Informazione
NATO Advances Complete Absorption Of Balkans
1) Discussing NATO membership with FYROM (22.3.2012)
2) US Senators call on NATO to confirm `open-door` policy (22.3.2012)
3) Possible RS referendum on NATO sparks debate (22.3.2012)
4) From the Cold War to NATO's "Humanitarian Wars" - The Complicity of the United Nations
(by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, 4.4.2012)
5) NATO: Global Police Force Or Hegemonic Interventionist?
(by R. Rozoff, 7.4.2012)
6) Montenegro at NATO's Doorstep: Engagement Costs Steadily Rising
(by Anna Filimonova, 10.4.2012)
7) Rasmussen: NATO fully supports Euro-Atlantic aspirations of BiH (11.4.2012)
Source of the following documents in english language is the Stop NATO e-mail list
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Link:
Aunt Maddie Of Hamelin Leads Chicago Students Down NATO's Garden Path
by Rick Rozoff - Wed Apr 11, 2012
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/aunt-maddie-of-hamelin-leads-chicago-students-down-natos-garden-path/
=== 1 ===
http://www.act.nato.int/index.php/multimedia/archive/42-news-stories/937-discussing-nato-membership-with-fyrom
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Allied Command Transformation
March 22, 2012
Discussing NATO membership with FYROM*
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Allied Command Transformation
March 22, 2012
Discussing NATO membership with FYROM*
Written by ACT PAO
During a recent trip to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia* General Bieniek had an opportunity to discuss the ongoing transformation of the country's armed forces and the process of NATO membership accession with Minister of Defence, Mr Fatmir Besimi and Deputy Chief of Defence, Major General Naser Sejdini.
In the meeting with Besimi, Bieniek praised the reforms that have been carried out in the country so far and stressed the importance of FYROM as a reliable partner for NATO. He also expressed appreciation for FYROM's involvement in ongoing NATO operations.
Besimi emphasised the importance of his country's strategic goal – membership in the Alliance – and reiterated the on-going diplomatic work to resolve any outstanding issues. The minister underlined that NATO standards are a very important reference for FYROM in all aspects of military transformation, so as to meet the membership requirements.
The two leaders also discussed many aspects of the flourishing regional cooperation (the "A5 Group" includes FYROM, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Albania and Croatia), in particular procurement and better use of scarce resources to achieve the highest possible level of efficiency.
During a session with the Deputy Chief of Defence, General Bieniek was informed about the current status of the FYROM* Armed Forces, with particular attention to Capability Development, continuous participation in NATO-led operations, increased interoperability with NATO in all areas and continued regional cooperation.
Bieniek was also informed about a planned initiative similar to that of Alliance Air Policing, RIAD (Regional Integrated Air Defence) which aims at incorporating Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Montenegro and FYROM* in a common air defence structure.
Finally he got an update on the Annual National Programme, revolving around plans and policy, defense expenditures, transformation imperatives and regional cooperation.
*Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.
During a recent trip to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia* General Bieniek had an opportunity to discuss the ongoing transformation of the country's armed forces and the process of NATO membership accession with Minister of Defence, Mr Fatmir Besimi and Deputy Chief of Defence, Major General Naser Sejdini.
In the meeting with Besimi, Bieniek praised the reforms that have been carried out in the country so far and stressed the importance of FYROM as a reliable partner for NATO. He also expressed appreciation for FYROM's involvement in ongoing NATO operations.
Besimi emphasised the importance of his country's strategic goal – membership in the Alliance – and reiterated the on-going diplomatic work to resolve any outstanding issues. The minister underlined that NATO standards are a very important reference for FYROM in all aspects of military transformation, so as to meet the membership requirements.
The two leaders also discussed many aspects of the flourishing regional cooperation (the "A5 Group" includes FYROM, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Albania and Croatia), in particular procurement and better use of scarce resources to achieve the highest possible level of efficiency.
During a session with the Deputy Chief of Defence, General Bieniek was informed about the current status of the FYROM* Armed Forces, with particular attention to Capability Development, continuous participation in NATO-led operations, increased interoperability with NATO in all areas and continued regional cooperation.
Bieniek was also informed about a planned initiative similar to that of Alliance Air Policing, RIAD (Regional Integrated Air Defence) which aims at incorporating Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Montenegro and FYROM* in a common air defence structure.
Finally he got an update on the Annual National Programme, revolving around plans and policy, defense expenditures, transformation imperatives and regional cooperation.
*Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.
=== 2 ===
http://bsanna-news.ukrinform.ua/newsitem.php?id=19278&lang=en
Black Sea Association of National News Agencies
March 22, 2012
US Senators call on NATO to confirm `open-door` policy
Tbilisi: The US Senators call on the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NАТО) to reiterate its open-door policy towards the countries, which seek the military alliance's membership.
The Senators took into consideration the following countries: Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Macedonia which were rejected to become NATO members in 2008.
The US Senate discussed details about the forthcoming NATO summit due to be held in Chicago in May. The meeting was organized by the Atlantic Council.
=== 3 ===
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/03/22/feature-03
Southeast European Times
March 22, 2012
Possible RS referendum on NATO sparks debate
With more than 50% of Republika Srbska citizens opposing NATO membership, the entity opens the possibility of holding a referendum
By Drazen Remikovic
Banja Luka: Republika Srpska (RS) President Milorad Dodik reopened the possibility of a referendum in the entity last week - this time on NATO membership.
[T]he majority of RS citizens remain negatively inclined towards membership in the Alliance.
"The Serbs had a very negative experience with NATO. Nonetheless, we are determined to work hard at establishing good relations with the Alliance, but we have also determined that when the time of the final decision to join NATO comes, we should give people a chance to say in a referendum what they think about it," Dodik told Sarajevo's TV1 Television on March 14th.
Opposition parties in RS back the entity referendum, while parties from Federation of BiH emphasize that the issue is a state-level matter.
Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) deputy Aleksandra Pandurevic said that the should be set as required by the law of referendum - a controversial law that RS adopted in 2010.
"We believe that citizens must decide whether [the entity] will join a military alliance such as NATO, like its done in all democratic and developed countries. Our attitude is that BiH should be militarily neutral," Pandurevic told SETimes.
Much of the citizens' opposition stems from the NATO action in September 1995, when the alliance bombed the defense systems of the RS Army...
In addition, from March to June 1999, NATO took military action against the former Yugoslavia...
BiH accepted the Action Plan for NATO membership (MAP) in April 2009, but conditionally, because the status of the country's military property is still unresolved.
...
A poll by Banja Luka marketing agency Prime Comunications in November 2011 confirms the distrust of NATO that prevails among the citizens of RS. Joining NATO is suppored by only 26% of the population, while 55% oppose Alliance membership. About 19% are undecided.
...
By Drazen Remikovic
Banja Luka: Republika Srpska (RS) President Milorad Dodik reopened the possibility of a referendum in the entity last week - this time on NATO membership.
[T]he majority of RS citizens remain negatively inclined towards membership in the Alliance.
"The Serbs had a very negative experience with NATO. Nonetheless, we are determined to work hard at establishing good relations with the Alliance, but we have also determined that when the time of the final decision to join NATO comes, we should give people a chance to say in a referendum what they think about it," Dodik told Sarajevo's TV1 Television on March 14th.
Opposition parties in RS back the entity referendum, while parties from Federation of BiH emphasize that the issue is a state-level matter.
Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) deputy Aleksandra Pandurevic said that the should be set as required by the law of referendum - a controversial law that RS adopted in 2010.
"We believe that citizens must decide whether [the entity] will join a military alliance such as NATO, like its done in all democratic and developed countries. Our attitude is that BiH should be militarily neutral," Pandurevic told SETimes.
Much of the citizens' opposition stems from the NATO action in September 1995, when the alliance bombed the defense systems of the RS Army...
In addition, from March to June 1999, NATO took military action against the former Yugoslavia...
BiH accepted the Action Plan for NATO membership (MAP) in April 2009, but conditionally, because the status of the country's military property is still unresolved.
...
A poll by Banja Luka marketing agency Prime Comunications in November 2011 confirms the distrust of NATO that prevails among the citizens of RS. Joining NATO is suppored by only 26% of the population, while 55% oppose Alliance membership. About 19% are undecided.
...
Bojan Vlaski, 27, a lawyer from Banja Luka, said that NATO has taken action against Serbs twice, and therefore BiH should not become a member.
"I fully support the initiative for a referendum and I am sure that the RS citizens will vote against NATO. It would be totally immoral that RS support the one military alliance [that has] bombed and killed innocent people and civilians," Vlaski told SETimes.
"I fully support the initiative for a referendum and I am sure that the RS citizens will vote against NATO. It would be totally immoral that RS support the one military alliance [that has] bombed and killed innocent people and civilians," Vlaski told SETimes.
=== 4 ===
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30114
From the Cold War to NATO's "Humanitarian Wars" - The Complicity of the United Nations
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, April 4, 2012
Humanitarian wars, especially under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” are a modern form of imperialism. The standard pattern that the United States and its allies use to execute them is one where genocide and ethnic cleansing are vociferously alleged by a coalition of governments, media organizations, and non-governmental front organizations. The allegations – often lurid and unfounded – then provide moral and diplomatic cover for a variety of sanctions that undermine and isolate the target country in question, and thereby pave the way for military intervention. This is the post-Cold War modus operandi of the US and NATO.
In facilitating this neo-imperialism, the United Nations has been complicit in the hijacking of its own posts and offices by Washington.
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has been appointed a “special peace envoy” with a mediating role in Syria. Yet, how can Annan be evaluated as an “honest broker” considering his past instrumental role in developing the doctrine of R2P – the very pretext that has served to facilitate several US/NATO criminal wars of aggression? Furthermore, the evidence attests that the US and its allies – despite mouthing support for Annan’s supposed peace plan – are not interested in a mediated, peaceful solution in Syria.
From the Cold War to Humanitarian Wars
As the Cold War began to wind down in the late-1980s and early-1990s, NATO saw the opportunity that would arise from the geopolitical vacuum following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc. Not only did NATO begin transforming from a defensive organization into an offensive military body, the US-led alliance began to embrace a supposed humanitarian mandate for this purpose. It is through this purported embrace of humanitarianism that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was able to change into an offensive, interventionist military force – indeed the largest such force ever in the history of the world.
NATO’s biggest military operation up until a decade after the Cold War was the First Persian Gulf War following the invasion in 1991 of Kuwait by Iraqi forces under the command of Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, at the time a US ally, was mired in a territorial oil dispute over colonial-era borders to which Washington at first appeared to show cool indifference. Immediately after Iraqi forces entered Kuwait, however, a strident US government and media campaign was mounted claiming the sanctity of Kuwait’s sovereign territory and the “defence of small nations.” There were also lurid media reports – later shown to be fabrications – of atrocities committed by Iraqi troops, such as the butchering of babies taken from hospital incubators. The international public was successfully manipulated to accept a US-led war against Iraq to iconically liberate the Emirate of Kuwait only to reinstate an absolute and despotic monarch.
Equipped with UN resolutions, the US-led NATO powers – along with a “coalition of willing” Arab states – launched a war on Iraq supposedly in the name of “humanitarianism.” Operations exlusively run by several NATO powers in Iraqi Kurdistan would also become the basis for NATO’s future humanitarian mandates. The precedent and tempo was now set for NATO’s subsequent “humanitarian” wars. The no-fly zones and legal semantics that were innovated by the Western powers to justify their intervention in Iraq were also applied by these same powers with regard to the former Yugoslavia. Variants of this humanitarian pretext for war included “upholding international law” and “international security” and were deployed for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and again against Iraq in 2003 – the Second Persian Gulf War – this time to justify the all-out conquest of that country. The same rhetorical justification for military intervention was used by NATO powers to u
nleash a seven-month aerial bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 that led to the overthrow of the government and to the murder of the country’s leader Muammar Qaddafi. The thematic R2P is currently being amplified to decibel levels by NATO state governments and mainstream media with regard to Syria, where a NATO-led intervention is also covertly underway.
Yugoslavia: Srebrenica’s Sacrifice for NATO Intervention
On July 11, 1995, the forces of the Bosnian Serbs would march into the so-called UN Srebrenica Safe Area. The official NATO narrative is that UN troops agreed to withdraw from Srebrenica and let the Bosnian Serb forces take care of the local Bosniaks, but that once the Bosnian Serbs entered the area they proceeded to slaughter 8,000 Bosniaks. This would be billed as the worst massacre in Europe since the Second World War.
In reality, the events of Srebrenica would be used and warped to justify a massive NATO response on the basis of public outrage. Bosniak leaders would also refuse to give the Red Cross the names of people who had fled Srebrenica, thus resulting in an inflated number of missing people. The number of the dead would later turn out to be significantly lower than originally reported. Media estimates also changed over time. The most senior UN official inside Bosnia-Herzegovina, Philip Corwin, would also lend his voice to those saying that the events in Srebrenica were distorted for political gain and military intervention by NATO.
Then US President Bill Clinton had actually instructed Alija Izetbegovic that 5,000 Bosniaks would need to be sacrificed to bring NATO into the war as a combatant. Surviving members of the Bosniak delegation from Srebrenica have stated on the record that Izerbegovic said that NATO would militarily intervene against the Republika Srpska if at least 5,000 dead bodies could be produced. The Fall of Srebrenica, a UN report issued on November 15, 1999, casually mentions this in paragraph 115. The Bosniak police chief of Srebrenica has also confirmed Clinton’s demand for a “sacrifice” from Izerbegovic to open the doors for NATO attacks against the Bosnian Serbs.
In the Bosnian War, all sides committed horrific atrocities. But the crime of the Bosnian Serbs that appeared to rouse NATO was not ethnic cleansing. The crime of the Bosnian Serbs was that they were fighting to preserve Yugoslavia. Even Croats and Bosniaks in both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina who wanted to preserve Yugoslavia and inter-ethnic peace were targeted, demonized, or killed. For example, the Bosniak Fikret Abdic was charged as a war criminal in Croatia after he fled Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Josip Rejhl-Kir, the Croat police chief of Osijek, was murdered by Croat nationalists for working to preserve the harmony between Croats and Croatian Serbs.
NATO intervened in Bosnia-Herzegovina to change the balance of power. The Bosnian Serbs were up until then the superior military force. Had NATO powers not internationalized the fighting and intervened, the Bosnian Serbs would have taken control of the country and maintained it as an integral part of Yugoslavia. This would have crippled or halted Euro-Atlantic expansion in the Balkans.
On January 15, 1999, the fighting in Racak between Serbian forces and the outlawed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which the US State Department itself labelled a terrorist organization, would be used to paint a similar picture of genocide and ethnic cleansing to justify war. By this time, the Serbs had successfully been demonized by NATO and the media as the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, so NATO’s efforts to vilify the Serbs were made relatively easy. It is a matter of public record that US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and the KLA leadership were working to create a humanitarian pretext for intervention. It was in this context that the US and NATO had pressured the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accept an arrangement where their military forces would leave Kosovo, but allowed the KLA to continue its attacks. This stoking of tensions is what NATO has tried to replicate in Syria through the so-called Free Syrian Army, which in reality is a terro
rist organization linked to NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
In the Arab World: Libya and Syria
In 2011, the humanitarian card would be played again by NATO, this time in the North African country of Libya. Colonel Qaddafi was accused of massacring his own people in Libya, particularly in Benghazi. Packaged with unverified claims of jet attacks and foreign mercenaries, this prompted the UN to permit the US and its NATO allies to impose another no-fly zone, as in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Illegally, the NATO powers arrogated the no-fly zone provision of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to mount an aerial bombing campaign. The massive onslaught involving over 10,000 bombing missions was conducted in concert with NATO special forces and proxy militias on the ground. NATO warplanes targeted civilian population centres and civilian infrastructure, such as food stores and water and power utilities – acts that are war crimes under international law. Such a blatant campaign of state terrorism – obscenely in the name of “protecting human rights” – was instrumental in overthrowin
g the sovereign government in Tripoli and installing a proxy regime composed of an extremely volatile amalgam of opportunist para-militaries, terrorists, NATO intelligence operatives, and fractious tribal warlords. Recent reports of internecine bloodletting and revenge killing erupting across Libya, “post-NATO liberation,” attest to the real criminal enterprise of NATO’s regime change in Libya that was cynically perpetrated under the guise of protecting civilians.
Meanwhile, in Syria, the US and its cohorts have sought to replay the city of Homs like another Srebrenica, Racak, and Benghazi. They have sought to use the same tactic for inciting sectarian tensions and then blaming the government of President Bashar Al-Assad for conducting a “brutal crackdown.” The US and its allies are demanding that the Syrian Army stops fighting while the insurgent forces of the Syrian National Council’s Syrian Free Army are given a free hand to launch attacks, just as the NATO power demanded of the Yugoslav military while giving a green light to the KLA. Russian and Chinese demands that both sides observe a ceasefire offset this strategy.
What stands in the way of yet another NATO intervention is a firm resolve by Moscow and Beijing at the UN Security Council as well as the alliance between Syria and Iran. Damascus and its allies, however, should be wary of more traps to tie Syria down politically and legally through one-sided agreements. Nor should the Syrians place their trust in the United Nations to act as an “honest broker.”
Kofi Annan and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Much praise is being given to Kofi Annan as the special envoy of both the Arab League and United Nations. There should, however, be caution applied when dealing with Annan. In this regard, his history with regard to humanitarian interventions needs to be assessed.
According to American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was intimately tied to the balkanization of Yugoslavia, Annan was one of the most supportive figures for US foreign policy in the Balkans. Annan was actually instrumental in helping to put together the R2P doctrine with Canadian diplomats. Furthermore, the Ghanian-born career diplomat owes his rise to power to senior Washington connections and specifically to the events of Srebrenica and the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside by Washington to make way for Annan as the head of the United Nations.
Kofi Annan is also openly supportive of R2P. He participated as a panelist in a discussion about R2P (The Responsibility to Protect – 10 Years On: Reflections on its Past, Present and Future) held at the University of Ottawa on November 4, 2011. A week prior to this event, Allan Rock, president of the University of Ottawa and former Canadian ambassador to the UN, together Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg and former Canadian foreign minister co-authored an article about R2P in the Ottawa Citizen (October 25, 2011). Both Axworthy, who was on the panel with Annan and Allan Rock, praised the war in Libya, calling it a victory for R2P.
At the panel, Annan was joined by the decidedly pro-NATO Canadian parliamentarian Christopher Alexander. Alexander is the parliamentary secretary to Peter MacKay. Mackay is the current defence minister of Canada and has voiced support for open wars against Syria and Iran. Christopher Alexander was also a Canadian diplomat in Russia for several years, the former Canadian ambassador to NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and the deputy special representative of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). The R2P panel was moderated by Lyse Doucet, a correspondent for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and a friend of Alexander.
What is important to note about the R2P Ottawa panel is that it was largely supportive of R2P. Kofi Annan also voiced his support for NATO’s military intervention in Libya. When asked about using R2P in Syria, no firm answer was given by Annan. He did, however, appear to give his tacit support to intervention against Syria. Finally, both Annan and Axworthy proposed that regional organizations be given R2P mandates. For example, the African Union should be able to intervene on the behalf of the international community in African countries, such as Uganda and Sudan, or that the Arab League likewise be given an R2P mandate in countries, such as Syria.
These points are key factors. They should not be overlooked. Annan’s impartiality with regard to his latest pivotal task in Syria should be questioned, especially in light of his stated position on Libya and his generally supportive views for NATO military interventions.
Humanitarianism: The Face of Modern Imperialism
The NATO military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya were and are colonial invasions masquerading as humanitarian endeavours. Moreover, what NATO did in Yugoslavia was to intervene incrementally to divide and conquer the country. According to General John Galvin, the former supreme commander of NATO, this was done because NATO officials knew that an all-out invasion during the disintegration of the country would result in a massive guerrilla war with high costs for NATO. It can also be added that such a NATO intervention would have had the inverse effect of unifying Yugoslavia instead of allowing the federal state to dissolve.
At the start of 2011, both Libya and Syria were holdouts to NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and they also had reservations about the EU’s Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). This effectively means that they were both resistant to Euro-Atlantic expansion. While popular protests in Bahrain and Jordan went unnoticed, all public eyes were directed by NATO state governments and corporate media towards Libya and Syria. This is because of imperialist interests to subvert both the latter Arab states – while the former mentioned states are allies and therefore must be bolstered despite their well-documented repressive conducts.
Atlanticism is on the march. Both NATO’s operations in the Balkans and the Arab World are intended to expand the Euro-Atlantic Zone. Its involvement in African Union missions in East Africa are also tied to this. For all observers who take a detailed look at the restructuring of states vanquished by NATO, this should be clear. Humanitarianism has become the new face of modern imperialism.?? And former UN secretary general Kofi Annan is a man whose face fits the deceptive humanitarian agenda of modern imperialism.
The above text is an adaptation of an article from the Journal of the Strategic Cultural Foundation (SCF).
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous international programs and networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV, teleSUR and Russia Today. His writings have been published in more than 10 languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow. He is also the author of a forthcoming book about Libya, The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa (2012).
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, April 4, 2012
Humanitarian wars, especially under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” are a modern form of imperialism. The standard pattern that the United States and its allies use to execute them is one where genocide and ethnic cleansing are vociferously alleged by a coalition of governments, media organizations, and non-governmental front organizations. The allegations – often lurid and unfounded – then provide moral and diplomatic cover for a variety of sanctions that undermine and isolate the target country in question, and thereby pave the way for military intervention. This is the post-Cold War modus operandi of the US and NATO.
In facilitating this neo-imperialism, the United Nations has been complicit in the hijacking of its own posts and offices by Washington.
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has been appointed a “special peace envoy” with a mediating role in Syria. Yet, how can Annan be evaluated as an “honest broker” considering his past instrumental role in developing the doctrine of R2P – the very pretext that has served to facilitate several US/NATO criminal wars of aggression? Furthermore, the evidence attests that the US and its allies – despite mouthing support for Annan’s supposed peace plan – are not interested in a mediated, peaceful solution in Syria.
From the Cold War to Humanitarian Wars
As the Cold War began to wind down in the late-1980s and early-1990s, NATO saw the opportunity that would arise from the geopolitical vacuum following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc. Not only did NATO begin transforming from a defensive organization into an offensive military body, the US-led alliance began to embrace a supposed humanitarian mandate for this purpose. It is through this purported embrace of humanitarianism that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was able to change into an offensive, interventionist military force – indeed the largest such force ever in the history of the world.
NATO’s biggest military operation up until a decade after the Cold War was the First Persian Gulf War following the invasion in 1991 of Kuwait by Iraqi forces under the command of Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, at the time a US ally, was mired in a territorial oil dispute over colonial-era borders to which Washington at first appeared to show cool indifference. Immediately after Iraqi forces entered Kuwait, however, a strident US government and media campaign was mounted claiming the sanctity of Kuwait’s sovereign territory and the “defence of small nations.” There were also lurid media reports – later shown to be fabrications – of atrocities committed by Iraqi troops, such as the butchering of babies taken from hospital incubators. The international public was successfully manipulated to accept a US-led war against Iraq to iconically liberate the Emirate of Kuwait only to reinstate an absolute and despotic monarch.
Equipped with UN resolutions, the US-led NATO powers – along with a “coalition of willing” Arab states – launched a war on Iraq supposedly in the name of “humanitarianism.” Operations exlusively run by several NATO powers in Iraqi Kurdistan would also become the basis for NATO’s future humanitarian mandates. The precedent and tempo was now set for NATO’s subsequent “humanitarian” wars. The no-fly zones and legal semantics that were innovated by the Western powers to justify their intervention in Iraq were also applied by these same powers with regard to the former Yugoslavia. Variants of this humanitarian pretext for war included “upholding international law” and “international security” and were deployed for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and again against Iraq in 2003 – the Second Persian Gulf War – this time to justify the all-out conquest of that country. The same rhetorical justification for military intervention was used by NATO powers to u
nleash a seven-month aerial bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 that led to the overthrow of the government and to the murder of the country’s leader Muammar Qaddafi. The thematic R2P is currently being amplified to decibel levels by NATO state governments and mainstream media with regard to Syria, where a NATO-led intervention is also covertly underway.
Yugoslavia: Srebrenica’s Sacrifice for NATO Intervention
On July 11, 1995, the forces of the Bosnian Serbs would march into the so-called UN Srebrenica Safe Area. The official NATO narrative is that UN troops agreed to withdraw from Srebrenica and let the Bosnian Serb forces take care of the local Bosniaks, but that once the Bosnian Serbs entered the area they proceeded to slaughter 8,000 Bosniaks. This would be billed as the worst massacre in Europe since the Second World War.
In reality, the events of Srebrenica would be used and warped to justify a massive NATO response on the basis of public outrage. Bosniak leaders would also refuse to give the Red Cross the names of people who had fled Srebrenica, thus resulting in an inflated number of missing people. The number of the dead would later turn out to be significantly lower than originally reported. Media estimates also changed over time. The most senior UN official inside Bosnia-Herzegovina, Philip Corwin, would also lend his voice to those saying that the events in Srebrenica were distorted for political gain and military intervention by NATO.
Then US President Bill Clinton had actually instructed Alija Izetbegovic that 5,000 Bosniaks would need to be sacrificed to bring NATO into the war as a combatant. Surviving members of the Bosniak delegation from Srebrenica have stated on the record that Izerbegovic said that NATO would militarily intervene against the Republika Srpska if at least 5,000 dead bodies could be produced. The Fall of Srebrenica, a UN report issued on November 15, 1999, casually mentions this in paragraph 115. The Bosniak police chief of Srebrenica has also confirmed Clinton’s demand for a “sacrifice” from Izerbegovic to open the doors for NATO attacks against the Bosnian Serbs.
In the Bosnian War, all sides committed horrific atrocities. But the crime of the Bosnian Serbs that appeared to rouse NATO was not ethnic cleansing. The crime of the Bosnian Serbs was that they were fighting to preserve Yugoslavia. Even Croats and Bosniaks in both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina who wanted to preserve Yugoslavia and inter-ethnic peace were targeted, demonized, or killed. For example, the Bosniak Fikret Abdic was charged as a war criminal in Croatia after he fled Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Josip Rejhl-Kir, the Croat police chief of Osijek, was murdered by Croat nationalists for working to preserve the harmony between Croats and Croatian Serbs.
NATO intervened in Bosnia-Herzegovina to change the balance of power. The Bosnian Serbs were up until then the superior military force. Had NATO powers not internationalized the fighting and intervened, the Bosnian Serbs would have taken control of the country and maintained it as an integral part of Yugoslavia. This would have crippled or halted Euro-Atlantic expansion in the Balkans.
On January 15, 1999, the fighting in Racak between Serbian forces and the outlawed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which the US State Department itself labelled a terrorist organization, would be used to paint a similar picture of genocide and ethnic cleansing to justify war. By this time, the Serbs had successfully been demonized by NATO and the media as the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, so NATO’s efforts to vilify the Serbs were made relatively easy. It is a matter of public record that US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and the KLA leadership were working to create a humanitarian pretext for intervention. It was in this context that the US and NATO had pressured the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accept an arrangement where their military forces would leave Kosovo, but allowed the KLA to continue its attacks. This stoking of tensions is what NATO has tried to replicate in Syria through the so-called Free Syrian Army, which in reality is a terro
rist organization linked to NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
In the Arab World: Libya and Syria
In 2011, the humanitarian card would be played again by NATO, this time in the North African country of Libya. Colonel Qaddafi was accused of massacring his own people in Libya, particularly in Benghazi. Packaged with unverified claims of jet attacks and foreign mercenaries, this prompted the UN to permit the US and its NATO allies to impose another no-fly zone, as in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Illegally, the NATO powers arrogated the no-fly zone provision of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to mount an aerial bombing campaign. The massive onslaught involving over 10,000 bombing missions was conducted in concert with NATO special forces and proxy militias on the ground. NATO warplanes targeted civilian population centres and civilian infrastructure, such as food stores and water and power utilities – acts that are war crimes under international law. Such a blatant campaign of state terrorism – obscenely in the name of “protecting human rights” – was instrumental in overthrowin
g the sovereign government in Tripoli and installing a proxy regime composed of an extremely volatile amalgam of opportunist para-militaries, terrorists, NATO intelligence operatives, and fractious tribal warlords. Recent reports of internecine bloodletting and revenge killing erupting across Libya, “post-NATO liberation,” attest to the real criminal enterprise of NATO’s regime change in Libya that was cynically perpetrated under the guise of protecting civilians.
Meanwhile, in Syria, the US and its cohorts have sought to replay the city of Homs like another Srebrenica, Racak, and Benghazi. They have sought to use the same tactic for inciting sectarian tensions and then blaming the government of President Bashar Al-Assad for conducting a “brutal crackdown.” The US and its allies are demanding that the Syrian Army stops fighting while the insurgent forces of the Syrian National Council’s Syrian Free Army are given a free hand to launch attacks, just as the NATO power demanded of the Yugoslav military while giving a green light to the KLA. Russian and Chinese demands that both sides observe a ceasefire offset this strategy.
