 million in equipment, and
numerous other U.S.-based governmental and non- governmental agencies
have provided the Tribunal with resources.
Article 16 of the Tribunal's charter states that the Prosecutor shall
act independently and shall not seek or receive instruction from any
government. This section also has been systematically violated. NATO
sources have regularly made claims suggesting their authority over the
Tribunal: "We will make a decision on whether Yugoslav actions against
ethnic Albanians constitute genocide," states a USIA Fact Sheet, and
Cook asserted at his April 20 press conference with Arbour that "we are
going to focus on the war crimes being committed in Kosovo and our
determination to bring those responsible to justice, " as if he and
Arbour were a team jointly deciding on who should be charged for war
crimes.
Tribunal officials have even bragged about "the strong support of
concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright," further referred to as "mother of the Tribunal" (by Judge
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, president of the Tribunal). In 1996 Arbour met
with the Secretary-General of NATO and its supreme commander to
"establish contacts and begin discussing modalities of cooperation and
assistance." Numerous other meetings have occurred between prosecutor
and NATO, which was given the function of Tribunal gendarme.
Arbour acknowleged (April 20) that "the real danger is whether we would
fall into [following somebody's political agenda] inadvertently by being
in the hands of information-providers who might have an agenda that we
would not be able to discern." But even an imbecile could discern that
NATO had an agenda and that simply accepting the flood of documents
offered by Cook and Albright entailed ADVERTENTLY following that agenda.
Arbour's April 20 reference to the "morality of the [NATO] enterprise"
and her remarks on Milosevic's possible lack of character disqualifying
him from negotiations, as well as her rush to help NATO with an
indictment, point to quite clearly understood political service.
The Arbour-Tribunal bias was dramatically illustrated by the disposition
of an internal Tribunal report on Operation Storm, which described war
crimes committed by the Croatian armed forces in their expulsion of more
than 200,000 Serbs from Krajina in August 1995. (6) In only four days
"at least 150 Serbs were summarily executed, and many hundreds
disappeared," totals that exceeded the 241 victims of the Serbs named in
the indictment of Milosevic. But as the United States supported the
Croat's ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina, and refused to provide
requested information, no indictment of any Croat officer named in the
report, or head of state Tudjman, was ever brought by the Tribunal.
Tribunal's Kangaroo Court Processes
According to Arbour, the Tribunal was "subject to extremely stringent
rules of evidence with respect to the admissibility and the credibility
of the product that we will tender in court," thus precluding
"unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncorroborated allegations" (April 20).
This is a gross misrepresentation of what John Laughland described in
the Times (London) as "a rogue court with rigged rules" (June 17, 1999).
The Tribunal violates virtually every standard of due process: among
others, it fails to separate prosecution and judge; witnesses can
testify anonymously; confessions are presumed free and voluntary unless
the contrary can be established by the prisoner; and "rules against
hearsay, deeply entrenched in Common Law, are not observed and the
Prosecutor's office has even suggested not calling witnesses to give
evidence but only the tribunal's own 'war crimes investigators'"
(Laughland).
As noted, Arbour presumes guilt before trial; the concept of "innocent
till convicted" is rejected, and she can declare that people linked with
Arkan "will be tainted by their association with an indicted war
criminal" (March 31). Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules
of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the
Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto
Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more
liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials. (2) The consequent corruption
of the Canadian justice system, both by her appointment and her impact,
mirrors that in the Canadian political system, whose leading members
supported the NATO war without question.
NATO's Crimes
In bombing Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8 1999, NATO violated the UN
Charter requirement that it not use force without UN Security Council
sanction. (3) It was also guilty of aggression in attacking a sovereign
state that was not going beyond its borders. In its defense, NATO
claimed that "humanitarian" concerns demanded these actions and
justified seemingly serious law violations. (4) This reply sanctions law
violations on the basis of self-serving judgments that contradict the
rule of law, but it is also dubious on its own grounds. The NATO bombing
made "an internal humanitarian problem into a disaster" in the words of
Rollie Keith, the returned Canadian OSCE human rights monitor in Kosovo.
Furthermore, NATO refused to negotiate a settlement in Kosovo and
insisted on a violent solution; in the words of one State Department
official, NATO deliberately "raised the bar" and precluded a compromise
resolution because Serbia "needed to be bombed." These counter- facts
suggest that the alleged humanitarian basis of the law violations was a
cover for starkly political and geopolitical objectives.
NATO was also guilty of more traditional war crimes, including some that
the Tribunal had found indictable when [allegeldy] carried out by Serbs.
Thus on March 8, 1996, the Serb leader Milan Martic was indicted for
[allegeldy] launching a rocket cluster-bomb attack on military targets
in Zagreb in May 1995, on the ground that the rocket was "not designed
to hit military targets but to terrorize the civilians of Zagreb." But
the same case could be made for numerous NATO bombing raids, as in the
cluster-bombing of Nis on May 7, 1999, in which a market and hospital
far from any military target were hit in separate strikes--but no
indictment has yet been handed down against NATO.
But NATO was also guilty of bombing non-military targets as systematic
policy. On March 26, 1999, General Wesley Clark said that "We are going
to very systematically and progressively work on his military
forces...[to see] how much pain he is willing to suffer." But this focus
on "military forces" wasn't effective, so NATO quickly turned to "taking
down...the economic apparatus supporting" Serb military forces
(Clinton's words); targets were gradually extended to factories of all
kinds, electric power stations, water and sewage processing facilities,
transport, public buildings, and even schools and hospitals. In effect,
it was NATO's strategy to bring Serbia to its knees by gradually
escalating its attacks on the civil society.
But international law makes civilian targets off limits; the "wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages or devastation not justified by
military necessity" is prohibited (Sixth Principle of Nuremberg,
formulated in 1950 by a UN-sponsored international law commission).
"Military necessity" does not allow the destruction of a civil society
to make it more difficult for the country to support its armed forces,
any more than civilians can be killed directly because they pay taxes
supporting the war machine or might some day become soldiers. Making an
entire population a hostage is a blatant violation of international law
and its implementing acts are war crimes.
In December 1999, it was finally reported that post-Arbour prosecutor
Carla Del Ponte was reviewing the conduct of NATO, at the urging of
Russia and several other "interested parties" ("U.N. Court Examines
NATO's Yugoslavia War," NYT, Dec. 29, 1999). But the news report
indicates that the focus is on the conduct of NATO pilots and their
commanders, not the NATO decision-makers who decided to target the
civilian infrastructure. It also suggests the public relations nature of
the inquiry, which would "go far in dispelling the belief...that the
tribunal is a tool used by Western leaders to escape accountability."
The report also indicates the delicate matter that the tribunal "depends
on the military alliance to arrest and hand over suspects." It also
quotes Del Ponte saying that "It's not my priority, because I have
inquiries about genocide, about bodies in mass graves." We may rest
assured that no indictments will result from this inquiry.
Beyond Orwell
NATO's leaders, frustrated in attacking the Serb military machine, quite
openly turned to smashing the civil society of Serbia as their means of
attaining the desired quick victory. Arbour and the Tribunal helped NATO
by indicting Milosevic, thereby giving NATO the moral cover needed for
escalated attacks on the hostage population.
Arbour and the Tribunal thus present us with the amazing spectacle of an
institution supposedly organized to contain, prevent, and prosecute for
war crimes actually knowingly facilitating them. Furthermore, petitions
submitted to the Tribunal during Arbour's tenure had called for
prosecution of the leaders of NATO, including Canadian Prime Minister
Jean Chretien, for the commission of war crimes. If she had been a
prosecutor in Canada, Britain or the United States, she would have been
subject to disbarment for considering and then accepting a job from a
person she had been asked to charge. But Arbour was elevated to the
Supreme Court of Canada by Chretien with hardly a mention of this
conflict of interest and immorality. **
About the authors...
