Informazione
Euroentusiasmo montenegrino - Vujanovic: “Per noi l’Unione europea è una grande occasione”
26 MARZO 2014 - A Podgorica l'euroscetticismo non sanno cosa sia. Come in tutto il Montenegro. Mentre nella vecchia Europa si propongono referendum per uscire dall'Unione Europea, in questo paese di poco più di 672mila abitanti quello che si respira è un clima d'euroentusiasmo. Perché il Montenegro sta lavorando sodo ed è “molto soddisfatto” dei passi compiuti fino ad ora sulla strada dell'integrazione europea. Lo spiega all'Ansa il presidente del Montenegro Filip Vujanovic. “Essere un membro della famiglia europea è molto importante per noi", assicura, ricordando che il suo paese ha realizzato un importante pacchetto di riforme che riguardano la giustizia, lo stato di diritto e la lotta alla corruzione e la criminalità organizzata. Riforme richieste dall'Ue, ma che il Montenegro “vuole realizzare” principalmente per migliorare la qualità della vita dei propri cittadini e per se stesso. Per questo nel piccolo paese balcanico l'eco delle proteste antieuropeiste non arriva neppure. “I cittadini del Montenegro danno grande sostegno al processo di integrazione europea - dice il presidente - ci tengono molto e non sono influenzati dall'ondata antieuropeista: loro vogliono far parte dell'Unione Europea”. Per riuscirci la prima sfida è la lotta alla corruzione, piaga montenegrina, alla quale neanche Stati già membri sono immuni, e di fronte alla quale l'Ue non chiude gli occhi, quando si tratta di adesione dei nuovi Stati membri. “Abbiamo formato una task force nel governo - sottolinea Vujanovic - per la lotta contro la criminalità organizzata e la corruzione e stiamo lavorando in modo molto intenso ed efficace, per risolvere questi problemi, con il sostegno dell'Unione Europea. Sono convinto che i nostri interventi porteranno presto a risultati concreti”. L'Unione Europea per il Montenegro rappresenta una “grande opportunità” e nel percorso per raggiungerla “è molto importante la collaborazione con l'Italia”, assicura Vujanovic, in particolare per quanto riguarda lo strumento di assistenza di preadesione, l'Ipa, che prevede “l'istituzione di un ufficio regionale a Podgorica per raggiungere gli obiettivi della lotta alla criminalità organizzata e alla corruzione”. Ma non solo. Tra i progetti del Montenegro c'è poi la Nato. “Il nostro obiettivo è entrare a far parte dell'Alleanza - dice Vujanovic - ma pensiamo che sia di grande interesse anche per la Nato che ci sia il Montenegro. Dopo l'entrata della Croazia e dell'Albania, ora il Montenegro è l'unico paese adriatico fuori dal Patto atlantico. Abbiamo realizzato con grande successo tre piani annuali nazionali(ANP). Il quarto è in corso. Dal punto di vista strategico credo sia molto importante per la Nato far entrare il Montenegro che peraltro è molto attivo anche nelle missioni internazionali, in particolare in Afghanistan”.
Montenegro: Mafia as Guarantor of Euro-Atlantic Integration
By Boris Aleksic
Global Research, February 25, 2014
Strategic Culture Foundation 24 February 2014
Region: Europe
On April 30, 1999 NATO aviation delivered two strikes against the township Murino, a small resort in eastern Montenegro. Civilians died, including three children who went to grade school. Fifteen years have passed. Milo Djukanovic (photo), the Montenegrin dictator, said that joining NATO is a political priority for his country. It is emphasized that 2014 is a decisive year because Montenegro must be ready for the NATO’s September summit to be held in the United Kingdom. The expansion of the Alliance to the East will be an issue on the agenda.
The authorities affirm that the country has completely changed during in the last 15 years. Podgorica has recognized the independence of Kosovo and Metohija and forgotten those who lost their lives during the NATO aggression. With German funds it is ready to erect a memorial to Hitler’s fascists, who occupied Montenegro during World War II. It is planned to reconstruct the German Nazi soldiers’ cemetery near the Golubovci airport, which was bombed by NATO in 1999.
The old and new fascists have one thing in common – they share the feeling of hatred towards the Russian people. Hitler eliminated the League of Nations. The NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia has drastically diminished the role of the United Nations on the world arena, as well as the influence of United Nations Charter on international law. It’s not an occasion the US intelligence services during the Second World War were created with the help of German generals: Heinrich Müller, Reinhard Gehlen, Baron Otto von Bolschwing and Emil Augsburg.
Montenegro has really changed during the last dozen of years, but Milo Djukanovic is still the same. In his time he was assigned the role an ideal partner of NATO. There is a very important historic aspect to be remembered here. During WWII, the United States resorted to the help of mafia while liberating Italy. According to Swiss professor Daniele Ganser, the alliance between Italian mafia and the United States, as well as mafia and NATO still exists. For instance, Washington uses criminal structures to eliminate its opponents – independent politicians and journalists in Europe. The United States and NATO rely on mafia in the Balkans.
They have brought terrorists, drug dealers and illegal traders of human organs to power in Pristina on the territory of occupied Kosovo and Metohija.
According to documents in the possession of Italy’s prosecutor’s office and inquiries of independent journalists, Milo Djukanovic has had close ties with Italian and American mafia since a long time. A 409 – page report is added to the indictment brought by Italian prosecution.
Prosecutor Giuseppe Scelsi has formally stated that Milo Djukanovic is the top boss of Montenegrin mafia.
In the 1980s well-known mafiosi Della Torre organized large heroin supplies from Italy to the US East Coast. There was solid evidence that Della Torre was involved in money laundering. He got profit from heroin trade through Swiss banks, but Americans never brought charges against him with a string attached – he had to cooperate with the US special services. In 1996 the Italian mafiosi started to run his own chain involved in counterfeit cigarettes business. As sources confirm, he worked with Milo Djukanovic. The counterfeit cigarettes trade brought millions of dollars into the pockets of US intelligence. Many of truth pursuers, who stood in the way of the CIA and mafia alliance, paid with their lives, including two journalists: Dusko Jovanovic, the Editor of Montenegrin newspaper Dan, and Ivo Pukanic, Editor-in-Chief of Croatian weekly magazine National. Pukanic has published facts providing ample evidence of the Djukanovic and Subotić involvement in illegal cigarette trade.
In March 2011 US Senator Richard Lugar formally proposed to make Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro full-fledged NATO members. According to him, the expansion is of crucial importance for security and democracy in the Balkans. At the beginning of October 2013 Lugar met Djukanovic and said that «Montenegro is the number one candidate for membership in NATO». At the very same time Italian prosecutor Giuseppe Scelsi, who possessed irrefutable evidence of the fact that Djukanovic was involved in criminal activities, was charged in October 2013 with abuse of office. Today Washington lets Djukanovic know that if he makes Montenegro a NATO member, then all the accusations related to criminal activities will be lifted…
In 1999 NATO started its expansion to the Balkans by committing a grave crime – an aggression against Yugoslavia. Nowadays the creation of criminal regimes on the territory of former Yugoslavia is a logical continuation of its policy.
1 febbraio 2014 - Polemiche in Montenegro per un affresco in una chiesa di Podgorica che mostra il maresciallo Tito che brucia tra le fiamme dell'inferno insieme a Karl Marx e Friedrich Engels. Il dipinto, opera di un anonimo, ha spaccato la comunità di fedeli che si riunisce nella nuova Chiesa della Resurrezione della capitale montenegrina, divisa tra quanti vorrebbero la rimozione dell'affresco, contestando l'interferenza della religione nella politica, e quanti, invece, l'hanno apprezzato. (Adnkronos)
Coordina:
Andrea Martocchia, del Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia.
Intervengono:
Giulietto Chiesa, giornalista e Presidente di Alternativa Politica
Fausto Sorini, Responsabile del Dipartimento Esteri del PdCI
In collegamento Skype da Kiev:
Partito Comunista dell'Ucraina (www.kpu.ua)
Organizzano:
Partito dei Comunisti Italiani Federazione di Bologna in collaborazione con il Dipartimento Esteri
Partito della Rifondazione Comunista, circolo Centro Storico "Tosca"
Giovani Comunisti, circolo universitario "Mario Rovinetti"
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - ONLUS
Era da tempo, da troppo tempo, che questo paese doveva fare i conti con due macigni sulla sua storia. Quello degli “italiani brava gente” e quello dell’impunità assicurata ai criminali di guerra italiani – così come a quelli tedeschi – alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale. Il procuratore militare di Roma, Marco De Paolis, ha finalmente aperto un'inchiesta sui crimini compiuti dai militari italiani nei territori occupati durante la seconda guerra mondiale, in particolare in Grecia, Jugoslavia, Albania. Non è dato sapere se la cosa verrà estesa a Libia ed Etiopia.
Il dott. De Paolis per ora si è limitato a far saper che e' partito un "accertamento conoscitivo" e che e' stato aperto un fascicolo 'modello 45', cioe' "atti relativi a", ma senza indagati.
A smuovere le acque è stato l'esposto presentato da alcuni cittadini, ispirato da due articoli di Franco Giustolisi, il giornalista che rivelò all'opinione pubblica il famigerato "armadio della vergogna", dove furono chiusi e "provvisoriamente archiviati" nel dopoguerra - per una sorta di "patto segreto" tra Italia e Germania - 695 fascicoli di crimini nazifascisti, riemersi solo negli anni scorsi, quando fu possibile riaprire le indagini e svolgere una serie di processi finiti con decine di ergastoli.
"Dimenticato" in un angolo della procura, non lontano dall'armadio, svela Giustolisi, c'era anche un "carrello della vergogna". Un carrello stipato di incartamenti relativi alle tante stragi commesse, durante l'ultima guerra, dai soldati italiani. Di questi eccidi si occupo' una commissione istituita il 6 maggio 1946 dall'allora ministero della Guerra. La relazione finale, del 30 giugno 1951, e' firmata dal senatore Luigi Gasparotto. Oltre 300 i militari italiani accusati di crimini di guerra dalle varie nazioni aggredite dal fascismo.
Eccidi che sarebbero stati commessi in varie localita' della Jugoslavia, della Grecia, dell'Unione Sovietica, della Francia, dell'Albania. Solo poco piu' di una trentina, secondo la relazione Gasparotto, quelli perseguibili da parte "dell'autorita' competente". Ma nessuno fu processato.
Solo per una di queste stragi - quella di Domenikon, in Grecia, dove furono trucidati 150 civili - il procuratore De Paolis, dopo aver raccolto la denuncia del rappresentante dei familiari delle vittime, gia' da tempo ha riaperto un'inchiesta che in precedenza era stata archiviata. Le indagini della procura militare di Roma avrebbero consentito, secondo quanto si e' appreso, di risalire ai responsabili della strage, che verranno ora iscritti nel registro degli indagati, anche se sarebbero tutti morti. Inevitabile, dunque, la successiva archiviazione.
Recentemente uno degli giovani storici, Davide Conti, ha pubblicato il libro “Criminali di guerra italiani” dove, attraverso un'ampia mole di documenti ufficiali, ricostruisce i crimini di guerra commessi dal regio esercito durante l'occupazione italiana in Albania, Jugoslavia, Urss e Grecia e di cui le alte gerarchie militari avrebbero dovuto rispondere alla fine della guerra. Più precisamente, illustra le trattative, gli accordi, le politiche dilatorie attuate dal governo di Roma per giungere a eludere ogni forma di sanzione giuridica ai danni dei vertici del proprio esercito cosicché i mancati processi, le assoluzioni e la generale impunità ha permesso la narrazione auto-assolutoria degli italiani "brava gente".
De Paolis si limita a dire per il momento che e' partito un "accertamento conoscitivo" e che e' stato aperto un fascicolo 'modello 45', cioe' "atti relativi a", senza indagati. L'esposto, secondo quanto si e appreso, prende in particolare le mosse da due articoli di Franco Giustolisi, il giornalista che per primo svelo' all'opinione pubblica lo scandalo del cosiddetto "armadio della vergogna", dove furono chiusi e "provvisoriamente archiviati" nel dopoguerra - per una sorta di "patto segreto" tra Italia e Germania - 695 fascicoli di crimini nazifascisti, riemersi solo negli anni scorsi, quando fu possibile riaprire le indagini e svolgere una serie di processi finiti con decine di ergastoli.
"Dimenticato" in un angolo della procura, non lontano dall'armadio, svela Giustolisi, c'era anche un "carrello della vergogna". Un carrello stipato di incartamenti relativi alle tante stragi commesse, durante l'ultima guerra, dai soldati italiani. Di questi eccidi si occupo' una commissione istituita il 6 maggio 1946 dall'allora ministero della Guerra. La relazione finale, del 30 giugno 1951, e' firmata dal senatore Luigi Gasparotto. Oltre 300 i militari italiani accusati di crimini di guerra dalle varie nazioni aggredite dal fascismo.
Eccidi che sarebbero stati commessi in varie localita' della Jugoslavia, della Grecia, dell'Unione Sovietica, della Francia, dell'Albania. Solo poco piu' di una trentina, secondo la relazione Gasparotto, quelli perseguibili da parte "dell'autorita' competente". Ma nessuno fu processato.
Solo per una di queste stragi - quella di Domenikon, in Grecia, dove furono trucidati 150 civili - il procuratore De Paolis, dopo aver raccolto la denuncia del rappresentante dei familiari delle vittime, gia' da tempo ha riaperto un'inchiesta che in precedenza era stata archiviata. Le indagini della procura militare di Roma avrebbero consentito, secondo quanto si e' appreso, di risalire ai responsabili della strage, che verranno ora iscritti nel registro degli indagati, anche se sarebbero tutti morti. Inevitabile, dunque, la successiva archiviazione.
https://twitter.com/vloracitaku/status/447821122600714240/photo/1
La risposta del ministro serbo Vulin è: "Ci fate schifo!":
Ministar Vulin - Gadite nam se Oana Lungesku
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBSJcQ8mRik
ЗАШТО? WHY? Stories of bombed Yugoslavia
Fifteen years after NATO’s 78-day bombardment of Yugoslavia, memories of the bombing still haunt present-day Serbia. NATO killed over 2,000 people, hundreds were civilians, 88 were children. Serbs ask ‘why?’ above all. Why did NATO smash their cities, kill their children, bomb hospitals and schools?
When the NATO bomb campaign began (on March 24th 1999) Jelena Milincic was a student at the University of Belgrade, and just 18 years old.
When the first bombs shook Belgrade she cowered under a table with her mother, sister, and best friend. Remembering this 15 years later, they laugh nervously.