What stands in the way of yet another NATO intervention is a firm resolve by Moscow and Beijing at the UN Security Council as well as the alliance between Syria and Iran. Damascus and its allies, however, should be wary of more traps to tie Syria down politically and legally through one-sided agreements. Nor should the Syrians place their trust in the United Nations to act as an “honest broker.”
Kofi Annan and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Much praise is being given to Kofi Annan as the special envoy of both the Arab League and United Nations. There should, however, be caution applied when dealing with Annan. In this regard, his history with regard to humanitarian interventions needs to be assessed.
According to American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was intimately tied to the balkanization of Yugoslavia, Annan was one of the most supportive figures for US foreign policy in the Balkans. Annan was actually instrumental in helping to put together the R2P doctrine with Canadian diplomats. Furthermore, the Ghanian-born career diplomat owes his rise to power to senior Washington connections and specifically to the events of Srebrenica and the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside by Washington to make way for Annan as the head of the United Nations.
Kofi Annan is also openly supportive of R2P. He participated as a panelist in a discussion about R2P (The Responsibility to Protect – 10 Years On: Reflections on its Past, Present and Future) held at the University of Ottawa on November 4, 2011. A week prior to this event, Allan Rock, president of the University of Ottawa and former Canadian ambassador to the UN, together Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg and former Canadian foreign minister co-authored an article about R2P in the Ottawa Citizen (October 25, 2011). Both Axworthy, who was on the panel with Annan and Allan Rock, praised the war in Libya, calling it a victory for R2P.
At the panel, Annan was joined by the decidedly pro-NATO Canadian parliamentarian Christopher Alexander. Alexander is the parliamentary secretary to Peter MacKay. Mackay is the current defence minister of Canada and has voiced support for open wars against Syria and Iran. Christopher Alexander was also a Canadian diplomat in Russia for several years, the former Canadian ambassador to NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and the deputy special representative of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). The R2P panel was moderated by Lyse Doucet, a correspondent for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and a friend of Alexander.
What is important to note about the R2P Ottawa panel is that it was largely supportive of R2P. Kofi Annan also voiced his support for NATO’s military intervention in Libya. When asked about using R2P in Syria, no firm answer was given by Annan. He did, however, appear to give his tacit support to intervention against Syria. Finally, both Annan and Axworthy proposed that regional organizations be given R2P mandates. For example, the African Union should be able to intervene on the behalf of the international community in African countries, such as Uganda and Sudan, or that the Arab League likewise be given an R2P mandate in countries, such as Syria.
These points are key factors. They should not be overlooked. Annan’s impartiality with regard to his latest pivotal task in Syria should be questioned, especially in light of his stated position on Libya and his generally supportive views for NATO military interventions.
Humanitarianism: The Face of Modern Imperialism
The NATO military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya were and are colonial invasions masquerading as humanitarian endeavours. Moreover, what NATO did in Yugoslavia was to intervene incrementally to divide and conquer the country. According to General John Galvin, the former supreme commander of NATO, this was done because NATO officials knew that an all-out invasion during the disintegration of the country would result in a massive guerrilla war with high costs for NATO. It can also be added that such a NATO intervention would have had the inverse effect of unifying Yugoslavia instead of allowing the federal state to dissolve.
At the start of 2011, both Libya and Syria were holdouts to NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and they also had reservations about the EU’s Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). This effectively means that they were both resistant to Euro-Atlantic expansion. While popular protests in Bahrain and Jordan went unnoticed, all public eyes were directed by NATO state governments and corporate media towards Libya and Syria. This is because of imperialist interests to subvert both the latter Arab states – while the former mentioned states are allies and therefore must be bolstered despite their well-documented repressive conducts.
Atlanticism is on the march. Both NATO’s operations in the Balkans and the Arab World are intended to expand the Euro-Atlantic Zone. Its involvement in African Union missions in East Africa are also tied to this. For all observers who take a detailed look at the restructuring of states vanquished by NATO, this should be clear. Humanitarianism has become the new face of modern imperialism.?? And former UN secretary general Kofi Annan is a man whose face fits the deceptive humanitarian agenda of modern imperialism.
The above text is an adaptation of an article from the Journal of the Strategic Cultural Foundation (SCF).
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous international programs and networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV, teleSUR and Russia Today. His writings have been published in more than 10 languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow. He is also the author of a forthcoming book about Libya, The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa (2012).
=== 5 ===
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/nato-global-police-force-or-hegemonic-interventionist/
NATO: Global Police Force Or Hegemonic Interventionist?
April 7, 2012
Submitted to WTTV
In the "NATO's Role in Global Politics" interview on the Chicago Tonight episode of April 5 moderator Phil Ponce posed more candid questions that might have been expected from a program that, in its online edition, opens with an ad for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (formerly the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) - the broadcast being "possible in part" because of its assistance - with a link to its page Know NATO. Generally he who pays the piper determines the tune, tone, tempo and timbre.
The show's two guests, Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Joshua Kleinfeld, assistant law professor at Northwestern University, did nonetheless differ in several significant ways in respect to the nature - legal, political and moral - of NATO's military campaigns of the past 20 years and even perhaps in regard to the military bloc's post-Cold War role as a whole, with Rehab taking issue with the latest of them (Afghanistan and Libya) and Kleinfeld applauding every pretext for a NATO war ever advanced, however contradictory and mutually exclusive they have been.
But neither took issue with the fundamental fact that the Western military alliance has at times been justified in exacerbating and eventually entering internal conflicts with the use of overwhelming military force those actions inevitably entail.
Rehab, for example, was frank enough to acknowledge NATO actions from Bosnia to Libya as what they were, aggression, but posited a distinction between "evil" aggression and a presumed more benign counterpart.
For Kleinfeld, however, every NATO bomb dropped, missile fired and combat unit parachuted into the Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya is a noble and justified act, the equivalent - his reference - to intervening against Hitler's Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
For Rehab, NATO air attacks on behalf of his co-religionists in Bosnia was not a case of evil aggression, though those against fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Libya were. He seems sharp enough to have realized that an injury to one is an injury to all and that he who conspires with you today may conspire against you tomorrow. A Christian Serb killed by a NATO cruise missile is no less worthy a victim than a Libyan Muslim suffering the same fate.
Furthermore, even during NATO's maiden military campaigns in the Balkans in the 1990s it was apparent to many observers that, having secured control of the remnants of former Yugoslavia, the alliance would extend its trajectory into the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East as well as the South Caucasus and Central Asia. There are historical precedents, after all.
With Kleinfeld, everything NATO does, from conducting an over decade-long war in the Hindu Kush mountain range to establishing a cyber warfare center in Estonia, which borders Russia, is a "defensive" initiative of "28 Western democracies." Without mentioning them, he necessarily includes NATO member states like Albania, Croatia, Estonia and Latvia - the latter two permit Waffen SS veterans to march in their capitals, though that creates no cognitive dissonance for Kleinfeld in regard to invoking the specter of Adolf Hitler to support NATO military interventions - which are in no geographical sense of the word Western and which are guilty of egregious ethnic cleansing, apartheid-style treatment of "non-citizens" and rehabilitation and celebration of World War II Nazi collaborators. But all four new NATO states have troops serving under NATO in Afghanistan, as does Bosnia incidentally.
Rehab correctly questions the subjectivity of NATO armed interventions around the world, though better words would be arbitrary and self-serving, and Kleinfeld conceded, mercifully, that it is "impossible for NATO to intervene everywhere" - (solely?) because of limited resources; cruise missile arsenals, for example, take time and several million dollars to replenish - though expressed no opposition in principle to it doing so. A Washington Post editorial of three days ago calling for NATO intervention in the West African nation of Mali might suggest a delectable prospect for the law professor.
The demand that NATO abide by any standard definition of justification for military intervention is in his view "spurious logical consistency." Comments like that contribute in no small way to the negative image lawyers have in the popular imagination. The word spurious, then, applies to Kleinfeld's assertion itself, as do the words specious and sophistic.
He also asserted - this from a law professor at one of America's most prestigious universities - that the 78-day NATO air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 was "illegal" but "the right thing to do," further expatiating upon acts of military aggression that are in flagrant violation of international and humanitarian law but are "morally justified." Perhaps he should transfer from the law department to that of moral philosophy, though heaven preserve his students should he do so.
Ponce asked if NATO has evolved into the world's police force and described it as interventionist. Rehab described the bloc as pursuing its own interests, motivated by a policy of hegemony.
Never encountering a NATO war he didn't like, Kleinfeld responded that the "international alliance of democracies" was fully justified in pummeling Libya into submission - and detritus - last year, as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 "call[ed] for the use of force [and] NATO acted on it."
In fact the resolution, which permanent Security Council members Russia and China and fellow BRIC members Brazil and India abstained on, only called for a no-fly zone and an arms embargo, so it would be intriguing to hear Kleinfeld explain how it - http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement - justified much less demanded that the U.S. and British launch 110 cruise missiles into Libya in the opening hours of what immediately became a full-fledged war and NATO fly over 26,000 air missions, among them almost 10,000 strike sorties, against several thousand non-air defense targets on the ground, culminating in bombs from a French multirole combat aircraft and a U.S. Predator drone hitting the convoy of deposed head of state Muammar Gaddafi outside Sirte, thus allowing NATO's allies on the ground to capture, brutalize and murder the almost 70-year-old former leader. In a pinch, the legal scholar could again conjure
up the horrors of Nazi Germany and resort to the plea of "moral justification."
A mindset, a worldview, that permits the unqualified endorsement of unprovoked military aggression by a collective of most of the world's major military powers against small and defenseless counties far from any of its member states' borders is unavoidably accompanied by not so much compromise as capitulation on matters of justice, the non-use of military force, international law and basic bedrock notions of human morality. NATO enthusiasts have become what they have embraced.
Rick Rozoff
Chicago
Stop NATO
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
In the "NATO's Role in Global Politics" interview on the Chicago Tonight episode of April 5 moderator Phil Ponce posed more candid questions that might have been expected from a program that, in its online edition, opens with an ad for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (formerly the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) - the broadcast being "possible in part" because of its assistance - with a link to its page Know NATO. Generally he who pays the piper determines the tune, tone, tempo and timbre.
The show's two guests, Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Joshua Kleinfeld, assistant law professor at Northwestern University, did nonetheless differ in several significant ways in respect to the nature - legal, political and moral - of NATO's military campaigns of the past 20 years and even perhaps in regard to the military bloc's post-Cold War role as a whole, with Rehab taking issue with the latest of them (Afghanistan and Libya) and Kleinfeld applauding every pretext for a NATO war ever advanced, however contradictory and mutually exclusive they have been.
But neither took issue with the fundamental fact that the Western military alliance has at times been justified in exacerbating and eventually entering internal conflicts with the use of overwhelming military force those actions inevitably entail.
Rehab, for example, was frank enough to acknowledge NATO actions from Bosnia to Libya as what they were, aggression, but posited a distinction between "evil" aggression and a presumed more benign counterpart.
For Kleinfeld, however, every NATO bomb dropped, missile fired and combat unit parachuted into the Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya is a noble and justified act, the equivalent - his reference - to intervening against Hitler's Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
For Rehab, NATO air attacks on behalf of his co-religionists in Bosnia was not a case of evil aggression, though those against fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Libya were. He seems sharp enough to have realized that an injury to one is an injury to all and that he who conspires with you today may conspire against you tomorrow. A Christian Serb killed by a NATO cruise missile is no less worthy a victim than a Libyan Muslim suffering the same fate.
Furthermore, even during NATO's maiden military campaigns in the Balkans in the 1990s it was apparent to many observers that, having secured control of the remnants of former Yugoslavia, the alliance would extend its trajectory into the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East as well as the South Caucasus and Central Asia. There are historical precedents, after all.
With Kleinfeld, everything NATO does, from conducting an over decade-long war in the Hindu Kush mountain range to establishing a cyber warfare center in Estonia, which borders Russia, is a "defensive" initiative of "28 Western democracies." Without mentioning them, he necessarily includes NATO member states like Albania, Croatia, Estonia and Latvia - the latter two permit Waffen SS veterans to march in their capitals, though that creates no cognitive dissonance for Kleinfeld in regard to invoking the specter of Adolf Hitler to support NATO military interventions - which are in no geographical sense of the word Western and which are guilty of egregious ethnic cleansing, apartheid-style treatment of "non-citizens" and rehabilitation and celebration of World War II Nazi collaborators. But all four new NATO states have troops serving under NATO in Afghanistan, as does Bosnia incidentally.
Rehab correctly questions the subjectivity of NATO armed interventions around the world, though better words would be arbitrary and self-serving, and Kleinfeld conceded, mercifully, that it is "impossible for NATO to intervene everywhere" - (solely?) because of limited resources; cruise missile arsenals, for example, take time and several million dollars to replenish - though expressed no opposition in principle to it doing so. A Washington Post editorial of three days ago calling for NATO intervention in the West African nation of Mali might suggest a delectable prospect for the law professor.
The demand that NATO abide by any standard definition of justification for military intervention is in his view "spurious logical consistency." Comments like that contribute in no small way to the negative image lawyers have in the popular imagination. The word spurious, then, applies to Kleinfeld's assertion itself, as do the words specious and sophistic.
He also asserted - this from a law professor at one of America's most prestigious universities - that the 78-day NATO air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 was "illegal" but "the right thing to do," further expatiating upon acts of military aggression that are in flagrant violation of international and humanitarian law but are "morally justified." Perhaps he should transfer from the law department to that of moral philosophy, though heaven preserve his students should he do so.
Ponce asked if NATO has evolved into the world's police force and described it as interventionist. Rehab described the bloc as pursuing its own interests, motivated by a policy of hegemony.
Never encountering a NATO war he didn't like, Kleinfeld responded that the "international alliance of democracies" was fully justified in pummeling Libya into submission - and detritus - last year, as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 "call[ed] for the use of force [and] NATO acted on it."
In fact the resolution, which permanent Security Council members Russia and China and fellow BRIC members Brazil and India abstained on, only called for a no-fly zone and an arms embargo, so it would be intriguing to hear Kleinfeld explain how it - http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement - justified much less demanded that the U.S. and British launch 110 cruise missiles into Libya in the opening hours of what immediately became a full-fledged war and NATO fly over 26,000 air missions, among them almost 10,000 strike sorties, against several thousand non-air defense targets on the ground, culminating in bombs from a French multirole combat aircraft and a U.S. Predator drone hitting the convoy of deposed head of state Muammar Gaddafi outside Sirte, thus allowing NATO's allies on the ground to capture, brutalize and murder the almost 70-year-old former leader. In a pinch, the legal scholar could again conjure
up the horrors of Nazi Germany and resort to the plea of "moral justification."
A mindset, a worldview, that permits the unqualified endorsement of unprovoked military aggression by a collective of most of the world's major military powers against small and defenseless counties far from any of its member states' borders is unavoidably accompanied by not so much compromise as capitulation on matters of justice, the non-use of military force, international law and basic bedrock notions of human morality. NATO enthusiasts have become what they have embraced.
Rick Rozoff
Chicago
Stop NATO
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
=== 6 ===
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/04/10/montenegro-nato-doorstep-engagement-costs-steadily-rising.html
Strategic Culture Foundation
April 10, 2012
Montenegro at NATO's Doorstep: Engagement Costs Steadily Rising
Strategic Culture Foundation
April 10, 2012
Montenegro at NATO's Doorstep: Engagement Costs Steadily Rising
Anna Filimonova
Edited by Rick Rozoff
---
---
Propaganda is instrumental in ensuring that NATO expansion continues, eastwards and globally. The alliance's promoters rely on the simple truth that audiences tend to be swayed by repetitive advertising. Curiously, the country being drawn into NATO is supposed to cover the related PR costs which, in the case of the tiny Montenegro, totalled Euro 107,000 in 2011.
As a prerequisite for the admission of a country to NATO, the candidate country must submit a comprehensive list of its installations, both military and civilian, which are being offered to the alliance.
Absolute support for US foreign policy is regarded as the main prerequisite for a country to be issued a ticket to NATO.
The approach is consonant with the wider US concept of democracy – nations are supposed to bow to denationalized elites putting into practice the designs of their trans-Atlantic patrons.
Upon scrutiny, NATO membership opens access to privileges of dubious value. Novices get to kill others and to die fighting for the alliance's objectives, to help overturn other nations' sovereignty, to train groups of militant renegades in other countries, to host NATO bases, and to shield the Afghanistan–Kosovo–Europe and Afghanistan–Central Asia–Russia drug trafficking routes. (RR)
---
NATO is pressing for control over the Balkan region, with a key role in the architecture in the making being assigned to Montenegro. The guidelines pertinent to the implementation of the Euro-Atlantic project – preventing vassals from ever reaching separate agreements, keeping them wholly dependent on collective security, and enforcing complete subordination – were formulated by Zbigniew Bzezinski and, in the process, have been strictly applied to the small Balkan country (1).
Montenegro's ruling coalition, the Democratic Party of Socialists-The Social Democratic Party, regards the integration of the country into the EU and NATO as national priorities, and at the moment Montenegro is a candidate for admission to both.
The Third Package of Partnership Goals – a collection of 49 goals to be achieved over the coming next couple of years (2) – was passed on March 21, the key part of the package being a complete rearmament of the Montenegro army in line with NATO standards.
On April 1, 2012, a treaty between Montenegro and the EU entered into force which requires that the country should take part in Europe's crisis control missions with the stated goal of cultivating cooperation in international and security policies. Montenegro thus confirmed its commitment to the obligations normally stemming from full-fledged EU membership (3).
To cultivate the cooperation, the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Milan Roćen attended the second conference of the Friends of Syria group in Istanbul. Croatia's diplomatic chief Vesna Pusić was, for the first time, also invited to the meeting. Roćen held talks with the envoys of the new Libyan regime, and a Libyan delegation is expected to visit Montenegro shortly (4).
The Friends of Syria group enjoys a spotty reputation as a gathering of Syrian rebels' outspoken supporters and is known to be openly pushing for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad. The Friends' agenda – to plunge Syria into a new round of bloodshed that would culminate in the collapse of independent Syrian statehood – loomed through Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal's recent call to supply weapons to the Syrian opposition (5). Evidently, Croatia and Montenegro blended into the Friends of Syria community due to the Balkan republics' readiness to unwaveringly trail NATO.
The membership of Montenegro in NATO is materializing in the framework of the Communication Strategy, which includes a series of so-called Action Plans. Eight of them are as of today accomplished, the lengthy list of activities bracketed within the VII Plan being to form a NATO information center in Montenegro, to publish five issues of the NATO Integracije journal, to air twice a month NATO Info programs via the TV RCG broadcaster, to organize NATO-related talk shows on an array of TV channels, to set up a Society Informing training program at a NATO school based in Germany, to roll out an analysis of the economic benefits of NATO integration, to deliver lectures about NATO in schools, to organize tours of the NATO centre in Brussels for schoolchildren, to conduct surveys of public opinion on NATO integration separately for every city in Montenegro, to create a journalist centre, to hold a NATO Dialog conference, to establish a regional security
school, to organize “NATO caravans” in five cities of Montenegro, to launch a multimedia Peace Festival, to interact with parliamentarians and state officials, to float a pro-NATO campaign in Facebook, etc. Overall, it is clear that the agenda behind all of the above is to break the public opposition to joining NATO. At the moment, polls show that a third of Montenegrins favor NATO integration, a third are undecided, and a third radically object to the step.
Propaganda is instrumental in ensuring that NATO expansion continues, eastwards and globally. The alliance's promoters rely on the simple truth that audiences tend to be swayed by repetitive advertising. Curiously, the country being drawn into NATO is supposed to cover the related PR costs which, in the case of the tiny Montenegro, totalled Euro 107,000 in 2011.
The defence ministry of Montenegro is way ahead of the rest of the country in partnering with NATO. It is implementing a sweeping reform aimed at conforming to NATO standards and has disposed of some 3,000 tons of old armaments and ammunition. The ministry is building an integrated national airspace and maritime control network in line with NATO's regional approach which requires that all of the regional countries put together fully compatible control systems. Further plans embrace the formation of an army intelligence service with interwoven information gathering and counter-espionage functions, also in the context of the coming merger of Montenegro into NATO.
As a prerequisite for the admission of a country to NATO, the candidate country must submit a comprehensive list of its installations, both military and civilian, which are being offered to the alliance. On October 13, 2011 the government of Montenegro adopted a Partnership Goals program titled Host Country Support. In November, 2011 the administration passed a resolution authorizing the transit of secret NATO freight – documents, materials, etc. - across the territory of the Balkan republic (the government of Montenegro and SHAPE, the European allied command, had signed an agreement on the subject in Brussels in September, 2011). In the process, Montenegro's military and police must ensure the security of the transit.
Two PR firms – Orion Strategies and Reef Group – were recommended to Montenegro as US lobbyists. Their mission, among other things, encompasses the arrangement of meetings and consultations with the US administration, the tab over the past four years being estimated at a handsome $4m (6).
The participation of Montenegro in NATO's international campaigns is indispensable to the integration process. Montenegro's unit will stay in Afghanistan as a part of the ISAF (which is a fairly unnecessary pseudonym for NATO) through 2014 or longer if NATO requests, as Montenegro's defence minister eagerly declared (7). In the meantime, Montenegro continues to be involved in missions in Somalian and Liberian territorial waters. The country's cumulative annual costs associated with the drift towards NATO reached Euro 6m.
Absolute support for US foreign policy is regarded as the main prerequisite for a country to be issued a ticket to NATO (8). Montenegro's premier Igor Lukšić met with US Vice President J. Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington, and the key US officials praised the progress the country had made on the way to the alliance. Lukšić said in reference to the fairly low support for the integration into NATO among the population of Montenegro – the modest level of 30.9%, as of September, 2011 – that gradually NATO skeptics in Montenegro would become a minority, and added that occasionally decisions beneficial for a nation have to be sealed even if the majority of the population disagrees (9). The approach is consonant with the wider US concept of democracy – nations are supposed to bow to denationalized elites putting into practice the designs of their trans-Atlantic patrons.
Upon scrutiny, NATO membership opens access to privileges of dubious value. Novices get to kill others and to die fighting for the alliance's objectives, to help overturn other nations' sovereignty, to train groups of militant renegades in other countries, to host NATO bases, and to shield the Afghanistan–Kosovo–Europe and Afghanistan–Central Asia–Russia drug trafficking routes.
Montenegro saw a protest rally of unprecedented proportions on March 18, 2012. Rally leaders set the number of people who took to the streets of Podgorica at 20,000, though the police cited just 7,000. “It is time!” was the slogan upheld by student groups, trade unions, and other organizations which charged that corruption was pervasive in Montenegro even compared to other post-Yugoslavian societies.
As usual, a taste of an orange revolution was easy to discern amidst the outbreak of protest. In Montenegro's case, the Otpor fist against a yellow background was chosen as the symbol of the rising movement. Formally, the rally was organized by the Network for Affirmation of the Non-government Sector (MANS), whose leader Vanja Ćalović bombarded the crowd with calls to start the countdown for the last minutes of organized crime, to hold watches high in hands as a sign that time for corruption was running out, and to let the government know that spring had come to Montenegro earlier than expected as the people stood up for their children and the future. The crisp slogans, the theatrical character of the marches, the impersonation of leadership, and the advancement to the front stage of an obscure political group altogether fit neatly into the pattern common to orange revolutions (10).
The forces powering the protests - the MANS sponsors – happen to be the embassies of the US, Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, the European Commission, the EU delegation to Montenegro, the UN, the OSCE, the omnipresent Transparency International, Civil Rights Defenders, and Open Society Institute, the legal program for Montenegro operated under USAID auspices, the Montenegro Advocacy Program, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Balkan Trust for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy, Microsoft Corporation, International Relief and Development, the Regional Environmental Centre, the Norwegian People's Aid which is the biggest NGO in Norway, and the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation (HIVOS), an exotic crew advancing civil societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It may seem slightly suspicious that public policy heavyweights are in concert preoccupied with curing from corruption a
Balkan republic as small as Montenegro. MANS operates a staff of trained lawyers and offers to Montenegrins free legal assistance in solving their problems or in extracting information from government agencies of all levels, and parallelly collects anonymous corruption-related complaints (11).
In the meantime, another international policy giant – the IMF – is out to put the population of Montenegro under tightening pressure. Its account of the country's economic situation sounding like a catastrophe report, the IMF confronts Montenegro's government with an austerity program implying spending rationalization, a lower employment rate (!), wage cuts, and serious tax hikes. The majority of Montenegrins are sinking into poverty at a time when various international bodies are eating away at their country's sovereignty: an average salary in Montenegro measures Euro 500 against the subsistence minimum of Euro 300.
The average pension in the country equals only Euro 280 and, moreover, at least 50% of senior-aged Montenegrins are denied even that, plus 54% of working-age Montenegrins are unemployed and the educated young face a completely uninviting job market (12). Montenegro's domestic and international sovereign debts stood at Euro 419m (12.3% of the GDP) and Euro 1,054,2m respectively as of January 31, 2012 (31% of the GDP) and piled up to Euro 1,473,2 (43.3% of the GDP), but on March 31 the government further borrowed Euro 230m (13).
Corruption is indeed outrageous in Montenegro, and the country's economy has long morphed into a weird hybrid of greedy capitalism and gangsterism (14). Nevertheless, it is clear that for MANS and its influential backers the anti-corruption drive simply opens up opportunities to unseat the entrenched elite and to propel their own proteges to power. Elites of a new type that would be installed as a result are going to be totally Euro-Atlantist, with no trace of national thinking. As for the nation, it has to deal with the dilemma of choosing between the corrupt old administration and the fresh contenders, the two options being equally destructive.
1. http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/AMERICA/bzhezinskij.txt_with-big-pictures.html#8
2. http://www.pobjeda.me/2012/03/21/nato-i-crna-gora-usaglasen-paket-ciljeva-za-nasu-zemlju/
3. http://www.mip.gov.me/
4. http://www.mip.gov.me/index.php/Saopstenja/saopstenje01042012.html
5. http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/vesna-pusic-danas-u-istanbulu-na-summitu-prijatelji-sirije-o-osporavanju-tudeg-i-vlastitog-suvereniteta/
6. Policy paper NATO i Crna Gora. Januar-decembar 2011. Centar za demokratiju I ljudska prava – CEDEM
8. Policy paper NATO i Crna Gora. Januar-decembar 2011. Centar za demokratiju I ljudska prava – CEDEM
9. ibid.
10. D. Marjanović Veliki anti-vladini prosvjedi u Crnoj Gori: potencijali i potencijalne klopke // Advance.hr. 19. Ožujak 2012 http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/veliki-anti-vladini-prosvjedi-u-crnoj-gori-potencijali-i-potencijalne-klopke/
11. http://www.mans.co.me/
12. Koprivica Veseljko Proljeće prije visibaba // Monitor on-lain. http://www.monitor.co.me/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3333:proljee-prije-visibaba&catid=2254:broj-1116&Itemid=3479
13. Podaci o državnom dugu i izdatim garancijama na dan 31. januar 2012. godine. // Ministarsvo finansija. http://www.mf.gov.me/rubrike/drzavni-dug/112065/Podaci-o-drzavnom-dugu-i-izdatim-garancijama-na-dan-30-decembar-2011-godine.html
14. D. Marjanović Veliki anti-vladini prosvjedi u Crnoj Gori: potencijali i potencijalne klopke // Advance.hr. 19. Ožujak 2012 http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/veliki-anti-vladini-prosvjedi-u-crnoj-gori-potencijali-i-potencijalne-klopke/
As a prerequisite for the admission of a country to NATO, the candidate country must submit a comprehensive list of its installations, both military and civilian, which are being offered to the alliance.
Absolute support for US foreign policy is regarded as the main prerequisite for a country to be issued a ticket to NATO.
The approach is consonant with the wider US concept of democracy – nations are supposed to bow to denationalized elites putting into practice the designs of their trans-Atlantic patrons.
Upon scrutiny, NATO membership opens access to privileges of dubious value. Novices get to kill others and to die fighting for the alliance's objectives, to help overturn other nations' sovereignty, to train groups of militant renegades in other countries, to host NATO bases, and to shield the Afghanistan–Kosovo–Europe and Afghanistan–Central Asia–Russia drug trafficking routes. (RR)
---
NATO is pressing for control over the Balkan region, with a key role in the architecture in the making being assigned to Montenegro. The guidelines pertinent to the implementation of the Euro-Atlantic project – preventing vassals from ever reaching separate agreements, keeping them wholly dependent on collective security, and enforcing complete subordination – were formulated by Zbigniew Bzezinski and, in the process, have been strictly applied to the small Balkan country (1).
Montenegro's ruling coalition, the Democratic Party of Socialists-The Social Democratic Party, regards the integration of the country into the EU and NATO as national priorities, and at the moment Montenegro is a candidate for admission to both.
The Third Package of Partnership Goals – a collection of 49 goals to be achieved over the coming next couple of years (2) – was passed on March 21, the key part of the package being a complete rearmament of the Montenegro army in line with NATO standards.
On April 1, 2012, a treaty between Montenegro and the EU entered into force which requires that the country should take part in Europe's crisis control missions with the stated goal of cultivating cooperation in international and security policies. Montenegro thus confirmed its commitment to the obligations normally stemming from full-fledged EU membership (3).