Christopher Black (5) is part of the team of Canadian lawyers who have
attempted to bring war crimes charges against NATO before the War Crimes
Tribunal. At present, Mr. Black is serving as the attorney for one of
the defendant at the Rwandan war crimes hearings. He believes that
Western meddling is in large measure responsible for the horrendous
killing in Rwanda. He plans to write an article for Emperors-Clothes on
the subject.
Edward S. Herman is the author of many books including 'Real Terror
Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda' (June 1998) and 'Triumph of
the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media' (October
1995).
Further reading...
(1) See Money Talks - US Funds ICTY Public Relations at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/press.htm
(2) Back to the dark ages by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/bac.htm
(3) See NATO's War & World Security by Prof. Raju G. C. Thomas at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/security.htm
(4) See HUMANITARIAN WAR: Making the Crime Fit the Punishment by Diana
Johnstone at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/crime.htm
(5) See An Impartial Tribunal? Really? by Christopher Black at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
(6)See Conditions of Serbs in Croatia, by Alice Mahon, MP at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/mahon/croatia.htm
---
>Tribunal Watch archives are on-line at:
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/
>==========================================
>
>CANA (Christians Against NATO Aggression)
>Statement from William Spring, Director
>
>CARLA DEL PONTE SHOULD RESIGN AS WAR CRIMES PROSECUTOR
>
>Carla del Ponte should resign as war crimes prosecutor for the Hague
>Tribunal responsible for War Crimes in the area of the Former Yugoslavia.
>She has brought international law into disrepute by her decision announced
>to the Security Council June 2nd not to prosecute NATO leaders for war
>crimes committed by NATO forces in relation to the illegal military attack
>on Yugoslavia last year.
>
>Thomas Fuller, as quoted by the late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls,
>said: "whoever you are the law is above you." In effect Carla del Ponte has
>put NATO civilian & military leaders beyond the law - has given them
>immunity to engage in whatever criminal action they like. A disgrace to
>the legal profession she should be replaced forthwith by the UN Secretary
>General.
>
>Her investigation into allegations made, not only by the Russian, Yugoslav
>& Chinese Governments concerning NATO war crimes, but also by ordinary
>people across the world, (in which I include CANA, as we detailed specific
>NATO atrocities in a dossier sent to her January 28th this year) was at
>best cursory; at worst her inaction can be interpreted as the frantic
>manoeuvrings of a mafia judge eager to please her mafia paymasters.
>Someone should do an investigation into the War Crimes Tribunal & her
>role, & that of of her predecessor, Ms Arbour. How is this body financed?
>Is it a legal entity? Does the UN Charter allow for new Institutions to be
>created simply on the say so of the Security Council?
>
>What has happened is a juridical nightmare; a nominally independent
>prosecutor, who in fact is leaned on, & responds to pressure from
>representatives of whatever coalition of powers happens to hold most
>influence in the Security Council at any one time.
>
>Her willingness to receive Jamie Shea, & Robin Cook, in her office at the
>Hague, while still theoretically engaged in an investigation as to whether
>NATO had committed war crimes was reprehensible, indicating collusion &
>undue influence. She should have had the courage to stand up to gangsters
>who 'fix' international Courts in the same way as Clinton fixed Congress to
>avoid impeachment.
>
>Her Office wrote to me 15th March stating "aerial warfare is a complex
>area of military international law involving difficult issues of targeting
>& execution." That may be so, but is not an excuse to duck the moral
>questions involved. The Prosecutor gets NATO off the hook by saying she is
>not satisfied there was 'intent' on the part of the NATO authorities to
>cause civilian casualties, which misses the point entirely: all deaths
>caused by those responsible for a war of aggression, whether they be
>military or civilian, are unlawful homicides, & it's not necessary to prove
>intent for every act which flowed from the decision to engage in aggressive
>war. But in the 15th March letter Gavin Ruxton said "The Prosecutor has no
>locus to consider the lawfulness or otherwise of the NATO decision to
>launch its air campaign": which means the Tribunal is disqualified from
>making any finding acquitting NATO of war crimes. (There is of course
>unambiguous evidence of NATO's intent to cause civilian casualties.)
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>For further info tel 02088022144 cana@... also diarise
>House of Lords Cttee Room 4 12 noon 28th June 2000 Press Conference by
>Justin/Cana/Planning for Peace
>
>===========================================================================
=
>To unsubscribe from TWATCH-L: Send an e-mail to
LISTSERV@...
> In your message, type in the command: SIGNOFF TWATCH-L
>
>To resubscribe to TW, send this message to the same address: SUBSCRIBE
TWATCH-L [name of person]
>Send questions, comments, suggestions to:
> twatch-l-request@...
---
From: Herman de Tollenaere <hermantl@...>
To: right-left@...,Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.;,
Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
Subject: 9 June Amsterdam: report on Dutch ministers on trial for NATO
bombing
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:24:20 +0200
[Unofficial report, hastily written by a non-lawyer]
On Friday 9 June, at the "Paleis van Justitie" [court house] in
Amsterdam,
Dutch Government Ministers were on trial for the NATO bombing of
Yugoslavia
in 1999.
As I walk to the court house, posters of a beer brand proclaim
"Yugoslavs
like our drink". Maybe, like people in Colombia or in Sierra Leone. All
these people, however, might think one drinks more safely if there is
less
chance of dying by a bomb or other weapon made in a NATO country.
Opening
headline of the day of daily De Volkskrant: the Dutch UN representative
says
that the Netherlands armed forces should get over their Balkans trauma
by
sending a thousand soldiers to Sierra Leone. The British NATO allies
would
like that. Might the Dutch soldiers not find out too late they go there,
like to the Balkans, not really for peace; but maybe for British diamond
millionaires, fighting out their conflict with French diamond
millionaires
at the cost of lives of European soldiers and [especially] African
soldiers,
including child soldiers, and civilians? Remember racism and escalating
violence, when troops from NATO countries were supposed to bring peace
to
Somalia?
Police had not allowed a demonstration, which would have started at 10
o'clock. The case starts 11 o'clock at the "Paleis van Justitie",
Prinsengracht 434 in Amsterdam. Long before the start, people gather
outside. Pro peace leaflets change hands. A big banner goes aloft: NATO
OUT
OF THE BALKANS. It is held by a local anti war committee member, and by
a
twentyish Amsterdam university student. She is here with others of De
Socialist magazine, also present at earlier peace demonstrations.
Celine is there as well. Though more than fifty-five years ago, the Nazi
occupiers of The Netherlands put her in a camp, today she still fights
against racism and war. She is of De Anti Fascist. This is the magazine
of
the Bond van Anti Fascisten [Anti Fascist League], founded by ex members
of
the 1940-1945 resistance against German Nazi occupation. Later, younger
fighters against present day racism and other forms of discrimination
joined. The Anti Fascist League is a main source making it financially
possible to have this case: as the Yugoslav plaintiffs are very poor,
having
often lost jobs and everything by the war.
Speaking of media: a TV crew of the local [multicultural] Amsterdam TV
records the scene outside and the court case inside. Radio The
Netherlands
World Broadcasting is there; as are correspondents of De Volkskrant and
Bosnian media. Yesterday, an article in Ganashakti daily, all the way in
India, told its readers of the case.
In 1999, 29 citizens of Yugoslavia, victims of the bombs, started this
civil
court case against Ministers Kok [Prime Minister], Van Aartsen [Foreign
Affairs], and De Grave [Defense]. In May/June 1999, the judge did not
grant
their request for summary proceedings. However, he also did not throw
out
the case, as pro-war politicians might have liked. Similar court cases
are
on their way in other NATO countries; though often, in these countries
the
legal system works a little slower, or is more expensive for plaintiffs,
than in The Netherlands. In The Netherlands, there are now also cases
against the State [so, not against ministers individually, like in this
case]; other Dutch civil cases against individuals; and World Court
cases
for violation of UN Charter point 2 sub 4, against military aggression.
In a
few months' time, the case brought by surviving families of the bombed
Belgrade television studio crew members will start in The Netherlands.