Jelena takes Anissa Naouai on a road trip, to remember the victims, and hear the survivors of NATO’s strike terror.
RT presents 'Zashto?' (Why?) on the trauma of terror in Serbia.
Voice of Russia - March 24, 2014
Yugoslavia bombings 15 years later: US, NATO aggression in Europe
Fifteen years ago a hot spot appeared on the map of Europe – on March 24, 1999 the air forces of the United States and NATO started bombing Yugoslavia, which lasted for over two months. The aggression of the West took the lives of two thousand peaceful civilians.
The North Atlantic Treaty's aggression against Yugoslavia at the end of the 20th century was one of the final acts of the long-term campaign of the West against that powerful Balkan state. The bombs and missiles that fell from the night sky on Belgrade, Pristina and other Serbian cities completed the formation of the new map of East Europe, said Alexander Bovdunov, an expert at the Center for Conservative Studies of the Sociology Department of the Moscow State University, in his interview to the Voice of Russia:
“A seat of tension was created in Europe, which prevented it from standing up as an independent geopolitical center. And secondly, the forces that could have become an ally of the Russian world were suppressed and destroyed. Primarily, it concerned Serbia and the Serbs. It was no accident that in that conflict the US and Europe it controlled first supported the Croatians, and then made a decision to destroy the Serbian state, to reduce its influence in the Balkans by unleashing the conflict around Kosovo.”
One of the main goals of the United States back then was to demonstrate to the world that it was capable of imposing its will and had the right to use the territory in any place in Europe. Thus, with Washington's efforts a quasi-state appeared called the Republic of Kosovo, the role of which was reduced to one thing – to become yet another military base of the US, thinks Vasily Kashirin, a senior researcher at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies:
“It is a dependable and loyal satellite of the West. The largest military base on the entire European continent is located there. The Americans built a real military fortress there. They came there to stay for decades and have no plans of leaving. From the point of view of the triumph of the rough American military power, of the American imperialism it is a true success.”
After splitting the Yugoslavian state into several small republics and enclaves the West did not stop at that. By its “ballistic democracy” it created devastation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It was about to get rid of the unruly Syria, when the mechanism of unipolar influence failed – Russia stood up in the way of the Euro Atlantic policy, says Vasily Kashirin:
“The global distribution of power in the world has changed. Russia is no longer as weak as in 1999. And Russia clearly showed that last year in the course of the Syrian crisis, when Moscow with its rational diplomacy and position of principles prevented the West from starting military aggression against Syria.”
Crimea became the next failure of the Euro Atlantic strategy. The Western community portrays Moscow's desire to protect the Russian-speaking population of the peninsula from ultranationalists as a military aggression against Ukraine. Europe considers the results of the expression of the free will of Crimea’s residents regarding joining Russia to be violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. According to Vasily Kashirin, such a reaction coming from Western Europe and the US is a reflex continuation of their policy of double standards. But times have changed and that policy will never be as effective as it was in the past. It has become too obvious for the entire world.
Grigory Milenin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-year anniversary of NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
In March 1999, at the direction of the United States of America, NATO engaged in its first act of illegal aggressive war, beginning what can only be called the “dark age of intervention” in which we are living today. The fact that NATO was allowed to get away with the aggression on Serbia and Montenegro emboldened US/NATO and the US military industrial intelligence banking complex and since that day, under a doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, Humanitarian Interventionism, Preventive War and then the all encompassing “War on Terror”, US/NATO have proceeded to destroy country after country and do away with leaders that they have not found to be submissive enough to their will.
The events of 9-11-2001 were a watershed moment for the geopolitical architects and served as a catalyst to allow them to expand their military machine to every corner of the world and invade countries at will and conduct operations with complete disregard for international law and accepted international norms.
In light of the 15th Anniversary of the NATO aggression the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and other independent Civic associations in Serbia will hold an international conference from the 21st to the 24th of March 2014. The conference will gather 100 prominent intellectuals from all over the world, in addition to those from Serbia, Montenegro, the Republica Srpska and 10 to 15 guests from Russia, including Academician and retired Russian Army General Leonid Ivashov. The conference will also include the participation of the Veterans Alliance of Serbia and the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia.
The President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and the last Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic wrote the following summary of the events in light of the 15 year anniversary of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. (John Robles)
Do Not Forget, by Zivadin Jovanovic
Fifteen years have passed since the beginning of NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (24 March 1999). This aggression resulted in the loss of 4,000 human lives, including 88 children, and 10,000 people were severely wounded. Over two third of these victims were civilians. How many human lives have been lost in the meantime due to the consequences of weapons with depleted uranium, as well as of remaining cluster bombs, will hardly ever be established.
Breaching the basic norms of international law, its own founding act as well as constitutions of member countries, NATO was bombing Serbia and Montenegro during 78 days continuously destroying the economy, infrastructure, public services, radio and TV centers and transmitters, cultural and historical monuments. NATO bears responsibility for polluting the environment and endangering the health of present and future generations. Economic damage caused by the aggression is estimated at over USD 120 billion. War damage compensation has not yet been claimed, and judgments ruled by our court, by which the leaders of aggressor countries were convicted for the crimes against peace and humanity, were annulled after the coup d’état in 2000.
Governments of aggressor countries seized and occupied the Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and then formally delivered it to former terrorists, separatists and international organized crime bosses. An American military base was established in the Province – “Bondstill”, one of the largest beyond the U.S. territory.
After the aggression, over 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians have been forced out the Province of Kosovo and Metohija; even today, 15 years later they are not allowed to return freely and safely to their homes. Ethnic cleansing and even drastic change of ethnic population structure are tolerated by so called international community if only to the detriment of Serbs. The remaining Serbian population in the Province of about 120.000 continues to live in fear and uncertainty. Attacks upon Serbs, detentions and killings, including liquidations of their political leaders, have been continuing up to these days, and nobody is held responsible.
NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) in 1999 is a crime against peace and humanity. It is a precedent and a turning point towards global interventionism, arbitrary violation of the international legal order and the negation of the role of the UN. The “Bondstill” military base is the first and crucial ring in the chain of new American military bases reflecting strategy of expansion towards East, Caspian Basin, Middle East, towards Russia and its Siberia natural resources. Europe has thus got overall militarization and the new edition of the strategy “Drang nach Osten” (“Thrust to the East”). Destabilization and the tragic developments in Ukraine are just the most recent consequence of that strategy.
15 years after objectives of US/NATO military aggression continue to be pursued by other means. Serbia has been blackmailed to de facto recognize illegal secession of its Province of Kosovo and Metohija through so called Brussels negotiations. The most of the puppet states of the former Yugoslavia are much dependant on and indebted to the leading NATO/EU countries, their financial institutions and corporations so that they could hardly be considered independent states but rather neo-colonies. There is no stability in the Balkans, redrawing of borders has not ended, overall situation is dominated by devastated economy, unemployment, social tensions and misery. Europe, particularly its south-east regions, are experiencing profound economic, social and moral crisis.
Preparations for NATO military aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) and 1999 aggression itself have been used in the meantime as a blueprint for many other NATO aggressions and occupations - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali and so on. Wherever NATO undertook “humanitarian intervention”, like in former Yugoslavia, it left thousands of dead and mutilated, millions of refugees and displaced persons, ethnic and religious divisions, terrorism and separatism, economic disaster and social misery. NATO expansionist strategy made Europe militarized. There are more US/NATO military bases in Europe today than at the peak of the Cold War era. What for? NATO imperial expansionist strategy has provoked new arms race with unforeseen consequences. Who really needs an organization threatening global peace and stability?
During and after the aggression, 150 Serb monasteries and churches built in the Middle Ages were destroyed. Killed or abducted were some 3,500 Serbs and other non-Albanians, and fates of many of them have not been established until today. Not even one of the thousands of crimes against Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija got a court clarification. Even such terrorist crimes as was blowing up the “Nis-express” bus on 16 February 2001, when 12 people were killed and 43 wounded, neither the murder of 14 Serb farmers reaping in the field in Staro Gracko, on 23 July 2009 remained without thorough investigation, be it by UNMIK, be it by EULEX, or by any other of so many structures of the so called international community.
The Swiss senator, Dick Marty, revealed documented report on trafficking in human organs of Serbs abducted in Kosovo and Metohija. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the oldest European democratic institution, adopted his Report as the official CE document. Although all factors stand verbally for an efficient investigation and bringing the perpetrators to justice, for many years now there have been no results whatsoever. The documentation on human organ trafficking submitted to The Hague Tribunal had been – destroyed!
The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, with support of other non-partisan and independent associations from Serbia, from the region and from the Serb Diaspora throughout the world, are organizing a number of activities under the common title “NOT TO FORGET”, with the aim to remind domestic and international public of human loss, destructions and other consequences of NATO aggression.
On Friday, 21 March 2014 at 6 p.m., in Sava Conference Centre, Belgrade (Milentija Popovica No. 1) an opening ceremony will launch a photographic exhibition presenting consequences of NATO aggression.
On Saturday, March 22 and on Sunday, March 23rd, 2014, International conference “Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism” will be held (Sava Conference Centre. Conference starts at 10 a.m. Some 100 prominent personalities from all over the world have confirmed their participation.
On Monday, March 24th, 2014, at 09.30 a.m., the International Memorial Marathon Belgrade-Hilandar will start in front of Saint Sava Church.
The same day, at 11 am, civic associations, representatives of Serb Diaspora, guests from abroad and individuals will lay flowers at the monument to children - victims of the aggression, in the Tašmajdan park, and the same day at 12 a.m. flowers will be laid at the Monument to all victims of the aggression, Friendship park, Ušće, New Belgrade.
John Robles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad Anniversary: 15 years since NATO began bombing Yugoslavia
On March 24, Serbia and Montenegro are observing the sad anniversary of NATO air strikes against former Yugoslavia. On that day 15 years ago, NATO launched a US-led massive bombing campaign in an operation codenamed Allied Force, which lasted 78 days.
The collapse of the Rambouillet talks on Kosovo and Serbia’s rejection of an external peacekeeping force as it actually meant foreign invasion served as the formal pretext for the bombings. For over two months, NATO aircraft and warships were pouring tons of air bombs and cruise missiles almost daily on industrial, infrastructure and other facilities throughout Serbia and Montenegro.
Nineteen NATO member states took part in the operation which went ahead without the approval of the UN Security Council after a mass grave was found in the village of Racak in Kosovo, where the bodies of dozens of Albanian civilians allegedly killed by Serbian troops were said to have been dumped. Later it turned out that it was a “hoax” cooked up by Western secret services. Most of the bodies in the Racak grave were militants of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, who had died in clashes with Yugoslav police in various parts of Kosovo.
NATO delivered a total of 2,300 air strikes on 995 targets during its 11-week bombing campaign, according to Serbian sources. Some 1,150 NATO warplanes were involved in the operation. More than 420,000 shells weighing a total of 22,000 tones hit former Yugoslavia, including 20,000 heavy aviation bombs, 1,300 cruise missiles and 37,000 pellet bombs, most of them stuffed with depleted uranium.
More than 2,000 civilians and 1,000 servicemen were killed in the bombings and over 5,000 others were wounded. Serbia’s defense industry was completely destroyed along with 1,500 villages, 60 bridges, one-third of schools and about 100 historical and cultural monuments.
Serbian experts estimated the damage from NATO’s Allie Force operation at between $60 billion and $100 billion.
The use of depleted uranium shells pushed radiation levels in southern Serbia, especially in Kosovo and Metohija, above the permissible norm and drove cancer rates up.
Voice of Russia
Grigory Milenin
15 years on: Looking back at NATO's ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Yugoslavia
Published time: March 24, 2014
Exactly 15 years ago, on March 24, NATO began its 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia. The alliance bypassed the UN under a “humanitarian” pretext, launching aggression that claimed hundreds of civilian lives and caused a much larger catastrophe than it averted.
Years on, Serbia still bears deep scars of the NATO bombings which, as the alliance put it, were aimed at “preventing instability spreading” in Kosovo. Questions remain on the very legality of the offense, which caused casualties and mass destruction in the Balkan republic.
NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of “humanitarian intervention,” “war on terror,” or “preventive war” – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.
Nineteen NATO member states participated to some degree in the military campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), which lasted for 11 weeks until June 10, 1999.
More rubble, less trouble
In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions (unexploded cluster bombs continued to pose a threat to people long after the campaign was over.) Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo.
In what the alliance described as “collateral damage,” its airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined. That is not to mention the long-term harm caused to the region’s ecology and, therefore, people’s health. Economic damage is estimated at over US$120 billion, according to Serbian media.
“There is a bridge near the city of Nis, which was bombed at the time when a passenger train was passing through it,” Milincic recalls.The tragedy on April 12, 1999 killed 15 people and wounded 44 others, while many passengers were never accounted for.
“We felt the blast and saw flames under the locomotive. The train was blown so powerfully, half a meter from the ground. I don’t know how we stayed on the rails,” recalled witness Boban Kostic.
“Our colleague got off the train when I did,” he said. “He was really scared. But another rocket hit and blew him to pieces,” added another witness, Goran Mikic.
“Why? Why civilians? Why a train?” said Dragan Ciric. “It still torments me, if the first rocket was a mistake, what were the next three for?” he told RT.
The Chinese embassy in the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade was also hit and set on fire by NATO airstrikes on May 7, 1999. Three citizens of the country were killed. The alliance called the attack “a mistake.” China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and, along with Russia, did not support a military solution for the Kosovo crisis.
“Indications are that NATO did not always meet its legal obligations in selecting targets and in choosing means and methods of attack, On the basis of available evidence, including NATO's own statements and accounts of specific incidents, Amnesty International believes that - whatever their intentions - NATO forces did commit serious violations of the laws of war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful killings of civilians,” the rights watchdog said in a report published in June 2000.
The alliance dismissed the accusations, saying that cases involving civilian deaths were due to technological failure or were simply “accidents of conflict.” NATO failed to say that they were due to the alliance's own failure to take all necessary precautions.
“We never said we would avoid casualties. It would be foolhardy to say that, as no military operation in history has been perfect,” said Jamie Shea, NATO’s chief spokesman, the Guardian reported at the time.
Bombing background
Former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana ordered military action against Yugoslavia following a failure in negotiations on the Kosovo crisis in France’s Rambouillet and Paris in February and March 1999.
NATO's decision was officially announced after talks between international mediators – known as the Contact Group – the Yugoslav government, and the delegation of Kosovo Albanians ended in a deadlock. Belgrade refused to allow foreign military presence on its territory while Albanians accepted the proposal.