To cultivate the cooperation, the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Milan Roćen attended the second conference of the Friends of Syria group in Istanbul. Croatia's diplomatic chief Vesna Pusić was, for the first time, also invited to the meeting. Roćen held talks with the envoys of the new Libyan regime, and a Libyan delegation is expected to visit Montenegro shortly (4).
The Friends of Syria group enjoys a spotty reputation as a gathering of Syrian rebels' outspoken supporters and is known to be openly pushing for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad. The Friends' agenda – to plunge Syria into a new round of bloodshed that would culminate in the collapse of independent Syrian statehood – loomed through Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal's recent call to supply weapons to the Syrian opposition (5). Evidently, Croatia and Montenegro blended into the Friends of Syria community due to the Balkan republics' readiness to unwaveringly trail NATO.
The membership of Montenegro in NATO is materializing in the framework of the Communication Strategy, which includes a series of so-called Action Plans. Eight of them are as of today accomplished, the lengthy list of activities bracketed within the VII Plan being to form a NATO information center in Montenegro, to publish five issues of the NATO Integracije journal, to air twice a month NATO Info programs via the TV RCG broadcaster, to organize NATO-related talk shows on an array of TV channels, to set up a Society Informing training program at a NATO school based in Germany, to roll out an analysis of the economic benefits of NATO integration, to deliver lectures about NATO in schools, to organize tours of the NATO centre in Brussels for schoolchildren, to conduct surveys of public opinion on NATO integration separately for every city in Montenegro, to create a journalist centre, to hold a NATO Dialog conference, to establish a regional security
school, to organize “NATO caravans” in five cities of Montenegro, to launch a multimedia Peace Festival, to interact with parliamentarians and state officials, to float a pro-NATO campaign in Facebook, etc. Overall, it is clear that the agenda behind all of the above is to break the public opposition to joining NATO. At the moment, polls show that a third of Montenegrins favor NATO integration, a third are undecided, and a third radically object to the step.
Propaganda is instrumental in ensuring that NATO expansion continues, eastwards and globally. The alliance's promoters rely on the simple truth that audiences tend to be swayed by repetitive advertising. Curiously, the country being drawn into NATO is supposed to cover the related PR costs which, in the case of the tiny Montenegro, totalled Euro 107,000 in 2011.
The defence ministry of Montenegro is way ahead of the rest of the country in partnering with NATO. It is implementing a sweeping reform aimed at conforming to NATO standards and has disposed of some 3,000 tons of old armaments and ammunition. The ministry is building an integrated national airspace and maritime control network in line with NATO's regional approach which requires that all of the regional countries put together fully compatible control systems. Further plans embrace the formation of an army intelligence service with interwoven information gathering and counter-espionage functions, also in the context of the coming merger of Montenegro into NATO.
As a prerequisite for the admission of a country to NATO, the candidate country must submit a comprehensive list of its installations, both military and civilian, which are being offered to the alliance. On October 13, 2011 the government of Montenegro adopted a Partnership Goals program titled Host Country Support. In November, 2011 the administration passed a resolution authorizing the transit of secret NATO freight – documents, materials, etc. - across the territory of the Balkan republic (the government of Montenegro and SHAPE, the European allied command, had signed an agreement on the subject in Brussels in September, 2011). In the process, Montenegro's military and police must ensure the security of the transit.
Two PR firms – Orion Strategies and Reef Group – were recommended to Montenegro as US lobbyists. Their mission, among other things, encompasses the arrangement of meetings and consultations with the US administration, the tab over the past four years being estimated at a handsome $4m (6).
The participation of Montenegro in NATO's international campaigns is indispensable to the integration process. Montenegro's unit will stay in Afghanistan as a part of the ISAF (which is a fairly unnecessary pseudonym for NATO) through 2014 or longer if NATO requests, as Montenegro's defence minister eagerly declared (7). In the meantime, Montenegro continues to be involved in missions in Somalian and Liberian territorial waters. The country's cumulative annual costs associated with the drift towards NATO reached Euro 6m.
Absolute support for US foreign policy is regarded as the main prerequisite for a country to be issued a ticket to NATO (8). Montenegro's premier Igor Lukšić met with US Vice President J. Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington, and the key US officials praised the progress the country had made on the way to the alliance. Lukšić said in reference to the fairly low support for the integration into NATO among the population of Montenegro – the modest level of 30.9%, as of September, 2011 – that gradually NATO skeptics in Montenegro would become a minority, and added that occasionally decisions beneficial for a nation have to be sealed even if the majority of the population disagrees (9). The approach is consonant with the wider US concept of democracy – nations are supposed to bow to denationalized elites putting into practice the designs of their trans-Atlantic patrons.
Upon scrutiny, NATO membership opens access to privileges of dubious value. Novices get to kill others and to die fighting for the alliance's objectives, to help overturn other nations' sovereignty, to train groups of militant renegades in other countries, to host NATO bases, and to shield the Afghanistan–Kosovo–Europe and Afghanistan–Central Asia–Russia drug trafficking routes.
Montenegro saw a protest rally of unprecedented proportions on March 18, 2012. Rally leaders set the number of people who took to the streets of Podgorica at 20,000, though the police cited just 7,000. “It is time!” was the slogan upheld by student groups, trade unions, and other organizations which charged that corruption was pervasive in Montenegro even compared to other post-Yugoslavian societies.
As usual, a taste of an orange revolution was easy to discern amidst the outbreak of protest. In Montenegro's case, the Otpor fist against a yellow background was chosen as the symbol of the rising movement. Formally, the rally was organized by the Network for Affirmation of the Non-government Sector (MANS), whose leader Vanja Ćalović bombarded the crowd with calls to start the countdown for the last minutes of organized crime, to hold watches high in hands as a sign that time for corruption was running out, and to let the government know that spring had come to Montenegro earlier than expected as the people stood up for their children and the future. The crisp slogans, the theatrical character of the marches, the impersonation of leadership, and the advancement to the front stage of an obscure political group altogether fit neatly into the pattern common to orange revolutions (10).
The forces powering the protests - the MANS sponsors – happen to be the embassies of the US, Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, the European Commission, the EU delegation to Montenegro, the UN, the OSCE, the omnipresent Transparency International, Civil Rights Defenders, and Open Society Institute, the legal program for Montenegro operated under USAID auspices, the Montenegro Advocacy Program, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Balkan Trust for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy, Microsoft Corporation, International Relief and Development, the Regional Environmental Centre, the Norwegian People's Aid which is the biggest NGO in Norway, and the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation (HIVOS), an exotic crew advancing civil societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It may seem slightly suspicious that public policy heavyweights are in concert preoccupied with curing from corruption a
Balkan republic as small as Montenegro. MANS operates a staff of trained lawyers and offers to Montenegrins free legal assistance in solving their problems or in extracting information from government agencies of all levels, and parallelly collects anonymous corruption-related complaints (11).
In the meantime, another international policy giant – the IMF – is out to put the population of Montenegro under tightening pressure. Its account of the country's economic situation sounding like a catastrophe report, the IMF confronts Montenegro's government with an austerity program implying spending rationalization, a lower employment rate (!), wage cuts, and serious tax hikes. The majority of Montenegrins are sinking into poverty at a time when various international bodies are eating away at their country's sovereignty: an average salary in Montenegro measures Euro 500 against the subsistence minimum of Euro 300.
The average pension in the country equals only Euro 280 and, moreover, at least 50% of senior-aged Montenegrins are denied even that, plus 54% of working-age Montenegrins are unemployed and the educated young face a completely uninviting job market (12). Montenegro's domestic and international sovereign debts stood at Euro 419m (12.3% of the GDP) and Euro 1,054,2m respectively as of January 31, 2012 (31% of the GDP) and piled up to Euro 1,473,2 (43.3% of the GDP), but on March 31 the government further borrowed Euro 230m (13).
Corruption is indeed outrageous in Montenegro, and the country's economy has long morphed into a weird hybrid of greedy capitalism and gangsterism (14). Nevertheless, it is clear that for MANS and its influential backers the anti-corruption drive simply opens up opportunities to unseat the entrenched elite and to propel their own proteges to power. Elites of a new type that would be installed as a result are going to be totally Euro-Atlantist, with no trace of national thinking. As for the nation, it has to deal with the dilemma of choosing between the corrupt old administration and the fresh contenders, the two options being equally destructive.
1. http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/AMERICA/bzhezinskij.txt_with-big-pictures.html#8
2. http://www.pobjeda.me/2012/03/21/nato-i-crna-gora-usaglasen-paket-ciljeva-za-nasu-zemlju/
3. http://www.mip.gov.me/
4. http://www.mip.gov.me/index.php/Saopstenja/saopstenje01042012.html
5. http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/vesna-pusic-danas-u-istanbulu-na-summitu-prijatelji-sirije-o-osporavanju-tudeg-i-vlastitog-suvereniteta/
6. Policy paper NATO i Crna Gora. Januar-decembar 2011. Centar za demokratiju I ljudska prava – CEDEM
8. Policy paper NATO i Crna Gora. Januar-decembar 2011. Centar za demokratiju I ljudska prava – CEDEM
9. ibid.
10. D. Marjanović Veliki anti-vladini prosvjedi u Crnoj Gori: potencijali i potencijalne klopke // Advance.hr. 19. Ožujak 2012 http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/veliki-anti-vladini-prosvjedi-u-crnoj-gori-potencijali-i-potencijalne-klopke/
11. http://www.mans.co.me/
12. Koprivica Veseljko Proljeće prije visibaba // Monitor on-lain. http://www.monitor.co.me/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3333:proljee-prije-visibaba&catid=2254:broj-1116&Itemid=3479
13. Podaci o državnom dugu i izdatim garancijama na dan 31. januar 2012. godine. // Ministarsvo finansija. http://www.mf.gov.me/rubrike/drzavni-dug/112065/Podaci-o-drzavnom-dugu-i-izdatim-garancijama-na-dan-30-decembar-2011-godine.html
14. D. Marjanović Veliki anti-vladini prosvjedi u Crnoj Gori: potencijali i potencijalne klopke // Advance.hr. 19. Ožujak 2012 http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/veliki-anti-vladini-prosvjedi-u-crnoj-gori-potencijali-i-potencijalne-klopke/
=== 7 ===
http://www.emg.rs/en/news/region/178064.html
Rasmussen: NATO fully supports Euro-Atlantic aspirations of BiH
11. April 2012. | 09:26 - Source: Fena
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Brussels today, after meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegovic that NATO is fully behind the aspirations of Bosnia and Herzegovina for Euro-Atlantic integration.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Brussels today, after meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegovic that NATO is fully behind the aspirations of Bosnia and Herzegovina for Euro-Atlantic integration.
“Mr. President, it is indeed a great pleasure to welcome you to NATO Headquarters. I attach great importance to having a close dialogue with Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of our aspirant partners. And we thank you for your country’s contribution to our mission in Afghanistan. That contribution shows your commitment to becoming a provider of security,” said Rasmussen.
“In recent months, we have seen significant progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In December, after a long period of political negotiations, your main political parties recently reached an agreement to form a government. And in March, you reached an agreement on the questions of immovable defence property which has hampered your progress towards NATO for so long.
I very much welcome these agreements. And I look forward to the decision on defence property being implemented swiftly and smoothly. The sooner that is done, the sooner you will be able to draw the full benefits of the Membership Action Plan, just as NATO Foreign ministers agreed two years ago.
NATO is fully behind your aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration. The stability and long-term prosperity of Bosnia-Herzegovina are crucial for your region and crucial for Europe.
That will take political efforts, determination and dialogue. But it will be worth the effort because all the countries of this region belong in the Euro-Atlantic community. And let me stress that NATO’s door is open to those who share our values, and are ready to share our responsibilities,” said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a statement after meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegovic.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Brussels today, after meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegovic that NATO is fully behind the aspirations of Bosnia and Herzegovina for Euro-Atlantic integration.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Brussels today, after meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegovic that NATO is fully behind the aspirations of Bosnia and Herzegovina for Euro-Atlantic integration.
“Mr. President, it is indeed a great pleasure to welcome you to NATO Headquarters. I attach great importance to having a close dialogue with Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of our aspirant partners. And we thank you for your country’s contribution to our mission in Afghanistan. That contribution shows your commitment to becoming a provider of security,” said Rasmussen.
“In recent months, we have seen significant progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In December, after a long period of political negotiations, your main political parties recently reached an agreement to form a government. And in March, you reached an agreement on the questions of immovable defence property which has hampered your progress towards NATO for so long.
I very much welcome these agreements. And I look forward to the decision on defence property being implemented swiftly and smoothly. The sooner that is done, the sooner you will be able to draw the full benefits of the Membership Action Plan, just as NATO Foreign ministers agreed two years ago.
NATO is fully behind your aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration. The stability and long-term prosperity of Bosnia-Herzegovina are crucial for your region and crucial for Europe.
That will take political efforts, determination and dialogue. But it will be worth the effort because all the countries of this region belong in the Euro-Atlantic community. And let me stress that NATO’s door is open to those who share our values, and are ready to share our responsibilities,” said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a statement after meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegovic.
=== * ===
Invita i tuoi amici e Tiscali ti premia! Il consiglio di un amico vale più di uno spot in TV. Per ogni nuovo abbonato 30 € di premio per te e per lui! Un amico al mese e parli e navighi sempre gratis: http://freelosophy.tiscali.it/
[E' ricorso ieri 6.4.2012 il XX anniversario del riconoscimento, da parte dei paesi imperialisti, della "indipendenza" della Bosnia-Erzegovina. Quello sconsiderato e criminale atto diplomatico di USA e UE accelerò drasticamente il processo di disgregazione della Federazione jugoslava, gettando in particolare le popolazioni della Bosnia nell'inferno. La cittadinanza di Sarajevo diventò ostaggio dei nazionalismi, ma soprattutto ostaggio della propria leadership secessionista, che, istigata dai paesi NATO, mentre provocava l'esercito jugoslavo sparandogli alle spalle (strage della via Dobrovoljacka) sapientemente costruiva il mito demagogico dell'assedio ad uso e consumo dei media.
Purtroppo la lezione di quei fatti ancora oggi non è stata compresa dai militanti "pacifisti" di un tempo. La trasmissione radiofonica che ha occupato il palinsesto di RadioTre per l'intero pomeriggio di ieri 6.4.2012 ha presentato la solita zuppa di luoghi comuni triti e ritriti, con impenitente unilateralità e clamorose omissioni fuori tempo massimo.
In questi venti anni, altre campagne demagogiche sono state costruite allo scopo di distruggere paesi sovrani, imponendo nuovi regimi o anche destrutturandoli fino all'ingovernabilità assoluta (Somalia, Afganistan)... E si continua ancora, ad esempio con la Siria, come spiega bene Benjamin Schett nell'articolo che qui riproduciamo. La ex-sinistra, come a Sarajevo, in tutti questi casi continua a volersi schierare dalla parte della NATO.
Sulle menzogne a proposito di "Sarajevo assediata" si vedano ad esempio:
• Reportage di M. Caldarola e M. Marianetti (Contropiano 2/1995)
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/DOSSIER96/Pages/26.html
• Stragi nel mercato (1994, 1995): CHI SONO GLI STRAGISTI? (Guerre e Pace 10/1995)
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/DOSSIER96/Pages/29.html
• Sarajevo 1994: La strage di Markale / Sami snimili svoj zločin
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/Markale/index.htm ]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30001
Anyone closely following the ongoing crisis in Syria will notice that the desire for reforms is coming from a large part of the Syrian population which has no ties to the armed insurgency supported by foreign powers. These groups, many of them Wahhabi or Salafi terrorists, constitute a serious threat to the unity of Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Christian and Druze living together in a sovereign secular state.
In fact, reports suggest that in places where the armed insurgents have managed to gain control, the actions being carried are tantamount to "ethnic cleansing". However, as long as those allegedly responsible are acting in a way which serves US-NATO interests, their various undertakings go unreported and media attention is strategically diverted.
In fact, reports suggest that in places where the armed insurgents have managed to gain control, the actions being carried are tantamount to "ethnic cleansing". However, as long as those allegedly responsible are acting in a way which serves US-NATO interests, their various undertakings go unreported and media attention is strategically diverted.
In reality, many Syrians who are demanding reforms are not opposed to President Al Assad, and in fact believe in his commitment to implement change. Such reforms, however, require time to be carried out in the face of certain obstacles. Indeed, after decades of Baath rule, certain factions within the current regime have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo rather than having their privileges threatened by major changes brought about through reforms.
Moreover, there is also a peaceful opposition within the country that stands for change through dialogue with the government, knowing that sudden provocations could plunge the country into chaos. In an interview with "Syria Comment" from October 2011, writer Louay Hussein, an outspoken and longstanding opponent of the Syrian government, warned of further escalation:
Moreover, there is also a peaceful opposition within the country that stands for change through dialogue with the government, knowing that sudden provocations could plunge the country into chaos. In an interview with "Syria Comment" from October 2011, writer Louay Hussein, an outspoken and longstanding opponent of the Syrian government, warned of further escalation:
"I believe there are two reasons why demonstrations will significantly diminish; first, the violent oppression by the authorities recently and second, the increase in the number of armed operations by groups opposed to the authorities such as 'The Free Syrian Army'. This is why I expect more bloodshed in Syria. Moreover, I worry that if we fail to reach a homegrown settlement of the conflict very quickly, we will clearly witness different aspects of a civil war in the near future."
(See: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=12507&cp=all)The mainstream media has dismissed this assessment and ignored these basic facts. Media attention has focussed on the exiled "opposition" group, the "Syrian National Council" (which is already breaking apart thanks to the domineering role of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the "Free Syrian Army", supported covertly by the West. In addition, one of Western media's favourite sources of information is the small, London-based organization called the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose claims, though unverified, have nevertheless been broadly quoted.
All this bears a striking resemblance to events leading up to last year’s NATO attacks on Libya, in which tens of thousands of Libyan civilians were killed. But there are two key differences:
1. This time Russia and China have been playing a more decisive role. They have expressed their opposition to actions which might lead to aggression against Syria.
2. The so-called Libyan "rebels" had some kind of a stronghold in the city of Benghazi in the East of the country, from where NATO could bomb their way into Tripoli. Comparable conditions do not prevail in Syria.
Might this be a reason for the Syrian insurgents to increase violence by carrying out bomb attacks and provoking shootings, in order to cause severe reactions from government troops and destabilize the country, and thereby reinforce sectarian conflicts? Namely, until the situation escalates to the point that Western powers feel they can "justify" the need for intervention?
The efforts for a peaceful solution made by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan would only stand a chance if Western countries and their Saudi and Qatari allies stopped their unilateral support for anti-Assad armed insurgency.
The Lessons of History: Yugoslavia
Historically, this situation is not unique and prompts us to consider how similar events have played out in the past, particularly during the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s which set a historical precedent for armed Western intervention. These tragic conflicts, especially in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, served as a playground for exercising the destabilization of an entire region, manipulating public opinion in order to start a war of aggression, and carrying out regime change and economic (and partly territorial) colonization. (See: Michael Parenti's incisive speech on the destruction of Yugoslavia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs)
Given the extent to which insurgents in Syria can count on full support from the outside, some parallels to the outbreak of the Bosnian civil war (1992 – 1995) are worth emphasizing. Consider the following: during the war, the leader of the Bosnian Muslims, Alija Izetbegovic, supported covertly by the West, set as a priority the creation of an independent Bosnian state under Muslim rule. However, he had to deal with the problem that his vision did not represent the will of Bosnia’s majority population: according to a 1991 census, 44% of the population considered themselves Muslim/Bosniak, 32.5% Serb and 17% Croat.While quite accurately all of Bosnia's Serb population (one of the three constitutional nations within the republic) did not wish to leave the Yugoslav federation, the Croat side did support the holding of a referendum on an independent Bosnia. However, anyone familiar with the political aspirations of Croatia's then president Franjo Tudjman and his Bosnian Croat allies will understand that the Croatian side certainly did not favour Bosnia's independence because they wanted to live in such a state; rather, breaking Bosnia apart from Yugoslavia was supposed to be the first step in amalgamating the Bosnian territories having a Croatian majority population within the Croatian "motherland".Facing these facts and knowing that civil war had already broken out in Croatia in 1991, the only reasonable way to prevent a catastrophe in Bosnia would have been through sincere negotiations on all sides. This, in fact, was the goal of the most popular Bosnian Muslim politician at the time, Fikret Abdic, who considered himself pro-Yugoslav and received the most votes in Bosnia’s 1990 elections. Nevertheless, Izetbegovic – the candidate favoured and supported by U.S. officials – seized the Bosnian presidency instead. (Incidentally, the fact that Izetbegovic had been in prison for having disturbed the order of the Yugoslav state by stating there could be "no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions" in a text called the "Islamic Declaration" did not seem to pose a problem to Washington.)In March 1992, a peaceful solution for Bosnia finally seemed to be within reach. All three Bosnian leaders (Alija Izetbegovic/Muslim, Radovan Karadzic/Serb and Mate Boban/Croat) signed the so-called Lisbon Agreement, which proposed ethnic power-sharing on all administrative levels and the delegation of central government to local ethnic communities. However Izetbegovic withdrew his signature only ten days later, after having met with the U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmermann. It has been widely confirmed that the U.S. was pushing for an immediate recognition of Bosnia at that time. (See short clip from "Yugoslavia – An Avoidable War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iobb8xMFRc)A few weeks later, war broke out, and the West was one step closer to achieving its goal of nationwide destabilization. Could the same fate be in store for Syria given the parallel involvement of the West in Syria?In Syria as in Bosnia, efforts to find a compromise would mean putting pressure on both sides to reach an agreement. But if one side already has full support from the West, what incentive is there in pursuing a compromise with the government? In Syria, the insurgents had foreign support from the outset, automatically sabotaging the possibility of real negotiations.
Further exacerbating the situation, the mainstream media has been aggressively building the case for intervention in Syria. Several statements made by Syrian government opponents and some Western media blame the Syrian government of being responsible for the bloody terrorist bomb attacks in Damascus and Aleppo that took place on the weekend of March 17 and 18. But they were stuck for an answer regarding why it would be in President Al Assad’s interest to cause an escalation in the two largest cities of the country where he is still enjoying the support of a majority of the population.If we go back to the Bosnian example, we can see who has historically taken advantage of such events. On May 27, 1992, a massacre took place in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, killing many innocent people waiting in line to get some bread. The terrible event was immediately and repeatedly broadcast across the world. Just four days later, on May 31, harsh UN sanctions were imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For Western decision-makers, it was clear that the Serbs were responsible for the crime. Many experts disagreed with the finger-pointing, and reference should be made particularly to Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, then Commander of the Bosnia UN troops:"The streets had been blocked off just before the incident. Once the crowd was let in and lined up, the media appeared but kept their distance. The attack took place, and the media were immediately on the scene. The majority of the people killed are alleged to be 'tame Serbs'." (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Sarajevo/breadline.html)Similar events took place in 1994 and 1995 (See for example "Yugoslavia – An Avoidable War", in its entirety:http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5860186121153047571#)This finally caused the NATO bombing campaign against Bosnian Serbs, carried out between August 30 and September 20, 1995, as justified by Western calls for "humanitarian intervention". Following from the Damascus and Aleppo attacks, could a similar "justification" be around the corner for Syria?A great irony, of course is the hypocritical stance taken by the U.S. government, which calls for peace on the one hand and is a leading global supplier of weapons on the other. While the Obama administration might have called on the Syrian rebels to lay down their arms, there is a vast difference between official statements and what is being carried out on the ground. Indeed, there is currently a multi-billion dollar deal underway between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (a leading arms supplier for the Syrian rebels) for the sale of US advanced weapons. (See: http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-protests-piety-514/)
This double standard was certainly applied in Bosnia, where the CIA was secretly smuggling weapons into the area despite an arms embargo officially being in place. (See: "Wie der Dschihad nach Europa kam: Gotteskrieger und Geheimdienste auf dem Balkan" ["How Jihad Came to Europe: Holy Warriors and Secret Services in the Balkans"] by Jürgen Elsässer, 2008)
It is worth noting that in the cases of both Syria and Bosnia (among other examples), Al Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries from several Arab countries were involved. In Syria, they integrated the "opposition", heralded by the Western mainstream media as the victims of the government crackdown.
This should come as no surprise. Those who operate under the "Al Qaeda" label are often serving the interests of Washington. In Bosnia, where Mujahideen fighters trained Bosnian soldiers and fought against Serbs and Croats, the Al Qaeda leadership had to approve military actions by the Bosnian Muslim Army. (See: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, http://www.bim.ba/en/79/10/4113)
It is worth noting that in the cases of both Syria and Bosnia (among other examples), Al Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries from several Arab countries were involved. In Syria, they integrated the "opposition", heralded by the Western mainstream media as the victims of the government crackdown.
This should come as no surprise. Those who operate under the "Al Qaeda" label are often serving the interests of Washington. In Bosnia, where Mujahideen fighters trained Bosnian soldiers and fought against Serbs and Croats, the Al Qaeda leadership had to approve military actions by the Bosnian Muslim Army. (See: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, http://www.bim.ba/en/79/10/4113)
One of the Bosnian Muslims who refused to fight against the Serbs, the previously mentioned Fikret Abdic, created his own safe haven by making a peace agreement with the Serbian side and by forming the "Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia", located in the area of Velika Kladusa. British diplomat David Owen described him as "forthright, confident and different from the Sarajevan Muslims. He was in favour of negotiating and compromising with Croats and Serbs to achieve a settlement, and scathing about those Muslims who wanted to block any such settlement." (David Owen, "Balkan Odyssey", 1995, S. 82)
In August 1995, under a joint attack carried out by Izetbegovic's troops and the Croatian army (both Western allies), Abdic's peaceful, autonomous province collapsed.
Often in the media, conflicts are portrayed with reference to "good guys versus bad guys", peacekeepers versus terrorists, us versus them. As this example from Bosnia shows, the full story cannot be accurately conveyed using these stylized concepts; not all Muslims were automatically against the Serbs, and certainly not all were interested in having Izetbegovic as president.
And in Syria, it is clear that not all of those who are demanding democracy are enemies of the Al Assad government. However, delving into the "grey area" of the good/evil dichotomy puts into question the clear-cut "justification" for intervention, and casting such doubts is certainly not in the interest of the mainstream media and the Western interests they serve.
And in Syria, it is clear that not all of those who are demanding democracy are enemies of the Al Assad government. However, delving into the "grey area" of the good/evil dichotomy puts into question the clear-cut "justification" for intervention, and casting such doubts is certainly not in the interest of the mainstream media and the Western interests they serve.
In order to avoid misunderstanding, the people on all sides suffered terribly in the Bosnian civil war. But as in Syria, it is important to establish who has an interest in triggering increased social chaos and violence.
Throughout the entire Yugoslav civil war, separatist forces served the Western agenda which consisted in destabilizing and destroying an entire country. Yugoslavia had free education, an equitable distribution of income. It preserved its independence by being a key player within the Non-aligned Movement. In turn, this historical stance by Yugoslavia served as an example for other countries of the Non-aligned Movement which refused to accept the neoliberal diktats of the IMF.
Throughout the entire Yugoslav civil war, separatist forces served the Western agenda which consisted in destabilizing and destroying an entire country. Yugoslavia had free education, an equitable distribution of income. It preserved its independence by being a key player within the Non-aligned Movement. In turn, this historical stance by Yugoslavia served as an example for other countries of the Non-aligned Movement which refused to accept the neoliberal diktats of the IMF.
In the context of the Balkans, the Serbian people bore the brunt of the blame from the West, and were vilified largely because they firmly opposed the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Serbia was the largest Yugoslav nation and suffered heavily during World War Two, when the Croatian fascist Ustasa movement systematically slaughtered Croatia's and Bosnia’s Serb population. It was largely this trauma that made the idea of living in the independent states of Croatia and Bosnia, both led by extremists, unbearable for most Serbs.A realistic image of Serbia’s role in the Yugoslav wars was given by then Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, in an interview made during the Kosovo war:
"We are not angels. Nor are we the devils you have made us out to be. Our regular forces are highly disciplined. The paramilitary irregular forces are a different story. Bad things happened, as they did with both sides during the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter." (See: http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/MiloInt.html)
All facts considered, the same could easily be said of the Syrian army and other groups fighting on Al Assad’s side. But maintaining an ambivalent position on current events in Syria, as is the trend among many mainstream liberal-leftist circles, means giving in to the neo-colonial and imperialist agenda of Western powers and their pseudo-humanitarian justification. And this despite the fact that they have actively stirred up ethnic and/or religious hatred and ignored reasonable voices, in Yugoslavia as well as in Syria, in order to follow the old Latin concept of "divide et impera".
Author's Note: According to the latest reports, Syria's government has accepted Kofi Annan's 6-point peace plan. On April 1, the "Friends of Syria" will be meeting in Istanbul, bringing together mostly Arab and Western countries favouring stronger action against President Bashar al-Assad's government. Time will tell how these developments will impact the Syrian crisis and the potential effectiveness of the peace plan, knowing that so many outside players are acting in the background.