Before a full big court room, Mr Van Schendel, court president, first
arranges for the media representatives' reporting. Then, he calls upon
the
bombs victims' lawyers to speak. He grants them one hour. As twenty
minutes
is usual for lawyers in civil cases, this indicates some sense of the
juridical importance of this case.
These lawyers are Mr Steijnen and Mr Olof, of Juristen voor de Vrede
[Lawyers for Peace] and the Permanente Commissie [Permanent Legal
Commission
against Dutch War Crimes]. Lawyers for Peace have a long history of
legal
challenges to the Dutch government for allowing NATO nuclear weapons in
The
Netherlands [officially, the people are not allowed to know whether the
nuclear weapons are there or not].
Mr Olof pointed out NATO's war was against the United Nations charter
and
international law. Mr Steijnen pointed out that the Dutch government,
like
NATO, claims NATO's targets were all military. The civilian victims
supposedly were "collateral damage". Really? asked Mr Steijnen. NATO
destroyed fifty churches and monasteries, over three hundred schools;
many
bridges unsuited for military vehicles; buses; passenger trains; TV
studios;
cigarette factories; 100% of chemical industry and 100% of agricultural
fertilizer industry in Yugoslavia; even apart from depleted uranium
ammunition radiation, creating enormous environmental damage. NATO used
cluster bombs.
Conservative pro NATO estimates say 1000 civilians died, 6000 were
wounded.
The MEAT report of the United States Air Force, quoted by Newsweek and
others, says all the weeks of air war destroyed 14 Yugoslav tanks, 18
armed
vehicles, 20 pieces of artillery. If we base ourselves on the
conservative
estimate of civilian victims: then, 70 civilians died for every Yugoslav
tank. Would it not be more accurate to say civilians and civilian
targets
were the real targets, and the damage against Yugoslav army vehicles and
artillery really was "collateral" damage? NATO leaders themselves
basically
admitted this [eg, when asked: why did the Yugoslav government finally
admit NATO troops in Kosovo? Eg, General Short said on BBC television
the
first target [to his regret, only destroyed later] should have been the
"rock and roll bridge" in Belgrade, where young people had concerts
against
the bombing].
Concluding, Mr Steijnen named three random examples of the plaintiffs.
One
worked as a car mechanic in Montenegro. The war started; very worried
about
his family in Belgrade, he went there, and parked his car. NATO bombs
fell
and destroyed the car. This loss meant also the loss of his mechanic's
job.
Now, he has nothing.
Another plaintiff worked in a small businessman's garage. A bomb
destroyed
the garage and the cars in it. Now, the employer is jobless and hungry.
So
is the employee.
A third example: this man used to work in a metal working factory. Bombs
totally destroyed the factory. Like its other 8000 workers, now he is
jobless.
For the ministers, Mr Houtzagers spoke. He quoted from a political
government statement, claiming NATO became involved as it worried about
stability of Albania and Macedonia [both non NATO members; and how did
the
war 'help stability' of these countries, let alone of Kosovo? Mr
Steijnen
replied]. And 'Yugoslavia had refused to negotiate seriously in
Rambouillet
[and how about NATO's proposed Appendix B, amounting to de facto
occupation
of all Yugoslavia?]'. Repeatedly interrupted by judges' critical
questions,
Mr Houtzagers talked about the legal base for the NATO attack. He
admitted
that UN Resolution 1199 was not such a legal base; nevertheless, the
government used it as justification. Mr Steijnen pointed out that only
one
member of the Dutch parliament, Mr Van Middelkoop, had known about
Resolution 1199. So, then, how about democratic control by parliament on
whether The Netherlands were at war or not [not even Prime Minister Kok
knew
when the bombing started]?
Mr Houtzagers also said the ministers could not be sued, 'as they had
acted
as organs of the State'. In reply, Mr Steijnen pointed out that at the
1945
Nuremberg trials, the court had rejected such a defense. *Individuals*
commit war crimes. The Nuremburg decisions are important in
international
law; though in its defence the Dutch government now more or less tries
to
dismiss them. They were part of the precedents claimed, by, for
instance,
the 1993 establishment of the court on Yugoslavia in The Hague. Mr
Steijnen
said: "How would a court react to General Pinochet claiming he had not
been
an individual, only '"an organ of the state"?
To the argument: "the war is over now, so the plaintiffs have no case
anymore. [Two of the plaintiffs last year complained, as the war had
made
them join the Yugoslav army as conscripts, thus putting them in danger
involuntarily]", Mr Steijnen replied the plaintiffs still were in
danger,
also if they would all continue to be civilians as at the moment; as
there
was only a cease fire, not peace. If one listens today to Dutch and
other
NATO leaders they may not yet have learned not to start a similar war
again
against Yugoslavia [or against another country].
President Van Schendel concluded the session by saying that the court
decision will, in principle, become public at 6 July, at 11.30 in the
same
court house. However, Mr Van Schendel left open the possibility that the
court would need more time for the legal complexities of the case; then,
the
verdict would be later.
Even if Lawyers for Peace lose the case in Amsterdam, they will appeal,
all
the way up to the European Court.
After the court case, Mr Houtzagers, contrary to the bombs victims'
lawyers,
refused to answer media questions. Later that day, there was a meeting.
Other Dutch ministers may also face civil cases. So may F16 pilots. So
may
pro-war Members of Parliament like Mr Blaauw of the ["Rightist Liberal"]
VVD
government party: Blaauw, during the Balkan war, talked of glorious
profit
opportunities for Dutch construction millionaires in Kosovo, after the
NATO
bombs would have done their job. Mr Blaauw is also a leader of the Press
Now
organization; officially for 'independent' [in fact, NATOish] media in
the
Balkans. Maybe, also a civil case by people hurt by the bombs, against
Mr De
Hoop Scheffer of the ["Christian Democrat"] CDA [very pro bombing,
though
officially in opposition].
And, maybe also civil damages claims against Marcel Rüter, businessman,
and
leader of the extreme Rightist Voorpost ["Vanguard"] movement, not
represented in government or parliament, which made pro bombing
propaganda.
Mr Rüter is an ex leader of the Centrumpartij'86, members of which used
to
rally for Adolf Hitler and his deputy, Rudolf Hess. Used to, *as
Centrumpartij'86 people*; because a few years ago, the courts banned
this
party for racism; after members had gone to jail for violence. In 1999
Voorpost tried a political comeback on the wave of pro-war and
anti-Serb-anti-Roma-and-anti-other-foreigner propaganda in the 'popular'
media. Maybe an opportunity for the Anti Fascist League to figuratively
"kill the two birds, of war and racism, with one stone"?
Best wishes,
Herman de Tollenaere
---
http://www.counterpunch.com
CounterPunch [Originally published at Swans: http://www.swans.com]
June 4, 2000
An Impartial Tribunal, Really?
By Christopher Black
-
http://www.serbianna.com/dorich/stories/00_06_09.html
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
By William Dorich
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
EMBARGO CONTRO IL POPOLO IRACHENO:
L'ITALIA "NON PUO' FAR NULLA"?!?
Si è svolto oggi (13/6) alla Camera dei Deputati la discussione generale
sulle mozioni per la revoca dell'embargo all'Iraq.
La petizione "per la dissocizione italiana dll'embargo" è stata
annunciata in aula e l'On Cento ha letto un intervento a
nome dei firmatari della petizione.
Gli intervenuti (il dibattito integrale si può leggere sul sito della
camera www.camera.it) si sono unanimemente espressi
per la revoca delle sanzioni all'Iraq.
Il sottosegretario Intini, invece, nella sostanza ha sostenuto che
l'Italia non può far nulla senza un preventivo consenso
europeo (cioè mai, vista la posizione inglese) e senza la integrale
applicazione delle risoluzioni Onu, rimettendosi quindi
nelle mani degli Stati Uniti. Negando così ancora una volta le
responsablità italiane.