However, despite not announcing the link officially, NATO entered the conflict on the side of the KLA, accusing Serbian security forces of atrocities and “ethnic cleansing” against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The main objective of the campaign was to make Milosevic's forces pull out of the province. The fact that there was violence on both sides of the confrontation was ignored both by allied governments and Western media – which stirred up public anger by focusing only on Serbs’ atrocities and being far less vocal regarding abuses by Albanians.
“All efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the Kosovo crisis having failed, no alternative is open but to take military action,” Solana said on March 23, 1999. “We must halt the violence and bring an end to the humanitarian catastrophe now unfolding in Kosovo.”
An incident involving the “mass killing” of Albanians in central Kosovo’s village of Racak – a KLA stronghold – became a major excuse and justification for NATO’s decision to start its operation. Serbs were blamed for the deaths of dozens of Albanian “civilians” on January 15, 1999. However, it was alleged that the accusations could have been false and the bodies actually belonged to KLA insurgents whose clothes had been changed.
“[Walker] arrived there having no powers to make conclusions regarding what had happened,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazenta paper in November last year.
Yugoslav authorities accused Walker of going beyond his mission and proclaimed him persona non grata, while Western leaders were infuriated over the Racak incident.
“But parts of the report leaked and were quoted in the media saying that [the victims] were not civilians and that all the bodies found in Racak were in disguise and that bullet holes on clothes and bodies did not match. There was also no one who was killed at short range,” Lavrov said. “Even though I’ve repeatedly raised this issue, the report itself still has not been shown.”
In August 2013, Amnesty International accused the UNMIK of failing to properly investigate the abductions and murders of Kosovo Serbs in the aftermath of the 1998-1999 war.
“Years have passed and the fate of the majority of the missing on both sides of the conflict is still unresolved, with their families still waiting for justice,” the organization said.
Moscow’s former envoy to NATO (1997-2002), Viktor Zavarzin, believes the military alliance’s aggression was “a crime against humanity” and a “violation of international laws and norms.” The event that unfolded 15 years ago laid ground to a new era of the development of international relations – the era of “chaosization of international law and its arbitrary manipulation,” Zavarzin, an MP for the United Russia party said at the State Duma plenary session on Friday.
Itar-Tass - March 24, 2014
Serbia remembers victims of the 1999 NATO bombardments
BELGRADE: Serbia commemorated one of the most tragic dates in its history on Monday - the beginning of NATO bombardments of the former Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999. Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic laid a wreath to the memorial of the victims of a NATO missile strike in Varvarin.
“Until now, we have not received any genuine condolences for that senseless missile strike at a bridge during a religious holiday,” the Serbian head of state said.
“I will never forget what happened during the (NATO) aggression against Serbia - in those 78 days and nights from March 24 to June 9, 1999.
Nikolic said it was impossible to forget a NATO air strike at a bridge over Morava River on St. Trinity Day on May 30, 1999 that killed 10 people and wounded 17.
“All these days we have kept remembering the victims of tyrants’ political goals. Alongside the names of the dead, we would like to know the name of at least one person who was punished for the aforesaid crimes,” the Serbian president went on to say.
Those monstrous acts were committed as part of the Merciful Angel operation while the NATO propaganda machine called the suffering and death of innocent civilians as collateral damage. “Our task is never to forget this injustice which led to the death of innocent civilians in Serbia,” Nikolic said.
Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dacic laid a wreath to the Glasnik monument on top of Strazevica Hill in the town of Rakovica.
“A nation that forgets its victims and history is doomed to live through similar hardships again. It is our duty to remember those who defended our homeland,” Dacic said, noting that today Serbia was pursuing a policy of peaceful solution to problems which it had faced then.
“I hope that such tragedies will never recur,” the Serbian prime minister emphasized.
Representatives of Serb local self-government in Kosovska Mitrovica and Zvecan, northern Kosovo, and the Society of Serbian-Russian Friendship laid wreaths to the Monument of Truth near the main bridge over the Ibar River and on the Brother Milic Square in the centre of Kosovska Mitrovica.
According to Serbian sources, more than 1,100 NATO planes delivered a total of 2,300 air strikes at 995 military facilities over the 11- week bombing campaign. About 420,000 bombs with a total weight of 22,000 tonnes, including 20,000 heavy aviation bombs, 1,300 cruise missiles and 37,000 cluster bombs, were dropped on Serbia and exploded on the ground.
More than 2,000 civilians (predominantly in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija) and over a 1,000 servicemen died in the bombardments. More than 5,000 people were wounded. More than a thousand people went missing. Serbia’s military-industrial infrastructure was totally destroyed. More than 1,500 populated localities, 60 bridges, one third of schools and about a hundred monuments were ruined. Serbian experts put the material damage from bombardments at 100 billion dollars.
– Vladimir Putin, 4 March 2014
Paris.
Five years ago, I wrote a paper for a Belgrade conference commemorating the tenth anniversary of the start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. In that paper I stressed that the disintegration of Yugoslavia had been used as an experimental laboratory to perfect various techniques that would subsequently be used in so-called “color revolutions” or other “regime change” operations directed against leaders considered undesirable by the United States government.
At that time, I specifically pointed to the similarities between the Krajina region of former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. Here is what I wrote at the time:
Where did the wars of Yugoslav disintegration break out most violently? In a region called the Krajina. Krajina means borderland. So does Ukraine – it is a variant of the same Slavic root. Both Krajina and Ukraine are borderlands between Catholic Christians in the West and Orthodox Christians in the East. The population is divided between those in the East who want to remain tied to Russia, and those in the West who are drawn toward Catholic lands. But in Ukraine as a whole, polls show that some seventy percent of the population is against joining NATO. Yet the US and its satellites keep speaking of Ukraine’s “right” to join NATO. Nobody’s right not to join NATO is ever mentioned.
The condition for Ukraine to join NATO would be the expulsion of foreign military bases from Ukrainian territory. That would mean expelling Russia from its historic naval base at Sebastopol, essential for Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Sebastopol is on the Crimean peninsula, inhabited by patriotic Russians, which was only made an administrative part of Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian.
Rather the way Tito, a Croat, gave almost the whole Adriatic coastline of Yugoslavia to Croatia, and generally enforced administrative borders detrimental to the Serbs.
As the same causes may have the same effects, US insistence on “liberating” Ukraine from Russian influence may have the same effect as the West’s insistence on “liberating” the Catholic Croats from the Orthodox Serbs. That effect is war. But instead of a small war, against the Serbs, who had neither the means nor even the will to fight the West (since they largely thought they were part of it), a war in Ukraine would mean a war with Russia. A nuclear superpower. And one that will not stand idly by while the United States continues to move its fleet and its air bases to the edges of Russian territory, both in the Black Sea and in the Baltic, on land, sea and air.
Every day, the United States is busy expanding NATO, training forces, building bases, making deals. This goes on constantly but is scarcely reported by the media. The citizens of NATO countries have no idea what they are being led into. (…)
War was easy when it meant the destruction of a helpless and harmless Serbia, with no casualties among the NATO aggressors. But war with Russia – a fierce superpower with a nuclear arsenal – would not be so much fun.
So, now here we are five years later, and I am about to attend another commemoration in Belgrade, this time of the fifteenth anniversary of the start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. And this time, I really have nothing to say. I have already said it, over and over. Others are saying similar things, with more authority, from Professor Stephen Cohen to Paul Craig Roberts. Many of us have warned against the dangerous folly of seeking endlessly to provoke Russia by enlisting her neighbors in a military alliance whose enemy could only be… Russia. Of all Russia’s neighbors, none is more organically linked to Russia by language, history, geopolitical reality, religion and powerful emotions. The U.S. Undersecretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Victoria Nuland, has openly boasted that the United States has spent five billion dollars to gain influence in Ukraine – in reality, in order to draw Ukraine away from Russia and into the U.S. military alliance. It is now no secret that Ms Nuland intrigued even against America’s European allies – who had a less brutal compromise in mind – in order to replace the elected President with the American protégé she calls “Yats”, who indeed was soon installed in a far right government resulting from violent actions by one of the very few violent fascist movements still surviving in Europe.
True, Western media do not report all the facts at their disposal. But the internet is there, and the facts are on the internet. And despite all this, European governments do not protest, there are no demonstrations in the streets, much of public opinion seems to accept the notion that the villain of this story is the Russian president, who is accused of engaging in unprovoked aggression against Crimea – even though he was responding to one of the most blatant provocations in history.
The facts are there. The facts are eloquent. What can I say that are not said by the facts?
So up to now, I have remained speechless in the face of what appears to me to be utter madness. However, on the eve of my trip to Belgrade, I agreed to answer questions from journalist Dragan Vukotic for the Serbian daily newspaper Politika. Here is that interview.
Q. In your book Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions, you have brought a different stance about NATO bombing of Yugoslavia than many of your intellectual colleagues in the West. What prompted you to make such an unpopular conclusion?
A. Long ago, as a student of Russia area studies, I spent several months in Yugoslavia living in a student dormitory in Belgrade and made friends there. I turned to such old friends for viewpoints rather than to the sources consulted by Western reporters. And I have a lifelong interest in US foreign policy. I began my inquiry into Yugoslav conflicts by reading key documents, such as speeches of Milosevic, the Serbian Academy memorandum and works by Alija Izetbegovic, noting the inaccuracy of the way they were represented in Western media. I was never under instructions from editors, and indeed my editors soon refused to publish my articles. I was not the only experienced observer to be excluded from Western media coverage.
Q. Although subsequent events have confirmed that the operation of illegal bombing of one country without permission of the Security Council was completely wrong, the mainstream western media and politicians still refer to successful „Kosovo model“. Can you please comment on this matter?
A. For them, it was a success, since it set a precedent for NATO intervention. They will never admit that they were mistaken.
Q. When it came to the preparation of the “humanitarian intervention” against Syria, Obama administration reported they were studying “the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations”. (Please comment on this)
A. This is not surprising, since setting such a precedent was one of the motives for that air war.
Q. In one of your articles you asked the question about what the ICC stood for in the case of Libya. You recalled the “familiar pattern” with the case of ICTY and Yugoslavia. What do you really think of those instruments of international justice and their role in international relations?
A. In the context of the present world relationship of forces, the ICC like the ad hoc tribunals can only serve as instruments of United States hegemony. Those criminal tribunals are used only to stigmatize adversaries of the United States, while the main role of the ICC so far is to justify the ideological assumption that there exists an unbiased “international justice” that ignores national boundaries and serves to enforce human rights. As John Laughland has pointed out, a proper court must be the expression of a particular community that agrees to judge its own members. Moreover, these courts have no police of their own but must rely on the armed force of the United States, NATO and their client states, who as a result are automatically exempt from prosecution by these supposedly “international” courts.
Q. What is, in your opinion, the main purpose of declaring the so-called humanitarian intervention? Does it have more to do with the domestic public opinion or with the international partners?
A. The ideology of Human Rights (a dubious concept, incidentally, since “rights” should be grounded in concrete political arrangements, not on abstract concepts alone) serves both domestic and global purposes. For the European Union, it suggests a “soft” European nationalism based on social virtue. The United States, which is more forthright than today’s Europe in proclaiming its national interest, the ideology of Human Rights serves to endow foreign interventions with a crusading purpose that can appeal to European allies and above all to their domestic opinion, as well as to the English-speaking world in general (Canada and Australia in particular). It is the tribute vice pays to virtue, to echo LaRochefoucauld.
Q. You often use the term “US and its European satellites“. Please explain.
A. “Satellites” was the term used for members of the Warsaw Pact, and today the governments of the NATO member states follow Washington as obediently as the former followed Moscow, even when, as in the case of Ukraine, the United States goes against European interests.
Q. How do you see current goings on in Ukraine and Crimea, especially in terms of US-Russia relations?
A. US-Russian relations are determined primarily by an ongoing U.S. geostrategic hostility to Russia which is partly a matter of habit or inertia, partly a realization of the Brzezinski strategy of dividing Eurasia in order to maintain US world hegemony, and partly a reflection of Israeli-dominated Middle East policy toward Syria and Iran. Between the two major nuclear powers, there is clearly an aggressor and an aggressed. It is up to the aggressor to change course if relations are to be normal.
Simply compare. Is Russia urging Quebec to secede from Canada so that the province can join a military alliance led by Moscow? Evidently not. That would be comparable, and yet mild compared to the recent U.S. gambit led by Victoria Nuland aimed at bringing Ukraine, including the main Russian naval base at Sebastopol, into the Western orbit. The material reality of this political orbit is NATO, which since the end of the Soviet Union has systematically expanded toward Russia, which stations missiles whose only strategic function would be to provide the United States with a hypothetical nuclear first strike capacity against Russia, and which regularly holds military manoeuvers along Russian borders. Russia has done nothing against the United States, and recently provided President Obama with a face-saving way to avoid being voted down in Congress in regard to military action against Syria – action which was not desired by the Pentagon but only by the fraction of Israeli-oriented policy makers called “neocons”. Russia professes no hostile ideology, and only seeks normal relations with the West. What more can it do? It is up to Americans to come to their senses.
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. She can be reached at diana.johnstone@...
Da: "Zivadin Jovanovic"Oggetto: Podrska narodu KrimaData: 24 marzo 2014 16:56:22 CET
- НАТО је увек наступао као агресивни војни савез за ширење и наметање империјалних и неоколонијалних циљева најмоћнијих земаља Запада. Целокупно доасадашње искуство показује да НАТО стратегија глобалног интервенционизма оставља за собом хаос у међународним односима, огромне људске жртве, поделе и дугорочну беду и патње у свим земљама и регионима, који су непосредне жртве такве политике. Случајеви Балкана, Афганистана, Ирака, Либије, Сирије јасно о томе сведоче. НАТО је одговоран за разарање међународног правног портека, за деградацију УН, за изазивање нове трке у наоружавању, за милитаризацију Европе, за дестабилизацију и изазивање криза у појединим земљама и регионима у свету. Отуда је НАТО стратегија супротна циљевим мира и безбедности, супротна демократским и цивилизацијским вредностима и основним људским правима. У таквој организацији нема места за мирољубиве земље, које своје интересе везују за поштовање међународног права и система УН. Зато су се учесници Конференције изјаснили за укидање НАТО-а, као реликта Хладног рата, за прекид политике слободног интервенционизма и поштовање слободе, независности и равноправности свих земаља и народа.а мирољубиве земље, које својеквполитике. Сл
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Venerdì sera si è svolta un'assemblea nella sede di RCA e i presenti sono stati messi al corrente della difficilissima situazione della radio. Il Consiglio Regionale del Lazio non rinnova la convenzione con Radio Città Aperta per la diretta radiofonica delle sedute. Radio Città Aperta sta continuando a proprie spese a garantire il servizio, con sempre maggiore difficoltà.