Benjamin Schett is an independent Swiss-based researcher and student of East European History at the University of Vienna. He can be reached at schettb @ gmail.com
Benjamin Schett is an independent Swiss-based researcher and student of East European History at the University of Vienna. He can be reached at schettb @ gmail.com
Copyright © Benjamin Schett, Global Research, 2012
=== * ===
Invita i tuoi amici e Tiscali ti premia! Il consiglio di un amico vale più di uno spot in TV. Per ogni nuovo abbonato 30 € di premio per te e per lui! Un amico al mese e parli e navighi sempre gratis: http://freelosophy.tiscali.it/
(deutsch / italiano)
di Redazione Contropiano
Invita i tuoi amici e Tiscali ti premia! Il consiglio di un amico vale più di uno spot in TV. Per ogni nuovo abbonato 30 € di premio per te e per lui! Un amico al mese e parli e navighi sempre gratis: http://freelosophy.tiscali.it/
Hier das Grass Gedicht, das überall jetzt verrissen wird. (G. Zambon)
Was gesagt werden muss
Von Günter Grass
Warum schweige ich, verschweige zu lange,
was offensichtlich ist und in Planspielen
geübt wurde, an deren Ende als Überlebende
wir allenfalls Fußnoten sind.
Es ist das behauptete Recht auf den Erstschlag,
der das von einem Maulhelden unterjochte
und zum organisierten Jubel gelenkte
iranische Volk auslöschen könnte,
weil in dessen Machtbereich der Bau
einer Atombombe vermutet wird.
Doch warum untersage ich mir,
jenes andere Land beim Namen zu nennen,
in dem seit Jahren - wenn auch geheimgehalten -
ein wachsend nukleares Potential verfügbar
aber außer Kontrolle, weil keiner Prüfung
zugänglich ist?
Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes,
dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat,
empfinde ich als belastende Lüge
und Zwang, der Strafe in Aussicht stellt,
sobald er mißachtet wird;
das Verdikt 'Antisemitismus' ist geläufig.
Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land,
das von ureigenen Verbrechen,
die ohne Vergleich sind,
Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird,
wiederum und rein geschäftsmäßig, wenn auch
mit flinker Lippe als Wiedergutmachung deklariert,
ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
geliefert werden soll, dessen Spezialität
darin besteht, allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe
dorthin lenken zu können, wo die Existenz
einer einzigen Atombombe unbewiesen ist,
doch als Befürchtung von Beweiskraft sein will,
sage ich, was gesagt werden muß.
Warum aber schwieg ich bislang?
Weil ich meinte, meine Herkunft,
die von nie zu tilgendem Makel behaftet ist,
verbiete, diese Tatsache als ausgesprochene Wahrheit
dem Land Israel, dem ich verbunden bin
und bleiben will, zuzumuten.
Warum sage ich jetzt erst,
gealtert und mit letzter Tinte:
Die Atommacht Israel gefährdet
den ohnehin brüchigen Weltfrieden?
Weil gesagt werden muß,
was schon morgen zu spät sein könnte;
auch weil wir - als Deutsche belastet genug -
Zulieferer eines Verbrechens werden könnten,
das voraussehbar ist, weshalb unsere Mitschuld
durch keine der üblichen Ausreden
zu tilgen wäre.
Und zugegeben: ich schweige nicht mehr,
weil ich der Heuchelei des Westens
überdrüssig bin; zudem ist zu hoffen,
es mögen sich viele vom Schweigen befreien,
den Verursacher der erkennbaren Gefahr
zum Verzicht auf Gewalt auffordern und
gleichfalls darauf bestehen,
daß eine unbehinderte und permanente Kontrolle
des israelischen atomaren Potentials
und der iranischen Atomanlagen
durch eine internationale Instanz
von den Regierungen beider Länder zugelassen wird.
Nur so ist allen, den Israelis und Palästinensern,
mehr noch, allen Menschen, die in dieser
vom Wahn okkupierten Region
dicht bei dicht verfeindet leben
und letztlich auch uns zu helfen.
Warum schweige ich, verschweige zu lange,
was offensichtlich ist und in Planspielen
geübt wurde, an deren Ende als Überlebende
wir allenfalls Fußnoten sind.
Es ist das behauptete Recht auf den Erstschlag,
der das von einem Maulhelden unterjochte
und zum organisierten Jubel gelenkte
iranische Volk auslöschen könnte,
weil in dessen Machtbereich der Bau
einer Atombombe vermutet wird.
Doch warum untersage ich mir,
jenes andere Land beim Namen zu nennen,
in dem seit Jahren - wenn auch geheimgehalten -
ein wachsend nukleares Potential verfügbar
aber außer Kontrolle, weil keiner Prüfung
zugänglich ist?
Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes,
dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat,
empfinde ich als belastende Lüge
und Zwang, der Strafe in Aussicht stellt,
sobald er mißachtet wird;
das Verdikt 'Antisemitismus' ist geläufig.
Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land,
das von ureigenen Verbrechen,
die ohne Vergleich sind,
Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird,
wiederum und rein geschäftsmäßig, wenn auch
mit flinker Lippe als Wiedergutmachung deklariert,
ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
geliefert werden soll, dessen Spezialität
darin besteht, allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe
dorthin lenken zu können, wo die Existenz
einer einzigen Atombombe unbewiesen ist,
doch als Befürchtung von Beweiskraft sein will,
sage ich, was gesagt werden muß.
Warum aber schwieg ich bislang?
Weil ich meinte, meine Herkunft,
die von nie zu tilgendem Makel behaftet ist,
verbiete, diese Tatsache als ausgesprochene Wahrheit
dem Land Israel, dem ich verbunden bin
und bleiben will, zuzumuten.
Warum sage ich jetzt erst,
gealtert und mit letzter Tinte:
Die Atommacht Israel gefährdet
den ohnehin brüchigen Weltfrieden?
Weil gesagt werden muß,
was schon morgen zu spät sein könnte;
auch weil wir - als Deutsche belastet genug -
Zulieferer eines Verbrechens werden könnten,
das voraussehbar ist, weshalb unsere Mitschuld
durch keine der üblichen Ausreden
zu tilgen wäre.
Und zugegeben: ich schweige nicht mehr,
weil ich der Heuchelei des Westens
überdrüssig bin; zudem ist zu hoffen,
es mögen sich viele vom Schweigen befreien,
den Verursacher der erkennbaren Gefahr
zum Verzicht auf Gewalt auffordern und
gleichfalls darauf bestehen,
daß eine unbehinderte und permanente Kontrolle
des israelischen atomaren Potentials
und der iranischen Atomanlagen
durch eine internationale Instanz
von den Regierungen beider Länder zugelassen wird.
Nur so ist allen, den Israelis und Palästinensern,
mehr noch, allen Menschen, die in dieser
vom Wahn okkupierten Region
dicht bei dicht verfeindet leben
und letztlich auch uns zu helfen.
---
http://www.contropiano.org/it/cultura/item/7975-guenter-grass-quello-che-deve-essere-detto
Mercoledì 04 Aprile 2012 22:33
Günter Grass: "Quello che deve essere detto"
Lo scrittore tedesco, Premio Nobel della letteratura, riprende la parola dopo un lungo silenzio e dice quello che pensa sulle minacce alla pace, quelle vere. Facendo infuriare la lobby sionista e gli intellettuali arruolati in tutte le guerre funzionali agli interessi strategici dei paesi della Nato, Israele inclusa.
Molti giornali tedeschi non hanno voluto pubblicare questa poesia di Gunter Grass. Altrettanto hanno fatto i grandi giornali europei. In Italia lo ha fatto la Repubblica ma "blindandola" dentro due commenti che dovevano fargli da velo. Sarebbe stato meglio, molto meglio, che l'avessero pubblicata e basta. Il problema è ciò che Grass denuncia e che deve lanciare un segnale di allarme per tutti, prima che sia tardi, prima che la verità sui pericoli di guerra in Medio Oriente venga definitivamente affossata dalla rete di complicità politiche, militari e intellettuali di cui Israele continua a godere.
Perché taccio, passo sotto silenzio troppo a lungo
quanto è palese e si è praticato
in giochi di guerra alla fine dei quali, da sopravvissuti,
noi siamo tutt´al più le note a margine.
E´ l´affermato diritto al decisivo attacco preventivo
che potrebbe cancellare il popolo iraniano
soggiogato da un fanfarone e spinto al giubilo organizzato,
perché nella sfera di sua competenza si presume
la costruzione di un´atomica.
E allora perché mi proibisco
di chiamare per nome l´altro paese,
in cui da anni - anche se coperto da segreto -
si dispone di un crescente potenziale nucleare,
però fuori controllo, perché inaccessibile
a qualsiasi ispezione?
Il silenzio di tutti su questo stato di cose,
a cui si è assoggettato il mio silenzio,
lo sento come opprimente menzogna
e inibizione che prospetta punizioni
appena non se ne tenga conto;
il verdetto «antisemitismo» è d´uso corrente.
Ora però, poiché dal mio paese,
di volta in volta toccato da crimini esclusivi
che non hanno paragone e costretto a giustificarsi,
di nuovo e per puri scopi commerciali, anche se
con lingua svelta la si dichiara «riparazione»,
dovrebbe essere consegnato a Israele
un altro sommergibile, la cui specialità
consiste nel poter dirigere annientanti testate là dove
l´esistenza di un´unica bomba atomica non è provata
ma vuol essere di forza probatoria come spauracchio,
dico quello che deve essere detto.
Perché ho taciuto finora?
Perché pensavo che la mia origine,
gravata da una macchia incancellabile,
impedisse di aspettarsi questo dato di fatto
come verità dichiarata dallo Stato d´Israele
al quale sono e voglio restare legato
Perché dico solo adesso,
da vecchio e con l´ultimo inchiostro:
La potenza nucleare di Israele minaccia
la così fragile pace mondiale?
Perché deve essere detto
quello che già domani potrebbe essere troppo tardi;
anche perché noi - come tedeschi con sufficienti colpe a carico -
potremmo diventare fornitori di un crimine
prevedibile, e nessuna delle solite scuse
cancellerebbe la nostra complicità.
E lo ammetto: non taccio più
perché dell´ipocrisia dell´Occidente
ne ho fin sopra i capelli; perché è auspicabile
che molti vogliano affrancarsi dal silenzio,
esortino alla rinuncia il promotore
del pericolo riconoscibile e
altrettanto insistano perché
un controllo libero e permanente
del potenziale atomico israeliano
e delle installazioni nucleari iraniane
sia consentito dai governi di entrambi i paesi
tramite un´istanza internazionale.
Solo così per tutti, israeliani e palestinesi,
e più ancora, per tutti gli uomini che vivono
ostilmente fianco a fianco in quella
regione occupata dalla follia ci sarà una via d´uscita,
e in fin dei conti anche per noi.
Gunter Grass
=== * ===
Invita i tuoi amici e Tiscali ti premia! Il consiglio di un amico vale più di uno spot in TV. Per ogni nuovo abbonato 30 € di premio per te e per lui! Un amico al mese e parli e navighi sempre gratis: http://freelosophy.tiscali.it/
(hrvatskosrpski / english / italiano)
La fine dell'inganno europeista
1) SRP: ULAZAK HRVATSKE U EU JE NELEGITIMAN
2) La fine dell’ “Europa sociale” (da “Socialist Voice”)
3) L'apocalisse della democrazia, dal debito sovrano allo stato d'emergenza (di Domenico Moro, da Marx XXI)
4) Lettonia: riabilitate e commemorate le SS e discriminata la minoranza russa
5) An Imperial System (GFP)
LINKS:
L'Unione Europea è una dittatura
JUGOINFO, 12 novembre 2011
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/7200
L'Unione Europea al servizio dei monopoli
di Mauricio Miguel (dicembre 2011)
di Mauricio Miguel (dicembre 2011)
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/os/ep/osepbn12-010148.htm
Il Titanic-Europa e la manovra Monti: ingiusta, inutile e insostenibile
di Vladimiro Giacché (dicembre 2011)
di Vladimiro Giacché (dicembre 2011)
http://www.marx21.it/internazionale/europa/622-il-titanic-europa-e-la-manovra-monti-ingiusta-inutile-e-insostenibile.html
EU-Referendum u Hrvatskoj
JUGOINFO, 22 gennaio 2012
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/7245
Il nuovo Patto Fiscale europeo: fine della democrazia
di Franco Russo (febbraio 2012)
http://www.retedeicomunisti.org/it/documenti/item/4014-il-nuovo-patto-fiscale-europeo-fine-della-democrazia
di Franco Russo (febbraio 2012)
http://www.retedeicomunisti.org/it/documenti/item/4014-il-nuovo-patto-fiscale-europeo-fine-della-democrazia
=== 1 ===
(l'entrata della Croazia nella UE è illegittima - comunicato della SRP)
http://www.srp.hr/?p=976
ULAZAK HRVATSKE U EU JE NELEGITIMAN
Socijalistička radnička partija, jasno je iznijela svoj stav, da ulazak Hrvatske u EU nije interes njenih ljudi, već diktat europskog multinacionalnog kapitala i nove domaće klase, a pošto je riječ o asocijaciji kapitala, a ne naroda, nije ni demokratska. Prepuštajući skorom vremenu da potvrdi ili demantira i ostale naše tvrdnje, koje su prije svega znanstveno utemeljene, a to su da se Hrvatska u EU neće optimalno, a kamoli ubrzano razvijati (jer je sadašnja recesija uvjetovana upravo prodorom stranoga kapitala, koji domaću privredu dezartikulira, a što će se ulaskom u EU samo ubrzati), već sam čin referenduma, potvrdio je naše uvodne tvrdnje. Ako je na glasanje izašlo samo 43% upisanih birača, a 57% nije imalo za taj događaj interesa, zar to nije potvrda da EU nije zahtjev naroda. Samo slijepac, u činjenici da je za prolaz referenduma bilo dovoljan izlaz manje od 50% upisanih birača, za što je prethodila izmjena Ustava, a ne nadpolovična većina, kao što je to prethodno stajalo u Ustavu, ne prepoznaje bjesomučni diktat eurobirokrata i domaćih kolaboracionista. Ne potvrđuje to i činjenica da Hrvatska (kao ni druge tzv. tranzicijske zemlje) nisu ispunile glavne kriterije iz Maastrichta, a to je visina BDP-a (1/3 od prosjeka zemalja EU). Samo naivni i neobavješteni ne razumiju o kakvoj je to ljubavi eurobirokrata riječ. Mi u Socijalističkoj radničkoj partiji, naravno nismo ni naivni ni neobavješteni, i dobro znamo da je tu riječ o isključivom interesu krupnog kapitala.
Činjenica da je za ulazak u EU bilo dovoljno 28,8% glasova upisanih birača (a riječ je o procesu njenog nastajanja) govori da ona nije ni demokratska. U ostalom ona je ugovorna i nema legitimitet naroda svojih članica.
Da je za EU čvrsto opredijeljena tek eurobirokracija i domaća nova klasa i da jedino oni jasno vide svoje interese (veći dio koji je glasao tek vjeruje), govori i potpuna ravnodušnost naroda nakon tobože pobjedonosnog prolaza referenduma. Svi slavljenici toga uspjeha, stali su na jedan od omanjih zagrebačkih trgova (Cvjetni), pri čemu je brižna Vana nakon usiljenih govora zvaničnika, zamolila prisutne da se ne razilaze, jer ona još mora pjevati.
No sa pjesmom su sutradan nastavili i ona još traje, eurobirokrati, domaći zvaničnici i zaduženi kolumnisti. eurobirokrati nisu nam propustili čestitati na razboritosti i velikoj pobijedi naroda. Zvaničnici ushićeno tvrde, da smo prvi puta odlučili sami (28,8% građana) i odmah dispergirali i odgovornost svih nas. U sjeni je ostao čak i ZAVNOH i AVNOJ, kao tek sumnjive povijesne epizode. Kolumnisti, stručnjaci za javno mnijenje, nastavljaju prebrojavati skeptike, svodeći ih na šaku nerazumnih (71,2% upisanih birača), uvjeravajući sebe i druge u nemoguće, da je 28,8 od sto više od polovice. Pošto narod u cjelini (većinu), ne vole koriti ni kolumnisti, za nerazumno ponašanje okomili su se na ekstremnu desnicu i nekakvu ekstremnu ljevicu. Nerazumnost te iste desnice, nisu primjećivali 90-ih kada je ona još opakije udarala u ratne bubnjeve. Vjerojatno zato što je ona tada imala revolucionarnu ulogu u rušenju socijalizma. Nije im tobože jasno ni zašto politička provenijencija (istinska ljevica, a ne ekstremna) koja ne prihvaća kapitalizam uopće, ne prihvaća ni kapitalističke imperijalne asocijacije.
Imaju kolumnisti i krupnih etičkih problema. Ne razumiju oni ni to da građanska demokracija kojom su opčinjeni, nije demokracija svih građana, nego samo onih koji u obrani svojih društvenih i ekonomskih prednosti stvarno izlaze na izbore. Oni koji su u tobožnjoj demokraciji izgubili svaku vjeru, pa i nadu, ne ubrajaju se nigdje i gotovo da ne predstavljaju ljude.
Nisu naši kolumnisti čuli ni za pojam legitimnosti. A možda i jesu, ali misle zašto bi Hrvatska u EU ušla legitimno kada legitimitet nema ni sama EU.
(Ivan Plješa, predsjednik Socijalističke radničke partije Hrvatske)
POSTED BY SRP ON OŽUJAK - 4 - 2012
=== 2 ===
La fine dell’ “Europa sociale”
Traduzione di Massimo Marcori per Marx21.it
Sono anni che il buonsenso, in seno al movimento sindacale europeo dominante e ai partiti socialdemocratici, consiste nell'affermare che stiamo facendo rotta verso un’ “Europa sociale”, un’Europa che darà lavoro a tutti e offrirà sicurezza ai lavoratori, ai disoccupati e a tutti quelli che, per una ragione o per l’altra, non potranno lavorare, ai giovani che entrano nella vita attiva, alle madri che hanno poca esperienza nel mondo del lavoro al di fuori della famiglia, e ai pensionati.
Fino a quando l’Europa dell’occidente capitalista ha dovuto competere col modello sociale ed economico dell’Unione Sovietica e dei suoi alleati per ottenere l’adesione dei lavoratori, la destra non trovava argomenti. Fondata nel 1973, la Confederazione europea dei sindacati (CES) rappresentò il risultato della presa di coscienza che il sindacato doveva coordinare le sue forze per giocare un ruolo su scala sopranazionale. La posizione della CES appare in modo evidente nel suo slogan “Più Europa, un’Europa sociale”. La sua principale attività consiste nel discutere con le istituzioni della UE e le associazioni padronali europee, nel Comitato economico e sociale della UE e altrove.
Si tratta di un modello corporativo, che si basa sull’idea di interessi comuni tra lavoro e capitale, invece che sulla lotta tra le classi – un modello che affonda le sue radici nell’ideologia dello stato conservatore cattolico e in quella del fascismo italiano.
Il movimento sindacale non è l’unico ad avvicinarsi ad un’errata concezione di un’Unione Europea progressista. In numerose organizzazioni è radicata la convinzione che consegnare ancora nuove competenze nazionali nelle mani della UE sarebbe in sé sinonimo di miglior gestione. Tutti hanno fiducia nelle belle promesse del progetto europeo (CEE/UE), sebbene esse non si siano ancora concretizzate. L’Unione Europea mette il suo naso dappertutto, ma è lontana dal costituire una garanzia che le cose miglioreranno. Per ciò che riguarda le politiche sociali ciò è doppiamente vero.
Nel quadro dei rapporti di forza attuali, sarebbe illusorio attendersi l’armonizzazione delle legislazioni che amministrano i sussidi sociali, le pensioni, un salario minimo, gli orari di lavoro o la situazione delle persone inabili, per malattia o invalidità di lavoro, un livellamento in alto, un allineamento sulle condizioni del miglior stato membro.
In realtà, la tendenza non è per la realizzazione di un’ “Europa sociale” ma essa va completamente nella direzione opposta, ciò che è tanto più evidente oggi che il modello economico e sociale dell’Unione Sovietica e dei suoi alleati non è più presente per opporre un’alternativa.
L’UE è all’origine di tutta una serie di documenti che riaffermano diritti che dovrebbero essere scontati, vale a dire:
Uguaglianza salariale tra uomini e donne;
Assenza di discriminazione razziale sul lavoro;
Ognuno dovrebbe avere una qualche forma di pensione;
I sindacati devono essere legali, e il loro ruolo in quanto interlocutori nei negoziati deve essere rispettato.
Questo genere di testi, tuttavia, non va mai oltre il limite del tollerabile. L’attuale crisi dell’euro ha accelerato un flagrante movimento di abbandono delle pretese di costruzione di un’ “Europa sociale”. Le priorità sociali dell’UE comprendono ormai la riduzione del costo del lavoro, la riduzione del numero di persone che hanno diritto ai sussidi di disoccupazione e un calo del numero dei pensionati.
I padroni non vogliono pagare la loro parte di quote per la Sicurezza sociale, come non vogliono che questi costi vengano assunti dallo stato, perché ciò vorrebbe dire che le imposte non potrebbero essere ridotte. Peraltro, vogliono vedere un mercato del lavoro più flessibile, in cui sarebbe più facile cacciare le persone e in cui i lavoratori avrebbero meno diritti mentre i loro impieghi sarebbero precari.
Quale sia l’esito dell’attuale crisi della zona euro, lo si comprende dal fatto che l’UE si è ormai avviata su una via neo-liberale. Ciò significa che la libera concorrenza regna, mentre le legislazioni nazionali che tutelano il lavoro e l’ambiente possono essere rimesse in discussione dalle direttive europee.
Il ruolo di organizzazioni come “la Tavola rotonda europea degli industriali” nell’elaborazione della politica della UE non è mai venuta completamente alla luce del sole. Questa organizzazione ha condotto la campagna per l’introduzione dell’euro. L’Europa del capitale esiste da lungo tempo, ma non c’è mai stata l’Europa sociale.
E non si tratta solo di un piccolo complotto fomentato da forze politiche di destra. Se si risale al marzo 2000, un summit di capi di governo si era svolto a Lisbona per discutere delle misure che avrebbero potuto essere adottate per rispondere alla rivendicazione dei sindacati per un’ “Europa sociale”. Tuttavia, le conclusioni dei primi ministri, in maggioranza socialdemocratici, per dieci di loro, furono lontane dall’indirizzarsi verso la settimana di 35 ore, la riduzione delle disuguaglianze di reddito, con sicurezza sociale, salario minimo, sviluppo dei sussidi sociali, creazione di impieghi nei servizi pubblici o abbassamento dell’età di pensionamento. Invece, venne lanciato un appello per massicce privatizzazioni con il disimpegno dello stato dalle sue funzioni sociali, come pure per lo stimolo della crescita economica tramite una riduzione delle tasse e un taglio alle spese collettive.
Questa lotta per la “competitività” a cui essi hanno aderito doveva essere finanziata dai tagli nei servizi pubblici e perseguirsi con la svendita di quello che restava delle imprese pubbliche.
La privatizzazione generalizzata fu messa all’ordine del giorno. Un obiettivo fondamentale che stava dietro a questa privatizzazione fu di spezzare la forza dei sindacati e di spingere verso il basso i salari trasformando ogni impiego in impiego precario.
Se li si sollecita un po’, i sostenitori dell’ “Europa sociale” si ostinano a dire che essa può essere compiuta solo se si salva l’euro. E per salvare l’euro, bisogna abbassare i salari, le tasse, e rimettere in discussione i diritti dei lavoratori e dell’ambiente. Questo tipo di crescita contribuisce meno a trovare una soluzione di quanto non possa fare una ripartizione più equa delle ricchezze che già possediamo. Dobbiamo esserne sorpresi? Gettiamo uno sguardo su qualcuno dei leaders di questa nuova “Europa sociale”.
Il nuovo presidente della Banca centrale europea (BCE) è Mario Draghi. Draghi è stato vicepresidente e direttore generale di Goldman Sachs International e membro del comitato direttivo di Goldman Sachs. E’ stato anche direttore esecutivo italiano della Banca Mondiale, governatore della Banca d’Italia, membro del comitato direttivo della BCE, membro del Consiglio d’ amministrazione della Banca dei regolamenti internazionali, membro del Consiglio d’amministrazione della Banca internazionale per la ricostruzione e lo sviluppo e della Banca asiatica di sviluppo, presidente dell’Ufficio di stabilità finanziaria.
Il nuovo primo ministro italiano, Mario Monti – che è stato nominato e non eletto – era membro dell’Ufficio dei consiglieri internazionali di Goldman Sachs. E’ stato nominato alla Commissione europea, uno degli organi di governo dell’UE. Monti è presidente europeo della Commissione Trilaterale, un’organizzazione americana incaricata di difendere l’egemonia americana nel mondo. Egli è membro del gruppo Bilderberg e membro fondatore del gruppo Spinelli, un’organizzazione creata nel settembre 2010 per facilitare l’integrazione nella UE.
Così come un banchiere non eletto è stato installato come primo ministro in Italia, un banchiere non eletto è stato installato come primo ministro in Grecia. Il nuovo primo ministro nominato in Grecia, Lukas Papademos, era governatore della Banca di Grecia. Dal 2002 al 2010, è stato vicepresidente della BCE. Anche lui è membro della Commissione Trilaterale americana.
Il mito dell’ “Europa sociale” ha fornito uno slogan utile agli euro-fanatici di tutta Europa. Adesso che l’UE si mostra per quello che è, mentre impone una forma di asservimento economico a larghi strati della popolazione, è stato smascherato come la menzogna che non ha mai cessato di essere.
=== 3 ===
http://www.marx21.it/italia/democrazia-e-stato/1005-lapocalisse-della-democrazia-dal-debito-sovrano-allo-stato-demergenza.html
L'apocalisse della democrazia, dal debito sovrano allo stato d'emergenza
12 Febbraio 2012
di Domenico Moro, responsabile Progetto per la formazione di Marx XXI
L'articolo, che pubblichiamo con l'autorizzazione dell'autore, appare nel numero di “Marx XXI” rivista in corso di distribuzione
La nomina del governo Monti e, più in generale, il modo in cui l’Europa sta affrontando la crisi del debito rappresenta un passo avanti nella conclusione del tipo di governo affermatosi a partire dalla fine della Seconda Guerra Mondiale. Più correttamente, si potrebbe dire che la crisi del debito solleva il velo sulla natura reale della democrazia borghese, attiva le potenzialità negative insite nel nostro sistema istituzionale, e conduce agli estremi quelle tendenze autoritarie che sono presenti da molto tempo in Italia, nel resto d’Europa e nel cosiddetto Occidente.
- Capitalismo finanziario, di stato e multinazionale
Lo stato non è mai neutrale, è sempre lo stato della classe economicamente dominante. Questo principio è solo un punto di partenza, non potendo prescindere dall’individuazione del modo in cui lo Stato esercita la sua funzione né dalla forma che assume in un certo periodo e in un certo luogo. Forma e modo di funzionamento sono strettamente collegati al tipo di rapporti - di scambio e di forza (a tutti i livelli) tra le classi. Non potremmo, però, capire molto né di questi né dell’evoluzione dello Stato se non capissimo l’evoluzione del modo di produzione capitalistico. Sebbene ci sia abbondanza di analisi ed interpretazioni della crisi in atto e soprattutto sulla crisi dell’euro, più rare sono le riflessioni sul collegamento tra questa crisi e le modificazioni di lungo periodo attraversate dal capitale. Di conseguenza, spesso le misure proposte – dall’acquisto diretto da parte della Bce di titoli statali europei, alla modifica del ruolo di quest’ultima in prestatore diretto di ultima istanza (sul modello Usa), alla definizione di bilanci e fiscalità veramente comuni fino al ripudio del debito – al di là della validità o meno di questa o quella per tamponare la crisi e stante la giustezza di far pagare il debito ai ricchi e al grande capitale, rimangono legate ad una prospettiva, seppure necessaria, però ancora limitata, difensivista. Soprattutto, sia rispetto all’imperialismo che allo Stato, a me sembra che, in linea di massima, continuiamo a ragionare e a comportarci sul piano politico come se fossimo sostanzialmente in fasi storiche precedenti a quella attuale.
Il modo di produzione capitalistico è arrivato, già tra la fine del XIX e l’inizio del XX secolo, alla sua fase suprema, quella imperialista. Con suprema si è voluto intendere “ultima”, in realtà il significato più corretto è quello di fase o livello superiore, di maggiore sviluppo in senso capitalistico. Proprio per questo, sviluppo superiore non vuol dire che questo sviluppo non si evolva continuamente, come in effetti è accaduto. Giovanni Arrighi affrontò tale questione in The Geometry of Imperialim1, proprio partendo dal testo di Hobson sull’imperialismo, base anche per l’elaborazione leninista. Secondo Hobson, che scrive prima della Grande guerra, la forza dirigente dell’imperialismo era l’alta finanza, composta di gruppi capitalistici che investivano la liquidità in eccesso nelle colonie e nel debito statale. Caratteristica del capitalismo finanziario era la mobilità estrema dei capitali, determinata dalla forte mondializzazione raggiunta alla fine del XIX secolo, il periodo della belle époque. Con la Prima guerra mondiale la mondializzazione si interruppe e, al posto dell’alta finanza, presero il sopravvento le grandi imprese, favorite dalle enormi spese belliche. Nel trentennio tra la Prima e la Seconda guerra mondiale si sostituisce al capitalismo finanziario il capitalismo di Stato, che trova la sua forma più sviluppata in Germania ed in Italia. Il capitalismo monopolistico di Stato espresse un processo di integrazione tra capitale pubblico e privato, in cui è quest’ultimo il vero dominatore dell’economia nazionale2. Sia il capitalismo finanziario – l’alta finanza – che il capitalismo di Stato – basato sulle grandi imprese – si poggiavano sullo Stato-nazione, ma mentre il primo era per sua natura transnazionale il secondo era fondamentalmente nazionale. Anche in Usa, con il New Deal di Roosve
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
[Il regime filo-imperialista che oggi governa la Serbia ha avviato un processo formale di riabilitazione del criminale di guerra Draža Mihailović, fondatore del movimento monarchico e anticomunista dei "cetnici".