Per ora i testi delle mozioni presentate si limitano a impegnare il
Governo ad operare per la revoca delle sanzioni e, vista
la posizione espressa da Intini, si rischia ancora di avere una
risoluzione senza conseguenze.
Invitiamo tutti a mantenere la pressione sul Parlamento inviando a
posta@... e-mail con oggetto "Cari
deputati" che saranno redirette verso tuttii deputati.
campagna Rompere l'embargo
---
MILANO
Sabato 17 giugno 2000
alle ore 15
presso la libreria esoterica ecumenica Falcone
di piazza Missori, Milano
Il Prof. Marco Aurelio Rivelli
si incontrerà con il pubblico per parlare del suo libro “
L'ARCIVESCOVO DEL GENOCIDIO
sul “beato” Stepinac.
Il 28 giugno l’autore sarà in Grecia per presentare l’edizione greca di
questo libro.
Prossimamente entra in stampa il nuovo libro su Pio XII e le
responsabilità della Chiesa nei genocidi (nei vari paesi europei)
durante la Seconda guerra mondiale.
---
TORINO
CENA BENEFIT PER L'OSPEDALE DI KRAGUJEVAC
23 GIUGNO 2000 ORE 20
CSOA ASKATASUNA TORINO
Il coordinamento Torinese per la Jugoslavia sta organizzando per la
serata
del 23 giugno una cena jugoslava, destinando i proventi alla raccolta di
fondi necessari per l'acquisto di medicinali destinati all'ospedale
"KBG" di
Kragujevac.
Durante la serata saranno proiettati video documentari sulla situazione
in
Jugoslavia.
Chi ha intenzione di partecipare alla serata benefit è pregato di
prenotare
telefonando a Flavio 0338 1755563 o via e-mail a
lamonaca@...
entro il 19 giugno alle ore 12.
I disoccupati e gli studenti sottoscriveranno una quota di £ 15.000,
tutti
gli altri £ 25000.
L'ospedale di Kragujevac assiste malati di tutta la regione della
Sumadia e
delle regioni intorno; oggi dopo le devastazioni criminali della NATO,
l'ospedale cura circa 2.000.000 di malati, solo per pediatria e
oncologia.
A questa popolazione si sono aggiunti circa 20.000 profughi dal Kosovo
che
vanno a sommarsi alle decine di migliaia di profughi provenienti da
Croazia
e Bosnia.
Gli effetti devastanti dei bombardamenti su obiettivi civili, sulle
industrie chimiche hanno incrementato esponenzialmente i tumori della
pelle
e i calcinomi uterini e mammellari, oltre ai disturbi psichici e
nervosi, ma
anche febbri e problemi gastro intestinali.
A questi problemi si aggiunge il criminale embargo e le sanzioni contro
la
Jugoslavia: negli ospedali mancano ormai tutti i tipi di medicinali e
soprattutto anestetici, citostatici, antibiotici e medicine per la
psichiatria e la pediatria.
Torino 12 giugno 2000
COORDINAMENTO TORINESE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA
---
CAMPO ANTIMPERIALISTA
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/281?&start=252
Piccola rettifica di ordine amministrativo
Molti compagni ci hanno inviato dei messaggi facendoci notare un errore
contenuto nel
nostro comunicato di ieri.
In effetti, indicando il conto corrente postale n.12134623 intestato al
centro Studi P. Tresso
su cui fare il versamento per la prenotazione abbiamo omesso di indicare
il recapito del C/C
stesso.
Chi effettuasse il versamento deve compilare il modulo postale come
segue:
Conto Corrente Postale n.12134623 intestato al centro Studi P.
Tresso
Casella Postale 43 - 06034 Foligno (PG)
Ce ne scusiamo coi lettori.
Il Comitato Organizzativo del Campo.
---
BARI
Most za Beograd - Un ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari
Associazione culturale di solidarietà con la popolazione jugoslava
c/o RdB, via M. Cristina di Savoia 40, BARI. e-mail: ponte@...
mercoledì 21 giugno ore 17.00
Facoltà di Lingue
via Garruba 4 Bari
Jugoslavia 2000. Quale situazione? Quali prospettive?
Relazioni e interventi di:
Ugo Villani, ordinario di diritto internazionale - Università di Bari:
L'ONU e la crisi del Kosovo un anno dopo
Dragan Mraovic, console capo della Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia a
Bari: La Serbia, tra ricostruzione ed embargo
Intermezzo recitato a cura dell'associazione teatrale Grammelot di
Molfetta
- Le 15 bugie di Jamie Shea
- Gott mit uns: il monologo di Wesley Clark
- Carla dei miracoli alla corte dell'Aja
Jasna Tkalec, redattrice della rivista Hrvatska Ljevica (sinistra
croata): Croazia: la pesante eredità dell'era Tudjman e le prospettive
future
Nico Perrone, docente di Storia contemporanea - Università di Bari
Giuseppe Belviso, giornalista e telecineoperatore di RAI 3
coordina Andrea Catone, dell'associazione Most za Beograd
---
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
"Senza Censura"
Per rilanciare il dibattito su repressione e carcere
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
Sommario n.2/2000:
- Mumia Abu-Jamal:
L'irragionevolezza del caso.
Dal Braccio della Morte!
Tributo ad Albert "Nuh" Washington
Dal carcere di Novara, per Mumia
- Strategia della Controrivoluzione
L'U.E. grande potenza
Adriatico: avamposto permanente per la guerra nei Balcani
Il Montenegro
Ad un anno dalla guerra
Il punto di vista della controrivoluzione
- Ristrutturazione e Controllo:
Repressione e mondo del lavoro
Ristrutturazione e processo penale
"Nuove" tecniche di controllo
Il grande fratello
Trasporti e diritto di sciopero
Legge e ordine "made in U.s.a."
- Repressione e Lotte:
Il caos come normalità (cronologia ragionata)
L'editoriale:
Questo secondo numero, uscito secondo la tabella di marcia che prevede
Senza
Censura in distribuzione ogni quattro mesi, lo presentiamo ai lettori
con
particolare soddisfazione.
Come tutte le scommesse (editoriali e non) la seconda uscita e' un po'
la
cartina di tornasole dell'intero progetto: dopo gli sforzi del primo
numero
e' qui infatti che si comincia a verificare se effettivamente il lavoro
fatto ha dei riscontri, se riesce cioe' a 'girare' al di la' dello
sforzo
volontaristico della redazione.
E a gudicare dai materiali raccolti (siamo stati costretti ad aumentare
il
numero di pagine previste) e dal lavoro di distribuzione fatto in questi
mesi, il bilancio puo' dirsi senz'altro positivo.
Molte sono state le serate di presentazione organizzate in varie citta'
italiane, ancora di piu' sono stati i momenti di confronto "informali"
tra
compagni e compagne che hanno avuto come centro di discussione la
rivista e
piu' in generale la problematica della repressione con essa trattata.
Molte, naturalmente, le critiche, i suggerimenti, i contributi.
La difficolta' maggiore e' senz'altro quella di rendere organico il
lavoro,
di fare intravedere nella successione degli articoli e degli argomenti
quella traccia, quel filo rosso che vorremmo evidenziare tra aspetti
anche
cosi' diversi della questione "repressione".
Soprattutto nel primo numero, il rischio "collage" era forte. Ancora
piu'
forte, forse, il rischio di non riuscire a collocare questo lavoro
all'interno di una chiara lettura di classe che vede la repressione non
come
un "fenomeno" oggetto di studi quasi sociologici a se' stanti, ma come
uno
strumento strategico del capitale a livello internazionale per governare
la
propria crisi, per affiancare e sostenere i tentativi di
ristrutturazione
che a livello globale vengono messi in campo per mantenere intatto il
proprio dominio sulle classi sfruttate di tutto il mondo.