Come primo piccolo ma significativo aiuto, vi chiedo di firmare e di far circolare la petizione per la radio: vi incollo qui sotto una e-mail da mandare ad amici e parenti, ma ovviamente modificatela come volete. Importante raggiungere almeno le 2000 firme.
Marta
Ho firmato la petizione "Nicola Zingaretti: Informazione e trasparenza: costo o bene comune? Ripristinate la convenzione con Radio Città Aperta per la diretta delle sedute del Consiglio Regionale." su Change.org.
Il Consiglio Regionale del Lazio non rinnova la convenzione con Radio Città Aperta per la diretta radiofonica delle sedute, scaduta a fine 2012.
www.change.org/radiocittaaperta
Grazie!
MONOLOGO DI PIETRO BENEDETTI
REGIA DI ELENA MOZZETTA
UNO SPETTACOLO PRODOTTO DAL CP ANPI VITERBO
TRATTO DAI RACCONTI DI NELLO MARIGNOLI, PARTIGIANO VITERBESE COMBATTENTE IN JUGOSLAVIA
Da: Alessandro Di Meo <alessandro.di.meo @ uniroma2.it>Oggetto: evento 5 aprileData: 24 marzo 2014 14:07:48 CET
( https://maps.google.com/maps?q=+Via+del+Termine+4+(Villa+Muti),Frascati ).
L'invito vuole essere il modo, quest'anno, di ricordare il 24 marzo del 1999, giorno in cui iniziarono i tragici bombardamenti della Nato su quel che rimaneva della Jugoslavia, in particolare su Serbia e Kosovo. A 15 anni di distanza siamo ancora fra quelle persone e in quei luoghi, a promuovere iniziative di solidarietà che non perdono, e c'è da dire purtroppo, la loro importanza in una situazione socio-economico-sanitaria sempre più difficile e drammatica.
Dalle ore 17 alle ore 20, presentazione delle attività che Un Ponte per... realizza in Serbia, fra i profughi di guerra e in Kosovo e Metohija, nei villaggi serbi isolati e ghettizzati, vittime di un apartheid che non sembra avere fine (vedi:http://www.unponteper.it/tag/serbia/) .
In particolare si prevede:
- la presentazione del libro: "Gli anni di Rosa" (vedi: http://unsorrisoperognilacrima.blogspot.it/2014/01/gli-anni-di-rosa.html ); acquistabile su: http://www.unponteper.it/prodotto/gli-anni-di-rosa/ (oppure scrivendo a:bottega@....);
- la proiezioni di brevi filmati e mostre fotografiche sul tema dell'ospitalità di minori in difficoltà, realizzata da Un Ponte per.. dal 1999 a oggi;
- interventi sul tema della salvaguardia del patrimonio culturale Ortodosso nella regione (solo nel marzo 2004 oltre 150 fra chiese, monasteri e cimiteri ortodossi furono distrutti o dati alle fiamme);
- la presentazione di un viaggio di conoscenza nella cultura serbo-ortodossa (previsto dal 9 al 15 giugno prossimi. Per informazioni:info@... );
Dalle 20,30 alle ore 22:30 musica d'autore con Michele Martino (percussioni mediterranee) e Marco Battistelli (chitarra e voce solista - canzoni sul tema: la donna e la guerra); cena a buffet con tipica cucina serba e italiana, "annaffiata" da vino e rakija!;
Costo: 10 euro compreso tessera dell'ass. culturale "Approdo di Turan" e cena.
Dalle ore 22:30 fino a notte inoltrata, spettacolo di Dj con musiche balcaniche (Free entry per chi ha partecipato alla cena, 5 euro per i nuovi arrivatiJ)
Ricordo che l'evento è finalizzato alla raccolta fondi per una nuova iniziativa di ospitalità per minori dal Kosovo e Metohija, da realizzarsi la prossima estate, per cui... saranno benvenute sottoscrizioni volontarie!
Sperando di vedervi numerosi, ringraziando per la pazienza con la quale ci seguite, cari saluti a tutti
Alessandro Di Meo
(associazione "Un Ponte per...")
Un ponte per... associazione di volontariato per la solidarietà internazionale
Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II, 132 - 00185 - Roma
tel 06-44702906 e-mail: posta@... web: www.unponteper.it
*** VIDEO: ПРЕДСТАВЉАЊЕ КЊИГЕ ДР ЈЕЛЕНЕ ГУСКОВЕ О АГРЕСИЈИ НАТО ПРОТИВ СРЈ
Scopo associativo è cioè la continuazione ed il rilancio di tutte le attività culturali, di controinformazione, di difesa dei diritti civili e di solidarietà già avviate in Italia prima, durante o subito dopo la aggressione del 1999 contro la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia.
In particolare, siamo qui a portare il nostro saluto e augurio di buon lavoro perché è importante continuare a ricordare l’aggressione del 1999, non solo perché in questo momento Stati Uniti ed Unione Europea sono all’attacco in varie parti del mondo e la Jugoslavia è paradigma delle molte altre guerre succedutesi, ma anche per il ruolo che la Jugoslavia ha avuto nella storia del secolo scorso, e per il comportamento della classe operaia europea di fronte a tali guerre.
La reazione all’aggressione alla Jugoslavia da parte della classe operaia italiana non fu omogenea. Il sindacato più importante, la CGIL, insieme a CISL e UIL giustificarono tale aggressione con un documento spregevole in cui addebitavano alla Jugoslavia la colpa in quanto “avrebbe rifiutato il trattato di Rambouillet”.
Sicché molti operai iscritti a tali sindacati credettero alle bugie. Viceversa, i sindacati di base presero subito posizione contro l’aggressione.
Nello stesso tempo, la scarsa reattività della classe operaia alle fandonie provenienti dai media fu una delle cause della sconfitta della classe operaia italiana a livello nazionale: non rendersi conto che la guerra alla Jugoslavia è stata una guerra per il controllo dei mercati, delle risorse e della forza-lavoro, e dei corridoi con cui queste fluiscono verso i paesi imperialisti, ha indebolito la classe operaia stessa.
Anche gran parte delle forze politiche e degli attivisti dei movimenti di sinistra, antimilitaristi o che nominalmente si richiamavano al comunismo tennero un atteggiamento ambiguo: da un lato si opposero alla guerra, ma dall’altro non solidarizzarono con gli aggrediti.
Ma l’aggressione a un Paese importante nella storia recente come la Jugoslavia, terra del più grande movimento partigiano durante la II Guerra Mondiale, tra i fondatori del Movimento dei non-allineati, scosse comunque coscienze individuali che si raccolsero intorno ai gruppi che autonomamente si venivano formando per non solo opporsi alla aggressione, ma anche per esprimere solidarietà alla popolazione colpita, che resisteva di fronte ad un aggressore così tanto più forte. Sorsero gruppi e associazioni di solidarietà, che inviarono aiuti, a partire peraltro da posizioni differenti.
Per mantenere in collegamento questi gruppi, sparsi su tutto il territorio italiano da Trieste a Torino, da Firenze a Bari, da Roma a Milano, è nato il CNJ, che ha mantenuto tuttavia una specificità perché basato sulla convinzione che l’esistenza dello stato unitario jugoslavo era la soluzione adatta ai problemi dei territori che lo formavano, e che il suo dissolvimento è stato frutto di un progetto a lungo covato da Stati Uniti ed Europa, che hanno appoggiato i vari nazionalismi per ragioni sia economiche sia geopolitiche.
L’aggressione alla Jugoslavia si inserisce nel quadro delle neo-guerre imperialiste, dopo la caduta del muro di Berlino. L’aggressione all’Iraq fu la prima di queste guerre, ma il contesto internazionale non permise il suo completamento, il paradigma è quello della guerra alla Jugoslavia. Senza volere esaurire l’argomento, ci sembra che gli elementi del paradigma siano:
Un elemento caratterizzante l’aggressione alla Jugoslavia fu la scarsa perdita di vite umane dalla parte degli aggressori, mentre le vittime dalla parte jugoslava furono in numero considerevole. Si trattò di una guerra esclusivamente aerea, di sessioni di bombardamenti di incredibili durate e frequenze, i cui danni furono spesso limitati dalla abilità e intelligenza dei tecnici jugoslavi (militari e civili), che riuscirono spesso ad ingannare la grande potenza americana.
Inoltre il disastro ecologico causato dai bombardamenti della NATO fu una vera e propria guerra chimica, in quanto la distruzione programmata e precisa di obiettivi industriali, dalle industrie petrolchimiche a quelle farmaceutiche ed alimentari, dalle centrali elettriche alle fabbriche di automobili, provocò effetti di ordini di grandezza molto superiori agli incidenti che possono comunemente accadere. L’effetto sulla biosfera è stato devastante, ed ancora non completamente analizzato. Le perdite di vite umane dunque non sono solo quelle durante l’aggressione, ma anche quelle diluite nel tempo, dovute agli effetti della catastrofe ecologica (tumori, leucemie,…); un discorso a parte si meriterebbe l’analisi degli effetti dell’Uranio impoverito. Proprio coloro che avevano nella fase preparatoria della aggressione definito i Serbi colpevoli del “genocidio” degli Albanesi della provincia del Kosovo, tentarono uno sterminio della popolazione civile, come del resto era accaduto con gli effetti spaventosi dell’embargo all’Iraq (500000 mila morti, tra cui soprattutto bambini…).
La Jugoslavia, uno dei fondatori del Movimento dei non –allineati, è anche il primo Paese appartenente al movimento a venir distrutto: gli Stati Uniti non sopportano l’esistenza di Paesi che ricerchino una via autonoma di sviluppo, culturale, civile, economico. Infatti uno degli scopi dei feroci bombardamenti è in genere di distruggere le industrie e le infrastrutture, in modo da tentare di riportare il Paese di turno molti decenni indietro (se non all’età della pietra, come sperava un generale americano nella prima guerra del Golfo…). Dopo la Jugoslavia, altri paesi del Movimento dei non –allineati sono stati aggrediti e devastati, come la Libia, o sono tuttora oggetto di pesanti manovre di destabilizzazione.
Lo scopo degli Stati Uniti è quello di dominare il globo, e la tendenza ad accusare il nemico di turno di essere un novello Hitler, in realtà nasconde il disegno questo sì hitleriano statunitense di espandersi a Est e a Sud del mondo. Dietro gli Stati Uniti, l’Unione Europea arranca nella speranza di aprirsi nuovi mercati e di poter usufruire di mano d’opera qualificata a poco prezzo: esemplare la vicenda della FIAT a Kragujevac.
Ricordiamo che anche nel X Anniversario dei bombardamenti, nel marzo del 2009, il CNJ con la Rete “Disarmiamoli!” promosse una grande iniziativa a Vicenza alla quale parteciparono sia relatori stranieri come Juergen Elsaesser e Diana Johnstone, sia i rappresentanti delle molte associazioni italiane protagoniste del movimento di solidarietà, che ancora oggi mantengono migliaia di “adozioni a distanza” dei figli dei lavoratori della Serbia bombardati, tra cui: Non bombe ma solo caramelle, Associazione Zastava Brescia, Un ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari, Un ponte per... Organizzazione Non Governativa. Al convegno - che volle analizzare, a dieci anni dai bombardamenti della NATO, i vari aspetti dell’aggressione, da quelli mediatici, a quelli ecologici, a quelli economici - parteciparono tra gli altri esponenti del sindacato Samostalni degli operai della Zastava di Kragujevac.
Anche le più recenti aggressioni, quali quella alla Libia, con l’assassinio di Gadafi, l’intervento in Mali, il tentativo in corso di distruggere la Siria, le provocazioni in Venezuela ed il colpo di stato in Ucraina, seguono il modello “jugoslavo”.
In Ucraina attualmente sono intervenute addirittura forze nazifasciste, che hanno contribuito alla vittoria delle forze nazionaliste e hanno poi dato sfogo al solito odio anticomunista, assalendo sedi del partito comunista ucraino.
Questi fatti dimostrano che è indispensabile la continuità dell'analisi e dei valori appresi sulla base dei fatti storici, e non di mere idealizzazioni geopolitiche. Perciò CNJ è una associazione che si richiama ai valori dell’antifascismo e ritiene importante il mantenimento della memoria storica della lotta dei partigiani jugoslavi contro il nazifascismo. In questo contesto organizza ricerche su temi storici, quali i crimini dell’esercito italiano in Jugoslavia nella II Guerra Mondiale, o di recente la storia poco nota dell’operato dei partigiani jugoslavi in Italia: molti jugoslavi, catturati in Jugoslavia dagli Italiani, e imprigionati in Italia, riusciti poi a fuggire dai campi di prigionia o liberati dal 25 luglio 1943 in poi, parteciparono alla Resistenza italiana, e talvolta furono sepolti in Italia.
Anche la nostra campagna contro l'istituzione in Italia, dal 2004, del «Giorno del ricordo» in memoria delle vittime delle foibe, dell’esodo giuliano-dalmata, delle vicende del confine orientale, da commemorare ogni 10 Febbraio, grazie a una legge frutto di un accordo tra destra e sinistra, ha le stesse motivazioni antimperialiste. La data prescelta è infatti quella del Trattato di Pace con la Jugoslavia (10 febbraio 1947): simbolicamente l'Italia mette così in discussione lo stesso Trattato di Pace e, di conseguenza, i confini dello Stato – una enormità, che però appare possibile dopo la frantumazione della Jugoslavia e l’aggressione dei paesi della NATO nel 1999 a ciò che di essa restava. La ricorrenza scelta, in ogni caso, si presta bene all’operazione di revisionismo: essa infatti cade abbastanza vicino al 27 gennaio (Giornata della Memoria dell'Olocausto), cosicché anche gli Italiani hanno la loro giornata in cui presentarsi da aggrediti anziché da aggressori. Aggressori nel 1941, aggressori nel 1999.
Anche sul piano della battaglia culturale, proprio dalla sua fondazione, CNJ intrattiene rapporti con linguisti, registi e uomini di cultura delle varie repubbliche jugoslave, promuovendo dibattiti sulla lingua serbo-croata, sull’arte e la storia dei popoli di quei territori (Lordan Zafranović è stato più volte ospite di CNJ per la proiezione in Italia dei sui film più importanti, quali Okupacija u 26 slika, e Pad Italije).