Durante la II Guerra Mondiale i cetnici, dopo una iniziale opposizione allo smembramento del Regno di Jugoslavia che li portava ad appoggiarsi naturalmente agli angloamericani, gradualmente si avvicinarono agli occupanti fascisti italiani e nazisti tedeschi e poi addirittura agli ustascia croati in una ottica di lotta senza quartiere contro il movimento partigiano guidato da Tito. Mihailović fu perciò giustiziato nel 1946 a seguito di un processo per collaborazionismo, i cui Atti sono disponibili in lingua inglese nella pubblicazione riprodotta al nostro sito (PDF, 9MB):
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/varie_storia/Trial-indictment.pdf .
La classe dirigente che ha assunto il potere in Serbia con il colpo di Stato dell'ottobre 2000 è in diretta e materiale continuità con i cetnici di Mihailović in quanto esprime la stessa funzionalità ai ceti privilegiati - borghesia compradora, clero e addirittura aristocrazia (si veda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdOZwpwhDw ), nonché la stessa totale subalternità dai colonizzatori stranieri. Tale continuità è simbolicamente sancita dalla riabilitazione di Mihailović: d'altronde è solo dopo il colpo di Stato antijugoslavo dell'ottobre 2000 che viene operata in Serbia una simile riscrittura della storia contemporanea di segno revisionista, monarchico e anticomunista, con il compiacimento dei padroni statunitensi ed europei (sul tema si veda ulteriore documentazione alla nostra pagina: https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/cetnici.htm ). (a cura di Italo Slavo)]
PROTIV REHABILITACIJE RATNOG ZLOČINCA DRAŽE MIHAJLOVIĆA
1) ОТВОРЕНО ПИСМО СУБНОР СРБИЈЕ ДОМАЋОЈ И СВЕТСКОЈ ЈАВНОСТИ (SUBNOR)
2) DRAŽA ZLIKOVAC! (SKOJ)
VIDEO:
PROTIV REHABILITACIJE RATNOG ZLOČINCA DRAŽE MIHAJLOVIĆA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csdMfvpBYE0
THE TRIAL OF DRAGOLJUB-DRAŽE MIHAJLOVIĆA
Stenographic record - Belgrade 1946
Stenographic record - Belgrade 1946
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/varie_storia/Trial-indictment.pdf
=== 1 ===
http://www.subnor.org.rs/rehabilitacija-draze-mihailovica/#more-1209
Рехабилитација Драже Михаиловића
ОТВОРЕНО ПИСМО СУБНОР СРБИЈЕ ДОМАЋОЈ И СВЕТСКОЈ ЈАВНОСТИ
СУБНОР Србије, као баштиник антифашизма и слобадарске традиције, обраћа се домаћој и светској јавности поводом нових наговештаја о правној рехабилитацији саучесника у злочинима окупаторске нацистичке солдатеске на просторима наше земље у Другом светском рату. Последице срамног понашања власти, која се крије иза наводно независног судства, биће далекосежне по народ и државу Србију и одлука, у конкретном случају помиловање четничког вође Драже Михаиловића, већ наилази на осуду у суседству и не може да буде прихваћена међу европским и прекоокеанским савезницима који су, заједно са југословенским партизанима од 1941. до 1945. године, сламали фашистички хитлеровски и терор њихових упорних и верних помагача из наше средине.
СУБНОР је већ више пута јавно указивао да рехабилитације овакве врсте, није локалног карактера, не може се свести само на Србију, јер су и кнез Павле Карађорђевић и Слободан Јовановић, генерал Драгољуб Михаиловић и Драгиша Цветковић били на положајима општејугословенског значаја и њихово деловање се, према томе, протезало на читаву Југославију. Одлуке и потези посебно војног карактера, нарочито акције четника, оставили су неизбрисив болни траг у свим крајевима негдашње заједничке земље. Јасно је због тога да ни један суд, без обзира на то где се налази и колико је стварно или тобоже самосталан у односу на актуелну политичку вољу, не може без залажења у комплетну ситуацију на читавој територији Југославије да доноси мериторне одлуке о појединцима који су се, дакако, тешко огрешили сарађујући са окупатором и за њихов рачун и по налогу уништили хиљаде недужних људи.
Актуелна власт Србије успела је у неколико последњих година да рехабилитује у целини фашистичко квислинштво, колаборацију са окупатором у Другом светском рату, злодело хитлероваца и њихових верних сарадника, све што су часни партизани урадили у борби за слободу – то ни један историјски уџбеник у свету досад није порекао – сада се потискује у запећак и Србију, блиставу звезду у антифашистичком савезу демократског света, партијским декретом претвара у привезак фашистичког табора. У исто време се земље из бившег фашистичког заједништва грчевито боре да умање своје учешће, ограде се и оспоре сопствено фашистичко опредељење и прошлост, а актуелна власт упорно Србији намеће квислиншки фашистички огртач. Шта их тера, који пориви и чији интереси на такав неумни погибељни правац? Освета потомака и верника колаборације и квислинштва је недовољан одговор. Има дубљег у природи саме власти, у гурању државе на страну поражених.
Четништво, војску КЈ у отаџбини, од којих су се у току Другог светског рата одрекли и савезници и влада у избеглиштву и краљ као врховни командант, а сада, после толико деценија, измишљајући нову историју без доказа, актуелна власт са партијама за себе и у опозицији, узима под своје скуте и даје рехабилитацију за сва недела. Циљ донетих закона и пресуда без призива није исправљање евентуалних грешака победника у Другом светском рату, већ давање сатисфакције појединцима за учешће и сарадњу са окупаторским насилницима.
Недавно су уз велике државне почасти рехабилитовали у Београду Слободана Јовановића не за дело које је учинио док је руководио краљевском избегличком владом у Лондону, већ за оно зашто није ни оспораван нити суђен у поратном Београду. Сличан третман је добио и Павле Карађорђевић, медији су упорно истицали његове склоности у уметности, а био је оптужен због окретања земље фашистичком лагеру и пакта са хитлеровском Немачком из марта 1941. Накнадном судском рехабилитацијом осуђен је, значи, државни удар који је поништио издајничку сарадњу са фашистима и самим тим и ослободилачка борба народа Србије и Југославије против нацистичког окупатора.
За сада су остали нерехабилитовани, међу значајнијим учеснисцима колаборације, председник окупацијске владе генерал Милан Недић, командант четника Драгољуб Дража Михаиловић, и Димитрије Љотић, вођа фашистичког покрета и творац Српског добровољачког корпуса у саставу СС немачких трупа. И о њима се, према медијима, води судски поступак и питање је дана кад ће власт објавити, користећи правосуђе, завршни чин и одвести Србију у срамни табор фашистичких држава из Другог светског рата.
СУБНОР је непрестано указивао на такву погубну политику, али за наше протесте и мишљење нема места у информативном једноумљу Србије. Медији су више него икад продужена рука власти и партија што владају, може да се чује реч само оних што аплаудирају. Ми смо, ипак, уверења да је, што се нас тиче, у питању рачун без крчмара.
Средства информисања спроводе политику актуелне власти, потомака и поштовалаца колаборације. Непрекидно и нападно објављују „новооткривена документа и истине“ које су лажи а реаговања и покушај полемике СУБНОР и грађана завршава у кошу уредника и тако намећу неистину млађим генерацијама о НОП и НОБ, деловању њених припадника и улози окупатора, квислинга и колаборације. Циљ је да се код младих нараштаја створи лажна слика и представа о српској и југословенској историјској ратној и послератној стварности. Лаж која се непрекидно понавља.
СУБНОР Србије и антифашистичка јавност нису беспомоћни како, по свему судећи, верује актуелни режим. СУБНОР Србије има око 100.000 активних чланова, уз нашу организацију су поштоваоци, породице палих бораца и жртава квислинга, окупатора и њихових помагача, широки фронт антифашистички и антинацистичких опредељених удружења и људи разних генерација.
Одговор штетној политици власти у Србији све антифашистичке снаге, чији се покрет све више оснажује посебно у Европи којој и институционално тежимо, треба да се чује на предстојећим изборима. Србији је у Другом светском рату, часном борбом партизана, загарантовано угледно највише место у међународној историји и нико, ни једна власт или идеолошки накнадни судски и политички декрет, не могу да је искључе ни привремено из породице антифашистичких држава.
СУБНОР ће заштиту историјске истине о Другом светском рату затражити и од земаља антихитлеровске коалиције, од држава које баштине традицију слободе, ветеранских организација широм света (са којима имамо, баш због светле партизанске борбе, дуготрајну и присну сарадњу), од ОУН и Европске уније, која има утврђене критеријуме и о антифашизму, о несхватљивим рехабилитацијама квислинга и нацистичких окупатора обратићемо се и суду у Стразбуру.
Више нема сумње да је у Србији власт одлучила да заокружи разлаз са НОП и НОБ, који су од 1941. до 1945. водили борбу против фашиста и домаћих издајника. Заједничка најезда колаборациониста, окупљених око политике државних органа, јасан је обрачун са антифашистичком борбом народа Србије и носиоцима те борбе са фашистичким окупатором и квислинзима, брутално фалсификовање историјске истине. Сада суде жртвама, а џелате силом на срамоту славе. То Србија није доживела, још мање заслужила.
РЕПУБЛИЧКИ ОДБОР
СУБНОР СРБИЈЕ
П р е д с е д н и к
Проф.др Миодраг Зечевић
=== 2 ===
http://www.skoj.org.rs/71.html
DRAŽA ZLIKOVAC!
Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije (SKOJ) 23. marta 2012. godine uzeo je učešće u protestu, održanom ispred Višeg suda u Beogradu, protiv postupka za rehabilitaciju kvislinga i ratnog zločinca, vođe po zlu čuvenog četničkog pokreta u Drugom svetskom ratu, generala Dragoljuba Draže Mihailovića. Aktivisti SKOJ-a, podmlatka Nove komunističke partije Jugoslavije (NKPJ), rešili su da dignu svoj glas protiv podlih buržoaskih namera da se falsifikuje istorija i skine ljaga sa fašističkog kolaboracioniste i izdajnika srpskog naroda Draže Mihailovića. Skojevci su istakli parolu “Draža zlikovac” i noseći zastave SKOJ-a i SFRJ, pevali partizanske pesme i skandirali “Sluga okupatora bruka našeg naroda”. Kako pojedini mediji čiji su novinari bili prisutni na licu mesta saopštavaju, to se skandiranje čulo i u samoj sudnici zbog čega je predsedavajući zahtevao da se zatvori prozor.
SKOJ izražava protest protiv izveštavanje buržoaskih medija koji su lažno izvestili da su se skojevci priključili skupu koji su organizovale Žene u crnom, kao i tendencioznog obmanjivanja javnosti da su centralnu ulogu u demonstracijama protiv rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića imali pro-imperijalistički građanski elementi iz takozvanog nevladinog sektora. Žene u crnom nisu bile organizator skupa protiv rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića tako da je laž da su im se skojevci pridružili. Takođe, rukovodeći i borbeni deo protestnog skupa činili su skojevci i pripadnici još nekih levičarskih organizacija a ne Žene u crnom, samozvana “pacifistička” organizacija čiji je zadatak da fašističku etiketu sasvim nepravilno “zalepi” borbi protiv imperijalizma, dok nikada u svojoj istoriji nije izrazila nijedan protest protiv ratnih zločina i fašističkih akcija koje su izvele Sjedinjene Američke Države, Evropska unija i NATO. Takođe, SKOJ ocenjuje da su smešne i licemerne kritike četničke ideologije od strane Liberalno demokratske partije (LDP) i Socijaldemokratske unije (SDU), koje na izborima u okviru koalicije Preokret nastupaju zajedno sa Srpskim pokretom obnove (SPO) Vuka Draškovića rodonačelnika povampirenja velikosrpske četničko-ravnogorske politike. Koga pokušava da slaže pro-imperijalistička građanska klasa u Srbiji? Proletarijat sigurno neće moći da slaže, jer on veoma jasno prepoznaje njene dvostruke aršine i slugeransko ponašanje prema imperijalistima.
Posebna podlost buržoaskog režima u Srbiji se ogleda u tome što se postupak za rehabilitaciju sluge nacističkog okupatora i reakcionarnog krvoloka vodi, simbolično, dan pred obeležavanje 13 godina od zločinačke NATO agresije na Saveznu Republiku Jugoslaviju, jednog od najtragičnijih događaja koji su ikad zadesili našu domovinu i narod. Pomahnitali anti-jugoslovenski nacionalizam, saučesnik zapadnih imperijalista u rušenju naše domovine Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, neostvariv je bez korenite revizije istorije (a znamo da se istorija ne može nanovo pisati, ona se može samo falsifikovati) i predstavlja opijum za narod kojim ga buržuji truju već dve decenije sejući smrt, bedu i regres, pri tom skrećući poglede radnog naroda naše zemlje sa katastrofalnih rezultata rekonstrukcije kapitalizma, podgrevajući malograđanske i nacional-šovinističke pozicije. Zato je buržujima danas, usled katastrofalne krize kapitalizma neophodna rehabilitacija najsvirepijeg simbola srpskog nacionalizma - Draže Mihailovića. Buržoaski režim u Srbiji, frustriran time što za vreme Drugog svetskog rata na prostoru Jugoslavije nije postojao građanski anti-fašistički pokret otpora, već je jedini pokret koji se borio za oslobođenje zemlje, partizanski pokret, predvodila slavna Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, izvršio je falsifikovanje istorije zakonski izjednačivši četnike i partizane. Jasno je da srpsku buržoaziju boli kolaboracija koju su pripadnici te klase, poput Milana Nedića, vladike Nikolaja Velimirovića i Dimitrija Ljotića počinili za vreme Drugog svetskog rata verno služeći naci-fašističkom okupatoru pa su zato i pokušali da prekroje istoriju i četnički pokret predstave kao “antifašistički”. Istina je naravno sasvim drugačija. Draža Mihailović i njegovi četnici ne samo da nisu bili “antifašisti” već su bili isti takvi kvislinzi kao i nedićevci, ljotićevci, ustaše, belogardejci, balisti, pripadnici “Handžar divizije”, crnogorski “zelenaši” i ostali izdajnički šljam. Takođe, Draža Mihailović nije izdao samo svoj narod i svoju otadžbinu sarađujući sa okupatorom nego čak i svog kralja Petra II Karađorđevića koji je sa svojom aristokratskom i buržoaskom svitom pobegao 1941. godine iz zemlje ostavivši narod na milost i nemilost fašističkom okupatoru, ali je u završnoj fazi rata od Mihailovića zatražio da njegove četničke trupe pređu pod partizansku komandu, što je ovaj odbio. Prethodno je, na samom početku rata, Draža Mihailović izdao saradnju koju mu je ponudilo rukovodstvo partizanskog pokreta, te je verolomno započeo građanski rat i saradnju sa okupatorima u borbi protiv partizana. Tačno je da je Draža Mihailović ratni zločinac jer su četničke bande pod njegovom komandom izvršile brojna zverstva nad hrvatskim i muslimanskim narodom, ali i nad pripadnicima sopstvenog srpskog naroda. Četnici su prednjačili u klanju, ubijanju i spaljivanju civila, među njima staraca, žena i dece i nema tog buržoaskog falsifikata koji će sakriti zlodela tih najvećih izdajnika srpskog naroda na čelu sa njihovim monstruoznim vođom Dražom Mihailovićem. Ti lažni “zaštitnici” srpskog naroda iz redova “Jugoslovenske vojske u otadžbini” ne samo da su sarađivali sa monstruoznim slugama naci-fašističkog okupatora poput nedićevaca i ljotićevaca već su zabeleženi i primeri saradnje i sa pripadnicima ustaškog pokreta u Hrvatskoj. Sve je to ista zločinačka kvislinška bratija koju su porazile oslobodilačke partizanske trupe i slavna sovjetska Crvena armija.
SKOJ poručuje buržoaskom režimu da su njegovi napori da rehabilituje velikosrpskog nacional-šovinistu i zločinca Dražu Mihailovića “pucanj u prazno”. Istina je samo jedna. Partizani su jedini oslobodioci. Četnici su bili i ostali su izdajnici. Komunisti i svi ostali iskreni antifašisti u Srbiji staće na put blaćenju svetlih slobodarskih tradicija našeg naroda, kojima izdajnik Draža ne pripada.
Sekretarijat Saveza komunističke omladine Jugoslavije
Beograd, 23. mart 2012. godine
Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije (SKOJ) 23. marta 2012. godine uzeo je učešće u protestu, održanom ispred Višeg suda u Beogradu, protiv postupka za rehabilitaciju kvislinga i ratnog zločinca, vođe po zlu čuvenog četničkog pokreta u Drugom svetskom ratu, generala Dragoljuba Draže Mihailovića. Aktivisti SKOJ-a, podmlatka Nove komunističke partije Jugoslavije (NKPJ), rešili su da dignu svoj glas protiv podlih buržoaskih namera da se falsifikuje istorija i skine ljaga sa fašističkog kolaboracioniste i izdajnika srpskog naroda Draže Mihailovića. Skojevci su istakli parolu “Draža zlikovac” i noseći zastave SKOJ-a i SFRJ, pevali partizanske pesme i skandirali “Sluga okupatora bruka našeg naroda”. Kako pojedini mediji čiji su novinari bili prisutni na licu mesta saopštavaju, to se skandiranje čulo i u samoj sudnici zbog čega je predsedavajući zahtevao da se zatvori prozor.
SKOJ izražava protest protiv izveštavanje buržoaskih medija koji su lažno izvestili da su se skojevci priključili skupu koji su organizovale Žene u crnom, kao i tendencioznog obmanjivanja javnosti da su centralnu ulogu u demonstracijama protiv rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića imali pro-imperijalistički građanski elementi iz takozvanog nevladinog sektora. Žene u crnom nisu bile organizator skupa protiv rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića tako da je laž da su im se skojevci pridružili. Takođe, rukovodeći i borbeni deo protestnog skupa činili su skojevci i pripadnici još nekih levičarskih organizacija a ne Žene u crnom, samozvana “pacifistička” organizacija čiji je zadatak da fašističku etiketu sasvim nepravilno “zalepi” borbi protiv imperijalizma, dok nikada u svojoj istoriji nije izrazila nijedan protest protiv ratnih zločina i fašističkih akcija koje su izvele Sjedinjene Američke Države, Evropska unija i NATO. Takođe, SKOJ ocenjuje da su smešne i licemerne kritike četničke ideologije od strane Liberalno demokratske partije (LDP) i Socijaldemokratske unije (SDU), koje na izborima u okviru koalicije Preokret nastupaju zajedno sa Srpskim pokretom obnove (SPO) Vuka Draškovića rodonačelnika povampirenja velikosrpske četničko-ravnogorske politike. Koga pokušava da slaže pro-imperijalistička građanska klasa u Srbiji? Proletarijat sigurno neće moći da slaže, jer on veoma jasno prepoznaje njene dvostruke aršine i slugeransko ponašanje prema imperijalistima.
Posebna podlost buržoaskog režima u Srbiji se ogleda u tome što se postupak za rehabilitaciju sluge nacističkog okupatora i reakcionarnog krvoloka vodi, simbolično, dan pred obeležavanje 13 godina od zločinačke NATO agresije na Saveznu Republiku Jugoslaviju, jednog od najtragičnijih događaja koji su ikad zadesili našu domovinu i narod. Pomahnitali anti-jugoslovenski nacionalizam, saučesnik zapadnih imperijalista u rušenju naše domovine Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, neostvariv je bez korenite revizije istorije (a znamo da se istorija ne može nanovo pisati, ona se može samo falsifikovati) i predstavlja opijum za narod kojim ga buržuji truju već dve decenije sejući smrt, bedu i regres, pri tom skrećući poglede radnog naroda naše zemlje sa katastrofalnih rezultata rekonstrukcije kapitalizma, podgrevajući malograđanske i nacional-šovinističke pozicije. Zato je buržujima danas, usled katastrofalne krize kapitalizma neophodna rehabilitacija najsvirepijeg simbola srpskog nacionalizma - Draže Mihailovića. Buržoaski režim u Srbiji, frustriran time što za vreme Drugog svetskog rata na prostoru Jugoslavije nije postojao građanski anti-fašistički pokret otpora, već je jedini pokret koji se borio za oslobođenje zemlje, partizanski pokret, predvodila slavna Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, izvršio je falsifikovanje istorije zakonski izjednačivši četnike i partizane. Jasno je da srpsku buržoaziju boli kolaboracija koju su pripadnici te klase, poput Milana Nedića, vladike Nikolaja Velimirovića i Dimitrija Ljotića počinili za vreme Drugog svetskog rata verno služeći naci-fašističkom okupatoru pa su zato i pokušali da prekroje istoriju i četnički pokret predstave kao “antifašistički”. Istina je naravno sasvim drugačija. Draža Mihailović i njegovi četnici ne samo da nisu bili “antifašisti” već su bili isti takvi kvislinzi kao i nedićevci, ljotićevci, ustaše, belogardejci, balisti, pripadnici “Handžar divizije”, crnogorski “zelenaši” i ostali izdajnički šljam. Takođe, Draža Mihailović nije izdao samo svoj narod i svoju otadžbinu sarađujući sa okupatorom nego čak i svog kralja Petra II Karađorđevića koji je sa svojom aristokratskom i buržoaskom svitom pobegao 1941. godine iz zemlje ostavivši narod na milost i nemilost fašističkom okupatoru, ali je u završnoj fazi rata od Mihailovića zatražio da njegove četničke trupe pređu pod partizansku komandu, što je ovaj odbio. Prethodno je, na samom početku rata, Draža Mihailović izdao saradnju koju mu je ponudilo rukovodstvo partizanskog pokreta, te je verolomno započeo građanski rat i saradnju sa okupatorima u borbi protiv partizana. Tačno je da je Draža Mihailović ratni zločinac jer su četničke bande pod njegovom komandom izvršile brojna zverstva nad hrvatskim i muslimanskim narodom, ali i nad pripadnicima sopstvenog srpskog naroda. Četnici su prednjačili u klanju, ubijanju i spaljivanju civila, među njima staraca, žena i dece i nema tog buržoaskog falsifikata koji će sakriti zlodela tih najvećih izdajnika srpskog naroda na čelu sa njihovim monstruoznim vođom Dražom Mihailovićem. Ti lažni “zaštitnici” srpskog naroda iz redova “Jugoslovenske vojske u otadžbini” ne samo da su sarađivali sa monstruoznim slugama naci-fašističkog okupatora poput nedićevaca i ljotićevaca već su zabeleženi i primeri saradnje i sa pripadnicima ustaškog pokreta u Hrvatskoj. Sve je to ista zločinačka kvislinška bratija koju su porazile oslobodilačke partizanske trupe i slavna sovjetska Crvena armija.
SKOJ poručuje buržoaskom režimu da su njegovi napori da rehabilituje velikosrpskog nacional-šovinistu i zločinca Dražu Mihailovića “pucanj u prazno”. Istina je samo jedna. Partizani su jedini oslobodioci. Četnici su bili i ostali su izdajnici. Komunisti i svi ostali iskreni antifašisti u Srbiji staće na put blaćenju svetlih slobodarskih tradicija našeg naroda, kojima izdajnik Draža ne pripada.
Sekretarijat Saveza komunističke omladine Jugoslavije
Beograd, 23. mart 2012. godine
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(Mentre il capitalismo crea milioni di senzatetto, disoccupati e affamati, il Papa insiste che "a Cuba il marxismo è fuori tempo massimo"... )
http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/dok-kapitalizam-gomila-milijune-beskucnika-nezaposlenih-i-gladnih-papa-tvrdi-kako-je-marksizam-na-kubi-zakazao/
Dok kapitalizam gomila milijune beskućnika, nezaposlenih i gladnih Papa tvrdi kako je "marksizam na Kubi zakazao"
D. Marjanović (advance.hr)
vrijeme objave: Utorak - 27. Ožujak 2012 | 19:13
Papa Benedkit XVI stigao je na Kubu kako bi propagirao vjeru, ali - sudeći prema izjavama - i politiku. Neposredno prije njegovog dolaska na Kubu tamošnjim vlastima i narodu je poručio "marksizam je zakazao". Ako to Papa zaista misli, onda očito ne zna čitati ekonomske i druge statističke podatke.
Stanovnici Kube imaju daleko najveći životni vijek u regiji, zdravstvo i školstvo besplatno je za svih, da nitko nije gladan ili da mu ne fali krov nad glavom i dalje se brine država. Nakon raspada SSSR-a Kuba se okrenula permakulturi i lokalnoj poljoprivredi, zbog toga danas ima možda i najzdraviju hranu na svijetu - reorganizacija cijelog društva ne bi bila moguća bez pravovremene i točne intervencije države. Kuba je među prvim zemljama u svijetu po broju liječnika po glavi stanovnika.
Svaki stanovnik Kube ima krov nad glavom, ukupna renta ga stoji tek 10% godišnje plaće. Glad na Kubi je nepoznanica. Prosječni Kubanac ne živi u luksuzu, ali definitivno ima sve za život dostojan čovjeka - struju, plin, Tv, radio i sve ostale potrepštine sastavni su dio gotovo svakog doma. Koliko stanovnika danas u SAD-u mogu samo sanjati o tim osnovama?
Na Kubi možete završiti kao beskućnik jedino ako beskućništvo doživljavate kao filozofski stav.
Kuba ima pismenost od 99,8%, smrtnost novorođenčadi manja je nego u nekim razvijenim zemljama. Kuba je jedina zemlja na svijetu koja zadovoljava WWF standarde obnovljivog razvoja - drugim riječima, Kuba je jedini model prema kojem ovaj svijet može dugoročno opstati.
Što je gospodin Papa zapravo želio reći kada je, na oduševljenje korporativnih medija diljem svijeta, poručio "marksizam ne funkcionira". Da li su ovi veliki uspjesi na Kubi nastali sami od sebe? Nekim neobjašnjivim čudom? Ne, upravo je kubanski socijalizam - koji kao direktan izvor koristi djela Karl Marxa - zaslužan za sve ovo. Kuba, da nije podobnih medija, danas bi se proučavala kao glavna smjernica kojom valja krenuti. Američke sankcije i uvođenje embarga ruše države diljem svijeta, Kuba je pritisnuta njima već preko pola stoljeća i unatoč tome, unatoč svim pokušajima da je se slomi, i dalje prosperira i prkosi pred cijelim ljudskim rodom.
Zašto se gospodin Papa ne osvrne na druge zemlje? Zašto malo ne pogleda kako mu katoličko stado danas živi u Španjolskoj i Italiji? Što je tamo "zakazalo"? Mladi ljudi diljem Italije i Španjolske nemaju posao, bore se za vlastitu egzistenciju, siromaštvo eskalira, ljudi se hrane po kontejnerima - ali ne, nije kapitalizam zakazao, već socijalizam. Zašto? Zato jer vjerski vođe na Kubi ne sjede u zlatnim stolicama?
Kapitalizam je taj koji je zakazao, kapitalizam je taj koji je proizveo sustav koji je u potpunosti suprotan s učenjima Krista.
"Lakše je devi proći kroz ušicu igle no bogatašu stići u kraljevstvo nebesko", zar te poruke koje je uputio Isus svojim učenicima danas Papi ne znače baš ništa? Gdje je na svijetu najveći jaz između bogatih i siromašnih? Na Kubi? Ili je možda među najnaprednijim kapitalizmima kao što je SAD?
Papa se svijetu predstavlja kao učen čovjek - onda Papa zasigurno zna da na Kubi nije vladao "marksizam" oduvijek već su ga revolucijom donijeli Fidel Castro, Che Guevara i ostali revolucionari 1959.
Prije socijalističke revolucije, prema UN-ovoj ekonomskoj komisiji za Latinsku Ameriku, jaz između bogatih i siromašnih (ukupna primanja najbogatijih 10% populacije podijeljena s ukupnim primanjima najsiromašnijih 10%) bio je 1 naprema 64 - nakon uspostave socijalizma taj omjer je pao na 1 naprema 4.
Ali ne, jednakost među ljudima nije dobra - za Papu je to propali sistem koji treba što prije mijenjati na onaj neo-liberalni.