E infine, ma non meno importante, per mettere una costante ipoteca sulla
possibilita' di sviluppo di qualsiasi forma di organizzazione che
all'interno di questa crisi tenta di riaffermare prospettive di
trasformazione/liberazione al di fuori delle compatibilita' stabilite
dai
vari potentati in ogni angolo del pianeta.
Del resto, in questo anno "post-bellico", proprio su questo terreno
l'Italia
ha visto una progressione repressiva degna degli anni '80, con decine di
arresti e centinaia di perquisizioni che hanno "scandagliato" le piu'
diverse esperienze dell'organizzazione di classe nel costante tentivo di
ostacolare o comunque condizionare pesantemente lo sviluppo di qualsiasi
anche minimo livello di critica politica dell'esistente.
Ci sembra comunque che un po' alla volta, anche dal lavoro della
redazione,
comincino a delinearsi alcuni terreni di approfondimento che puntano con
decisione nella direzione prefissata, trovando numerosi riscontri e
raccogliendo diversi contributi non fini a se' stessi ma che pian piano
evidenziano filoni di dibattito ben precisi da sviluppare in avanti.
In questa direzione si conferma ancora efficace la divisione della
rivista
nelle quattro sezioni individuate nel numero scorso: Strategie della
Controrivoluzione, Ristrutturazione e Controllo, Repressione delle
Lotte,
oltre alla immancabile sezione di aggiornamente sulla campagna contro
l'assassinio di Mumia Abu-Jamal, che cerca ancora una volta di fare il
punto
su una vicenda che ci vede impegnati da anni insieme a milioni di
persone in
tutto il mondo determinate a strappare questo rivoluzionario dalle mani
del
boia.
E cosi' l'analisi dei processi di ristrutturazione della Nato, con le
sue
pesanti implicazioni su tutta l'area Sud-Orientale che fanno dell'Europa
uno
scacchiere fondamentale per le strategie di controllo imperialiste a
livello
globale, ci sembra consolidarsi come un terreno importante di confronto
e di
approfondimento politico della rivista.
Come pure, sulle questioni del lavoro, la circolazione di riflessioni e
contributi tesi non solo a smascherare una chiara tendenza
antiproletaria
delle "nuove" legislazioni e delle "nuove" forme di organizzazione della
produzione ma che cominciano a riaffrontare un po' alla volta anche la
questione dell'organizzazione di classe in un settore dove da anni lo
scoramento e la mancanza di prospettive dominavano la scena, ci sembra
un
aspetto senza dubbio interessante.
Un'altra questione su cui si sta sviluppando un importante lavoro di
approfondimento che proseguira' nei prossimi numeri e' l'analisi del
complesso carcerario negli USA, un sentiero "dannato" che ci porta nei
meandri della "bestia" aiutandoci a comprendere meglio una realta'
spesso
solo intravista tra le veline dei giornali ma, nostro malgrado, specchio
premonitore di molte trasformazioni gia' riconoscibili nelle strategie
politiche dei padroni nostrani.
E in ultimo, un tentativo di rendere un po' piu' immediato e fruibile il
frammentato resoconto di notizie, buone e cattive, che per forza di cose
si
accavallano tra un numero e l'altro, proposto ora nella forma di un
"calendario" che alterna in ordine cronologico flash a piccoli articoli
piu'
approfonditi.
Non ci stancheremo mai di ripetere, prima di lasciarvi alla lettura
della
rivista, come per noi sia assolutamente fondamentale che al lavoro della
redazione si affianchi la collaborazione e il contributo di quanti,
singoli
individui o esperienze collettive, pensano di avere qualcosa da dire
sulle
molte tematiche proposte, nella convinzione che questo possa fornire un
piccolo ma importante strumento nelle mani di chi ha scelto di opporsi
alle
brutalita' e alle aberrazioni della societa' del capitale.
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
Per chi volesse inviarci del materiale per la
pubblicazione su "Senza Censura" deve indirizzare a:
Centro di Documentaqzione "Krupskaja"
(specificando: per Senza Censura)
Via del Verrocchio 12/N
40138 - Bologna
E-mail: senzacensura@...
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
L'ITALIA "NON PUO' FAR NULLA"?!?
Si è svolto oggi (13/6) alla Camera dei Deputati la discussione generale
sulle mozioni per la revoca dell'embargo all'Iraq.
La petizione "per la dissocizione italiana dll'embargo" è stata
annunciata in aula e l'On Cento ha letto un intervento a
nome dei firmatari della petizione.
Gli intervenuti (il dibattito integrale si può leggere sul sito della
camera www.camera.it) si sono unanimemente espressi
per la revoca delle sanzioni all'Iraq.
Il sottosegretario Intini, invece, nella sostanza ha sostenuto che
l'Italia non può far nulla senza un preventivo consenso
europeo (cioè mai, vista la posizione inglese) e senza la integrale
applicazione delle risoluzioni Onu, rimettendosi quindi
nelle mani degli Stati Uniti. Negando così ancora una volta le
responsablità italiane.
Per ora i testi delle mozioni presentate si limitano a impegnare il
Governo ad operare per la revoca delle sanzioni e, vista
la posizione espressa da Intini, si rischia ancora di avere una
risoluzione senza conseguenze.
Invitiamo tutti a mantenere la pressione sul Parlamento inviando a
posta@... e-mail con oggetto "Cari
deputati" che saranno redirette verso tuttii deputati.
campagna Rompere l'embargo
---
MILANO
Sabato 17 giugno 2000
alle ore 15
presso la libreria esoterica ecumenica Falcone
di piazza Missori, Milano
Il Prof. Marco Aurelio Rivelli
si incontrerà con il pubblico per parlare del suo libro “
L'ARCIVESCOVO DEL GENOCIDIO
sul “beato” Stepinac.
Il 28 giugno l’autore sarà in Grecia per presentare l’edizione greca di
questo libro.
Prossimamente entra in stampa il nuovo libro su Pio XII e le
responsabilità della Chiesa nei genocidi (nei vari paesi europei)
durante la Seconda guerra mondiale.
---
TORINO
CENA BENEFIT PER L'OSPEDALE DI KRAGUJEVAC
23 GIUGNO 2000 ORE 20
CSOA ASKATASUNA TORINO
Il coordinamento Torinese per la Jugoslavia sta organizzando per la
serata
del 23 giugno una cena jugoslava, destinando i proventi alla raccolta di
fondi necessari per l'acquisto di medicinali destinati all'ospedale
"KBG" di
Kragujevac.
Durante la serata saranno proiettati video documentari sulla situazione
in
Jugoslavia.
Chi ha intenzione di partecipare alla serata benefit è pregato di
prenotare
telefonando a Flavio 0338 1755563 o via e-mail a
lamonaca@...
entro il 19 giugno alle ore 12.
I disoccupati e gli studenti sottoscriveranno una quota di £ 15.000,
tutti
gli altri £ 25000.
L'ospedale di Kragujevac assiste malati di tutta la regione della
Sumadia e
delle regioni intorno; oggi dopo le devastazioni criminali della NATO,
l'ospedale cura circa 2.000.000 di malati, solo per pediatria e
oncologia.
A questa popolazione si sono aggiunti circa 20.000 profughi dal Kosovo
che
vanno a sommarsi alle decine di migliaia di profughi provenienti da
Croazia
e Bosnia.
Gli effetti devastanti dei bombardamenti su obiettivi civili, sulle
industrie chimiche hanno incrementato esponenzialmente i tumori della
pelle
e i calcinomi uterini e mammellari, oltre ai disturbi psichici e
nervosi, ma
anche febbri e problemi gastro intestinali.
A questi problemi si aggiunge il criminale embargo e le sanzioni contro
la
Jugoslavia: negli ospedali mancano ormai tutti i tipi di medicinali e
soprattutto anestetici, citostatici, antibiotici e medicine per la
psichiatria e la pediatria.
Torino 12 giugno 2000
COORDINAMENTO TORINESE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA
---
CAMPO ANTIMPERIALISTA
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/281?&start=252
Piccola rettifica di ordine amministrativo
Molti compagni ci hanno inviato dei messaggi facendoci notare un errore
contenuto nel
nostro comunicato di ieri.