Per il 15.mo Anniversario anche in Italia siamo presenti con le nostre iniziative. Quest'anno abbiamo voluto proprio celebrare la ricorrenza della Aggressione sotto il profilo del danno culturale, organizzando a Milano una iniziativa incentrata sul tesoro della cultura serbo-bizantina, colpito anch'esso dai bombardamenti e tuttora messo a repentaglio in Kosovo, dove è il cuore della storia, della cultura e della identità non solo serba ma di tutti gli Slavi del Sud. Ai serbi del Kosovo, che continuano a patire per il regime razzista instaurato dalla NATO, va in questo momento il nostro primo pensiero.
Edited time: March 22, 2014 10:38
Fifteen years after NATO invaded Yugoslavia, memories of the 78-day bombing are still haunting present-day Serbia. Above all, people ask why the alliance brought them death and destruction. RT presents its documentary 'Zashto?' from the war-torn country.
On March 24, 1999, when NATO started its ruthless bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, Jelena Milincic was a student at the University of Belgrade, and just 18 years old.
When the first strikes hit in the evening, she, her mother, sister, and best friend cowered under a table. Remembering this now, 15 years later, they laugh.
Back then, it was terrifying. For the next three months, the relentless airstrikes became part of Jelena’s – and many other people’s – lives.
“In ’99, I was 16 and I was studying in a theater school. I had no idea that a country in central Europe was being bombed for three months,” RT America journalist Anissa Naouai says in the film.
Operation Allied Force, as it was code-named, lasted until June 10, 1999. Tragically, NATO’s aggression resulted in more than 2,000 civilian deaths, including 88 children.
The authors of 'Zashto?' – which means “Why?” in English – Serbian Jelena Milincic and American Anissa Naouai traveled through former Yugoslavia to Belgrade, Kosovo, and Montenegro. They spoke to people who endured the atrocities and horrors of the war and lost loved ones.
“We were just looking for important, heartfelt stories. Serbia is not a very large country, and everywhere we went we found people who were personally affected by the bombings, and feel the war’s impact to this day,” said Milincic, a Serbian journalist.
“Our goal was to show the aspects of the conflict that you did not see in the news, the stories of civilians affected by the events,” Milincic added.
NATO was intent on achieving its objective, destroying the General Staff building – a move seen as progress in the fight to bring down Slobodan Milosevic.
“What they didn’t show you was that a young girl living next door was killed in the airstrike,” Milincic said. We did not think this film “would end up being so personal.”
After seeing the destruction with her own eyes, Naouai, said the on-the-ground reality made a mockery of the picture that US media painted of the war.
“I don’t understand how the world can let NATO not say sorry for this,” Naouai says in the film.
“We decided to title the film 'Zashto?' because to this day many people do not understand what exactly NATO’s goal was, what were they able to achieve at such a high price, and whether that goal was really worth the price,” Milincic said.
To watch the documentary 'Zashto?' tune in to RT on March 24.
Avance: RT presenta un documental exclusivo sobre la guerra de la OTAN en Yugoslavia
Este 24 de marzo se cumplen 15 años del inicio de los bombardeos de la OTAN en Yugoslavia. En vísperas de la fecha, dos periodistas de RT —la serbia Jelena Milincic y la estadounidense Anissa Naouai— hablan con testigos de los horrores de la guerra.
Lo que parecía una película de terror se convirtió en realidad para toda una nación: durante la Operación Fuerza Aliada, que duró 78 días entre el 24 de marzo y el 10 de junio de 1999, la OTAN lanzó un total de 2.300 misiles contra 990 objetivos y 14.000 bombas sobre el territorio de Yugoslavia, un país que se desintegró tras una serie de conflictos étnicos en los años 90 y que en 1999 formaban solo las actuales Serbia y Montenegro. Solo la capital, Belgrado, fue bombardeada 212 veces.
Estos dos meses y medio de ataques aéreos incesantes se cobraron la vida de más de 2.000 civiles, 88 niños entre ellos, y dejó 8.000 heridos.
Pero estos datos no son más que frías cifras. Detrás están las tragedias humanas. La corresponsal de RT Jelena Milincic, su familia y sus amigos están entre los que sobrevivieron los horrores de aquellos días de guerra.
"No entiendo cómo el mundo puede permitir que la OTAN no pida perdón por todo esto", insiste la estadounidense Anissa Naouai, y puntualiza que la imagen de la guerra en Yugoslavia que presentaban los medios de EE.UU. fue muy diferente de cómo la retrataban los medios serbios.
Para ver más imágenes de detrás de las cámaras y ver cómo se rodó el documental, haga clic aquí:
УБИЦЕ СУ НА СЛОБОДИ – ПЕТНАЕСТ ГОДИНА ОД НАТО АГРЕСИЈЕ
Поводом 15. годишњице од НАТО агресије на Савезну Републику Југославију, Нова комунистичка партија Југославије (НКПЈ) ће у периоду од 22. до 24. марта низом активности спровести кампању “Убице су на слободи”.
Том кампањом НКПЈ жели да укаже на чињеницу да су они који су починили грозоморне злочине и изазвали хумантарну катастрофу на подручју наше земље слободни уместо да су на вишегодишњим робијама због убијања на хиљаде војника и цивила, држављана Савезне Републике Југославије, гађања цивилних циљева и коришћења војних средстава и опреме која су забрањена пос вим важећим међународним конвенцијама. Треба подсетити и да је тромесечна агресија на СР Југославију представљала кршење свих међународних норми, која је уследила без формалне објаве рата и без сагласности Савета безбедности Уједињених нација под циничним изговором да је реч о “хуманитарној мисији”.
НКПЈ изјављује да је главни и највећи кривац за све жртве и разарања током злочиначког НАТО бомбардовања западни империјализам и његове квислиншке слуге, НАТО пешадија из редова терористичке “Ослободилачке војске Косова”. Стога НКПЈ истиче да правда неће бити задовољена све док не буде суђено челницима западног империјализма и његове ударне војне песнице НАТО, Билу Клинтону, Медлин Олбрајт, Тонију Блеру, Герхарду Шредеру, Жаку Шираку, Хавијеру Солани, Веслију Кларку и њиховим про-империјалистичким послушницима и издајницима албанског народа и Југославије Хашиму Тачију, Рамушу Харадинају и другима. Сви наведени злочинци се налазе на слободи што показује злочиначки карактер, бездушност и двоструке аршине западног империјализма.
Основни циљ НАТО агресије је био окупација јужне српске покрајине Косова и Метохије која је започела потписивањем Кумановског споразума, смена анти-империјалистичких власти у Београду ДОС-овим контрареволуционарним пучем организованим од стране Вашингтона и Брисела 5. октобра 2000. године и разбијања СР Југославије, а касније и Државне заједнице Србије и Црне Горе, као нукелуса за поновно стварање социјалистичке Југославије од Триглава до Ђевђелије.
С обзиром на изречено и да се зна да је Европска унија непријатељ нашег народа и државе НКПЈ понавља да је про-империјалистичка политика коју спроводи режим у Београду на челу са Српском напредном странком и његово залагање за улазак Србије у бриселску тамницу народа срамна и потпуно анти-патриотска. Стога свако обележавање годишњице НАТО агресије и давање помена жртавама од стране челника буржоаског режима представља лицемерје и безобразлук у ситуацији када званични Београд послушнички следи директиве западних имеперијалиста из Вашингтона и Брисела.
НКПЈ користи и ову прилику да се захвали свим сестринским комунистичким и радничким партијама које су током читавог тока агресије организовањем демонстрација широм света пружиле отпор империјализму и солидарисале са са патњама и борбом народа СР Југославије. Како су се те 1999. године чланови НКПЈ са оружјем у руци у редовима Војске Југославије, чувајући мостове и обавештавајући прогресивну јавност у свету о злочиначкој агресији супротстављали западном империјализму тако сада редовно обележавају годишњице бомбардовања. Циљ је да се сачува успомена на све невине жртве империјалистичке агресије на СРЈ зарад интереса мултинационалног капитала и да се укаже на злочиначки карактер НАТО убица које су и данас као окупатори присутни на Косову и Метохији, Босни и Херцеговини и Македонији и у многом другим деловима света. НКПЈ, као интегрални део међународног комунистичког покрета, наставља своју борбу против империјализма како на нашим просторима тако и широм земљине кугле!
Слава жртвама империјалистичке агресије на СР Југославију!
НАТО убице, напоље из Србије!
Секретаријат Нове комунистичке партије Југославије,
Београд,
21.март 2014. године
Stop NATO - March 15, 2014
Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela and beyond: Beware the wars of march
In the 1930s it was a notorious fact the German government of Adolf Hitler chose the month of March to perpetrate its most daring moves in reasserting the nation as a continental power, culminating in the most deadly war in history.
For example:
March 1933:
German federal election brings Hitler to power as chancellor
March 1936:
Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles
March 1937:
The Third Reich's Condor Legion bombs and attacks Durango, Spain and the next month bombs Guernica
March 1938:
Germany absorbs Austria
Over the past fifteen years a not dissimilar pattern has emerged.
In March of 1999 the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization began Operation Allied Force, the 78-day air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
In March of 2003 the U.S. and several of its NATO allies began Operation Iraqi Freedom, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, ultimately with troops from 23 of NATO's current 28 member states stationed in the country.
In March of 2011 the U.S. launched Operation Odyssey Dawn, nineteen days later taken over by NATO under the code name of Operation Unified Protector, a more than six-and-a-half-month-long air war and naval blockade against Libya.
The above were the first wars ever conducted by NATO and were, respectively, its first wars in three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa.
In the unbroken series of direct, covert and proxy wars waged by the U.S. and NATO since the attack on Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999, the following nations and former nations have been seriously, more than likely fatally, wounded. Destroyed.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (subsequently the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, now splintered into three entities)
Macedonia
Afghanistan (what was left of it after the U.S. and several of its NATO allies supported a fundamentalist-extremist insurgency operating out of Pakistan from 1978-1992 and then backhandedly supported the Taliban takeover in 1995-1996)
Iraq
Somalia
Ivory Coast
Libya
Yemen
Syria
Sudan
Mali
Ukraine
ЗАШТО СМО НАПАДНУТИ
Ево протиче и петнаеста годишњица агресије НАТО-а на нашу земљу, а ми још увек немамо опште прихваћене одговоре на питање зашто је до тога дошло. Да би прикрила праву суштину тог злочина, западна пропаганда и њоме фасцинирани домаћи политичари и медији исковали су цео арсенал еуфемизама који служе за циљано наметање назива тога догађаја. Наводно, за западну проганду и домаће властодршце то није био рат запада, односно његове ударне песнице НАТО, против Србије и српског народа, већ хуманитарна интервенција за заштиту људских права косметских Албанаца која им је наводно угрожавала њихова држава Србија и то зато што им није дозвољавала сецесију и на српској територији успостављање друге Албанске државе на Балкану. Тај злочин оружане агресије се може и сме називати кампањом, а може и бомбардовањем, али само не онако како је то у суштини било. То се не сме звати оружана агресија на једну суверену и међународно признату државу. Ово зато што је тај напад изведен без сагласности Савета Безбедности УН и као такав би се морао оквалификовати као злочин против мира. Прихватајући те еуфемизме, наси међи, стручна јавност и државни властодршци у ствари амнестирају унапред злочинце и имплиците прихватају кривицу Србије за двоипомесечно разарање њених материјалних и нематерјалних добара и за неконтролисано и неселективно убијање њених недужних грађана.
КО ЈЕ БИО АГРЕСОР
У јавности се не без разлога сматра да је оружану агресију извршио НАТО. Тиме се додатно замагљује права суштина овога злочина. Као да је НАТО некаква самоникла творевина и да државе које у њему партиципирају немају готово никакве одговорности за његова дела и недела. Не, права адреса за оружану агресију као злочин против мира је Запад. Ово зато што се ради о војном савезу држава које припадају западно-хришћанској цивилизацији, без обзира на то што су неке старе чланице као што су Грчка и Турска изван тог цивилизацијског круга, а већина нових чланица као што су Пољска, Чешка, Словачка, Хрватска, Словенија, Мађарска свим силама теже да их се сматра западно-хришћанским државама. Оне то по религијским и по колективно-идентитетским обележјима у суштини и јесу. За Бугарску и Румунију као нове чланице НАТО и за Црну Гору, која не може да дочека да је то светло НАТО интеграција обасја, је сасвим друга прича. Оне су или натеране или привољене да се учлане из чисто геополитичких разлога и на тај начин се повинују свим диктатима западних сила односно Америке.
Дакле, без сумње је агресор био Запад, а на његовом челу САД као најмоћнија сила и предводница тог дела света, уз сваковрстну партиципацију некада великих европских сила као што су Велика Британија, Немачка, Француска, Италија и др. Овде не треба заборавити ни страствено укључивање у агресију на Србију свих нама суседних земаља и то тако што су понудили и уступили свој копнени, ваздушни и поморски простор за маневар, базирање и оперативни ослонац снага НАТО у нападу на Србију, што је равно директној умешаности у агресију.
Иако се тиме не може у потпуности објаснити зашто нас је запад напао, ипак се главној аргументацији мора додати и да се ту делом радило о злочину из страсти. Односно, о некој врсти одмазде Запада према Србима којима се као историјска кривица приписује готово све што су они чинили у прошлости током свог ослобађања од ропства под Отоматском империјом и тирјанства запада оличеног најпре у Аустро-угарској од времена анексије Босне и Херцеговине до краја Првог светског рата, а потом Немачке у Првом, а посебно у Другом светском рату.
Ако је посве неспорно да је агресију на Србију марта 1999. год. Извршио Запад, те да већина европских сателита Америке у том нападу су биле и данас су чланице Европске Уније и то њене главне чланице без којих уније не би ни било, како да се разуме наше безалтернативно, безпоговорно и страствено јуришање наших елита моћи, такозване интелигенције и препарираних медија да се што пре дочепају те обећане земље зване Европска Унија. Никако другачије се то не може објаснити осим као нечувени национални мазохизам који се сликовито може изразити синтагмом „ волети свога непријатеља“.
Заједно са западним заговорницима нашег прикључења тој коалицији зла ( Европска Унија ), наши домаћи трабанти још од времена петооктобарског пуча којим су доведени на власт, знају да је народно памћење дугог трајања и да се мора доста дуго и стрпљиво радити на промени свести нације, како би се у забораву историје, традиције и националне свести, из темеља променио систем вредности и национална идентитетска парадигма и тако ми Србиј очас постали западњаци. У помоћ се призива Вебер и његова „ Протестантска етика и дух капитализма“. Но слаба је вајда од пуних уста Вебера. Промена историјског, националног и цивилизацијског идентитета народа не иде тако лако и брзо како то мисле наши приучени полуинтелигенти и владари. Једино што је при томе известно су националне фрустрације и нове дубоке поделе од којих се не може очекивати ничег добро. Џаба вам, дакле, Вебер, Достојевски нам је ипак дражи и ближи, иако се то не би могло закључити на основу географских координата.
СРБИЈА КАО ПОРАЖЕНА ЗЕМЉА
САД су цео свет прогласиле могућим подручјем својих националних интереса, уосталом како и приличи империјалној сили која је себи приграбила право да буде неприкосновени светски владалац. И свугде где процене да би њихови национални интереси могли да буду угрожени, САД су себи дале за право да могу војно интервенисати. Тако су САД дошле до своје доктрине интервенционизма по мери својих стратешких интереса. Управо је Србија послужила као полигон за тестирање те доктрине, тзв. новог или глобалног интервенционализма. Био је то својеврсни експеримент ин виво.
Агресија на Србију је била централни догађај у свеобухватној прослави јубилеја 50. годишњице од постајања НАТО. Брзом и блиставом војном победом над нејаком Србијом требало је утерати страх у кости свим будућим, потенцијалним реметиоцима тог америчког стратешког мира и доказати и показати свету да у војном погледу НАТО нема равног противника. Истовремено, то је требало да означи и коначну војну победу запада над светом. Али, био је то рачун без крчмара. Уместо брзе и лаке војне победе, односно капитулације српске војске и државе, НАТО је добио неочекивно снжан отпор јединственог фронта народа и његове војске и тај отпор је несмањеном жестином трајао 78 дана. Агресор је био принуђен да уђе у преговоре ради прекида оружане агресије. Резултат тих преговора била је Резолуција 1244 Савета Безбедности УН, која је Србији гарантовала суверенитет над КиМ, а у замену за ту резолуцију Србија је пристала да са КиМ повуче своје војне и безбедносне снаге и да своју јужну покрајину препусти протекторату УН.
Тако је оружана агресија Запада на Србију прекинута. Но, агресија није тиме стала. Она је настављена другим средствима и тим другим средствима траје све до данашњих дана. Изводи се свим облицима, методима и средствима из арсенала тзв. посредне стратегије доминације. Ту спадају политички притисци, претње, застрашивања, уцене, прогон и убијање дела нашег народа који је остао на КиМ, лажна обећања и дозиране припуштање у тзв. евроинтеграције, али уз бројне уступке који значе даљњу ерозију државног суверенитета Србије. Све то је кулминирало високоумним и исто толико лицемерним мишљењем Међународног суда правде да сецесија није била нелегална. Коначно, стигло се до Брселског споразума којим је у ствари стављена тачка на ј тог нашег сталног узмицања пред налетима те тзв. посредне стратегије запада којим смо пристали да зарад добијања
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
NATO expansion — Yugoslavia to Ukraine
Behind Washington’s hypocritical talk of “national sovereignty,” “territorial integrity” and “international law” in its efforts to undercut the overwhelming vote of the people of Crimea to join Russia stands a stark struggle over whether Ukraine will be dragged into the ever expanding, U.S.-commanded NATO military web.
Since 1995, the year NATO waged its first aggressive war against Yugoslavia, NATO has expanded into nine countries of Eastern Europe and three former republics of the former Soviet Union.
The Obama administration is using more than words in this deepening struggle.
The Pentagon has moved F-16 fighter-bombers, F-15 fighters, C-130 transport planes and RC-135 aerial tankers to Russia’s borders and sent the USS Truxtun destroyer, armed with cruise missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads, into the Black Sea. Washington threatens economic sanctions, putting pressure on Germany and other EU members to join in. A lot is at stake.
NATO membership was a key provision in the agreement that Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych balked at signing with the EU last November. The Maidan Square occupation in Kiev, the capital, aimed at stampeding the government into joining the EU and NATO. Fascist ultraright paramilitary organizations, such as Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda party took the lead.
During the Kiev occupation and since, these openly armed terror organizations burned political offices of communists, pulled down revolutionary statues, attacked gay people and defaced homes of Ukrainian Jews. Despite their open fascist symbols and criminal acts, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland openly met with and embraced these reactionaries.
On Feb. 21-22, the fascist forces overthrew the elected government, seized Parliament and expelled government officials, even though Yanukovych had just reached an agreement with the EU, including many concessions and the scheduling of new elections. The first act of the coup government, after deposing Yanukovych in a rump parliament, without a quorum, was to ban Russian and Greek language usage by Ukrainian minorities and to end Crimea’s autonomy within Ukraine.
Within days, the coup regime named fascists to key posts in the new state — the Svoboda Party’s Andriy Parubiy as secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Right Sector head Dmytro Yarosh as his deputy and Svoboda’s Ihor Tenhyok as minister of defense. The U.S.-favored right-wing banker Arseniy Yatsenyuk became prime minister.
The immediate attack on Crimea’s autonomy confirms how well the coup government fell in line with NATO’s plan for expansion. The Crimea is the only non-Arctic base to provide a port for the Russian Navy.
Washington and Berlin immediately granted recognition to this coup government. In an effort to lend further legitimacy, the unelected Yatsenyuk was invited to a meeting at the White House and to the United Nations Security Council.
It should be no surprise then that the gut response of most of the population of the Crimea to this fascist threat was to hold a referendum on whether to continue autonomy or rejoin Russia. Nor that Russian Prime Minister Putin decided to order Russian troops, whose presence in Crimea is approved of by treaty with Ukraine, to secure their position in the peninsula. The collective memory of the Russian-speaking majority in Crimea is shaped by stories of the Nazi invasion and massive destruction in World War II.
Remember Croatia and Kosovo
This is not the first time that U.S. imperialism has used terror tactics and economic destabilization, and publicly embraced paramilitary monsters.
The videos of Blackwater mercenaries and right-wing militias operating in eastern Ukraine and movements of Ukrainian military and National Guard raised great apprehension.
If the fascist coup government could in one measure end Crimea’s long held autonomy, the likely next step would be to order the Russian Navy out of its own base. Perhaps it would expel a large part of Crimea’s population. If that seems unbelievable, consider what happened in other U.S. supported rightist coups in Croatia and in Kosovo, a province of Serbia, and their similarities with the Ukraine situation.
During World War II, the fascist Ustashe had welcomed the Italian fascist and German Nazi occupation and carried out genocide against the Jewish and Serbian populations of Croatia. A united multinational partisan resistance movement throughout Yugoslavia finally defeated the fascists, drove out the German army and laid the basis for the Yugoslav Socialist Federation as the war ended.
The return of this same criminal Ustashe organization, its 1991 declaration of independence for Croatia and separation from the Yugoslav Federation were immediately recognized by Berlin and soon by Washington. This political support for a right-wing separatist movement by the U.S. and Germany, combined with the 1995 attack on Bosnia and the 1999 NATO air war, led to the breakup of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation.
After declaring Croatian independence in 1991 and taking command of the police and military, the Ustashe carried out attacks on the Serbian population. It outlawed the rights of the Serbian minority, who had lived in Croatia since the Middle Ages, expelling them from their farms, evicting them from apartments, firing them from state jobs and cancelling their pensions and social services.
Fearing the mass executions like those these fascists had carried out during World War II, the Serbs in Croatia resisted and civil war broke out. By 1995, more than 200,000 Serbs had been driven from the Krajina region in Croatia.
Similar rightist forces unleashed the civil war in Bosnia, another republic of the Yugoslav Federation. This led to even deeper ethnic divisions, great destruction and loss of life.
Before the Ustashe seized power in Croatia, the annual U.S. Foreign Appropriation Law 101-513 in 1990 created a political and economic crisis in the Yugoslav economy. It cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans until each of the six Yugoslav republics held separate elections for independence. At the same time, secretly funded mercenaries and militias flooded into the region, spreading terror.
In both Russia and Ukraine, many are aware of the U.S. role in shaping the civil war in Bosnia to justify NATO intervention. First, in 1995, U.S./NATO used 400 aircraft and 5,000 personnel from 15 nations in the 21-day bombing of Serbian-held positions in Bosnia. Then, Washington imposed the Dayton Accords, which stationed 60,000 NATO troops in Bosnia.
This bombing and occupation of Bosnia was the first crucial step in the expansion of the NATO military alliance into the Balkans, and then into East Europe and the former Soviet republics.
What is NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military-machine alliance under U.S. domination and run to project Wall Street’s interests. NATO has a U.S.-commanded military structure imposed by U.S. corporate policy since it was founded in 1949, at the peak of U.S. power.
Since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has aggressively expanded until it is now the biggest political-military alliance in history, with 28 member countries. Its “partnership programs” bring the total number of countries trapped in this U.S.-spun military web to 70 countries. U.S. taxpayers pay 70 percent of NATO expenses, a huge subsidy to U.S. military corporations.
The combined defense expenditures of all 28 NATO countries in 2013 amounted to $1.02 trillion or over $1 million millions. In comparison, Russia spends $90 billion. Iran spends under $7 billion. (Stars and Stripes, Feb. 25 — tinyurl.com/o332a4e)
In addition, NATO troops are part of the 13-year continuing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. From 2004 to 2011, tens of thousands of troops under NATO command participated in the eight-year occupation that destroyed Iraq.
Starting March 24, 1999, NATO carried out a 78-day bombardment of Serbia that included 38,000 combat missions, using 1,000 aircraft along with cruise missiles fired from aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines. The targets were overwhelmingly civilian, including bridges, railroads, factories, refineries, power stations, telecommunications facilities, embassies, 480 schools and 33 hospitals.
NATO cut Kosovo province out of Serbia, creating a NATO protectorate with 50,000 troops and building Camp Bondsteel, a massive U.S. military base. Despite the U.S. pledge that Kosovo was historically part of Serbia and would remain so, Washington quickly recognized Kosovo’s independence in 2008.
In 2011, NATO bombed Libya for 220 days, with 26,500 sorties, overwhelmingly flown by the U.S. Air Force, but with 19 countries pulled into the imperialist aggression. Communications centers, apartment buildings, water networks and the electric grid were targeted. The reactionary militias that U.S./NATO funded and backed up militarily brutally tortured and murdered Moammar Gadhafi, the leader of this African country.
The imperialists fraudulently called each of these blatant aggressions “humanitarian acts” to prevent “genocide” or to protect peace. In fact, each NATO operation was a brutal act of colonial conquest and expansion.
Transforming NATO
NATO’s main task at its 1949 founding was to confront and challenge the Soviet Union. But it was also established to secure U.S. military and economic domination in Western Europe, a check against working-class uprisings and the rise of any imperialist competitors. It wasn’t until 1955 that the USSR and East European countries established the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO’s Cold War pressure.
In 1990, as the Soviet Union was retreating under the pressure of 45 years of Cold War, U.S. Secretary of State Baker and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl made a commitment that was quickly broken. They said NATO troops would not expand “one inch” further east, not even into the former German Democratic Republic.
The USSR’s conciliatory Mikhail Gorbachev leadership swallowed this commitment and agreed to withdraw the 380,000 Soviet troops from East Germany, where by treaty they had a right to be stationed since the end of World War II in 1945. This in effect ended the Warsaw Pact military alliance. (Counterpunch, March 13; The Atlantic, March 3)
Despite these talks and agreements, the expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia has been the focus of U.S. policy through both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Although U.S. policy had long been to support and fund dissident individuals and organizations of opposition throughout the Warsaw Pact countries, after 1990 the floodgates opened. Western corporations and banks sought resources. Exiled wealthy families surged back into the region to attempt to reclaim ownership of industries, vast estates and swaths of land they had previously owned that had been collectivized.
Fascist groups from the Ustashe in Croatia to Svobodo and the National Socialist Party in Ukraine, the war criminals whom the CIA had smuggled west at the end of WW II and helped to secretly maintain in exile for decades, surged back in. They returned awash in funds for offices, staff, publications, political parties, nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations. They drafted and printed anti-communist schoolbooks full of extreme sectarian nationalism and ethnic hatred. They also established militias and hired armed thugs to defend their newly seized assets.
For the past 20 years, a handful of pirates and privateers in each of the formerly socialist countries were absorbed in laying hold of every resource, industry or source of formerly collective wealth and making deals and partnerships with U.S. and EU corporations and moving vast sums of money to the West.
These new oligarchs assumed that they would be offered an equal seat at the capitalist table. They foolishly did not realize that they were the main course. This is the age of capitalist overproduction, decline and commodity super abundance. There is no more room at the table.
By clear majorities, country polls of almost every new NATO member showed that the people opposed joining NATO. But imperialist conquest takes place through stealth and deception and through bloody wars and massive destruction, not democratic choice. The lessons of past NATO crimes and the rich history of resistance to fascism throughout the region serve as a model for the anti-fascist, progressive and working-class forces throughout Europe today. The only way to defeat fascism and imperialist domination is through multinational working-class unity, organization and a will to struggle.
The author was in Yugoslavia during the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing and witnessed the massive civilian destruction. She is a co-author and editor of “NATO in the Balkans,” (1998) and “Hidden Agenda — U.S./ NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia,” (2002), both published by the International Action Center.
КАКО ДА ПРЕПОЗНАМО ШТА ЈЕ ИСТИНА А ШТА ЛАЖ
У лавиринту (дез)информација:
Др Рудолфа Хензела
Зигмунд Фројд зачетник психоанализе и утицајни мислилац свога времена, негде
на размеђу двају претпрошлих векова говорио је да је свет лудница. Неколико
година касније почео је Први светски рат. Данас, преко 100 година касније, људи
широм планете Земље поново имају осећај да свет личи на лудницу. Догађаји у
светској политици и привреди се преокрећу, па их већина од нас више не поима. И
поред тога што се по цео дан информишемо преко мноштва канала, једва да ће се
наћи неко ко се сналази у том лавиринту информација и дезинформација. Шта се,
рецимо, заиста одиграва у Украјини и Сирији? Да ли свет иде у сусрет неком
новом великом рату? Да ли ће светска привреда доживети колапс? Коју улогу на
овој светској позорници играју масовни медији? Постоји ли уопште објективна
истина и како да је препознамо?
Желимо ли да се у овом све компликoанијем свету још сналазимо да бисмо личне
одлуке за будућност доносили на сигурнијој основи, онда морамо наћи одговор на
ова питања.
Quo vadis, Украјино, Сиријо, Венецуело, Босно и Херцеговино, Мали?
Куда води пут бившу совјетску републику Украјину и бившу Аутономну Репулику
Крим? Да ли је у Сирији, Венецуели, Босни и Херцеговини и Малију реч само о
немирима домаће израде или о грађанском рату преко заступника великих сила?
Да бисмо могли о овоме да просуђујемо, упућени смо на објективне извештаје
медија и независне аналитичаре. Амерички економиста Пол Крејг Робертс (Paul
Kraig Roberts)1
и франко-канадски професор економских наука Мишел Косудовски
(Michel Kossudovsky)2
, експерт за војну политику САД у Азији и на Балкану, уз
друге личности, спадају у аналитичаре којима се може веровати. А њима се, ја
мислим, може веровати ондна када се њихове анализе потврђују у пракси или
током историје.
Пол К. Робертс, подстакнут новим издањем инсцениране прозападне наранџасте
револуције у Украјини, пита се да ли су то велике силе спремне да о 100.
годишњици од избијања Првог светског рата поново попут месечара крену
путем рушилачког конфликта. Тежња ка светској хегемонији покренула је
Вашингтон да се умеша у унутрашње послове Украјине, међутим, актуелни
развој ситуације све више измиче његовој контроли3
. Још крајем прошле године
он је писао да Вашингтон свет усмерава ка рату и да то Сједињене државе, после
пораза против талибана, прихватају уз Русију и Кину4
. Говор Мишела Косудовског на 19. међународној конференцији о Рози Луксембург
11. јанара 2014. године у Берлину управо се
бавио тежњом Америке као светске силе. Тема: Империјално
освајање: ’дуги рат’ Америке против човечанства (Imperial Conquest Amerika’s
against Huмanity)5
. У том говору он је изразио и став према рату у Сирији,
рекавши: Перманентни рат против Сирије јесте полазна тачка за рат против
Ирана који би могао да доведе до процеса војне ескалације. И Русија и Кина, обе
савезнице Сирије, налазе се на нишану САД, тј. ННАТО-а6
. Преврати у Украјини
и на Криму нису повезани само са геополитичким циљевима империје, већ и са
споља подстакнутим немирима у јужноамеричкој Венецуели, Босни и
Херцеговини и са ратом у северноафричком Малију.
Прикривене психолошкe операцијe (PSYOPS) треба да замаскирају тежњу
Вашингтона ка светском господству
Шта су империјални и геополитички интереси САД? Збигњев Бжежински, бивши
саветник председника Картера за безбедност, у својој књизи Једина светска сила
– америчка стратегија надмоћи (1999) пише да су, по његовом мишљењу,
европске и азијске земље између Лисабона и Владивостока шаховска табла на
којој се одиграва борба за глобалну доминацију. Забрана за Америку значи: ни
једном евроазијском изазивачу који би узмогао да континент стави под
доминацију и који би представљао претњу за Америку не допустити да се
уздигне7
. Према Бжежинском, у политичке интересе велесиле спадају, на пример,
и конкретни економски интереси, као што су сопствена безбедност и
контрола лежишта нафте и гаса у том делу света. Успостављање контроле
над овим сировинским регионима треба да омогући и овладавање привредама
Кине и Индије, које су у успону8
. Пошто агресивној геополитици прети опастост
могућег прекомерног ширења америчке империје, у САД се, после углавном
успешно изведених обојених револуција, тј. постмодерних државних удара9
почетком овог века, све више прибегава мекој сили (Soft Power) или спретно
употребљеној сили (Smart Soft Power).
Операције које Пентагонови ратници пропаганде (Голингер) методама меке силе
изводе широм света називају се психолошким операцијама (PSYOPS) и Пентагон
у њима види моћно оружје. Међу мноштвом PSYOP-ових метода су, између оста -
лог, летци који се бацају из авиона, телевизијске емисије, филмови, часописи за
младе као и нови медији, као што су интернет, мобилни телефони, SMS. Сви ови
продукти различите врсте смишљени су да придобијају ум и срца оних људи у
САД и у иностранству на које је Пентагон бацио око. За ово се користе сазнања
психологије и примењују манипулативне психотехнике, као што je
неуролингвистичко програмирање (NLP) и ангажују професиоални спин доктори
(специјалисти за извртање стварности)10
Истина је умрла и са собом однела у гроб слободу, писао је Пол К. Робертс још
2010. године: Данас се грађанима САД влада помоћу пропаганде. Њих се
Слобода не тиче и једва да имају приступ ка њој и нешто ограничених
способности да је уопште и препознају. За истину се више не пита. Она само
смета. Она је табу. Ко је и упркос томе помене, прети му опасност да буде
жигосан као ’антиамериканац’, ’антисемит’ или ’заклети теоретичар’
Мејнстрим медији као пета колона ратне алијансе
Мејнстрим и водећи медији претежно су власништво високих финансијских
кругова и осталих моћних група, а контролишу их и они и политичари – и то не
само у САД. Које нам онда истине продају ови гласноговорници моћних и
власних? Због овога један просвећени савременик дневне вести и новинске
извештаје једва да може још да подноси. Ови расположени помагачи стално нам
мажу очи некаквим нетакнутим светом коме сметају само Ал Каидини терористи
или зли момци попут руског председника Владимира Путина. Њима пристаје мото:
Audacter calmumniare: Semper aliquid haeret (Кад љагаш, љагај дрско, нешто ће
остати и запамћено.) Извештаји о Зимској олимпијади у Сочију прослеђивали су
нам утисак о садашњој расистичкој антируској антипутинској кампањи Запада
откако Русија под Путином поново игра водећу улогу у светској политици.
А, у ствари масовни медији су дужни да , сходно националним и
интернационалним споразумима, истинито информишу о нама, грађанима, и миру.
Међутим, они су одвајкада – како се изразила Берта фон Зутер – оруђе
министара рата, и служе хушкању на рат, пропаганди мржње и заглуђивању
маса12
. Тиме се они понашају као пета колона ратне коалиције, због које мање-
више субверзивно делују. Зато је аустријски писац и публициста Карл Краус за
своје колеге новинаре, користећи реч из француског, говорио да су они Kanaill,
изведено у погрдном смислу од Journaille, што исто тако пуно значи као и
оттпадник или пробисвет штампе.
Ускоро ће у САД званични надзорници и политкомесари Обамине владе да у
уредништвима вести по целој Америци гледају преко рамена новинарима,
уредницима и издавачима кад год доносе своје редакцијске одлуке13
. Није онда ни
чудо што, према једној Галуповој анкети, тек 23 процента Американаца верује
телевизијским вестима14. У Немачкој само заступницима осигурања (19,4 %) и
политичарима (15,1 %) верује се још мање него новинарима (37 %)15.
Шта је истина?
Истина је подударање мишљења са стварима. Мисао је истинита онда када се
може доказати стањем ствари. Притом међу истинама постоји извесна
рангираност: истине о човековој будућности имају већу вредност од истина о
човековој прошлости или садашњости. Добро је ако се зна шта је било; боље је
знати на чему смо сада и овде; међутим, најбоље је када се зна шта ће бити. Пре
свега, због тога филозофи и остали интелектуалци који (свесно) преузимају
одговорност за себе и друге људе морали би да нам говоре шта треба да чинимо,
јер само истина може да нас ослободи.
Велики руски писац Лав Толстој у свом Говору против рата 1909. г. пише да су у
рукама моћних милијарде пара, милијарде покорних војника, а у нашим је само
једно, али зато најмоћније средство на свету – истина... наша победа је
немсумњива, али само под једним условом, под условом да ћемо, исказујући
истину, да је исказујемо целу, без било каквих околишења, уступака и
ублажавања16
. Енглески писац Харолд Пинтер, добитник Нобелове награде за
књижевност, у свом говору приликом уручења награде 2005. године, говорећи о
трагању писца за истином, Сједињене државе је означио као бруталне, презрене,
и бескрупулозне и при том рекао да, упркос огромним отпорима, коначно морамо
сачувати одлучност да као грађани утврђујемо стварну истину о нашем
животу и нашим друштвима. Даље каже: Ако се та одлучност не оличава у
нашој политичкој визији, онда ћемо бити лишени наде да ћемо обновити оно
што смо готово изгубили – људско достојанство17
.
Како препознајемо шта је истина, а шта лаж
Готово да је објашњено да смо ми, људи, у стању да препознајемо истину. Ово
противречи конструктивистичком схватању да се предмет који посматрач
препознаје конструише само током процеса препознавања; због тога сваки човек
другачије опажа стварност, па се стога ни једном његовом опажању не може
веровати. Онда се из већ реченог може закључити:
- да би требало да се ми, људи, критички односимо према властодршцима, јер они
морају да помоћу пропаганде и манипулације прикривају истину,
- да би, према извештајима мејнстрим и водећих медија, требало да будемо
скептични, зато што их у рукама чврсто држе велики финансијери и властодршци,
- да не би требало да жалимо труда да се обратимо за савет независним
експератима и медијима, јер њихов интегритет стално изнова проверавамо (ко, на
пример, позива на мржњу и тражи позив или чак позива на рат, тај себе
дискредитује),
- да сви ми колико нас има не судимо набрзину, већ да аргументе и
противаргументе, којима располажемо, стално критички преиспитујемо. Од велике
помоћи нам је и самосазнање да смо као деца наше културе, услед осећања мање
вредности или из страха, често заслепљени, па нам уз помоћ државне
манипулације и индоктринације често брзо улију несигурност. Други су пак
лаковерни, дају да их воде општешрихваћене предрасуде, па примају на знање
само оно што воле да чују или нерадо допуштају да њихове инфантилне чежње и
илузије помућују сурове чињенице. Умирујуће самозаваравање понеком је драже
од помисли на опасност за коју он сматра да га већ поштеђује.
Да би се лаж разликовала од истине потребне су правилна представа о човеку и
реалистична слика света као резултат васпитања које је протицало позитивно уз
просвећене васпитаче у родитељском дому и школи. Исто тако, треба знати да је
човек по природи добар, али да може да буде веома иритиран. На пример, жудња
за влашћу у економији и политици толико је тешка иритација која стално води
људским катастрофама. Човек је и друштвено, кооперативно и по природи
неагресивно биће. Ратови се чине зато што су добар посао, а не зато што
одговарају човековој природи. Такође ваља раскрстити са инфантилном
представом о нетакнутом свету. Похлепне плутократе и њима покорне владе
света ништа не препуштају случају; свиме се управља одозго. Ако нам онда пође
за руком да развијемо здрав дух солидарности и свест да је сарадња оно једино
што човечаство може да спасе, онда ћемо се, заједно са својим ближњима, мало
по мало приближавати истини.
Дати шансу посредницима за истину
Низ независних, етичних експерата спремани су за посреднике за истину. Дајмо
им шансу. Ако их слушамо без предрасуда, к срцу ће на прирасти и основни
принцип из Римског права Audiatur et altera pars (слуша се и друга страна).
Будућност наше културе битно ће зависити од тога да ли ће бити довољно оних
просветитеља који ће бити у стању да народима отклањају оне идеолошке
предрасуде које су у позадини људских катастрофа. У времену, у коме је
самоуништење човечанства помоћу атомске бомбе и осталих рушилачких оружја
могуће и те како су нам потребни слободни духови који нас уче шта је истина, а
шта лаж.
1 www.paulcgraigroberts.org
2 www.globalresearch.ca
3 Kopp online од. 24.02.2014
4 Kopp online од 7. и 18.12.1013
5 www.gloabalreseach.ca/imperial-conquest-americas-long-way-against-humanity.html
6 www.jungewelt.de/beilage/art/3280
7 Ибид, с.16
8 Ибид, с 4
9 Tarpley, W. G. (2008). Барак Об
10 S. Golinger, E: (2009). Психолошке операција (PSYOPS) против Венецуеле: Вашингтон и његов
рат прорив боливаровске револуције (Psychologische Operationen (PSYOPS) gegen Venezuela:
Washington und sein Krieg gegen die Bolivarianische Revolution ), с. 3 и даље.
11 www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25066.htm
12 V. Suttner, B. (1889) и (1977). Die Waffen nieder (Доле оружје), с. XIX.
13 Kopp online од 21.02.2014.
13 ибид
14 Ибид
15 Цит. Према: Spiegel online v. 7.12.2005
16 Tolstoi, L. N. (1968). Rede gegen den Krieg (Говори против рата), с. 163f.
17 Цит. према: Spiegel online од 7.12.2005.
Превод: Милан Радојковић
Wie erkennen wir, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist?
9. März 2014
Sigmund Freud, Begründer der Psychoanalyse und einflussreicher Denker seiner Zeit, soll um die letzte Jahrhundertwende geäußert haben, die Welt sei ein Irrenhaus. Einige Jahre danach begann der Erste Weltkrieg. Heute, über 100 Jahre später, haben viele Menschen rund um den Erdball wieder dieses Gefühl, dass die Welt einem Irrenhaus gleicht: Die weltpolitischen und weltwirtschaftlichen Ereignisse überschlagen sich, sind aber für die meisten von uns nicht mehr nachvollziehbar.
Obwohl wir den ganzen Tag über auf mehreren Kanälen „informiert“ werden, findet sich kaum noch jemand in diesem Labyrinth von Informationen und Desinformationen zurecht: Was z. B. spielt sich wirklich ab in der Ukraine und in Syrien? Steuert die Welt auf einen neuen großen Krieg zu? Wird die Weltwirtschaft kollabieren? Welche Rolle in diesem Welttheater spielen die Massenmedien? Gibt es überhaupt eine objektive Wahrheit und wie erkennen wir sie?
Wenn wir uns in dieser immer komplizierter werdenden Welt noch zurechtfinden und persönliche Entscheidungen für die Zukunft auf gesicherter Grundlage treffen wollen, müssen wir auf diese Fragen eine Antwort finden.
Quo vadis Ukraine, Syrien, Venezuela, Bosnien-Herzegowina, Mali?
Wohin führt die Reise in der ehemaligen Sowjetrepublik Ukraine und der Autonomen Republik Krim? Handelt es sich in Syrien, Venezuela, Bosnien-Herzegowina und in Mali „nur“ um hausgemachte Unruhen oder Bürgerkriege oder um Stellvertreterkriege der Großmächte? Um diesbeurteilen zu können, sind wir auf objektiv berichtende Medien und unabhängige Analysten angewiesen. Der US-amerikanische Ökonom Paul Craig Roberts (1) und der frankokanadische Professor für Wirtschaftswissenschaften Michel Chossudovsky (2), Experte für die Militärpolitik der USA in Asien und auf dem Balkan, gehören neben anderen Persönlichkeiten zu diesen vertrauenswürdigen Analysten. Vertrauenswürdig sind sie m. E. dann, wenn sich ihre Analysen in der Praxis und im Laufe der Geschichte bestätigen.
Paul C. Roberts z. B. fragt vor dem Hintergrund der Neuauflage der inszenierten prowestlichen„Orangenen Revolution“ in der Ukraine, ob die Weltmächte am 100. Jahrestag des Ausbruchs des Ersten Weltkriegs wieder dabei seien, „sich schlafwandelnd auf den Weg in einen zerstörerischen Konflikt zu begeben. Sein Streben nach weltweiter Vorherrschaft hat Washington dazu bewogen, sich in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Ukraine einzumischen, aber die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen entgleiten immer mehr der Kontrolle Washingtons.“ (3) Bereits Ende letzten Jahres schrieb er, dass Washington die Welt in Richtung Krieg steuere und es die USA nach der Niederlage gegen die Taliban nun mit Russland und China aufnehmen. (4)
Michel Chossudovskis Rede bei der XIX. Internationalen Rosa-Luxemburg-Konferenz am 11.01.2014 in Berlin befasste sich ebenfalls mit Amerikas Weltmachtstreben. Titel: „Imperial Conquest:America’s ‚Long Way’ against Humanity“ („Imperialistische Eroberung: Amerikas ‚langer Krieg’ gegen die Menschheit“). (5) In diesem Vortrag nahm Chossudovski auch zum Krieg in Syrien Stellung, indem er sagte: „Der anhaltende Krieg gegen Syrien ist Ausgangspunkt für einen Krieg gegen Iran, der zu einem Prozess militärischer Eskalation führen könnte. Auch Russland und China, beide Verbündete von Syrien und Iran, befinden sich im Visier der USA-NATO.“ (6) Nicht nur die Umwälzungen in der Ukraine und auf der Krim stehen im Zusammenhang mit den geopolitischen Zielen des Imperiums, auch die von außen geschürten Unruhen im südamerikanischen Venezuela, in Bosnien-Herzegowina und der Krieg im nordafrikanischen Mali.
Verdeckte psychologische Operationen (PSYOPS) sollen Streben Washingtons nach Weltherrschaft verschleiern
Was sind die imperialen Interessen, die geopolitischen Ziele der USA? Zbigniew Brzezinski, ehemaliger Sicherheitsberater Präsident Carters, schreibt in seinem Buch „Die einzige Weltmacht – Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft“ (1999), dass seines Erachtens Eurasien – die europäischen und asiatischen Länder zwischen Lissabon und Wladiwostok – das Schachbrett ist, auf dem sich der Kampf um die globale Vorherrschaft abspielt. Das Gebot für Amerika laute, „keinen eurasischen Herausforderer aufkommen zu lassen, der den eurasischen Kontinent unter seine Herrschaft bringen und damit für Amerika eine Bedrohung darstellen könnte“. (7) Zu den machtpolitischen Interessen zählen nach Brzezinski auch konkrete wirtschaftliche Interessen wie z. B. die alleinige Sicherung und Kontrolle der Erdgas- und Erdölvorkommen dieser Welt. Über die Kontrolle dieser Rohstoffgebiete solle auch die Herrschaft über die aufstrebenden Volkswirtschaften Chinas und Indiens ermöglicht werden.“ (8)
Da die aggressive imperialistische Geopolitik Gefahr läuft, die Möglichkeiten des USImperiums zu überdehnen, setzt man in den USA seit den grossenteils erfolgreich verlaufenden „Bunten Revolutionen“ bzw. „postmodernen Staatsstreichen“ (9) zu Beginn dieses Jahrhunderts vermehrt auf „Soft Power“ (sanfte Macht) oder „Smart Power“ (geschickt genutzte Macht).
Die Operationen, die die „Propagandakrieger“ des Pentagons (Golinger) als „Soft-Power“- Methoden weltweit durchführen, werden psychologische Operationen („PSYOPS“) genannt und vom Pentagon als seine mächtigste Waffe angesehen. Zu den vielfältigen Methoden von „PSYOP“ gehören u.a. Flugblätter, Radio- und Fernsehsendungen, Filme, Jugendzeitschriften und die neuen Medien wie Internet, Handy, SMS. All diese Produkte zielen darauf ab, die Köpfe und Herzen jener Menschen innerhalb und außerhalb der USA zu gewinnen, die das Pentagon ins Visier nimmt. Dazu werden Erkenntnisse der Psychologie angewandt, manipulative Psychotechniken wie das „Neurolinguistische Programmieren (NLP)“ eingesetzt und professionelle Spin doctors (Wahrheitsverdreher) engagiert. (10)
„Die Wahrheit ist gestorben und hat die Freiheit mit ins Grab genommen“, schrieb Paul C. Roberts bereits 2010: „Heute werden die US-Bürger durch Propaganda beherrscht. Sie scheren sich nicht um die Wahrheit, haben kaum Zugang zu ihr und nur begrenzte Fähigkeiten, sie überhaupt zu erkennen. Die Wahrheit ist nicht mehr gefragt. Sie stört nur. Sie ist tabu. Wer sie trotzdem ausspricht, läuft Gefahr, als ‚Antiamerikaner’, ‚Antisemit’ oder ‚Verschwörungstheoretiker’ gebrandmarkt zu werden.“ (11)
Mainstreammedien als „Fünfte Kolonne“ der Kriegsallianz
Die Mainstream- und Leitmedien sind größtenteils im Besitz der Hochfinanz und anderer mächtiger Gruppen und werden von ihnen und der Politik kontrolliert – und das nicht nur in den USA. Welche „Wahrheiten“ werden uns diese Sprachrohre der Mächtigen und Regierenden also verkaufen? Die täglichen Nachrichtensendungen und Zeitungsmeldungen sind deshalb für einen aufgeklärten Zeitgenossen kaum noch zu ertragen. Ständig gaukeln uns diese „willigen Helfer“ eine heile Welt vor, die nur durch Al-Qaida-Terroristen oder böse Buben wie den russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin gestört wird. Das Motto lautet: „Audacter calmumniare:Semper aliquid haeret.” („Verleumde nur frech: Es bleibt immer etwas hängen.“)
Die Berichterstattung über die Olympischen Winterspiele in Sotschi haben uns einen Eindruck von der derzeitigen rassistischen antirussischen Anti-Putin-Kampagne des Westens vermittelt, nachdem Russland unter Putin wieder eine führende Rolle in der Weltpolitik übernommen hat.
Eigentlich sind die Massenmedien gemäß nationaler und internationaler Vereinbarungen der wahrheitsgemäßen Information von uns Bürgern und dem Frieden verpflichtet. Doch seit eh und je sind sie – wie es Bertha von Suttner ausdrückte – „Werkzeuge der Kriegsministerien“ und stehen „im Dienst der Kriegshetze und Hasspropaganda“ sowie „im Dienst der Verdummung der Massen“. (12) Damit verhalten sie sich wie eine „Fünfte Kolonne“ der Kriegskoalition, für die sie mehr oder weniger subversiv tätig sind. Der österreichische Schriftsteller und Publizist Karl Kraus sprach deshalb von seinen Journalisten-Kollegen in Anlehnung an das französische Wort„Kanaille“ abwertend von „Journaille“, was so viel wie „Presse-Gesindel“ oder „Presse-Pack“ bedeutet.
In den USA sollen bald offizielle „Aufpasser“ bzw. „Politkommissare“ der Obama-Regierung in den Nachrichtenredaktionen in ganz Amerika „den Journalisten, Redakteuren und Herausgebern über die Schulter schauen, wenn diese ihre redaktionellen Entscheidungen treffen“. (13)
Kein Wunder, dass nach einer Gallup-Umfrage nur 23 Prozent der Amerikaner den Fernsehnachrichten vertrauen. (14) In Deutschland vertrauen die Bürger nur Versicherungsvertretern (19,4 %) und Politikern (15,1 %) noch weniger als Journalisten (37 %). (15)
Was ist Wahrheit?
Wahrheit ist die Übereinstimmung des Denkens mit den Dingen. Ein Gedanke ist nur dann wahr, wenn er durch einen Sachverhalt belegt werden kann. Dabei gibt es eine Rangordnung unter den Wahrheiten: Wahrheiten über die menschliche Zukunft haben einen höheren Wert als Wahrheiten über die Vergangenheit des Menschen (Geschichte) oder die Gegenwart. Es ist gut, wenn man weiß, was gewesen ist; es ist besser, zu wissen, woran man hier und jetzt ist; am besten aber ist es, wenn man weiß, was sein soll. Philosophen sowie andere Intellektuelle, die für sich und andere Menschen (denkend) Verantwortung übernehmen, müssten uns deshalb vor allem sagen, was wir tun sollen; denn die Wahrheit allein kann uns frei machen.
Der große russische Schriftsteller Leo N. Tolstoi schrieb in seiner „Rede gegen den Krieg“ 1909, dass sich in den Händen der Mächtigen Milliarden von Geld und Millionen von Soldaten befänden, dass sich in unseren Händen nur ein Mittel, aber das allerwichtigste Mittel der Welt befände, die Wahrheit. Und deshalb sei uns der Sieg gewiss – aber nur unter der Bedingung, „dass wir die Wahrheit verkündigen und sie rückhaltlos, ohne Umschweife, ohne jede Konzession, ohne jede Milderung heraussagen“. (16).
Der englische Literaturnobelpreisträger Harold Pinter, der auf seiner Nobelpreisrede 2005 über die Suche des Schriftstellers nach Wahrheit sprach und dabei die USA als „brutal, verächtlich und skrupellos“ bezeichnete, meinte abschließend, man müsse „den existierenden, kolossalen Widrigkeiten zum Trotz“, die Entschlossenheit bewahren, „als Bürger die wirkliche Wahrheit unseres Lebens und unserer Gesellschaften zu bestimmen“. Und weiter: „Wenn sich diese Entschlossenheit nicht in unserer politischen Vision verkörpert, bleiben wir bar jeder Hoffnung, das wiederherzustellen, was wir schon fast verloren haben – die Würde des Menschen.“ (17)
Wie erkennen wir, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist?
Zunächst ist klar zu stellen, dass wir Menschen fähig sind, die Wahrheit zu erkennen. Das widerspricht der Auffassung des Konstruktivismus, dass ein erkannter Gegenstand vom Betrachter selbst durch den Vorgang des Erkennens konstruiert wird, jeder Mensch die Wahrheit dadurch anders wahrnimmt und somit keiner seiner eigenen Wahrnehmung trauen kann.
Sodann lässt sich bereits aus dem bisher Gesagten der Schluss ziehen, – dass wir den Regierenden sehr kritisch gegenüberstehen sollten, weil diese durch Propaganda und Manipulation die Wahrheit zu verschleiern suchen, – dass wir auch gegenüber der Berichterstattung der Mainstream- und Leitmedien sehr misstrauisch sein sollten, da sie fest in der Hand der Hochfinanz und der Regierenden sind, – dass wir keine Mühe scheuen sollten, unabhängige Experten und Medien zu Rate zu ziehen, deren Integrität wir immer wieder aufs Neue überprüfen, (wer z. B. zu Hass und Aufruhr oder gar Krieg aufruft, diskreditiert sich von selbst), und – dass wir insgesamt nicht zu schnell urteilen, sondern die zur Verfügung stehenden Argumente und Gegenargumente immer wieder kritisch überprüfen.
Auch ist die Selbsterkenntnis hilfreich, dass wir als Kinder unserer Kultur aufgrund von Minderwertigkeitsgefühlen oder aus Angst oft verblendet sind und uns durch staatliche Manipulation und Indoktrination schnell verunsichern lassen. Andere wiederum sind leichtgläubig, lassen sich von gängigen Vorurteilen leiten und nehmen nur das zur Kenntnis, was sie hören wollen. Oder sie lassen es nicht gerne zu, dass ihre kindlichen Sehnsüchte und Illusionen durch harte Tatsachen erschüttert werden. Die beruhigende Selbsttäuschung ist manch einem lieber als der Gedanke an die Gefahr, von der er annimmt, dass sie ihn schon verschonen wird.Um die Lüge von der Wahrheit unterscheiden zu können, bedarf es auch eines guten Menschen- und eines realistischen Weltbilds als Resultat einer positiv verlaufenden Erziehung und Bildung durch aufgeklärte Erzieher in Elternhaus und Schule. So muss man wissen, dass der Mensch von Natur aus gut ist, aber sehr irritiert sein kann. Machtgier in Wirtschaft und Politik sind z. B. solch schwere Irritationen, die immer wieder zu menschlichen Katastrophen führen.
Auch ist der Mensch ein soziales, kooperatives, von Natur aus nicht aggressives Wesen. Kriege werden deshalb gemacht, weil sie ein gutes Geschäft sind, nicht weil sie der Natur des Menschen entsprächen. Wertvoll ist es ebenso, sich von der kindlichen Vorstellung einer heilen Welt zu verabschieden. Nichts überlassen die gierigen Plutokraten und die ihnen hörigen Regierungen der Welt dem Zufall; alles wird von oben gesteuert. Sollte es uns aber gelingen, ein gesundes Gemeinschaftsgefühl zu entwickeln und das Bewusstsein, dass das einzige, was die Menschheit zu retten vermag, die Zusammenarbeit ist, dann werden wir gemeinsam mit unseren Mitmenschen der Wahrheit immer ein Stück näher kommen.
Vermittlern der Wahrheit eine Chance geben
Eine Reihe unabhängiger, ethisch handelnder Experten stehen ja als Vermittler der Wahrheit bereit. Geben wir ihnen eine Chance. Wenn wir sie vorurteilsfrei anhören, beherzigen wir auch den Grundsatz aus dem römischen Recht “Audiatur et altera pars“ („Man höre auch die andere Seite“). Die Zukunft unserer Kultur wird wesentlich davon abhängen, ob es genügend dieser „Aufklärer“ geben wird, die imstande sein werden, den Völkern jene Vorurteile zu nehmen, die der ideologische Hintergrund der Menschheitskatastrophen sind. In einer Zeit, in der die Selbstvernichtung der Menschheit durch die Atombombe und weitere verheerende Kriegswaffen möglich ist, bedürfen wir mehr denn je „freier Geister“, die uns lehren, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist.
(3) Kopp online v. 24.02.2014
(4) Kopp online v. 7. u. 18.12.1013
(5) www.gloabalreseach.ca/imperial-conquest-americas-long-way-against-humanity.html
(6) www.jungewelt.de/beilage/art/3280
(7) A.a.O., S. 16
(8) A.a.O., S. 4
(9) Tarpley, W. G. (2008). Barack Obama. Wie ein US-Präsident gemacht wird, S. 36
(10) S. Golinger, E: (2009). Psychologische Operationen (PSYOPS) gegen Venezuela: Washington und
sein Krieg gegen die Bolivarianische Revolution, S. 3ff.
(11) www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25066.htm
(12) V. Suttner, B. (1889) u. (1977). Die Waffen nieder, S.XIX