Svojim politikantskim nastupom Papa je pokazao koju stranu podržava. Danas se nastoji prikazati slika u medijima da je narod Kube fanatično dočekao Papu i kako jedva čekaju da njegove ekonomsko-socijalno-političke najave postanu stvarnost. Istina je sasvim drugačija - doček nije bio nimalo spektakularan.
"za razliku od Meksika, publika je bila daleko manje entuzijastična", prenosi CBS news.
Kubanci su narod koji drži do tradicije, ali to ne znači da Papa ima velik utjecaj.
"Ako krstimo našu djecu u Katoličkoj Crkvi, to je većinom radi tradicije, jer tako su radili naši očevi i djedovi. Svećenici će onda reći kako su svi kršteni zapravo Katolici, ali i oni sami znaju da to nije istina", rekao je Lazaro Cuesta za Havana Times.
Cuesta je predstavnik najbrže rastuće vjerske zajednice, ali ona nije Kršćanstvo nego Santeria - tradicionalno afričko vjerovanje. Afro-kubanski sveci zovu se Orishas i u njih, prema Lazaro Cuestu, vjeruje oko 80%. Katolička crkva se jako protivi tom trendu.
Zašto toliki broj Kubanaca se okreće Santeriji, a ne Kršćanstvu? Cuesta daje u slijedećem pojašnjenju: "Ljepota Santerije je u tome da se bavi ovozemaljskim problemima kao što su zdravlje, ljubav, posao... Mi u Santeriji ne nudimo raj, već pomažemo jedni drugima da nam život bude bolji ovdje, na zemlji".
Stanovnici Kube imaju daleko najveći životni vijek u regiji, zdravstvo i školstvo besplatno je za svih, da nitko nije gladan ili da mu ne fali krov nad glavom i dalje se brine država. Nakon raspada SSSR-a Kuba se okrenula permakulturi i lokalnoj poljoprivredi, zbog toga danas ima možda i najzdraviju hranu na svijetu - reorganizacija cijelog društva ne bi bila moguća bez pravovremene i točne intervencije države. Kuba je među prvim zemljama u svijetu po broju liječnika po glavi stanovnika.
Svaki stanovnik Kube ima krov nad glavom, ukupna renta ga stoji tek 10% godišnje plaće. Glad na Kubi je nepoznanica. Prosječni Kubanac ne živi u luksuzu, ali definitivno ima sve za život dostojan čovjeka - struju, plin, Tv, radio i sve ostale potrepštine sastavni su dio gotovo svakog doma. Koliko stanovnika danas u SAD-u mogu samo sanjati o tim osnovama?
Na Kubi možete završiti kao beskućnik jedino ako beskućništvo doživljavate kao filozofski stav.
Kuba ima pismenost od 99,8%, smrtnost novorođenčadi manja je nego u nekim razvijenim zemljama. Kuba je jedina zemlja na svijetu koja zadovoljava WWF standarde obnovljivog razvoja - drugim riječima, Kuba je jedini model prema kojem ovaj svijet može dugoročno opstati.
Što je gospodin Papa zapravo želio reći kada je, na oduševljenje korporativnih medija diljem svijeta, poručio "marksizam ne funkcionira". Da li su ovi veliki uspjesi na Kubi nastali sami od sebe? Nekim neobjašnjivim čudom? Ne, upravo je kubanski socijalizam - koji kao direktan izvor koristi djela Karl Marxa - zaslužan za sve ovo. Kuba, da nije podobnih medija, danas bi se proučavala kao glavna smjernica kojom valja krenuti. Američke sankcije i uvođenje embarga ruše države diljem svijeta, Kuba je pritisnuta njima već preko pola stoljeća i unatoč tome, unatoč svim pokušajima da je se slomi, i dalje prosperira i prkosi pred cijelim ljudskim rodom.
Zašto se gospodin Papa ne osvrne na druge zemlje? Zašto malo ne pogleda kako mu katoličko stado danas živi u Španjolskoj i Italiji? Što je tamo "zakazalo"? Mladi ljudi diljem Italije i Španjolske nemaju posao, bore se za vlastitu egzistenciju, siromaštvo eskalira, ljudi se hrane po kontejnerima - ali ne, nije kapitalizam zakazao, već socijalizam. Zašto? Zato jer vjerski vođe na Kubi ne sjede u zlatnim stolicama?
Kapitalizam je taj koji je zakazao, kapitalizam je taj koji je proizveo sustav koji je u potpunosti suprotan s učenjima Krista.
"Lakše je devi proći kroz ušicu igle no bogatašu stići u kraljevstvo nebesko", zar te poruke koje je uputio Isus svojim učenicima danas Papi ne znače baš ništa? Gdje je na svijetu najveći jaz između bogatih i siromašnih? Na Kubi? Ili je možda među najnaprednijim kapitalizmima kao što je SAD?
Papa se svijetu predstavlja kao učen čovjek - onda Papa zasigurno zna da na Kubi nije vladao "marksizam" oduvijek već su ga revolucijom donijeli Fidel Castro, Che Guevara i ostali revolucionari 1959.
Prije socijalističke revolucije, prema UN-ovoj ekonomskoj komisiji za Latinsku Ameriku, jaz između bogatih i siromašnih (ukupna primanja najbogatijih 10% populacije podijeljena s ukupnim primanjima najsiromašnijih 10%) bio je 1 naprema 64 - nakon uspostave socijalizma taj omjer je pao na 1 naprema 4.
Ali ne, jednakost među ljudima nije dobra - za Papu je to propali sistem koji treba što prije mijenjati na onaj neo-liberalni.
Svojim politikantskim nastupom Papa je pokazao koju stranu podržava. Danas se nastoji prikazati slika u medijima da je narod Kube fanatično dočekao Papu i kako jedva čekaju da njegove ekonomsko-socijalno-političke najave postanu stvarnost. Istina je sasvim drugačija - doček nije bio nimalo spektakularan.
"za razliku od Meksika, publika je bila daleko manje entuzijastična", prenosi CBS news.
Kubanci su narod koji drži do tradicije, ali to ne znači da Papa ima velik utjecaj.
"Ako krstimo našu djecu u Katoličkoj Crkvi, to je većinom radi tradicije, jer tako su radili naši očevi i djedovi. Svećenici će onda reći kako su svi kršteni zapravo Katolici, ali i oni sami znaju da to nije istina", rekao je Lazaro Cuesta za Havana Times.
Cuesta je predstavnik najbrže rastuće vjerske zajednice, ali ona nije Kršćanstvo nego Santeria - tradicionalno afričko vjerovanje. Afro-kubanski sveci zovu se Orishas i u njih, prema Lazaro Cuestu, vjeruje oko 80%. Katolička crkva se jako protivi tom trendu.
Zašto toliki broj Kubanaca se okreće Santeriji, a ne Kršćanstvu? Cuesta daje u slijedećem pojašnjenju: "Ljepota Santerije je u tome da se bavi ovozemaljskim problemima kao što su zdravlje, ljubav, posao... Mi u Santeriji ne nudimo raj, već pomažemo jedni drugima da nam život bude bolji ovdje, na zemlji".
izvor(i): CBS | Havana Times | Telegraph
Vaši komentari: (124): http://www.advance.hr/vijesti/dok-kapitalizam-gomila-milijune-beskucnika-nezaposlenih-i-gladnih-papa-tvrdi-kako-je-marksizam-na-kubi-zakazao/
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(La 1e partie: http://www.csotan.org/ao/article.php?ao_id=42&art_id=550&Mois=juin&Year=2011
ou http://www.michelcollon.info/Il-y-a-20-ans-la-Yougoslavie.html
ou http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/7102 )
http://www.csotan.org/ao/article.php?ao_id=43&art_id=571&Mois=octobre&Year=2011
Il y a 20 ans, la Yougoslavie explosait (2e partie)
Bien que sa sécession se soit déroulée pacifiquement, la Macédoine dut attendre bien plus longtemps que les autres républiques yougoslaves pour être admise à l’ONU, sous le vocable d’« Ancienne république yougoslave de Macédoine », ou FYROM selon son acronyme anglais. Et ce n’est qu’à la fin 1993 que son indépendance, proclamée en septembre 1991,fut reconnue par de premiers pays de l’Union européenne, et au début 1994 par les Etats-Unis, soit un an et demi après la Russie. En cause, déjà, l’attitude hostile de la Grèce, inquiète que le nom « constitutionnel » du nouvel Etat (« République de Macédoine ») n’implique des revendications territoriales sur la région du même nom occupant le nord de son Etat. Après avoir entraîné divers blocus grecs dans les années ’90, cette querelle a suscité le veto d’Athènes à l’entrée du pays dans l’OTAN en 2008 et continue de bloquer son adhésion à l’UE.
Si les mesures de rétorsion grecques peuvent paraître démesurées au regard du faible poids, tant militaire qu’économique, de la Macédoine, il faut admettre que, si Skopje voulait à tout prix susciter l’ire d’Athènes, elle n’agirait pas autrement. Le centre de la capitale macédonienne est encombré de monuments et de références à la gloire de héros grecs antiques, en premier lieu Alexandre le Grand. On pourrait vainement chercher une quelconque filiation entre ce paléo-impérialiste de génie et la population macédonienne, peuple slave arrivé dans la région plus d’un millénaire après sa mort.
En outre, cette polémique identitaire laisse de marbre les diverses minorités du pays : Turcs, Serbes, Roms et, surtout, Albanais qui constituent à eux seuls plus d’un quart de la population. La tension entre ces derniers et la majorité slave a culminé en 2000 quand une émanation de l’Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK), l’Armée nationale de libération (UCK-M), a déclenché une guérilla contre les forces de sécurité macédoniennes. Cette « petite » guerre, qui causa quand même un millier de morts, s’est achevée en août 2001 par la signature de l’accord d’Ohrid. Imposé sous la pression occidentale, cet accord a octroyé divers droits à la minorité albanophone (décentralisation, meilleure représentation dans les services publics, reconnaissance de l’albanais comme langue officielle…), à condition que l’UCK-M se transforme en parti politique et que – à l’inverse du Kosovo – elle renonce à toute idée de sécession ou de « Grande Albanie ». Une force de l’OTAN était déployée pour garantir le cessez-le-feu et désarmer les anciens rebelles.
Petite particularité de ce conflit, des instructeurs états-uniens étaient déployés dans les deux camps, armée macédonienne et UCK-M. Il fallut même une intervention de soldats états-uniens de la force de l’OTAN au Kosovo pour secourir un groupe de rebelles qui s’étaient aventurés dans la banlieue de Skopje. Parmi eux, se trouvaient 17 officiers de la MPRI, la firme de Virginie qui avait planifié les offensives de l’armée croate contre les Serbes de la Krajina en 1995 !
La force de l’OTAN a été remplacée en 2003 par une mission militaire de l’UE, complétant la mise sous tutelle du pays par Bruxelles, qui le gratifiait un an plus tard du statut de « candidat ». Bien qu’il ait été érigé en modèle de la Banque mondiale pour l’audace de ses « réformes »,sa situation économique reste profondément morose, avec un taux de chômage évoluant largement au-dessus de 30 %. Alors que les « questions nationales » des deux principaux groupes ethniques ne sont pas résolues, l’écart de niveau de vie entre les Macédoniens et les autres citoyens d’ex-Yougoslavie n’a cessé de se creuser.
***
Sous la direction de Milo Djukanovic, qui a alterné pendant près de vingt ans les postes de Premier ministre et de Président de la république, le Monténégro a longtemps maintenu des liens avec la Serbie. Ayant fondé avec elle, en 1992, la « République fédérale de Yougoslavie » sur les décombres de la « République fédérative socialiste de Yougoslavie » de Tito, le Monténégro a progressivement pris ses distances avec Belgrade. Une vague confédération, la Communauté d’Etats Serbie et Monténégro, a été formée en 2003, prélude à une séparation complète en 2006, à la suite d'un référendum sur l’indépendance remporté de justesse par les sécessionnistes.
Sous Milosevic, pendant la décennie de sanctions qui ont accablé la RFY, Djukanovic a consolidé son pouvoir en accroissant son autonomie vis-à-vis de Belgrade, encourageant une identité monténégrine dans une population qui s’est longtemps considérée comme une branche de la nation serbe. Mais, surtout, il a pris prétexte des embargos pour développer d'importants réseaux de contrebande « pour le bien du pays ». Il s’est considérablement enrichi, notamment en contrôlant le trafic de cigarettes à travers l’Adriatique, en collaboration avec certains clans de la mafia italienne et avec divers gros formats de la criminalité serbe et croate. Plusieurs journalistes qui ont exposé ces pratiques, au Monténégro, mais aussi en Croatie, ont payé de leur vie leurs révélations. Protégé par son immunité de chef d’Etat, il a jusqu’à présent échappé à la justice italienne qui l’a dans son collimateur depuis plus de dix ans.
Refuge des mafias d’une bonne partie de l’Europe, le Monténégro est également la terre d’accueil ensoleillée de nombreux oligarques russes, qui rachètent de larges portions de la côte adriatique, ainsi que les quelques fleurons de son industrie, en particulier celle de l’aluminium. Cela ne l’a pas empêché d’adopter, dès 2002, l’euro comme monnaie officielle et de recevoir le statut de « candidat » au club européen en décembre 2010, moment à ce point historique que Djukanovic en a profité, cédant à de pesantes pressions internationales, pour se retirer de la tête de l’Etat. Il a cependant tenu à garder les rênes de son « Parti démocratique des socialistes », majoritaire au Monténégro depuis sa création sur les décombres de la section locale de la Ligue des communistes de Yougoslavie en 1990.
Sur le plan politique, l’attention reste focalisée sur les relations avec la Serbie. Ayant choisi la « monténégritude » comme cheval de bataille, le pouvoir de Podgorica s’acharne à promouvoir une « Eglise orthodoxe monténégrine » (alors que les Monténégrins sont traditionnellement de rite orthodoxe serbe) et une langue monténégrine (alors que les idiomes parlés en Serbie et au Monténégro ne diffèrent que par l’accent). Ces efforts se sont étendus au domaine de l’enseignement, où le gouvernement a voulu imposer le « monténégrin » comme langue officielle unique.
Cependant, le premier recensement en 20 ans, mené en avril 2011, a révélé que, si 45 % de la population s’affirme monténégrine1, ils sont néanmoins 43 % à déclarer parler « serbe », contre seulement 37 % disant s’exprimer en « monténégrin ». Confortée par ces chiffres, refusant la marginalisation de la langue d’une majorité de la population, l’opposition a, pendant plusieurs mois, refusé de contribuer à une majorité des deux tiers nécessaire à l’adoption d'une réforme de la loi électorale, préalable aux négociations d’adhésion avec l’UE. Le gouvernement a finalement cédé, en reconnaissant, juste avant la rentrée scolaire, la variante « serbe » dans le système d’enseignement.
Même si cet obstacle est désormais levé, le chemin du Monténégro vers le paradis européen risque d’être encore long, certains Etats membres évoquant discrètement la gêne que commence à leur inspirer l’absence de liberté de la presse et les accointances mafieuses des cercles dirigeants dans le petit Etat se voulant le « Monaco de l’Adriatique ».
***
En créant avec le Monténégro la « République fédérale de Yougoslavie » en avril 1992, la Serbie, sous la présidence de Slobodan Milosevic, se résignait à la fin de la « grande Yougoslavie » et entamait le retrait de ses troupes des champs de bataille de Croatie et de Bosnie-Herzégovine, non sans laisser aux milices serbes locales armement, conseillers et volontaires de tous poils. Si Milosevic garda assez facilement le contrôle des indépendantistes serbes de Croatie, ses relations avec ceux de Bosnie, dirigés par Radovan Karadzic, furent beaucoup plus heurtées et c’est avec grand peine qu’il leur imposa l’accord de Dayton qui mit fin à la guerre en novembre 1995.
A ce moment, le président serbe, apparatchik de la Ligue des communistes arrivé au pouvoir à l’issue d’un putsch interne qu’il dénomma « révolution antibureaucratique », crut sans doute qu’il allait enfin pouvoir se débarrasser de son image de « Hitler des Balkans » matraquée par les médias occidentaux et que les mesures d’embargo – militaire, économique et culturel – qui isolaient le pays allaient bientôt s’alléger.
Il n’en fut rien. Quelques mois après Dayton, une formation paramilitaire, l’Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK), lançait ses premières attaques contre des policiers et des réfugiés serbes de Croatie et Bosnie installés au Kosovo. En 1989, la province méridionale de Serbie, et également son berceau historique, mais peuplée majoritairement d’Albanais, avait eu son statut d’autonomie drastiquement réduit par Milosevic, mis sous pression par la minorité serbe qui se plaignait d’être malmenée par la majorité albanophone. Menés par Ibrahim Rugova, les Albanais entamaient alors une résistance non-violente, accompagnée d’un réseau d’institutions parallèles. Belgrade laissa faire et ne prit pas la peine d’entamer des négociations sérieuses avec Rugova. Cela fournit à l’UCK un certain soutien dans une jeunesse jugeant que les moyens pacifiques n’avaient rien donné. Entraînée en Albanie par les services secrets allemands, financée par la mafia albanaise et ses revenus tirés du trafic international d’héroïne, l’UCK se développa rapidement, suscitant une riposte militaro-policière de Belgrade et d’inévitables « bavures ».
Après un semblant de négociations à Rambouillet, près de Paris, l’OTAN estima qu’il était temps d’empêcher un « génocide » et entama en mars 1999 une campagne de bombardements, qui mirent davantage à mal les infrastructures civiles (industries, ponts, écoles,…) de la Serbie que l’appareil militaire yougoslave. Alors que le conflit n’avait jusqu’alors provoqué qu’un nombre limité de morts et de réfugiés, les bombes de l’OTAN entraînèrent la véritable « catastrophe humanitaire » qu’elles étaient censées prévenir2. Les milices et la police serbes se retournèrent contre la population albanophone, dont plus de la moitié se réfugia en Albanie et en Macédoine. Cependant, après 78 jours de frappes, Milosevic céda et retira armée et police du Kosovo. Avec les forces terrestres de l’OTAN, l’UCK s’empara du territoire qu’elle s’employa à « purifier » de ses éléments non-albanais (Serbes et Roms furent les plus visés) et de nombreux « traîtres », des Albanais qui avaient collaboré avec les services étatiques serbes ou yougoslaves. Mis à l’écart dès avant les bombardements par les Occidentaux, dont le chéri était devenu Hashim Thaci, chef de l’UCK, Rugova et son parti parvinrent néanmoins à s’imposer lors des scrutins électoraux. Mais le vrai pouvoir, fondé sur une économie souterraine comprenant une variété sans bornes de trafics et d’activités criminelles, demeurait aux mains de l’UCK, en particulier dans celles de la faction dirigée par Thaci.
Afin de restaurer un semblant de légalité internationale – les bombardements n’avaient nullement été autorisés par le Conseil de sécurité –, l’ONU déploya au Kosovo une mission chargée d’administrer le territoire en attendant que son statut soit déterminé. Mais la résolution du Conseil de sécurité qui autorisait ce déploiement, et celui des troupes de la KFOR, sous commandement OTAN, chargées d’en assurer la sécurité, réaffirmait l’appartenance du Kosovo à la Yougoslavie d’alors, dont l’héritier juridique est la Serbie.
Affaibli par la perte de contrôle du Kosovo, à l’exception relative du Nord, peuplé majoritairement de Serbes, mais surtout par des difficultés économiques croissantes et par les immixtions de plus en plus ouvertes des pays occidentaux, Milosevic, alors Président de Yougoslavie, fut renversé en octobre 2000, à l’issue d’un scrutin controversé et de manifestations soigneusement préparées qui aboutirent à la prise du Parlement et de la radio-télévision. Huit mois plus tard, la nouvelle équipe au pouvoir – regroupée sous la houlette du Premier ministre serbe Djindjic, pro-occidental, et du Président yougoslave Kostunica, souverainiste – expédia Milosevic à La Haye, où le Tribunal pénal international l’avait inculpé de crimes contre l’humanité et de génocide en Croatie, en Bosnie et au Kosovo. C’est également vers cette époque que Belgrade vint à bout d’une petite guérilla albanaise apparue au début 2000 dans la vallée de Presevo, région de Serbie centrale bordant le Kosovo et peuplée majoritairement d’albanophones. Réclamant l’annexion de cette région au Kosovo, voire à une « Grande Albanie », cette autre émanation de l’UCK perdit tout soutien occidental, et concrètement celui de la KFOR, dès que Milosevic fut renversé.
Bien que le Premier ministre fut assassiné– vraisemblablement par des éléments d’une unité spéciale de la police craignant que certains d’entre eux soient extradés à La Haye – en 2003, le Parti démocrate fondé par Djindjic consolida progressivement son pouvoir et déploya un maximum de zèle à satisfaire les recettes des pontifes de Bruxelles : réformes ultralibérales dans le champ économique, social et fiscal et, bien entendu, collaboration poussée avec le Tribunal de La Haye, jusqu’à l’extradition du dernier inculpé recherché, Goran Hadzic, ancien leader serbe de Croatie, en juillet 2011. Assez curieusement, le principal partenaire de coalition du gouvernement serbe est, depuis 2008, le Parti socialiste fondé par Milosevic ! Entre-temps, le partenaire monténégrin avait largué les amarres et la Serbie fut sans doute le seul Etat au monde à devenir indépendant sans l’avoir demandé !
Alors que l’actuel Président, Boris Tadic, son gouvernement et une partie de l’opposition clament que les deux « priorités stratégiques » du pays sont l’adhésion à l’UE et le maintien du Kosovo en Serbie, ce grand écart devient de plus en plus difficile à être crédible. Certes, l’UE « se rapproche » peu à peu. Ayant profondément modifié sa législation et venant, notamment, d’adopter la loi de « restitution » des biens des grands propriétaires de l’époque de la monarchie, la Serbie espère devenir officiellement « candidate » encore en 2011. Quant à la seconde priorité proclamée, depuis la proclamation d’indépendance du Kosovo en février 2008, elle semble, non seulement s’apparenter de plus en plus à un vœu pieux, mais être de plus en plus inconciliable avec la première.
Certes, plus d’une centaine d’Etats – particulièrement en Amérique du Sud et en Asie – n’ont pas reconnu l’indépendance du Kosovo et la Serbie peut compter sur le soutien de la Russie et de la Chine pour bloquer son accession à l’ONU et à de nombreuses instances internationales. L’image de ses dirigeants issus de l’UCK a été sérieusement écornée par les accusations formulées par le rapport de Dick Marty, publié fin 2010, les impliquant dans un trafic d’organes de prisonniers serbes pendant et peu après la guerre de 1999. Mais Hashim Thaci, considéré comme le chef de ces sordides contrebandiers, a réussi à se maintenir à la tête du gouvernement kosovar et se promène librement à Washington et Bruxelles. L’enquête « indépendante » exigée par Marty et une résolution du Conseil de l’Europe a été confisquée et pratiquement enterrée par EULEX3, la mission de l’UE qui encadre le gouvernement de Pristina et qui a remplacé celle de l’ONU lors de la proclamation d’indépendance.
La présente année 2011 a surtout été marquée par l’ouverture, en mars à Bruxelles d’un « dialogue » entre Pristina et Belgrade, pourparlers demandés par une résolution de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU présentée conjointement par l’UE et la Serbie, et, depuis juillet, par des incidents sans précédent dans le Nord du Kosovo (voir l’encadré).
Ces événements, caractérisés par une étroite coordination entre le gouvernement de Thaci, la KFOR et EULEX afin de tenter de rompre le cordon ombilical entre Serbes du Nord du Kosovo et la Serbie centrale tout en prenant appui sur des pourparlers biaisés, semblent révéler une tactique bien huilée de la « gestion » des conflits balkaniques par l’Occident. En février 1999, les négociations de Rambouillet ont été organisées à la seule fin de justifier les bombardements qui suivirent quelques semaines plus tard ; les pourparlers de 2006 et 2007 sur le statut « final » du Kosovo, sous la houlette de Martti Ahtisaari, n’avaient comme seul objectif de montrer que son indépendance était inscrite dans les étoiles. A nouveau, le « dialogue » exigé par l’UE et les Etats-Unis ne sert qu’à camoufler une politique fondée sur le chantage et l’imposition du fait accompli. Belgrade a tout intérêt à rompre le plus rapidement possible ce cycle infernal. Sinon, il est à craindre que le Nord du Kosovo tombera rapidement sous la coupe de Pristina et que ses habitants connaîtront le sort réservé aux Serbes et autres minorités du reste du Kosovo, où ceux qui ont évité la mort et l’exil vivent parqués dans des bantoustans assiégés.
Notes
1. Contre 29 % de Serbes, 8 % de Bosniaques, 5 % d’Albanais, etc. Les résultats officiels du recensement sont disponibles sur www.monstat.org
2. De 1996 à mars 1999, le conflit avait fait environ 2.000 morts, en majorité des combattants ; pendant les 11 semaines de bombardements, on en releva environ 10.000, surtout des civils ; dans le Kosovo occupé par l’OTAN, le nettoyage ethnique coûta la vie à au moins un millier de personnes, uniquement des civils.
3. Voir Trafics d’organes au Kosovo : vers le sabordage de l’enquête ?, Alerte OTAN ! n° 41, mars 2011
Georges Berghezan
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
http://www.sibialiria.org/wordpress/?p=206
“Eroi partigiani”? I “nostri” alleati locali di cinque guerre in venti anni
di Marinella Correggia (28 marzo 2012)
*
Sono stati molti i dittatori filoccidentali appoggiati dagli Usa in nome dell’aurea regola “è un figlio di, ma è il nostro figlio di”, come ebbe a dire il presidente Franklin Delano Roosevelt del dittatore nicaraguense Somoza.
Quando poi accade che l’Occidente debba rovesciare un regime (dittatoriale o meno) inviso da sempre o caduto in disgrazia, allora subentrano altri “nostri figli di puttana”: i presunti rivoluzionari locali. E’ successo più volte dal 1991. La tragedia è che mentre i dittatori filoccidentali erano odiati da quella galassia pacifista/movimentista/ong di persone impegnate contro la guerra, le ingiustizie internazionali e la violazione dei diritti umani, ebbene questa stessa galassia più volte ha preso lucciole per lanterne quanto ai locali “nemici dei dittatori”. Gli occidentali sono incapaci di fare rivoluzioni a casa loro; e tentano “rivoluzioni per procura”. Ma scelgono male. Prendono regolarmente per “partigiani della libertà” quelli che ben presto si rivelano un’accozzaglia del peggio. Non solo: si affidano agli stessi soggetti locali che sono sponsorizzati dall’Impero. Magari invocando giustificazioni per assurdo (della serie: “beh, se è dovuta intervenire la Natoper aiutare i ribelli in Libia, anche se sappiamo che la Natoha fini propri, i ribelli hanno i loro, è l’eterogenesi dei fini“).
Naturalmente i governi occidentali interessati a defenestrare a turno i “dittatori che uccidono il loro stesso popolo” (se uccidessero un altro popolo sarebbe meglio o peggio?, vien da chiedersi davanti a questa frase collaudata) hanno tutto l’interesse a spacciare i loro interventi armati diretti e indiretti per “protezione delle popolazioni civili e disarmate in rivolta” e per “sostegno alla democrazia”. E a eleggere i loro protetti locali a “legittimi rappresentanti” di un intero popolo, sia esso schierato con la rivolta oppure no.
E’ successo in tutte e cinque le guerre occidentali per ragioni geostrategiche. En passant è poi successo anche senza guerre, con l’infinità di rivoluzioni “colorate” soprattutto nell’Est europeo e con i tentati colpi di stato (si pensi a quello contro il “dittatore” Chavez del Venezuela, eletto un’infinità di volte). E sta succedendo in Siria. E, prima, in Libia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq.
*
Siria: Fides, Human Rights Watch e perfino Foreign Affairs...
Recenti notizie dalla Siria: pulizia etnica, torture, assassini, rapimenti. Le accuse che da un anno si rivolgono al governo e all’esercito, che da un anno starebbero reprimendo atrocemente una “rivoluzione disarmata o che al massimo si autodifende” (come sostiene il leader del Consiglio nazionale siriano Bhuran Ghalioun)? No. Si parla di crimini compiuti dall’opposizione armata. E non lo dice “il regime di Damasco”. Lo dicono rispettivamente un’agenzia cattolica e una multinazionale dei diritti umani.
L’agenzia cattolica Fides, leggiamo su Contropiano, riprende l’allarme lanciato dalla chiesa ortodossa siriana e il 21 marzo parla di “Pulizia etnica a Homs. Bande di mercenari di Al Qaeda provenienti da Libia e Iraq e appartenenti alla brigata Faruq vicina ad Al Qaeda cacciano decine di migliaia di cristiani dalle loro case di Homs senza permettere loro di portare nulla. I militanti jihadisti avrebbero già espulso il 90% dei cristiani di Homs. Andando casa per casa nei quartieri di Hamydiya e Bustan al-Diwan.