In effetti, indicando il conto corrente postale n.12134623 intestato al
centro Studi P. Tresso
su cui fare il versamento per la prenotazione abbiamo omesso di indicare
il recapito del C/C
stesso.
Chi effettuasse il versamento deve compilare il modulo postale come
segue:
Conto Corrente Postale n.12134623 intestato al centro Studi P.
Tresso
Casella Postale 43 - 06034 Foligno (PG)
Ce ne scusiamo coi lettori.
Il Comitato Organizzativo del Campo.
---
BARI
Most za Beograd - Un ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari
Associazione culturale di solidarietà con la popolazione jugoslava
c/o RdB, via M. Cristina di Savoia 40, BARI. e-mail: ponte@...
mercoledì 21 giugno ore 17.00
Facoltà di Lingue
via Garruba 4 Bari
Jugoslavia 2000. Quale situazione? Quali prospettive?
Relazioni e interventi di:
Ugo Villani, ordinario di diritto internazionale - Università di Bari:
L'ONU e la crisi del Kosovo un anno dopo
Dragan Mraovic, console capo della Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia a
Bari: La Serbia, tra ricostruzione ed embargo
Intermezzo recitato a cura dell'associazione teatrale Grammelot di
Molfetta
- Le 15 bugie di Jamie Shea
- Gott mit uns: il monologo di Wesley Clark
- Carla dei miracoli alla corte dell'Aja
Jasna Tkalec, redattrice della rivista Hrvatska Ljevica (sinistra
croata): Croazia: la pesante eredità dell'era Tudjman e le prospettive
future
Nico Perrone, docente di Storia contemporanea - Università di Bari
Giuseppe Belviso, giornalista e telecineoperatore di RAI 3
coordina Andrea Catone, dell'associazione Most za Beograd
---
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
"Senza Censura"
Per rilanciare il dibattito su repressione e carcere
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
Sommario n.2/2000:
- Mumia Abu-Jamal:
L'irragionevolezza del caso.
Dal Braccio della Morte!
Tributo ad Albert "Nuh" Washington
Dal carcere di Novara, per Mumia
- Strategia della Controrivoluzione
L'U.E. grande potenza
Adriatico: avamposto permanente per la guerra nei Balcani
Il Montenegro
Ad un anno dalla guerra
Il punto di vista della controrivoluzione
- Ristrutturazione e Controllo:
Repressione e mondo del lavoro
Ristrutturazione e processo penale
"Nuove" tecniche di controllo
Il grande fratello
Trasporti e diritto di sciopero
Legge e ordine "made in U.s.a."
- Repressione e Lotte:
Il caos come normalità (cronologia ragionata)
L'editoriale:
Questo secondo numero, uscito secondo la tabella di marcia che prevede
Senza
Censura in distribuzione ogni quattro mesi, lo presentiamo ai lettori
con
particolare soddisfazione.
Come tutte le scommesse (editoriali e non) la seconda uscita e' un po'
la
cartina di tornasole dell'intero progetto: dopo gli sforzi del primo
numero
e' qui infatti che si comincia a verificare se effettivamente il lavoro
fatto ha dei riscontri, se riesce cioe' a 'girare' al di la' dello
sforzo
volontaristico della redazione.
E a gudicare dai materiali raccolti (siamo stati costretti ad aumentare
il
numero di pagine previste) e dal lavoro di distribuzione fatto in questi
mesi, il bilancio puo' dirsi senz'altro positivo.
Molte sono state le serate di presentazione organizzate in varie citta'
italiane, ancora di piu' sono stati i momenti di confronto "informali"
tra
compagni e compagne che hanno avuto come centro di discussione la
rivista e
piu' in generale la problematica della repressione con essa trattata.
Molte, naturalmente, le critiche, i suggerimenti, i contributi.
La difficolta' maggiore e' senz'altro quella di rendere organico il
lavoro,
di fare intravedere nella successione degli articoli e degli argomenti
quella traccia, quel filo rosso che vorremmo evidenziare tra aspetti
anche
cosi' diversi della questione "repressione".
Soprattutto nel primo numero, il rischio "collage" era forte. Ancora
piu'
forte, forse, il rischio di non riuscire a collocare questo lavoro
all'interno di una chiara lettura di classe che vede la repressione non
come
un "fenomeno" oggetto di studi quasi sociologici a se' stanti, ma come
uno
strumento strategico del capitale a livello internazionale per governare
la
propria crisi, per affiancare e sostenere i tentativi di
ristrutturazione
che a livello globale vengono messi in campo per mantenere intatto il
proprio dominio sulle classi sfruttate di tutto il mondo.
E infine, ma non meno importante, per mettere una costante ipoteca sulla
possibilita' di sviluppo di qualsiasi forma di organizzazione che
all'interno di questa crisi tenta di riaffermare prospettive di
trasformazione/liberazione al di fuori delle compatibilita' stabilite
dai
vari potentati in ogni angolo del pianeta.
Del resto, in questo anno "post-bellico", proprio su questo terreno
l'Italia
ha visto una progressione repressiva degna degli anni '80, con decine di
arresti e centinaia di perquisizioni che hanno "scandagliato" le piu'
diverse esperienze dell'organizzazione di classe nel costante tentivo di
ostacolare o comunque condizionare pesantemente lo sviluppo di qualsiasi
anche minimo livello di critica politica dell'esistente.
Ci sembra comunque che un po' alla volta, anche dal lavoro della
redazione,
comincino a delinearsi alcuni terreni di approfondimento che puntano con
decisione nella direzione prefissata, trovando numerosi riscontri e
raccogliendo diversi contributi non fini a se' stessi ma che pian piano
evidenziano filoni di dibattito ben precisi da sviluppare in avanti.
In questa direzione si conferma ancora efficace la divisione della
rivista
nelle quattro sezioni individuate nel numero scorso: Strategie della
Controrivoluzione, Ristrutturazione e Controllo, Repressione delle
Lotte,
oltre alla immancabile sezione di aggiornamente sulla campagna contro
l'assassinio di Mumia Abu-Jamal, che cerca ancora una volta di fare il
punto
su una vicenda che ci vede impegnati da anni insieme a milioni di
persone in
tutto il mondo determinate a strappare questo rivoluzionario dalle mani
del
boia.
E cosi' l'analisi dei processi di ristrutturazione della Nato, con le
sue
pesanti implicazioni su tutta l'area Sud-Orientale che fanno dell'Europa
uno
scacchiere fondamentale per le strategie di controllo imperialiste a
livello
globale, ci sembra consolidarsi come un terreno importante di confronto
e di
approfondimento politico della rivista.
Come pure, sulle questioni del lavoro, la circolazione di riflessioni e
contributi tesi non solo a smascherare una chiara tendenza
antiproletaria
delle "nuove" legislazioni e delle "nuove" forme di organizzazione della
produzione ma che cominciano a riaffrontare un po' alla volta anche la
questione dell'organizzazione di classe in un settore dove da anni lo
scoramento e la mancanza di prospettive dominavano la scena, ci sembra
un
aspetto senza dubbio interessante.
Un'altra questione su cui si sta sviluppando un importante lavoro di
approfondimento che proseguira' nei prossimi numeri e' l'analisi del
complesso carcerario negli USA, un sentiero "dannato" che ci porta nei
meandri della "bestia" aiutandoci a comprendere meglio una realta'
spesso
solo intravista tra le veline dei giornali ma, nostro malgrado, specchio
premonitore di molte trasformazioni gia' riconoscibili nelle strategie
politiche dei padroni nostrani.
E in ultimo, un tentativo di rendere un po' piu' immediato e fruibile il
frammentato resoconto di notizie, buone e cattive, che per forza di cose
si
accavallano tra un numero e l'altro, proposto ora nella forma di un
"calendario" che alterna in ordine cronologico flash a piccoli articoli
piu'
approfonditi.
Non ci stancheremo mai di ripetere, prima di lasciarvi alla lettura
della
rivista, come per noi sia assolutamente fondamentale che al lavoro della
redazione si affianchi la collaborazione e il contributo di quanti,
singoli
individui o esperienze collettive, pensano di avere qualcosa da dire
sulle
molte tematiche proposte, nella convinzione che questo possa fornire un
piccolo ma importante strumento nelle mani di chi ha scelto di opporsi
alle
brutalita' e alle aberrazioni della societa' del capitale.
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
Per chi volesse inviarci del materiale per la
pubblicazione su "Senza Censura" deve indirizzare a:
Centro di Documentaqzione "Krupskaja"
(specificando: per Senza Censura)
Via del Verrocchio 12/N
40138 - Bologna
E-mail: senzacensura@...
[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]][[[[]]]]][[[[]]]
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
QUELLI CHE AMANO GLI ANIMALI PIU' CHE GLI ESSERI UMANI
I diplomatici jugoslavi a Berlino stanno ricevendo in questi giorni
numerose lettere di protesta da organizzazioni caritatevoli e per la
protezione degli animali, nelle quali si chiede la cessazione degli
"eccidi di massa di cani" in Serbia. Queste organizzazioni sostengono di
essere venute a conoscenza delle programmata liquidazione di 350 cani,
probabilmente randagi, in Serbia entro il 15 giugno 2000.
"Vi preghiamo di evitare questo nuovo genocidio", c'e' scritto su una di
queste lettere. "Non e' stato gettato abbastanza sangue nelle guerre di
questi anni?"
In tutti questi mesi la missione diplomatica jugoslava a Berlino non ha
ricevuto neanche una singola lettera di protesta, nemmeno per
conoscenza, relativamente alla uccisione di piu' di mille persone nella
provincia del Kosmet.
(Fonte: www.Serbia-Info.com, 14/6/2000)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
I diplomatici jugoslavi a Berlino stanno ricevendo in questi giorni
numerose lettere di protesta da organizzazioni caritatevoli e per la
protezione degli animali, nelle quali si chiede la cessazione degli
"eccidi di massa di cani" in Serbia. Queste organizzazioni sostengono di
essere venute a conoscenza delle programmata liquidazione di 350 cani,
probabilmente randagi, in Serbia entro il 15 giugno 2000.
"Vi preghiamo di evitare questo nuovo genocidio", c'e' scritto su una di
queste lettere. "Non e' stato gettato abbastanza sangue nelle guerre di
questi anni?"
In tutti questi mesi la missione diplomatica jugoslava a Berlino non ha
ricevuto neanche una singola lettera di protesta, nemmeno per
conoscenza, relativamente alla uccisione di piu' di mille persone nella
provincia del Kosmet.
(Fonte: www.Serbia-Info.com, 14/6/2000)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE WRONG
Mail version: the complete version, with links, is at
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html
--------------------------------------
A Serbian child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as
much
pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British
governments do
not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights.
That
fate is reserved for East Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The western
human
rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They
claim
opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that
their
own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would never subject their
own
fellow citizens to the same treatment as (for instance) the inhabitants
of
Belgrade. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' is itself relative. More
likely,
it is just a propaganda slogan anyway. Increasingly, the doctrine of
human
rights is the cause of suffering, oppression and injustice.
Increasingly, the
argument that superpowers have a 'moral duty' to enforce human rights,
is used
in the same way as the doctrine of the 'civilising mission' once was
used to
justify colonialism. This text presents a clear rejection of human
rights,
without any appeal to cultural relativism / ethical relativism.
The ethical system of rights
-----
In the claims made by advocates of human rights, rights generally have
the
following characteristics...
-- a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another
person
-- usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all
human beings
-- the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the
right
to be declared
-- there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which
constitute 'respect' of the right
-- these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
-- there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or this
restraint
from action)
-- the person with the right has no moral grounds to oppose this action
-
even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
-- therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken
against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a
right, and
these actions do not constitute a harm
-- since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not
wrong,
even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person
affected considers them a harm
These are the far-reaching claims made by all advocates of rights, and
especially by the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this
summary,
that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral
autonomy.
Some people in history have indeed claimed the rights that were conceded
to
them - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They
are
not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person
must
accept all rights declared for them (by others), clearly contradicts the
idea
of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of
consent. 'Declared rights' are by definition authoritarian. It is these
aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for
oppression.
The Prizren water supply
-----
The logic of rights can be illustrated with a familiar example, addition
of
substances to drinking water. Consider these examples...
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to filter the drinking water to
remove bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask
their consent.
That seems relatively harmless, and indeed desirable. But the moral
logic is
no different in the following examples....
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add chlorine to the
drinking
water, to kill bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city,
or ask
their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add fluoride to the
drinking
water, to improve dental health. It does not inform the residents of the
city,
or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add contraceptives to the
drinking water, since the high birth rate is overloading the health-care
system. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add Prozac to the drinking
water,
to reduce the incidence of post-traumatic depression. It does not inform
the
residents of the city, or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add a genetically modified
HIV
virus to the drinking water, as a form of vaccination against an AIDS
epidemic. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
The list shows how easy it is to extend the range of a right (and indeed
the
UN administration in Kosovo has taken extraordinary steps to control
cultural
and political life there). The United Nations decided, without
consulting me,
that I have a right not to be tortured - and that is considered morally
legitimate. But what is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a
right to
be tortured? The United Nations decided that I have a right to life. But
what
is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a right to death?
But this type of argument - the 'slippery slope ', or 'consequentialism'
- is
rejected anyway by many moral philosophers. They would claim that, just
because a principle has undesirable consequences in certain cases, that
does
not rule it out as a moral principle. But it is the principle itself
which is
wrong here - the principle that certain actions are in effect exempt
from
moral judgment, because they constitute 'respect' of a right.
Human rights: opposing principles
-----
The best way to illustrate this is to look at how rights could be
ethically
acceptable. That could be through these alternative principles...
***
1 "Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without
consent."
2 "Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any."
3 "It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself
subject
to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a
right,
even a right that has been consented to."
4 "An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can
be a
harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what
constitutes a harm to themselves."
5 "Specifically, the state or international organisations may not
declare
rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation
of
those rights, and expressed their consent."
6 "Rights may be renounced at any time."
7 "There must be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights.
Obviously
this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as
the
United Nations."
8 "An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered
into the agreement."
9 "Objections of conscience to any right are valid."
***
This list only shows how different the present human rights idea is, in
comparison. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like
these principles.
The UN-declared human rights
-----
The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned
with a
specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this
case,
the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby
claims,
that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But
what
basis does that have?
-- The document was approved by the diplomatic representatives of UN
member
states. No other persons or organisations participated in the
negotiations on
the text.
-- These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their
allies,
with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership
of the
United Nations.
-- In many cases, the government and political system in these states
had
been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe
especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political
process to
obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence).
Even by
the limited standards of parliamentary elections, they governments did
not
'represent' their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and
China, a
civil war was in progress.
-- Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto
protectorates of
Allied powers - such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled
colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South
Africa.
-- Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from
any
political influence - such as the remains of the German minorities in
Eastern
Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military
occupation, and not represented.
-- Some of the States - Afghanistan, for instance - had no modern
political
system of any kind.
-- Most notably, Africa was 'represented' by colonial powers. At the
time,
most held no elections of any kind, in most of their colonial territory.
Often, all political activity by 'natives' was forbidden.
-- Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure,
their
position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet
Union,
Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent,
dependent
on their protecting power (or colonial power).
-- The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and
the
Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet
Union
was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary
historical
text of the Cold War.
-- Most of the world population never even saw the text, before it was
approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few
official
languages in which it was written. The text is still not available, in
the
majority of the languages spoken on earth.
-- No election was held in any country, with the text as an election
issue.
-- No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the
text, in
any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since it
was not
a Treaty.
-- No individual ever formally consented to the document as an
individual:
the United Nations never organised such a consent procedure.
-- I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved
before I
was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.
-- There is no procedure for revision of the declaration.
-- There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic
re-approval,
of the Declaration.
-- The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely,
beyond the
lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of
amending it
or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by
the Declaration.
-- There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the
rights
imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United
Nations
-- Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against
military
action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary
to
destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then
no-one
can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual
residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal
-
certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.
For a document conferring such powers, this is a very weak ethical
basis. Even
more so, because it is now treated as the basic document of the United
Nations
(in contrast to the UN Charter, which guarantees national sovereignty).
If the
United States recolonises Africa over the next 15 years, then it will
almost
certainly refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as the
legal
basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only
superpower
capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it,
the
temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute
force,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for
global
conquest, in a uni-polar world.
Human rights are clearly political
-----
There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a
specific
political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights
have
also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic
liberalism
(the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the
liberal
tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only
are
human rights not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'.
This
text completely rejects human rights, but from a background which is as
European as liberalism. It is certainly not an African (or Asian, or
Slavic)
cultural or philosophical viewpoint. Human rights are not culturally
specific,
they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic
political ideology.
The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that
political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package.
The
supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade,
democracy,
an open society and the free market. The two recent explicit military
interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought
open
free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO
or the
OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together,
as if
they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are.
--
Paul Treanor
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Mail version: the complete version, with links, is at
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html
--------------------------------------
A Serbian child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as
much
pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British
governments do
not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights.
That
fate is reserved for East Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The western
human
rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They
claim
opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that
their
own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would never subject their
own
fellow citizens to the same treatment as (for instance) the inhabitants
of
Belgrade. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' is itself relative. More
likely,
it is just a propaganda slogan anyway. Increasingly, the doctrine of
human
rights is the cause of suffering, oppression and injustice.
Increasingly, the
argument that superpowers have a 'moral duty' to enforce human rights,
is used
in the same way as the doctrine of the 'civilising mission' once was
used to
justify colonialism. This text presents a clear rejection of human
rights,
without any appeal to cultural relativism / ethical relativism.
The ethical system of rights
-----
In the claims made by advocates of human rights, rights generally have
the
following characteristics...
-- a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another
person
-- usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all
human beings
-- the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the
right
to be declared
-- there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which
constitute 'respect' of the right
-- these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
-- there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or this
restraint
from action)
-- the person with the right has no moral grounds to oppose this action
-
even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
-- therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken
against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a
right, and
these actions do not constitute a harm
-- since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not
wrong,
even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person
affected considers them a harm
These are the far-reaching claims made by all advocates of rights, and
especially by the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this
summary,
that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral
autonomy.
Some people in history have indeed claimed the rights that were conceded
to
them - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They
are
not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person
must
accept all rights declared for them (by others), clearly contradicts the
idea
of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of
consent. 'Declared rights' are by definition authoritarian. It is these
aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for
oppression.
The Prizren water supply
-----
The logic of rights can be illustrated with a familiar example, addition
of
substances to drinking water. Consider these examples...
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to filter the drinking water to
remove bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask
their consent.
That seems relatively harmless, and indeed desirable. But the moral
logic is
no different in the following examples....
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add chlorine to the
drinking
water, to kill bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city,
or ask
their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add fluoride to the
drinking
water, to improve dental health. It does not inform the residents of the
city,
or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add contraceptives to the
drinking water, since the high birth rate is overloading the health-care
system. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add Prozac to the drinking
water,
to reduce the incidence of post-traumatic depression. It does not inform
the
residents of the city, or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add a genetically modified
HIV
virus to the drinking water, as a form of vaccination against an AIDS
epidemic. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
The list shows how easy it is to extend the range of a right (and indeed
the
UN administration in Kosovo has taken extraordinary steps to control
cultural
and political life there). The United Nations decided, without
consulting me,
that I have a right not to be tortured - and that is considered morally
legitimate. But what is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a
right to
be tortured? The United Nations decided that I have a right to life. But
what
is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a right to death?
But this type of argument - the 'slippery slope ', or 'consequentialism'
- is
rejected anyway by many moral philosophers. They would claim that, just
because a principle has undesirable consequences in certain cases, that
does
not rule it out as a moral principle. But it is the principle itself
which is
wrong here - the principle that certain actions are in effect exempt
from
moral judgment, because they constitute 'respect' of a right.
Human rights: opposing principles
-----
The best way to illustrate this is to look at how rights could be
ethically
acceptable. That could be through these alternative principles...
***
1 "Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without
consent."
2 "Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any."
3 "It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself
subject
to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a
right,
even a right that has been consented to."
4 "An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can
be a
harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what
constitutes a harm to themselves."
5 "Specifically, the state or international organisations may not
declare
rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation
of
those rights, and expressed their consent."
6 "Rights may be renounced at any time."
7 "There must be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights.
Obviously
this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as
the
United Nations."
8 "An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered
into the agreement."
9 "Objections of conscience to any right are valid."
***
This list only shows how different the present human rights idea is, in
comparison. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like
these principles.
The UN-declared human rights
-----
The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned
with a
specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this
case,
the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby
claims,
that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But
what
basis does that have?
-- The document was approved by the diplomatic representatives of UN
member
states. No other persons or organisations participated in the
negotiations on
the text.
-- These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their
allies,
with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership
of the
United Nations.
-- In many cases, the government and political system in these states
had
been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe
especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political
process to
obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence).
Even by
the limited standards of parliamentary elections, they governments did
not
'represent' their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and
China, a
civil war was in progress.
-- Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto
protectorates of
Allied powers - such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled
colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South
Africa.
-- Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from
any
political influence - such as the remains of the German minorities in
Eastern
Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military
occupation, and not represented.
-- Some of the States - Afghanistan, for instance - had no modern
political
system of any kind.
-- Most notably, Africa was 'represented' by colonial powers. At the
time,
most held no elections of any kind, in most of their colonial territory.
Often, all political activity by 'natives' was forbidden.
-- Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure,
their
position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet
Union,
Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent,
dependent
on their protecting power (or colonial power).
-- The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and
the
Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet
Union
was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary
historical
text of the Cold War.
-- Most of the world population never even saw the text, before it was
approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few
official
languages in which it was written. The text is still not available, in
the
majority of the languages spoken on earth.
-- No election was held in any country, with the text as an election
issue.
-- No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the
text, in
any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since it
was not
a Treaty.
-- No individual ever formally consented to the document as an
individual:
the United Nations never organised such a consent procedure.
-- I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved
before I
was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.
-- There is no procedure for revision of the declaration.
-- There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic
re-approval,
of the Declaration.
-- The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely,
beyond the
lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of
amending it
or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by
the Declaration.
-- There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the
rights
imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United
Nations
-- Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against
military
action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary
to
destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then
no-one
can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual
residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal
-
certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.
For a document conferring such powers, this is a very weak ethical
basis. Even
more so, because it is now treated as the basic document of the United
Nations
(in contrast to the UN Charter, which guarantees national sovereignty).
If the
United States recolonises Africa over the next 15 years, then it will
almost
certainly refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as the
legal
basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only
superpower
capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it,
the
temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute
force,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for
global
conquest, in a uni-polar world.
Human rights are clearly political
-----
There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a
specific
political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights
have
also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic
liberalism
(the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the
liberal
tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only
are
human rights not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'.
This
text completely rejects human rights, but from a background which is as
European as liberalism. It is certainly not an African (or Asian, or
Slavic)
cultural or philosophical viewpoint. Human rights are not culturally
specific,
they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic
political ideology.
The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that
political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package.
The
supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade,
democracy,
an open society and the free market. The two recent explicit military
interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought
open
free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO
or the
OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together,
as if
they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are.
--
Paul Treanor
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