Dal canto suo l’organizzazione statunitense Human Rights Watch, autrice in dicembre di un lungo rapporto di denuncia del governo siriano (redatto solo sulla base di interviste a disertori e oppositori), stavolta sulla base di video e di denunce di residenti riferisce di torture mortali, rapimenti e perfino di una impiccagione compiuti da gruppi vicini all’Esercito siriano libero (la galassia dell’opposizione armata che ha un rapporto di collaborazione con il Cns). Insomma le stesse grandi Ong, che come i media occidentali mainstream sono stati strumenti di propaganda di vari governi nel produrre una escalation della crisi e nel demonizzare il regime” (http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/new-phase-syria-crisis-dealmaking-toward-exit), scoprono improvvisamente che l’opposizione compie atti contro i diritti umani. Parlare di “rivoluzione siriana”, poi, sembra fuori luogo. E molto reale pare invece l’ipotesi del complotto straniero da parte di Stati Uniti, Israele e alcuni paesi arabi contro l’asse Tehran-Damasco-Hezbollah, ritenuto l’unico vero ostacolo all’egemonia americana e israeliana in Medio Oriente (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137338/patrick-seale/assad-family-values?page=show). Della rivolta di oggi contro Bashar Assad i Fratelli musulmani sembrano essere stati i principali destinatari di armi e finanziamenti da parte di Libia, Qatar, e altri, ed essere aiutati da jihadisti arrivati da fuori e che comunque operano sotto l’ombrello del Syrian National Council.
*
Libia: “ribelli”, “partigiani”, “rivoluzionari”, “brave persone”....
Il Doha Statement a chiusura della conferenza del “gruppo di contatto sulla Libia svoltasi in Qatar il 13 aprile 2011, così definiva gli oppositori al regime libico: “A differenza del regime attuale, il Consiglio nazionale transitorio è un interlocutore legittimo che rappresenta le aspirazioni del popolo libico – dialogo, riconciliazione, elezioni libere, società civile, diritti umani e costituzionali e riforme economiche”. Salvo per le ultime due parole, questa definizione degli oppositori al governo libico appariva già allora surreale: avvantaggiati dalle bombe della Nato che avevano chiesto a gran voce, i loro capi politici rifiutavano ogni dialogo. Quanto ai diritti umani, i video con i poliziotti e i neri impiccati dai “ribelli” armati già circolavano allora; poi sarebbe venuto l’atroce assedio a Sirte e ai suoi civili; e in seguito, nella “Libia libera post-Gheddafi”, le torture di massa, i diecimila prigionieri, la deportazione dei neri di Tawergha. Riconciliazione nazionale?La Libiaè nel caos della vendetta, del razzismo, del settarismo e delle milizie armate, altro che elezioni e civili.
Stanno ora in silenzio e non si scusano per il gigantesco abbaglio quelle formazioni ed esponenti della “sinistra” occidentale che di volta in volta chiamarono i gruppi armati libici “partigiani”, “giovani rivoluzionari”, “un gruppo di brave persone”, “civili attaccati armati per autodifesa”. Testuale.
*
Afghanistan: rivoluzionari, i warlords?
C’erano una volta in Afghanistan i mujaidin che gli Usa e l’Arabia Saudita armarono per sloggiare l’Unione Sovietica e che poi distrussero Kabul e altre città e villaggi facendosi la guerra fra “signori della guerra”, nella prima parte degli anni 1990, fino all’arrivo dei talebani. Alcune fazioni anti-talebane, come l’Alleanza del Nord guidata da Ahmad Shah Massud, entrarono successivamente nelle grazie anche di alcuni attivisti d’Occidente. Rivoluzionario, Massud? Chiedete alle donne afghane esiliate del movimento Rawa (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) e vi diranno: “L’Alleanza del Nord come gli altri gruppi armati è responsabile di moltissimi crimini; quanto i talebani”. Nondimeno, nel 2001 i mujaidin che distrussero Kabul tornarono a essere gli alleati locali degli Usa, nei bombardamenti per sgominare i talebani. E il governo filoUsa post-bombardamenti ha visto i warlords in posizione dominante, a tutti i livelli (centrale e locale)
*
Iraq: i curdi “buoni”
Alleati dell’Occidente contro Saddam dal 1991 in poi furono due formazioni curde dell’Iraq del Nord, capeggiate rispettivamente da Barzani e Talabani. A loro “protezione”, una no-fly zone dell’Onu che sarebbe durata fino alla successiva guerra all’Iraq nel 2003 riuscì a far diventare il Kurdistan iracheno un protettorato dell’Occidente. Che non era certo così gentile con i curdi rivoluzionari del Pkk, operanti nella Turchia alleata della Nato. Barzani e Talabani funsero spesso da cani da guardia dell’occidente contro, appunto, i curdi “cattivi” del Pkk quando questi sconfinavano pensando di proteggersi.
*
Kosovo: i “guerriglieri indipendentisti dell’Uck”
1999: nella “guerra umanitaria” della Nato, chiamata “Forza determinata” e formalmente condotta sulla base di notizie false per “fermare il genocidio della popolazione kosovara a opera dell’esercito di Milosevic”, furono gli armati dell’Uck (Esercito di Liberazione del Kosovo) a fungere da alleati locali della Nato. L’Uck, di cui anche esponenti della sinistra europea si innamorarono brevemente, fu armato, addestrato, sostenuto da Ryiad come da Washington. Ma il governo “indipendente” di Pristina emerso dai bombardamenti della Nato nella primavera del 1999, ed emanazione dell’Uck stesso, si è rivelato un focolaio di criminali: attivi nel narcotraffico, implicati (come da denuncia del Consiglio d’Europa) nell’estrazione di organi da prigionieri serbi, persecutori della minoranza serba ancora presente in Kosovo dopo una pulizia etnica pressoché totale ai suoi danni...
(Intermezzo riguardante la guerra in Jugoslavia che insanguinò l’Europa nei primi anni 1990. Anche in quel caso, non solo i governi occidentali ma gli stessi “pacifisti” tendevano a considerare “buoni” i croati e musulmani contro i “cattivi” serbi. Ne risultò che la missione di interposizione Mir Sada, destinazione Sarajevo – agosto 1993 – dovette fare retrofront ben presto perché... i buoni croati e musulmani non erano più buoni e si bombardavano a vicenda e avrebbero bombardato certamente anche i poveri pulman italiani carichi di pacifisti).
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
1999, la "prima volta" della ex-sinistra
Di seguito lo speciale sul 13.mo anniversario della aggressione NATO contro Serbia e Montenegro, apparso su il Manifesto del 24/03/2012
1) Kosovo, tredici anni di digiuno in serbo - di Alessandro Di Meo
2) La "prima volta" balcanica - di Tommaso Di Francesco
=== 1 ===
Quaresima nelle enclave serbe a 13 anni dal 24 marzo '99 quando, «per proteggere i civili», cominciarono, per 78 giorni, i bombardamenti aerei della Nato a cui partecipò anche l'Italia
Kosovo, tredici anni di digiuno in serbo
di Alessandro Di Meo
il Manifesto, 24/03/2012
Quei raid aerei vennero motivati per i «diritti umani». Viene da «ridere» di fronte al disastro umano di centinaia di migliaia di civili serbi e delle mafie al potere nell' «indipendente» Pristina
GNJLANE. Padre Ilarion è un monaco ortodosso, vive nel monastero di Draganac in Kosovo. Proviene dal monastero di Decani, il più importante per la chiesa ortodossa serba. A Draganac c'è tanto da sistemare. Dalla chiesa ai locali per i monaci, da quelli per gli ospiti a quelli per gli animali. In Kosovo di monasteri e chiese serbe in questi 13 anni ne hanno distrutti, dinamitati e incendiati, ben 150. Vicino al monastero, c'è una sorgente d'acqua che si crede benedetta. E quando, il primo venerdì dopo la Pasqua ortodossa, si celebra la Vergine Maria, vengono in migliaia a prenderla.
Moltissimi gli albanesi che, come in altri monasteri, cercano la grazia di Dio, anche se ortodosso.
Padre Ilarion si occupa anche di altro. Ad esempio, di tante famiglie serbe che vivono in condizioni assurde. Isolate dall'intolleranza del fanatismo indipendentista made in Usa, dall'oblio di mezzi di informazione per nulla interessati alle loro vite, isolate dalla natura che, a volte, le rende irraggiungibili. Come nei mesi scorsi quando due metri di neve hanno reso la loro vita ancora più drammatica. Per la mancanza di cibo, di acqua, per la difficoltà a portare loro un aiuto.
La Cucina popolare
Queste famiglie ricevono un pasto al giorno dalla Cucina Popolare, una piccola organizzazione guidata da Svetlana, una donna serba che in questi anni è riuscita a garantire pasti giornalieri a circa 800 famiglie. Ricevono aiuti anche dal monastero ed è padre Ilarion che divide donazioni, sceglie beneficiari, le porta direttamente. La cosa che più sconvolge ma che pure, incredibilmente, riconcilia con la vita è vedere come queste famiglie siano piene di bambini!
Vedere come la vita scorra anche in questi posti, dove per arrivarci ci vorrebbe una di quelle jeep di ricche Ong che sfrecciano per strade umanitariamente distrutte da bombe altrettanto umanitarie.
E tu invece ci puoi arrivare solo col furgone di Radovan, del villaggio di Kos, vicino Osojane, in piena Metohija. Ci arrivi con le sue manovre, a volte improbabili, ma pure con la rabbia. Serve anche quella. Perché ti chiedi come mai nessuno racconti della vita di questa gente; e perché il vivere in queste condizioni non diventi grido di dolore da far sentire al mondo. E perché il Kosovo e la Metohija siano stati ridotti così, senza che nessuno abbia mosso un dito. Per creare questa finta e insopportabile pseudo-libertà e pseudo-indipendenza, sono stati ridotti prima a un ammasso di macerie, ora lasciati a se stessi. Che si consumino le violenze contro i serbi nella Metohija, che si consumino nell'isolamento più totale gli stessi serbi del Kosovo!
E si costruiscano ancora alberghi lussuosi, pompe di benzina, statue della Libertà (a Pristina, sopra un hotel), statue dei Liberatori (Bill Clinton, sempre a Pristina). E si lascino marcire le carogne di tanti animali ammazzati dalle auto lungo le strade. Cani, gatti, volpi, si lascino così che il Kosovo e la Metohija sono una discarica a cielo aperto e l'immondizia la trovi ovunque. Vicino le case, lungo le strade, sparsa nei campi.
BondSteel e i Monasteri
Era questa, dunque, la libertà a cui si aspirava? Era questa l'indipendenza? Era il poter sventolare bandiere dell'Albania e degli Stati Uniti su tanti, troppi balconi? Era il ricevere soldi a fondo perduto per rendere il territorio sgombro da gente scomoda? Nei pressi di Urosevac, a sud della regione, sorge Bond Steel, la più grande base Usa in Europa. Una vera e propria città di cui poco si sa e poco si deve sapere. E chi può controllare un territorio da cui nulla deve trapelare meglio di mafie, malavita e narcotraffico, oggi al potere nel Kosovo «libero e indipendente» dove è perfino proibito pronunciare la parola Metohija, dal greco «terre che appartengono ai monasteri?».
È tempo di Quaresima e padre Ilarion mi illustra la pratica del digiuno, osservato per sette settimane prima della Pasqua, esclusi sabati e domeniche, tanto da arrivare a 35 giorni. Un digiuno detto dell'acqua, si mangiano solo cose bollite, niente carne, pesce, proteine animali, oli, vino. Si arriverà a 36,5 giorni col sabato santo e metà domenica di Pasqua. Un decimo di anno di digiuno offerto al Cristo Risorto.
Ma nei villaggi di Gnjlane e Novo Brdo, visitando famiglie, non sembra necessario il rispetto di date e ricorrenze per praticare digiuni. La povertà concede spesso solo pane e farinacei, la carne è cosa rara.
Uranio impoverito e Marchionne
Parlare di ingresso nell'Unione Europea qui ormai fa sorridere. Così come parlare di sacrifici per superare crisi. E fa sorridere incontrare all'aeroporto di Belgrado, al ritorno, operai specializzati della nuova Fiat che «esporta lavoro». Questi lavoratori devono dire «signorsì», ché la lettera di licenziamento è pronta anche per loro. Sono quasi 1700 e stanno a Kragujevac, dove non c'è più posto per dormire, con intere famiglie serbe senza lavoro trasferitesi a casa di parenti o amici pur di affittare agli italiani la propria a prezzi stracciati per guadagnare qualcosa per sopravvivere.
Sono preoccupati, questi lavoratori, del cibo mangiato in Serbia, in questo loro distaccamento forzato, lontano dalla famiglia perché c'è da formare operai serbi per farli produrre tanto pagandoli poco, a zero diritti. È la cura Marchionne. Del resto non erano umani, quei diritti, ma solo roba di malattie, turni e orari decenti, tutela delle donne, ferie, pause pranzo, cose così. Fa sorridere e anche tenerezza, che si preoccupino per il cibo. Le bombe hanno fatto danni al ciclo vitale. Uranio impoverito, plutonio, radiazioni, inquinamento chimico e batteriologico. Loro lo sanno, glielo hanno detto anche gli scienziati, ma devono arrangiarsi. Sanno pure che la gente qui si ammala sempre più di leucemia e tumori vari a causa di quello che c'è stato. Qualcuno ha dimenticato?
Sono passati 13 anni da quel 24 marzo 1999, quando la Jugoslavia fu definitivamente affossata da 78 giorni di bombardamenti Nato, ai quali partecipò anche l'Italia. Ci dissero che si andava a proteggere civili e portare democrazia e rispetto di diritti umani. Sì, fa proprio sorridere tutto questo. Ma anche piangere. Lo sguardo dei bambini visitati non sappiamo toglierceli dagli occhi. Alcuni sereni, nonostante tutto, altri impauriti da situazioni difficili dentro le famiglie, altri persi nel vuoto; problemi psichici, chi mai se ne occuperà? Sì, quello sguardo ti resta appiccicato.
Professionisti dei diritti umani non vengono fino quaggiù. Preferiscono la ribalta, dove c'è il dittatore di turno da abbattere e fantomatici oppositori da foraggiare con armi e soldi, coi quali accordarsi per il futuro da sfruttare.
Qui no, non viene nessuno. Non ci sono dittatori. La Serbia è paese democratico, si manganellano manifestanti e si finisce in carcere se protesti troppo, anche se puzzi di fame. Questo dicono che sia Kosovo, un altro governo, con a capo criminali indagati per traffico di organi umani, ma eletti democraticamente. E allora? E allora questi bambini semplicemente non esistono!
Stupidi noi che li andiamo a cercare, che torniamo con nel cuore idee per farli sorridere un po'.
«Smejes se!», Sorridi!, bambina persa nel vuoto di un gioco che neppure sai sognare. Vuoi conoscere il mare? In tv l'avrai visto. Proveremo a portarti noi. Ci vorranno soldi, sarà difficile trovarli, mica ci compriamo aerei da guerra! Per quelli si trovano facilmente, per il tuo sorriso no, bisogna scalare montagne e pregare. Non il tuo dio. Bisogna pregare gli umani, quelli che non si fanno scrupoli davanti all'immagine della tua povera casa, perché sanno trovare alibi.
Ma noi, cocciuti, il mare te lo faremo conoscere. E toccare. E giocare. Insieme ai tuoi fratelli, sorelle, ai tuoi amichetti del villaggio vicino, così vicino che nemmeno riesci a giocarci insieme. È pericoloso, la sera c'è il coprifuoco. Passano follia e provocazione, tirano sassi alle finestre, vogliono spaventare il tuo sonno. A volte sparano. Alla fine ci riescono, ti spaventano. Ma tu chiudi gli occhi e prova a dormire. Prova a sognarlo, quel mare visto in tv. Da vicino sarà pure più bello.
* Un Ponte per...
Professionisti dei diritti umani non vengono fino quaggiù. Preferiscono la ribalta, dove c'è il dittatore di turno da abbattere e fantomatici oppositori da foraggiare con armi e soldi, coi quali accordarsi per il futuro da sfruttare.
Qui no, non viene nessuno. Non ci sono dittatori. La Serbia è paese democratico, si manganellano manifestanti e si finisce in carcere se protesti troppo, anche se puzzi di fame. Questo dicono che sia Kosovo, un altro governo, con a capo criminali indagati per traffico di organi umani, ma eletti democraticamente. E allora? E allora questi bambini semplicemente non esistono!
Stupidi noi che li andiamo a cercare, che torniamo con nel cuore idee per farli sorridere un po'.
«Smejes se!», Sorridi!, bambina persa nel vuoto di un gioco che neppure sai sognare. Vuoi conoscere il mare? In tv l'avrai visto. Proveremo a portarti noi. Ci vorranno soldi, sarà difficile trovarli, mica ci compriamo aerei da guerra! Per quelli si trovano facilmente, per il tuo sorriso no, bisogna scalare montagne e pregare. Non il tuo dio. Bisogna pregare gli umani, quelli che non si fanno scrupoli davanti all'immagine della tua povera casa, perché sanno trovare alibi.
Ma noi, cocciuti, il mare te lo faremo conoscere. E toccare. E giocare. Insieme ai tuoi fratelli, sorelle, ai tuoi amichetti del villaggio vicino, così vicino che nemmeno riesci a giocarci insieme. È pericoloso, la sera c'è il coprifuoco. Passano follia e provocazione, tirano sassi alle finestre, vogliono spaventare il tuo sonno. A volte sparano. Alla fine ci riescono, ti spaventano. Ma tu chiudi gli occhi e prova a dormire. Prova a sognarlo, quel mare visto in tv. Da vicino sarà pure più bello.
* Un Ponte per...
=== 2 ===
La "prima volta" balcanica
di Tommaso Di Francesco
il Manifesto, 24/03/2012
il Manifesto, 24/03/2012
Alle origini «criminali» e dimenticate dell’Ue. L'incipit della globalizzazione armata dell'Occidente, europeo e statunitense.
Con la guerra «umanitaria» della Nato che scatta il 24 marzo 1999 si realizza un incipit davvero di rilievo, una vera epifania:
1 - per la prima volta (c’era stata solo un anticipo di due giorni di raid nel 1994 contro i serbi di Bosnia che assediavano Sarajevo) l’Alleanza atlantica, oltre il suo mandato costitutivo – che avrebbe dovuto essere residuale dopo il crollo dei regimi dell’est, essendo stata costituita come alleanza militare per fermarne l’eventuale aggressione – entra in guerra bombardando dal cielo, per 78 giorni, con tonnellate di missili Cruise e di cluster bomb un paese del sud-est europeo di milioni di abitanti. Distruggendo con «chirurgica» e «intelligente» precisione strade, ponti, scuole, ospedali, bus, treni, asili, città, mercati, fabbriche.
2 - Da lì, per la prima volta, la Nato ricostruirà e legittimerà la sua esistenza, con il vertice dell’aprile 1999 di Washington – in piena guerra – ridefinendo e trasformando in chiave offensiva ruolo e
strategia internazionale. Che poi porterà l’Alleanza in guerra in Afghanistan nel 2003, in Libia nel 2011, e a definire una operatività militare in Africa e Medio Oriente.
3 - Per la prima volta, esplicitamente, la guerra contro l’ex Jugoslavia si chiamerà «umanitaria», non più solo il «Desert storm» dell’Iraq o il «Ridare speranza» della Somalia.
4 - La guerra aerea, gestita in prima persona dall’aviazione statunitense, per la prima volta accrescerà il potere di controllo della leadership di Washington dentro la Nato sull’Europa, fino al condizionamento dei bilanci militari dei vari paesi aderenti, rivelatisi con la guerra di bombardamenti aerei sull’ex Jugoslavia, inappropriati ai nuovi compiti bellici. E questo a ovest e, per la prima volta a est. Fino al coinvolgimento nel 2004 nella coalizione dei volenterosi, da parte del presidente americano Gorge W. Bush, di tutti i paesi dell’ex Patto di Varsavia, Russia esclusa, nella guerra all’Iraq per fermare le «armi di distruzione di massa» che proprio non c’erano.
5 - Da lì nasce e si rafforza, per la prima volta, la rischiosa strategia dell’allargamento a est della Nato che porterà l’Alleanza atlantica ad aprire basi militari in tutto l’est europeo, ai confini
dell’ex nemico numero uno, la Russia (certo non paragonabile all’ex Urss) fino alla guerra del 2008 nel Caucaso in sostegno alla Georgia che decise, su consiglio atlantico, di attaccare militarmente l’Abkhazia che aveva proclamato la secessione da Tbilisi.
6 - Altro incipit non trascurabile: si conferma la giustizia internazionale dei vincitori. Con l’istituzione all’Aja del Tribunale internazionale per i crimini nell’ex Jugoslavia, ad hoc, visto che la potenza militare guida della Nato, gli Stati uniti, non riconoscono il Tribunale penale internazionale dei diritti umani. E all’Aja, in modo a dir poco manicheo, saranno processati e condannati solo i criminali doc già additati dai media internazionali al seguito delle potenze occidentali; mentre i crimini della Nato – nei raid aerei le vittime civili secondo il governo filoccidentale di Belgrado furono 3.500 –
restano impuniti (con tanto di protesta addirittura di Antonio Cassese, già presidente del Tribunale dell’Aja sull’ex Jugoslavia, contro il procuratore dell’epoca Carla Del Ponte). Come impuniti restano, dopo la giusta condanna internazionale del massacro di Srebrenica, le altre «Srebrenica» commesse dai musulmani contro i serbi, come la strage di Kazanj a Sarajevo.
7 - E se parliamo di «prima volta», come dimenticare che con la guerra di bombardamenti aerei della Nato nasce, in aperto disprezzo del diritto internazionale , un nuovo Stato, il Kosovo, autoproclamatosi indipendente nel febbraio del 2008 con sostegno esplicito degli Stati Uniti. Nasce una nuova nazione grande quanto il Molise, sulla base di una secessione etnica dalla Serbia – un nuovo innesco d’incendio nei Balcani – e intorno alla megabase statunitense di Camp BondSteel, presso Urosevac. Anch’essa costruita fuori dal Trattato di pace di Kumanovo del giugno 1999. Che poneva fine alla guerra avviando una amministrazione internazionale che escludeva basi militari straniere, acconsentiva all’ingresso delle truppe Nato (e dell’amministrazione Un-Mik) in Kosovo ma pariteticamente riconoscendo l’autorità di Belgrado sulla regione, del resto culla storica della nazione, della religione e dell’identità dei serbi.
8 - Inoltre, ed è per noi forse l’incipit più importante, la guerra «umanitaria» del 1999 venne gestita in chiave bipartisan dal governo «più di sinistra» che il Belpaese abbia mai avuto: il governo D’Alema.
L’Italia aderiva a questa guerra che si aggiungeva al conflitto sul campo e arrivava buon ultima nelle guerre balcaniche degli anni Novanta. Alle quali, ecco l’altro incipit europeo, la nascente Unione europea che emergeva politicamente nel 1991 aveva dato il suo criminale contributo, insieme ai sanguinari nazionalismi interni. Aiutando a demolire la Federazione jugoslava – che ancora esisteva con un governo autonomo, riconosciuto in sede Onu – con i riconoscimenti delle indipendenze di Slovenia e Croazia proclamate su base etnica. Poi tutto, inevitabilmente, precipitò nella Bosnia Erzegovina che in piccolo rappresentava la complessità dei popoli e delle etnie dell’intera Federazione jugoslava. Così si abdicava, anche da parte delle forze del movimento operaio, alla nostra Costituzione fondativa. Che all’articolo 11 dichiara di «bandire la guerra come strumento di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali» È da lì che è cominciata a sparire ogni identità della sinistra.
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
Il 24 marzo 2012 cade il tredicesimo anniversario dall'inizio dei bombardamenti della NATO sulla Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia.
Quella aggressione causò circa 500 civili uccisi "sul colpo", alcune migliaia di morti considerando anche le vittime militari, e molte decine di migliaia di decessi successivi, dovuti alle ferite ed alle modalità stragiste con cui i bombardamenti furono concepiti ed effettuati. La NATO scatenò infatti una guerra - benché non ebbe nemmeno la onestà di dichiararla in quanto tale - che fu allo stesso tempo una guerra chimica - ricordiamo ad esempio la distruzione deliberata dei serbatoi di cloruro di vinile monomero (VCM) del petrolchimico di Pancevo - ed una guerra nucleare "a bassa intensità" - poiché il territorio fu contaminato con uranio "impoverito" (U238) assieme a molti altri metalli pesanti -, causando una spaventosa impennata dei casi di tumore tra la popolazione civile negli anni successivi e fino ad oggi.
La documentazione in merito ai crimini di guerra commessi dalla NATO e dai singoli responsabili governativi dei paesi occidentali è raccolta al nostro sito: https://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/
Di seguito riportiamo invece l'annuncio della disponibilità degli Atti della conferenza TARGET, da noi organizzata in occasione del X Anniversario (2009) di quella stessa aggressione.
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - onlus
---
La conferenza: https://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/2009/TARGET/
Gli Atti: https://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/2009/TARGET/ATTI/atti.html
---
VICENZA 21-22 MARZO 2009
Gli Atti del Convegno sono accessibili online, assieme a molti altri documenti multimediali sui temi collegati, dalla URL:
RINGRAZIAMENTI
Sia per l'organizzazione del meeting internazionale TARGET, tenuto a Vicenza nel X anniversario dei bombardamenti NATO sulla RF di Jugoslavia (21-22 marzo 2009), che per la realizzazione della presente pubblicazione multimediale, sono stati necessari l'impegno volontario e la disponibilità generosa di molte persone.
Il principale contributo tecnico per questa pubblicazione è stato fornito da D. Kovačević. I materiali fotografici e video della iniziativa sono stati procurati da A. Martocchia, D. De Berardinis e I. Kerečki.
La documentazione video sulla distruzione della Jugoslavia, sui bombardamenti della NATO e sulla occupazione del Kosovo è stata raccolta e selezionata a cura del Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - onlus. Un particolare ringraziamento va a Carlo Pona per la fondamentale opera di digitalizzazione dei documenti VHS. Tra le opere da cui abbiamo attinto figurano:
The avoidable war (G. Bogdanich e M. Lettmayer, USA/Germany 1999-2001)
De zaak Milosevic (VPRO, Olanda 2004)
La guerra umanitaria della NATO (Cobas Alfa Romeo, 1999)
I nemici della NATO (Comitato Jugoslavia Torino e Coord. Romano per la Jugoslavia, 1999)
Papa gde ćemo spavamo (D. Stojanovski, Duke production 1999)
Pančevo - Mrtav grad (Antonio Martino, 2007)
Sedìci persone (Corrado Veneziano, Besa edizioni 2005)
Kosovo - mesto zločina (Bane Milosevic, 2000)
videoclip de "Il mio nome è mai più" di Ligabue - Jovanotti - Piero Pelù (1999)
I dannati del Kosovo (V. Stojiljković e M. Collon, ed. italiana a cura di SOS Yugoslavia)
Stralci di trasmissioni dalla TV della Repubblica Serba di Bosnia, da RaiTre, dalla TV della Serbia, da Canale 5, da Russia Today
(per maggiori informazioni sulle opere si veda ad esempio https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/bibliografia2.htm#audiovideo ).
Tra gli autori ringraziamo in particolare Riccardo Iacona e Antonio Martino, per la disponibilità esplicitamente accordata al nostro utilizzo di alcune sequenze delle loro opere ai fini della iniziativa di Vicenza e della presente pubblicazione.
Rispetto ad eventuali diritti degli autori dei video qui presentati in brevi stralci, precisiamo comunque che la nostra divulgazione di tali stralci non risponde ad altro interesse che al desiderio e necessità di informazione del pubblico. Restiamo ovviamente a disposizione dei possibili detentori di copyright, con i quali non fossimo potuti entrare preventivamente in contatto, in caso di legittimi reclami spec. ai fini della rimozione di materiali la cui pubblicizzazione fosse indesiderata agli autori stessi.
Per la due-giorni di Vicenza è stato fondamentale il contributo dei militanti del locale sindacato RdB-CUB e di Paolo Consolaro in particolare. Ringraziamo di cuore la Fileo onlus per la disponibilità a provvedere ai pasti senza alcun ritorno in termini economici. Straordinariamente gradito è stato l'intervento dei musicisti della famiglia Milenkovich, assieme agli altri artisti che ci hanno fatto compagnia il sabato sera: Mario Mantilli con il suo Atto scenico tratto dallo spettacolo "Target - Belgrado 1999", l'Orchestra serba di Vicenza, i NeMaPrObLeMa! Orkestar.
Per ulteriori informazioni sulle tematiche legate alla aggressione N.A.T.O. contro la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia, alle vicende internazionali e alle attività del movimento che si oppone alla guerra e alle basi militari, nonchè per ogni aggiornamento sulla pubblicazione degli Atti del Meeting si faccia riferimento ai siti degli organizzatori - Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia onlus e Rete Disarmiamoli! . Per maggiori informazioni e contatti scrivere a:
Sia per l'organizzazione del meeting internazionale TARGET, tenuto a Vicenza nel X anniversario dei bombardamenti NATO sulla RF di Jugoslavia (21-22 marzo 2009), che per la realizzazione della presente pubblicazione multimediale, sono stati necessari l'impegno volontario e la disponibilità generosa di molte persone.
Il principale contributo tecnico per questa pubblicazione è stato fornito da D. Kovačević. I materiali fotografici e video della iniziativa sono stati procurati da A. Martocchia, D. De Berardinis e I. Kerečki.
La documentazione video sulla distruzione della Jugoslavia, sui bombardamenti della NATO e sulla occupazione del Kosovo è stata raccolta e selezionata a cura del Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - onlus. Un particolare ringraziamento va a Carlo Pona per la fondamentale opera di digitalizzazione dei documenti VHS. Tra le opere da cui abbiamo attinto figurano:
The avoidable war (G. Bogdanich e M. Lettmayer, USA/Germany 1999-2001)
De zaak Milosevic (VPRO, Olanda 2004)
La guerra umanitaria della NATO (Cobas Alfa Romeo, 1999)
I nemici della NATO (Comitato Jugoslavia Torino e Coord. Romano per la Jugoslavia, 1999)
Papa gde ćemo spavamo (D. Stojanovski, Duke production 1999)
Pančevo - Mrtav grad (Antonio Martino, 2007)
Sedìci persone (Corrado Veneziano, Besa edizioni 2005)
Kosovo - mesto zločina (Bane Milosevic, 2000)
videoclip de "Il mio nome è mai più" di Ligabue - Jovanotti - Piero Pelù (1999)
I dannati del Kosovo (V. Stojiljković e M. Collon, ed. italiana a cura di SOS Yugoslavia)
Stralci di trasmissioni dalla TV della Repubblica Serba di Bosnia, da RaiTre, dalla TV della Serbia, da Canale 5, da Russia Today
(per maggiori informazioni sulle opere si veda ad esempio https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/bibliografia2.htm#audiovideo ).
Tra gli autori ringraziamo in particolare Riccardo Iacona e Antonio Martino, per la disponibilità esplicitamente accordata al nostro utilizzo di alcune sequenze delle loro opere ai fini della iniziativa di Vicenza e della presente pubblicazione.
Rispetto ad eventuali diritti degli autori dei video qui presentati in brevi stralci, precisiamo comunque che la nostra divulgazione di tali stralci non risponde ad altro interesse che al desiderio e necessità di informazione del pubblico. Restiamo ovviamente a disposizione dei possibili detentori di copyright, con i quali non fossimo potuti entrare preventivamente in contatto, in caso di legittimi reclami spec. ai fini della rimozione di materiali la cui pubblicizzazione fosse indesiderata agli autori stessi.
Per la due-giorni di Vicenza è stato fondamentale il contributo dei militanti del locale sindacato RdB-CUB e di Paolo Consolaro in particolare. Ringraziamo di cuore la Fileo onlus per la disponibilità a provvedere ai pasti senza alcun ritorno in termini economici. Straordinariamente gradito è stato l'intervento dei musicisti della famiglia Milenkovich, assieme agli altri artisti che ci hanno fatto compagnia il sabato sera: Mario Mantilli con il suo Atto scenico tratto dallo spettacolo "Target - Belgrado 1999", l'Orchestra serba di Vicenza, i NeMaPrObLeMa! Orkestar.
Per ulteriori informazioni sulle tematiche legate alla aggressione N.A.T.O. contro la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia, alle vicende internazionali e alle attività del movimento che si oppone alla guerra e alle basi militari, nonchè per ogni aggiornamento sulla pubblicazione degli Atti del Meeting si faccia riferimento ai siti degli organizzatori - Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia onlus e Rete Disarmiamoli! . Per maggiori informazioni e contatti scrivere a:
---
I n d i c e
Atti della conferenza TARGET
tenutasi nei giorni 21-22 marzo 2009 a Vicenza
programma effettivo svolto e adesioni definitive (anche pdf)
convocazione (audio - da Radio Cooperativa)
tenutasi nei giorni 21-22 marzo 2009 a Vicenza
programma effettivo svolto e adesioni definitive (anche pdf)
convocazione (audio - da Radio Cooperativa)
sabato 21 marzo 2009
INTRODUZIONE
- Paolo Consolaro, Roberto Luchetti (audio MP3)I: PROPAGANDA DI GUERRA: tra disinformazione strategica e deriva politico-culturale
- intervento Andrea Martocchia (audio MP3)
- intervento Andrea Martocchia (testo PDF)
- intervento Giulietto Chiesa (audio MP3)
- intervento Juergen Elsässer (audio MP3)
- documento: Juergen Elsässer, “Menzogne di guerra”, ed. Città del Sole 2002 (OCR PDF)
- intervento Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti (audio MP3)
- intervento Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti: Le contraddizioni di un genocidio sancito a priori (testo PDF)
altre:
- intervista a Elsässer e Martocchia (da Radio Cooperativa) (audioMP3)
II: LE NUOVE CROCIATE: crisi macroeconomica e politiche militari
- intervento Andrea Martocchia (testo PDF)
- intervento Giulietto Chiesa (audio MP3)
- intervento Juergen Elsässer (audio MP3)
- documento: Juergen Elsässer, “Menzogne di guerra”, ed. Città del Sole 2002 (OCR PDF)
- intervento Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti (audio MP3)
- intervento Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti: Le contraddizioni di un genocidio sancito a priori (testo PDF)
altre:
- intervista a Elsässer e Martocchia (da Radio Cooperativa) (audioMP3)
II: LE NUOVE CROCIATE: crisi macroeconomica e politiche militari
- intervento Andrea Catone (audio MP3)
- documento: Andrea Catone, Dopo l'indipendenza del Kosovo, daL'Ernesto online del 12/03/2008 (testo PDF)
- intervento Diana Johnstone: La Crociata dei Folli Continua - testo e audio
- documento: Andrea Catone, Dopo l'indipendenza del Kosovo, daL'Ernesto online del 12/03/2008 (testo PDF)
- intervento Diana Johnstone: La Crociata dei Folli Continua - testo e audio
III: ECOCIDIO: gli effetti della guerra
- intervento Cinzia Della Porta (audio MP3)
- intervento Alberto Tarozzi (audio MP3)
- documento: Alberto Tarozzi, estratti dal libro Impatto tra civiltà e progetti auto sostenibili, l’Harmattam Italia, Torino 2008 (testo PDF)
- intervento Valerio Gennaro: presentazione (PPT) e audio (MP3)
- intervento Domenico Gallo (audio MP3)
altre:
- intervento Alberto Tarozzi (audio MP3)
- documento: Alberto Tarozzi, estratti dal libro Impatto tra civiltà e progetti auto sostenibili, l’Harmattam Italia, Torino 2008 (testo PDF)
- intervento Valerio Gennaro: presentazione (PPT) e audio (MP3)
TEMA: Delitto senza castigo: i crimini di guerra della NATO
altre:
- documento: Amnesty International, L'aggressione NATO - Danni collaterali o uccisioni illegali (testo PDF - link)
- White Book del Ministero degli esteri Jugoslavo, sui crimini della NATO durante l'aggressione del 1999 (in inglese):
HTML 1. parte, 2. parte
sintesi in lingua italiana (testo PDF)
TEMA: Kosovo ieri e oggi
HTML 1. parte, 2. parte
sintesi in lingua italiana (testo PDF)
TEMA: Kosovo ieri e oggi
altre:
- documento: opuscolo sulla crisi del Kosovo (a cura di C.Bettio,testo PDF)
contiene:
Comunicato stampa CNJ 2008
Lettera aperta al Signor Pierre Moscovici, Vice-presidente del Parlamento Europeo (Jean-Michel Berard)
"Il Kosovo deve essere indipendente" (lettera aperta di ministri dei paesi occidentali)
Varie notizie
Kosovo: quello che può comprare il denaro (R. K. Kent)
La Serbia è debitrice di giustizia in Kosovo (G. Clark)
Balcani, i troppi non-detto di Massimo D'Alema (T. Di Francesco)
Piano Ahtisaari: varie notizie
Quando i media non si ricordano più di ciò che avevano riferito sul Kosovo (D. Johnstone)
- documento: opuscolo sulla crisi del Kosovo (a cura di C.Bettio,testo PDF)
contiene:
Comunicato stampa CNJ 2008
Lettera aperta al Signor Pierre Moscovici, Vice-presidente del Parlamento Europeo (Jean-Michel Berard)
"Il Kosovo deve essere indipendente" (lettera aperta di ministri dei paesi occidentali)
Varie notizie
Kosovo: quello che può comprare il denaro (R. K. Kent)
La Serbia è debitrice di giustizia in Kosovo (G. Clark)
Balcani, i troppi non-detto di Massimo D'Alema (T. Di Francesco)
Piano Ahtisaari: varie notizie
Quando i media non si ricordano più di ciò che avevano riferito sul Kosovo (D. Johnstone)
domenica 22 marzo 2009
IV: ROVESCIARE IL TARGET - E' POSSIBILE?
La condizione dei lavoratori nei Balcani, in Italia, in Europa
- intervento Germano Raniero (audio MP3)
- intervento Zoran Mihajlovic (audio MP3)
- intervento Nereo Turati (slides PDF)
- intervento Nereo Turati (audio MP3)
Dai bombardamenti sulla Zastava al grande movimento di solidarietà
- intervento Gilberto Vlaic (audio MP3)
La condizione dei lavoratori nei Balcani, in Italia, in Europa
- intervento Germano Raniero (audio MP3)
- intervento Zoran Mihajlovic (audio MP3)
- intervento Nereo Turati (slides PDF)
- intervento Nereo Turati (audio MP3)
Dai bombardamenti sulla Zastava al grande movimento di solidarietà
- intervento Gilberto Vlaic (audio MP3)
- intervento Slobodanka Ciric (audio MP3)
- intervento Riccardo Pilato (audio MP3)
- intervento Riccardo Pilato: Solidarietà Zastava: uno splendido esempio di sostegno politico e umano che dura da 12 anni (testo PDF)
- intervento Riccardo Pilato: Solidarietà Zastava: uno splendido esempio di sostegno politico e umano che dura da 12 anni (testo PDF)
- intervento Rajka Veljovic (audio MP3)
altre:
- documento: Andrea Catone, FIAT Serbia. Un caso classico di imperialismo, da L'Ernesto n.3-4/2010 (testo PDF)
- intervento di Nella Ginatempo (audio MP3)
- intervento di Walter Lorenzi (audio MP3)
- intervento di Paolo Consolaro (audio MP3)
- intervento di Vladimir Kapuralin (audio MP3)
- intervento di Vladimir Kapuralin (testo PDF)
altre:
- documento: Andrea Catone, FIAT Serbia. Un caso classico di imperialismo, da L'Ernesto n.3-4/2010 (testo PDF)
DIBATTITO
- intervento di Walter Lorenzi (audio MP3)
- intervento di Paolo Consolaro (audio MP3)
- intervento di Vladimir Kapuralin (audio MP3)
- intervento di Vladimir Kapuralin (testo PDF)
altra documentazione sulla conferenza,
sui bombardamenti NATO
e sulla distruzione della Jugoslavia
altri materiali sulla iniziativa TARGET:
altri materiali e link
sulla distruzione della Jugoslavia:
- galleria immagini
- videosintesi:
- intervista a Gilberto Vlaic (da Radio Cooperativa) (audio MP3)
- videosintesi:
PARTE PRIMA: introduzione generale, sessioni del sabato
PARTE SECONDA: documentazione video, serata del sabato
- manifesto iniziativa (PDF)PARTE SECONDA: documentazione video, serata del sabato
- intervista a Gilberto Vlaic (da Radio Cooperativa) (audio MP3)
altri materiali e link
sulla distruzione della Jugoslavia:
- documento: Ramsey Clark, Divide et impera, 2004 (testo PDF)
- dossier: “Chi come e perchè ha distrutto la SFRJ”, Com. unitario contro la guerra alla Jugoslavia, Roma 1999 (PDF - link)
contiene:
TAPPE DELLO SQUARTAMENTO DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERATIVA SOCIALISTA DI JUGOSLAVIA
IL RUOLO DELLA TURCHIA NELLA CRISI JUGOSLAVA
IL RUOLO DELLA GERMANIA NELLA DISTRUZIONE DELLA JUGOSLAVIA
LE RESPONSABILITA' VATICANE NEL CONFLITTO BALCANICO: ALCUNI ELEMENTI
SI STANNO REALIZZANDO GLI AUSPICI DEL "VECCHIO LEONE" CHURCHILL?
LA NATO IN JUGOSLAVIA. PERCHÉ?
- documento: Andrea Martocchia, La rimozione della Jugoslavia, da L'Ernesto nn.3 e 4/2003 (testo PDF)
- documento: Andrea Martocchia: Il prolungato "Ottantanove" della Jugoslavia (testo PDF)
- documento: opuscolo sull'ingerenza della NATO (a cura di C.Bettio, testo PDF)
contiene:
Sulla guerra NATO contro la Jugoslavia (C. Bettio)
Problemi ecologici e giuridici collegati ai « bombardamenti di precisione (S. Gopal, N. Deller)
Il terrorismo economico del FMI (M. Chossudovsky)
«Operazione Balcani» : privatizzazione della propaganda e degli eserciti (J. Becker, M. Beham)
PRESENZA MILITARE ITALIANA NEI BALCANI 2001
- LINK: altra Documentazione sulla aggressione della NATO contro la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia (24 marzo - 6 giugno 1999) sul sito del Coordinamento per la Jugoslavia - onlus
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
Da: partigiani7maggio @ tiscali.it
Oggetto: Una iniziativa a Siena e due importanti recensioni
Data: 22 marzo 2012 15.28.29 GMT+01.00
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA ITALIANA
Storie e memorie di una vicenda ignorata
Storie e memorie di una vicenda ignorata
Roma, Odradek, 2011
pp.348 - euro 23,00
Per informazioni sul libro si vedano:
Il sito internet: http://www.partigianijugoslavi.it
La scheda del libro sul sito di Odradek: http://www.odradek.it/Schedelibri/partigianijugoslavi.html
La pagina su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=103675256383363
La pagina su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=103675256383363
Ordina il libro: http://www.odradek.it/html/ordinazione.html
---
Tra i nuovi inserimenti sul nostro sito segnaliamo:
Alessandra Kersevan: Intervento-recensione per la presentazione di Milano, 14 ottobre 2011
F. De Leonardis: Recensione per la rivista "Marx21" (n.1/2012 - gennaio-febbraio 2012 - PDF)
---
Siena, martedi 27 marzo 2012
ore 16:30 presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche dell'Università, Aula 2, Via P.A. Mattioli 10
incontro-dibattito:
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA ITALIANA
ore 16:30 presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche dell'Università, Aula 2, Via P.A. Mattioli 10
incontro-dibattito:
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA ITALIANA
Interventi dei professori Lorenzo Nasi, Paul Corner, Simone Neri Serneri,
di Andrea Martocchia (coautore del volume I partigiani jugoslavi nella Resistenza italiana) e del partigiano Biondo (Alfredo Merlo)
Nell'occasione saranno inaugurate le mostre fotografiche "E IO ERO SANDOKAN" e "TESTA PER DENTE"
organizzano Circolo ANPI di Ateneo "Carlo Rosselli", LinkSiena
di Andrea Martocchia (coautore del volume I partigiani jugoslavi nella Resistenza italiana) e del partigiano Biondo (Alfredo Merlo)
Nell'occasione saranno inaugurate le mostre fotografiche "E IO ERO SANDOKAN" e "TESTA PER DENTE"
scarica la locandina: https://www.cnj.it/INIZIATIVE/volantini/siena270312.jpg
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(Proprio alla vigilia del XIII Anniversario della aggressione del 1999, i rappresentanti della NATO intensificano le pressioni per la annessione completa delle repubbliche jugoslave nella alleanza imperialista ed il loro coinvolgimento in nuove operazioni di devastazione coloniale in paesi vicini e lontani. Le classi dirigenti locali, tutte indistintamente, si piegano al volere dei padroni.)
NATO in the Balkans... more and more
1) flashback 2011: Ambassador Konuzin: "Serbia in NATO would represent threat to Russia"
2) NATO COM NHQSA MEETS WITH CHAIRMAN OF BIH COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
3) Senator Lugar's NATO Enlargement Bill
4) NATO in the Balkans: Appetite comes with eating
5) Montenegro on track to NATO membership: NATO commander / Visit to NATO by the Prime Minister of Montenegro
6) Visit to NATO by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia
7) Visit to NATO by Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia
Source of the following documents in english language is the Stop NATO e-mail list
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
=== 1 ===
http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/tvshows.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&nav_id=73523
Danas - March 30, 2011
"Serbia in NATO would represent threat to Russia"
Jelena Tasić
Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Vasilyevich Konuzin told the Belgrade-based daily Danas in an interview that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit last week had "completely met the principal expectations".
It went in an atmosphere of close friendship and talks about trade and economic cooperation were very concrete and pragmatic, said the diplomat.
According to the Russian ambassador, Putin did not talk about relations between official Belgrade and NATO with Serbian President Boris Tadić and Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković. The issue, as he said, was launched by heads of parliamentary groups in the Serbian parliament who showed Putin that they were not united in their stance regarding the possibility of Serbia joining the western military alliance.
“In that situation, Prime Minister Putin clearly presented the Russian position – Serbs should solve the issue by themselves, but Russia thinks that it is necessary to present its opinion about NATO's expansion, which is jeopardizing its security.”
Stating a concrete example, he said that nobody asked small countries in the NATO for their opinion, but that that instead decisions were made which these countries then had to fulfill.
“Any possible decision about missile deployment in Serbia’s territory would be a threat to Russia’s security and Russia would be forced to take military actions in order to remove that military threat. Those measures would not be aimed against Serbia but against the missiles,” the Russian ambassador explained.
Q: Is this statement of Prime Minister Putin a “warning” to the Serbian authorities?
A: Serbia has the right to join any organization. We will respect the decision you make on your own, but we are counting on Belgrade to respectfully approach our thoughts that NATO accession would pose a threat to Russia’s security. I personally think that it is necessary to explain to Serbia what would happen if there was a threat to Russia’s security from its territory. We have been cooperating for 800 years and such a question never appeared. On the contrary, we fought wars against joint enemies and it is not quite clear for what reason weapons pointed against Russia could be deployed in Serbia.”
Q: The NATO forces in Kosovo and Metohija are effectively already in a part of the Serbian territory. How does Moscow assess their presence after Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence?
A: The Kosovo territory is a part of Serbia in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. NATO's military base is there despite Belgrade’s wishes. This means contrary to international law, and unlawfully. Russia sees it that way.
....
Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Vasilyevich Konuzin told the Belgrade-based daily Danas in an interview that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit last week had "completely met the principal expectations".
It went in an atmosphere of close friendship and talks about trade and economic cooperation were very concrete and pragmatic, said the diplomat.
According to the Russian ambassador, Putin did not talk about relations between official Belgrade and NATO with Serbian President Boris Tadić and Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković. The issue, as he said, was launched by heads of parliamentary groups in the Serbian parliament who showed Putin that they were not united in their stance regarding the possibility of Serbia joining the western military alliance.
“In that situation, Prime Minister Putin clearly presented the Russian position – Serbs should solve the issue by themselves, but Russia thinks that it is necessary to present its opinion about NATO's expansion, which is jeopardizing its security.”
Stating a concrete example, he said that nobody asked small countries in the NATO for their opinion, but that that instead decisions were made which these countries then had to fulfill.
“Any possible decision about missile deployment in Serbia’s territory would be a threat to Russia’s security and Russia would be forced to take military actions in order to remove that military threat. Those measures would not be aimed against Serbia but against the missiles,” the Russian ambassador explained.
Q: Is this statement of Prime Minister Putin a “warning” to the Serbian authorities?
A: Serbia has the right to join any organization. We will respect the decision you make on your own, but we are counting on Belgrade to respectfully approach our thoughts that NATO accession would pose a threat to Russia’s security. I personally think that it is necessary to explain to Serbia what would happen if there was a threat to Russia’s security from its territory. We have been cooperating for 800 years and such a question never appeared. On the contrary, we fought wars against joint enemies and it is not quite clear for what reason weapons pointed against Russia could be deployed in Serbia.”
Q: The NATO forces in Kosovo and Metohija are effectively already in a part of the Serbian territory. How does Moscow assess their presence after Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence?
A: The Kosovo territory is a part of Serbia in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. NATO's military base is there despite Belgrade’s wishes. This means contrary to international law, and unlawfully. Russia sees it that way.
....
=== 2 ===
http://www.aco.nato.int/com-nhqsa-meets-with-chairman-of-bih-council-of-ministers-.aspx
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Allied Command Operations - March 8, 2012
COM NHQSA MEETS WITH CHAIRMAN OF BIH COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
Chairman of the Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Council of Ministers Vjekoslav Bevanda had an initial meeting with NATO Headquarters Sarajevo (NHQSa) Commander Brigadier General Gary Huffman and discussed BiH's path to NATO.
Chairman Bevanda said that the BiH Council of Ministers was committed to BiH becoming a full-fledged NATO member as soon as possible...Bevanda said that priorities on this path are resolving the issue of prospective immovable defense property and ensuring funds in the BiH budget for further modernization of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in line with NATO standards.
General Huffman supported BiH's ambitions regarding NATO. He said that he appreciated the recent decision of the BiH Presidency to strengthen the role of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. General Huffman said it was an important message that BiH sent to NATO partners because BiH made a step forward and instead of being a security consumer it turned into a state that actively contributes to peace building and stability in the world.
The joint conclusion of Chairman Bevanda and Brigadier General Huffman is that the issue of the prospective immovable defense property should be resolved as soon as possible which would mean a step forward towards full-fledged NATO membership. The issue of destruction of surplus ammunition and weapons, and future cooperation between the BiH institutions and NATO Headquarters Sarajevo were also discussed at the meeting.
=== 3 ===
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24538
Civil Georgia - March 10, 2012
Georgia in Senator Lugar's NATO Enlargement Bill
Tbilisi: U.S. Republican Senator Richard Lugar has introduced the NATO Enlargement Bill, calling on President Obama to provide “a clear roadmap” for the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro to NATO at the Chicago summit in late May.
“I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this measure before the NATO Summit in Chicago this May,” said Lugar, who is the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
The bill, which he says aims at encouraging further enlargement of NATO, declares “for the first time in U.S. legislation”, that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, which currently aspire to join the Alliance, are to be considered NATO “aspirants.”
Georgia has been referred to as “aspirant” country in a final statement of NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels on December 7, 2011, which triggered Russia’s protest with its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying that he had “openly warned” his counterparts from the Alliance that such statements might serve as an encouragement for President Saakashvili to undertake “an adventure similar to the one of August, 2008.”
Senator Lugar’s bill, if approved, will require reports to the Congress on U.S. efforts towards further NATO enlargement and on the readiness of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro to join the Alliance, as well as a report on “U.S. policies to uphold Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
If approved the bill will make Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro eligible to receive U.S. assistance for NATO accession under the 1994 NATO Participation Act and will reauthorize assistance under the same act for Georgia and Macedonia.
Civil Georgia - March 10, 2012
Georgia in Senator Lugar's NATO Enlargement Bill
Tbilisi: U.S. Republican Senator Richard Lugar has introduced the NATO Enlargement Bill, calling on President Obama to provide “a clear roadmap” for the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro to NATO at the Chicago summit in late May.
“I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this measure before the NATO Summit in Chicago this May,” said Lugar, who is the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
The bill, which he says aims at encouraging further enlargement of NATO, declares “for the first time in U.S. legislation”, that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, which currently aspire to join the Alliance, are to be considered NATO “aspirants.”
Georgia has been referred to as “aspirant” country in a final statement of NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels on December 7, 2011, which triggered Russia’s protest with its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying that he had “openly warned” his counterparts from the Alliance that such statements might serve as an encouragement for President Saakashvili to undertake “an adventure similar to the one of August, 2008.”
Senator Lugar’s bill, if approved, will require reports to the Congress on U.S. efforts towards further NATO enlargement and on the readiness of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro to join the Alliance, as well as a report on “U.S. policies to uphold Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
If approved the bill will make Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro eligible to receive U.S. assistance for NATO accession under the 1994 NATO Participation Act and will reauthorize assistance under the same act for Georgia and Macedonia.
=== 4 ===
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_12/68221391/
Voice of Russia - March 12, 2012
NATO in the Balkans: Appetite comes with eating
Voice of Russia - March 12, 2012
NATO in the Balkans: Appetite comes with eating
A bill on NATO enlargement that is aimed at speeding up the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and also Georgia to NATO was submitted to the U.S. Congress on Friday, March 9th. Its author is a well-known Republican Senator from the State of Indiana Richard Lugar. The above-mentioned bill says that the USA “continues to support the open door policy for NATO candidate countries”.
The document that was prepared by Senator Lugar urges U.S. President Barack Obama to present a “clear-cut roadmap on NATO” – meaning the membership of countries that were mentioned for the NATO summit in May of this year. This document reflects America’s interests.
Asked how much the Balkan states are interested in it, an influential Russian Balkan studies expert, Georgi Engelgardt, says:
"The authorities of Macedonia and Montenegro are seriously interested in the integration of their countries into NATO. And as regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, this is really a very difficult question because opinions on that score differ. The EU High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina has always defended the Euro-Atlantic integration. Both the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats have also favoured this idea while the Serbs and their political autonomous entity - the Serb Republic - are strongly opposed to Bosnia’s joining NATO. So it is not clear for the time being how Bosnia as a single whole will pass a decision on and take steps toward its integration into NATO."
According to information available, a separate chapter of the previously mentioned bill is dedicated to U.S. nuclear forces in Europe. Among other things, it says that at the upcoming talks “it will be necessary to convince the Russian Federation of the necessity to strengthen transparency in issues dealing with non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe and to withdraw all these weapons from the borders of the territories of NATO member-states.”
Russian Balkan studies expert Georgi Engelgardt has certain doubts on that matter.
"Of course, of great importance for the USA here would be the support by all countries of the NATO enlargement policy on the development of anti-missile defence. It would also be good for all governments to come to the defence of this project in international and European forums. And in case of need they should offer their territories for basing missile defence elements there. As it appears, the governments of Macedonia and Montenegro will be ready to do that...However, as regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, if the Muslims and the Croats favour this too, the Serbs, despite the fact that the Bosnian Serbs were also subjected to NATO bombing 18 years ago, will disapprove granting the above-mentioned territories for military facilities. As a result, many questions will arise."
However, the biggest question is this: is it accidental that the bill on NATO enlargement has been submitted for consideration shortly before the next anniversary of NATO’s aggression against former Yugoslavia? There’s reason to believe that it will remain unanswered. Well, when it comes to big money, uncomfortable questions are ignored.
=== 5 ===
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-03/15/c_122835574.htm
Xinhua News Agency - March 14, 2012
Montenegro on track to NATO membership: NATO commander
BELGRADE: Montenegro is on track for NATO membership, the military alliance's supreme allied commander for Europe Admiral James Stavridis said on Wednesday.
Stavridis made the comment during a visit to Montenegro's capital Podgorica, reported the Montenegrin news agency MINA.
"Continue to implement reforms and meet commitments and I believe that this will be recognized and rewarded with membership in NATO," Stavridis said after his meeting with Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic.
Stavridis commended Montenegro's contribution to the ISAF peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and highlighted cooperation between NATO and Montenegro...
Montenegrin Parliamentary Speaker Ranko Krivokapic also told Stavridis that Montenegro could contribute significantly to NATO's security priorities.
Xinhua News Agency - March 14, 2012
Montenegro on track to NATO membership: NATO commander
BELGRADE: Montenegro is on track for NATO membership, the military alliance's supreme allied commander for Europe Admiral James Stavridis said on Wednesday.
Stavridis made the comment during a visit to Montenegro's capital Podgorica, reported the Montenegrin news agency MINA.
"Continue to implement reforms and meet commitments and I believe that this will be recognized and rewarded with membership in NATO," Stavridis said after his meeting with Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic.
Stavridis commended Montenegro's contribution to the ISAF peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and highlighted cooperation between NATO and Montenegro...
Montenegrin Parliamentary Speaker Ranko Krivokapic also told Stavridis that Montenegro could contribute significantly to NATO's security priorities.
---
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85240.htm?mode=pressrelease
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 20, 2012
Visit to NATO by the Prime Minister of Montenegro
The Prime Minister of Montenegro, Mr. Igor Lukšić will visit NATO Headquarters on Wednesday 21 March 2012. He will meet with the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen and will attend the North Atlantic Council.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 20, 2012
Visit to NATO by the Prime Minister of Montenegro
The Prime Minister of Montenegro, Mr. Igor Lukšić will visit NATO Headquarters on Wednesday 21 March 2012. He will meet with the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen and will attend the North Atlantic Council.
=== 6 ===
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85267.htm?mode=pressrelease
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 21, 2012
Visit to NATO by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, Mrs. Vesna Pusić will visit NATO Headquarters on Thursday 22 March 2012. She will meet with NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
=== 7 ===
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 21, 2012
Visit to NATO by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, Mrs. Vesna Pusić will visit NATO Headquarters on Thursday 22 March 2012. She will meet with NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
=== 7 ===
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85266.htm?mode=pressrelease
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 21, 2012
Visit to NATO by Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia
The Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, Mr. Aleš Hojs will visit NATO Headquarters on Thursday 22 March 2012. He will meet with NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook