Informazione
Chi è il Dalai Lama?
Proseguiamo con gli approfondimenti sul tema "Imperialismo ed
autodeterminazione". Sullo stesso tema vedi anche le seguenti analisi,
dedicate particolarmente ai micronazionalismi in Europa:
EUROPA "BALCANIZZATA" ?
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/hillard_liberazione_070903.pdf
DIVIDIAMO L'IRAQ COME ABBIAMO FATTO CON LA JUGOSLAVIA!
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3055
EUROPA: UNIONE E DISGREGAZIONE
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2134
FROM TERRITORY TO PEOPLE: NATIONS ADRIFT
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1165
Sul caso specifico cinese vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3013
e la nostra precedente rassegna:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2972
1. Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama?
2. Il mito del Tibet
3. Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama
4. Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe Who Succumbed to Hitler'
5. Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
Si vedano anche gli articoli di Enrica Collotti Pischel:
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=869
CINA - NATO - USA
(Giano del 15/05/2000)
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=867
LA CINA, ''L'ULTIMO PAESE SOVRANO''
(Giano del 15/9/2001)
---
From: "FRANCHI"
...di seguito trovate un'interessante articolo sul Dailai Lama apparso
sulla rivista L'Ernesto a firma di Domenico Losurdo.
Recentemente il Dailai Lama ha fatto visita in Italia, appuntamento che
ha visto tutti i principali leaders politici (da destra a sinistra)
"inchinarsi" al suo cospetto, in nome del Tibet, dei Tibetani e
dell'armonia tra i popoli.
Il Dailai Lama è una figura che in tanta parte del mondo è conosciuta
come figura di pace, giustizia sociale e rispetto per i più deboli
(arrivando a tutelare anche i più minuscoli insetti indifesi).
Per tali ragioni credo sia utile la letura di questo articolo poichè
aiuta a sollevare il velo su un lato non molto conosciuto di questa
importante figura internazionale e, più in generale, su un lato poco
conociuto del sistema economico, politico e sociale che la sua figura
incarna.
Tale articolo è tratto dal libro di Heinrich Harrer "Sette anni nel
Tibet" (Mondadori, Oscar bestsellers, 1999), libro che ha contribuito
non poco a costruire l'immagine che tutti conosciamo del Dailai Lama.
Buona lettura a tutte e a tutti.
Franchi
---
Domenico Losurdo
CHI E' IL DALAI LAMA?
(dalla rivista L'Ernesto - http://www.lernesto.it )
Celebrato e trasfigurato dalla cinematografia di Hollywood, il Dalai
Lama continua indubbiamente a godere di una vasta popolarità: il suo
ultimo viaggio in Italia si è concluso solennemente con una foto di
gruppo coi dirigenti dei partiti di centro-sinistra, che hanno voluto
così testimoniare la loro stima o la loro riverenza nei confronti del
campione della lotta di «liberazione del popolo tibetano».
Ma chi è realmente costui? Tanto per cominciare, egli non è nato nel
Tibet storico, ma in territorio incontestabilmente cinese, per
l’esattezza nella provincia di Amdo che nel 1935, l’anno della nascita,
era amministrata dal Kuomintang. In famiglia si parlava un dialetto
regionale cinese, sicché il nostro eroe impara il tibetano come una
lingua straniera, ed è costretto a impararla a partire dall’età di tre
anni, e cioè dal momento in cui, riconosciuto come l’incarnazione del
13° Dalai Lama, viene sottratto alla sua famiglia e segregato in un
convento, per essere sottoposto all’influenza esclusiva dei monaci che
gli insegnano a sentirsi, a pensare, a scrivere, a parlare e a
comportarsi come il Dio-Re dei tibetani ovvero come Sua Santità.
1 Un «paradiso» raccapricciante
Desumo queste notizie da un libro (Heinrich Harrer, Sette anni nel
Tibet, Mondadori, Oscar bestsellers, 1999), che pure ha un carattere di
semi-ufficialità (si conclude con il «Messaggio» in cui il Dalai Lama
esprime la sua gratitudine all’autore) e che ha contribuito moltissimo
alla costruzione del mito hollywoodiano. Si tratta di un testo a suo
modo straordinario, che riesce a trasformare in capitoli di storia
sacra anche i particolari più inquietanti. Nel 1946, Harrer incontra a
Lhasa i genitori del Dalai Lama, dove si sono trasferiti ormai da molti
anni, abbandonando la natia Amdo. E, tuttavia, essi non sono ancora
divenuti tibetani: bevono il tè alla cinese, continuano a parlare un
dialetto cinese e, per intendersi con Harrer, che si esprime in
tibetano, hanno bisogno dell’aiuto di un «interprete». Certo, la loro
vita è cambiata radicalmente: «Era un grosso salto quello dalla loro
piccola casa di contadini in una lontana provincia al palazzo che ora
abitavano e ai vasti poderi che erano adesso di loro proprietà».
Avevano ceduto ai monaci un bambino di tenerissima età, che poi
riconosce nella sua autobiografia di aver molto sofferto per questa
separazione. In cambio, i genitori avevano potuto godere di una
prodigiosa ascesa sociale. Siamo in presenza di un comportamento
discutibile? Non sia mai detto. Harrer si affretta subito a
sottolineare la «nobiltà innata» di questa coppia (p. 133): come
potrebbe essere diversamente, dato che si tratta del padre e della
madre del Dio-Re?
Ma che società è quella su cui il Dalai Lama è chiamato a governare?
Sia pure a malincuore, l’autore del libro finisce col riconoscerlo: «La
supremazia dell’ordine monastico nel Tibet è assoluta, e si può
confrontare solo con una severa dittatura. I monaci diffidano di ogni
influsso che possa mettere in pericolo la loro dominazione». Ad essere
punito non è soltanto chi agisce contro il «potere» ma anche «chiunque
lo metta in dubbio» (p. 76). Diamo ora uno sguardo ai rapporti sociali.
Si direbbe che la merce più a buon mercato sia costituita dai servi (si
tratta, in ultima analisi, di schiavi). Harrer descrive giulivo
l’incontro con un alto funzionario: anche se non è un personaggio
particolarmente importante, egli può comunque disporre di un «seguito
di trenta servi e serve» (p. 56). Essi vengono sottoposti a fatiche non
solo bestiali ma persino inutili: «Circa venti uomini erano legati alla
cintura da una corda e trascinavano un immenso tronco, cantando in coro
le loro lente nenie e avanzando di pari passo. Ansanti e in un bagno di
sudore non potevano soffermarsi per pigliare fiato, perché il capofila
non lo permetteva. Questo lavoro massacrante rappresenta una parte
delle loro tasse, un tributo da sistema feudale». Sarebbe stato facile
far ricorso alla ruota, ma «il governo non voleva la ruota»; e, come
sappiamo, contrastare o anche solo mettere in discussione il potere
della casta dominante poteva essere assai pericoloso. Ma, secondo
Harrer, non ha senso versare lacrime sul popolo tibetano di quegli
anni: «forse così era più felice» (pp. 159-160).
Incolmabile era l’abisso che separava i servi dai padroni. Per la gente
comune, al Dio-Re non era lecito rivolgere né la parola né lo sguardo.
Ecco cosa avviene nel corso di una processione:
«Le porte della cattedrale si aprirono e lentamente uscì il Dalai Lama
[…] Devota la folla si inchinò immediatamente. Il cerimoniale religioso
esigerebbe che la gente si gettasse per terra, ma era impossibile farlo
a causa della mancanza di spazio. Migliaia di persone curvarono invece
la schiena, come un campo di grano sciabolato dal vento. Nessuno osava
alzare gli occhi. Lento e compassato il Dalai Lama iniziò il suo giro
intorno al Barkhor […] Le donne non osavano respirare».
Finita la processione, il quadro cambia in modo radicale:
«Come ridestata da un sonno ipnotico la folla in quel momento passò
dall’ordine al caos […] I monaci-soldato entrarono subito in azione […]
All’impazzata facevano mulinare i loro bastoni sulla folla […] Ma
nonostante la gragnuola di colpi, i battuti ritornavano come fossero
posseduti da demoni […] Adesso accettavano colpi e frustate come una
benedizione. Fiaccole di pece fumosa cadevano sulle loro teste, urla di
dolore, qui un volto bruciato, là i gemiti di un calpestato!» (pp.
157-8).
Vale la pena di notare che questo spettacolo viene seguito dal nostro
autore in modo ammirato e devoto. Non a caso, il tutto è contenuto in
un paragrafo dal titolo eloquente: «Un dio alza, benedicendo, la mano».
L’unico momento in cui Harrer assume un atteggiamento critico si
verifica allorché egli descrive la condizione igienica e sanitaria del
Tibet del tempo. Infuria la mortalità infantile, la durata media della
vita è incredibilmente bassa, le medicine sono sconosciute, in compenso
circolano farmaci assai singolari: «spesso i lama ungono i loro
pazienti con la propria saliva santa; oppure tsampa e burro vengono
mescolati con l’urina degli uomini santi per ottenere una specie di
emulsione che viene somministrata ai malati» (p. 194). Qui si ritrae
perplesso anche il nostro autore devoto e bacchettone: se pure dal
«Dio-Ragazzo» è stato «persuaso a credere nella reincarnazione» (p.
248), egli tuttavia non riesce a «giustificare il fatto che si bevesse
l’urina del Buddha Vivente», e cioè del Dalai Lama. Solleva il problema
con quest’ultimo, ma con scarsi risultati: il Dio-Re «da solo non
poteva combattere tali usi e costumi, e in fondo non se ne preoccupava
troppo». Ciò nonostante, il nostro autore, che si accontenta di poco,
messe da parte le sue riserve, conclude imperturbabile: «In India, del
resto, era uno spettacolo giornaliero vedere la gente bere l’urina
delle vacche sacre» (p. 294).
A questo punto, Harrer può procedere senza più impacci nella sua opera
di trasfigurazione del Tibet pre-rivoluzionario. In realtà, esso è
carico di violenza e non conosce neppure il principio della
responsabilità individuale: le punizioni possono essere anche
trasversali e colpire i parenti del responsabile di una mancanza anche
assai lieve o persino immaginaria (p. 79). Ma cosa avviene per i
crimini considerati più gravi? «Mi raccontarono di un uomo che aveva
rubato una lampada dorata al burro da uno dei templi di Kyirong. Fu
dichiarato colpevole del reato, e quella che noi avremmo considerato
una sentenza disumana fu portata a compimento. Gli furono pubblicamente
mozzate le mani, e il suo corpo mutilato ma ancora vivo fu avvolto in
una pelle di yak bagnata. Quando smise di sanguinare, venne gettato in
un precipizio» (p. 75). Ma anche reati minori, ad esempio «il gioco
d’azzardo», possono essere puniti in modo spietato se commessi nei
giorni di festività solenni: «i monaci sono a tale riguardo inesorabili
e molto temuti, perché più di una volta è avvenuto che qualcuno sia
morto sotto la rigorosa flagellazione, la pena usuale» (pp. 153-3). La
violenza più selvaggia caratterizza i rapporti non solo tra «semidei» e
«esseri inferiori» ma anche tra le diverse frazioni della casta
dominante: ai responsabili delle frequenti «rivoluzioni militari» e
«guerre civili» che caratterizzano la storia del Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario (l’ultima si verifica nel 1947), vengono fatti
«cavare gli occhi con una spada» (pp. 224-5). E, tuttavia, il nostro
zelante convertito al lamaismo non si limita a dichiarare che «le
punizioni sono piuttosto drastiche, ma sembrano essere commisurate alla
mentalità della popolazione» (p. 75). No, il Tibet pre-rivoluzionario è
ai suoi occhi un’oasi incantata di non violenza: «Dopo un po’ che si è
nel paese, a nessuno è più possibile uccidere una mosca senza pensarci.
Io stesso, in presenza di un tibetano, non avrei mai osato schiacciare
un insetto soltanto perché mi infastidiva» (p. 183). In conclusione,
siamo in presenza di un «paradiso» (p. 77). Oltre che di Harrer, questa
è l’opinione anche del Dalai Lama che nel suo «Messaggio» finale si
abbandona ad una struggente nostalgia degli anni vissuti da Dio-Re:
«ricordiamo quei giorni felici che trascorremmo assieme in un paese
felice» (happy) ovvero, secondo la traduzione italiana, in «un paese
libero».
2. «Invasione» del Tibet e tentativo di smembramento della Cina
Questo paese «felice» e «libero», questo «paradiso» viene trasformato
in un inferno dall’«invasione» cinese. Le mistificazioni non hanno mai
fine. Ha realmente senso parlare di «invasione»? Quale paese aveva
riconosciuto l’«indipendenza» del Tibet e intratteneva con esso
relazioni diplomatiche? In realtà, ancora nel 1949, nel pubblicare un
libro sulle relazioni Usa-Cina, il dipartimento di Stato americano
accludeva una mappa di per sé eloquente: con tutta chiarezza sia il
Tibet che Taiwan vi figuravano quali parti integranti del grande paese
asiatico, impegnato a porre fine una volta per sempre alle amputazioni
territoriali imposte da un secolo di aggressioni colonialiste e
imperialiste. Naturalmente, con l’avvento dei comunisti al potere,
cambia tutto, comprese le carte geografiche: ogni falsificazione
storica e geografica è lecita se essa consente di ridare slancio alla
politica a suo tempo iniziata con la guerra dell’oppio e di avanzare
cioè in direzione dello smembramento della Cina comunista.
E’ un obiettivo che sembra sul punto di realizzarsi nel 1959. Con un
cambiamento radicale rispetto alla politica seguita sino a quel
momento, che l’aveva visto collaborare col nuovo potere insediatosi a
Pechino, il Dalai Lama sceglie la via dell’esilio e comincia ad agitare
la bandiera dell’indipendenza del Tibet. Si tratta realmente di una
rivendicazione nazionale? Abbiamo visto che il Dalai Lama stesso non è
di origine tibetana ed è costretto ad imparare una lingua che non è la
sua lingua materna. Ma concentriamo pure la nostra attenzione sulla
casta dominante autoctona. Per un verso questa, nonostante la generale
ed estrema miseria del popolo, può coltivare i suoi raffinati gusti
cosmopoliti: ai suoi banchetti si scialacquano «squisitezze di tutte le
parti del mondo» (pp. 174-5). A degustarle sono raffinati parassiti
che, nell’ostentare il loro sfarzo, non danno certo prova di
ristrettezza provinciale: «le volpi azzurre vengono da Amburgo, le
perle coltivate dal Giappone, le turchesi via Bombay dalla Persia, i
coralli dall’Italia e l’ambra da Berlino e Königsberg» (p. 166). Ma
mentre si sente affine all’aristocrazia parassitaria di ogni angolo del
mondo, la casta dominante tibetana guarda ai suoi servi come ad una
razza diversa e inferiore; sì, «la nobiltà ha le sue leggi severe: è
permesso sposare soltanto chi è dello stesso rango» (p. 191). Che senso
ha allora parlare di lotta di indipendenza nazionale? Come possono
esserci una nazione e una comunità nazionale se, per riconoscimento
dello stesso candido cantore del Tibet pre-rivoluzionario, i «semidei»
nobiliari, lungi dal considerare concittadini i loro servi, li bollano
e li trattano quali «esseri inferiori» (pp. 170 e 168)?
D’altro canto, a quale Tibet pensa il Dalai Lama, allorché comincia ad
agitare la bandiera dell’indipendenza? E’ il Grande Tibet, che avrebbe
dovuto abbracciare vaste aree al di fuori del Tibet propriamente detto,
annettendo anche le popolazioni di origine tibetana residenti in
regioni come lo Yunnan e il Sichuan, da secoli parte integrante del
territorio della Cina e talvolta culla storica di questa civiltà
multisecolare e multinazionale. Chiaramente, il Grande Tibet costituiva
e costituisce un elemento essenziale del progetto di smembramento di un
paese che, a partire dalla sua rinascita nel 1949, non cessa di turbare
i sogni di dominio mondiale accarezzati a Washington.
Ma cosa sarebbe successo nel Tibet propriamente detto se le ambizioni
del Dalai Lama si fossero realizzate? Lasciamo pure da parte i servi e
gli «esseri inferiori» a cui chiaramente non prestano molta attenzione
i seguaci e i devoti di Sua Santità. In ogni caso, il Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario è una «teocrazia» (p. 169): «un europeo
difficilmente è in grado di capire quale importanza si annetta al più
piccolo capriccio del Dio-Re» (p. 270). Sì, «il potere della gerarchia
era illimitato» (p. 148), ed esso si esercitava su qualunque aspetto
dell’esistenza: «la vita delle persone è regolata dalla volontà divina,
i cui unici interpreti sono i lama» (p. 182). Ovviamente, non c’è
distinzione tra sfera religiosa e sfera politica: i monaci permettevano
«alle tibetane le nozze con un mussulmano solo alla condizione di non
abiurare» (p. 169); non era consentito convertirsi dal lamaismo
all’Islam. Assieme ai rapporti matrimoniali anche la vita sessuale
conosce una regolamentazione occhiuta: «per gli adulteri vigono pene
molto drastiche, ad esempio il taglio del naso» (p. 191). E’ chiaro:
pur di smembrare la Cina, Washington non esitava a montare in sella al
cavallo fondamentalista del lamaismo integralista e del Dalai Lama.
Ora, anche Sua Santità è costretto a prenderne atto: il progetto
secessionista è sostanzialmente fallito. Ed ecco allora le
dichiarazioni per cui ci si accontenterebbe dell’«autonomia». In
realtà, il Tibet è da un pezzo una regione autonoma. E non si tratta di
parole. Già, nel 1998, pur formulando critiche, Foreign Affairs, la
rivista americana vicina al Dipartimento di Stato, con un articolo di
Melvyn C. Goldstein, si è lasciata sfuggire riconoscimenti importanti:
nella Regione Autonoma Tibetana il 60-70% dei funzionari sono di etnia
tibetana e vige la pratica del bilinguismo. Naturalmente, c’è sempre
spazio per miglioramenti; resta il fatto che, in seguito alla
diffusione dell’istruzione, la lingua tibetana è oggi parlata e scritta
da un numero di persone ben più elevato che nel Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario. E’ da aggiungere che solo la distruzione
dell’ordinamento castale e delle barriere che separavano i «semidei»
dagli «esseri inferiori» ha reso possibile l’emergere su larga base di
un’identità culturale e nazionale tibetana. La propaganda corrente è il
rovesciamento della verità.
Mentre gode di un’ampia autonomia, il Tibet, grazie anche agli sforzi
massicci del governo centrale, conosce un periodo di straordinario
sviluppo economico e sociale. Assieme al livello di istruzione, al
tenore di vita e alla durata media della vita cresce anche la coesione
tra i diversi gruppi etnici, come è confermato fra l’altro dall’aumento
dei matrimoni misti tra han (cinesi) e tibetani. Ma proprio ciò diventa
il nuovo cavallo di battaglia della campagna anticinese. Ne è un
esempio clamoroso l’articolo di Bernardo Valli su la Repubblica del 29
novembre. Mi limito qui a citare il sommario: «L’integrazione tra
questi due popoli è l’ultima arma per annullare la cultura millenaria
del paese sul tetto del mondo». Chiaramente, il giornalista si è
lasciato abbagliare dall’immagine di un Tibet all’insegna della purezza
etnica e religiosa che è il sogno dei gruppi fondamentalisti e
secessionisti. Per comprenderne il carattere regressivo, basta ridare
la parola al cronista che ha ispirato Hollywood. Nel Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario, oltre ai tibetani e ai cinesi «si possono
incontrare anche lhadaki, bhutanesi, mongoli, sikkimesi, kazaki e via
dicendo». Sono ben presenti anche i nepalesi: «Le loro famiglie
rimangono quasi sempre nel Nepal, dove anche loro ritornano di tanto in
tanto. In questo differiscono dai cinesi, che sposano volentieri donne
tibetane, conducendo una vita coniugale esemplare» (pp. 168-9). La
maggiore «autonomia» che si rivendica, non si sa bene se per il Tibet
propriamente detto ovvero per il Grande Tibet, dovrebbe comportare
anche la possibilità per il governo regionale di vietare i matrimoni
misti e di realizzare una purezza etnica e culturale che non esisteva
neppure prima del 1949?
3. La cooptazione del Dalai Lama nell’Occidente e nella razza bianca e
la denuncia del pericolo giallo
L’articolo di Repubblica è prezioso perché ci permette di cogliere la
sottile vena razzista che attraversa la campagna anticinese in corso.
Com’è noto, nel ricercare le origini della razza «ariana» o «nordica» o
«bianca», la mitologia razzista e il Terzo Reich hanno spesso guardato
con interesse all’India e al Tibet: è di qui che avrebbe preso le mosse
la marcia trionfale della razza superiore. Nel 1939, al seguito di una
spedizione delle SS l’austriaco Harrer giunge nell’India del nord (oggi
Pakistan) e di qui poi penetra nel Tibet. Allorché incontra il Dalai
Lama, subito lo riconosce e lo celebra come membro della superiore
razza bianca: «La sua carnagione era molto più chiara di quella del
tibetano medio, e in qualche sfumatura anche più bianca di quella
dell’aristocrazia tibetana» (p. 280). Del tutto estranei alla razza
bianca sono invece i cinesi. Ecco perché è un evento straordinario la
prima conversazione che Sua Santità ha con Harrer: egli si trovava «per
la prima volta solo con un uomo bianco» (p. 277). In quanto
sostanzialmente bianco il Dalai Lama non era certo inferiore agli
«europei» ed era comunque «aperto a tutte le idee occidentali» (pp. 292
e 294). Ben diversamente si atteggiano i cinesi, nemici mortali
dell’Occidente. Lo conferma ad Harrer un «ministro-monaco» del Tibet
sacro: «nelle antiche scritture, ci disse, si leggeva una profezia: una
grande potenza del Nord muoverà guerra al Tibet, distruggerà la
religione e imporrà la sua egemonia al mondo» (p. 141). Non c’è dubbio:
la denuncia del pericolo giallo è il filo conduttore del libro che ha
ispirato la leggenda hollywoodiana del Dalai Lama.
Torniamo alla foto di gruppo che ha concluso il suo recente viaggio in
Italia. Fisicamente assenti ma idealmente ben presenti si possono
considerare Richard Gere e gli altri divi di Hollywood, inondati di
dollari per celebrare la leggenda del Dio-Re venuto dall’Oriente
misterioso. E’ doloroso ammetterlo ma bisogna prenderne atto: è ormai
da qualche tempo che, volte le spalle alla storia e alla geografia, una
certa sinistra si rivela in grado di alimentarsi solo di miti teosofici
e cinematografici, senza prendere le distanze neppure dai miti
cinematografici più torbidi.
Proseguiamo con gli approfondimenti sul tema "Imperialismo ed
autodeterminazione". Sullo stesso tema vedi anche le seguenti analisi,
dedicate particolarmente ai micronazionalismi in Europa:
EUROPA "BALCANIZZATA" ?
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/hillard_liberazione_070903.pdf
DIVIDIAMO L'IRAQ COME ABBIAMO FATTO CON LA JUGOSLAVIA!
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3055
EUROPA: UNIONE E DISGREGAZIONE
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2134
FROM TERRITORY TO PEOPLE: NATIONS ADRIFT
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1165
Sul caso specifico cinese vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3013
e la nostra precedente rassegna:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2972
1. Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama?
2. Il mito del Tibet
3. Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama
4. Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe Who Succumbed to Hitler'
5. Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
Si vedano anche gli articoli di Enrica Collotti Pischel:
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=869
CINA - NATO - USA
(Giano del 15/05/2000)
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=867
LA CINA, ''L'ULTIMO PAESE SOVRANO''
(Giano del 15/9/2001)
---
From: "FRANCHI"
...di seguito trovate un'interessante articolo sul Dailai Lama apparso
sulla rivista L'Ernesto a firma di Domenico Losurdo.
Recentemente il Dailai Lama ha fatto visita in Italia, appuntamento che
ha visto tutti i principali leaders politici (da destra a sinistra)
"inchinarsi" al suo cospetto, in nome del Tibet, dei Tibetani e
dell'armonia tra i popoli.
Il Dailai Lama è una figura che in tanta parte del mondo è conosciuta
come figura di pace, giustizia sociale e rispetto per i più deboli
(arrivando a tutelare anche i più minuscoli insetti indifesi).
Per tali ragioni credo sia utile la letura di questo articolo poichè
aiuta a sollevare il velo su un lato non molto conosciuto di questa
importante figura internazionale e, più in generale, su un lato poco
conociuto del sistema economico, politico e sociale che la sua figura
incarna.
Tale articolo è tratto dal libro di Heinrich Harrer "Sette anni nel
Tibet" (Mondadori, Oscar bestsellers, 1999), libro che ha contribuito
non poco a costruire l'immagine che tutti conosciamo del Dailai Lama.
Buona lettura a tutte e a tutti.
Franchi
---
Domenico Losurdo
CHI E' IL DALAI LAMA?
(dalla rivista L'Ernesto - http://www.lernesto.it )
Celebrato e trasfigurato dalla cinematografia di Hollywood, il Dalai
Lama continua indubbiamente a godere di una vasta popolarità: il suo
ultimo viaggio in Italia si è concluso solennemente con una foto di
gruppo coi dirigenti dei partiti di centro-sinistra, che hanno voluto
così testimoniare la loro stima o la loro riverenza nei confronti del
campione della lotta di «liberazione del popolo tibetano».
Ma chi è realmente costui? Tanto per cominciare, egli non è nato nel
Tibet storico, ma in territorio incontestabilmente cinese, per
l’esattezza nella provincia di Amdo che nel 1935, l’anno della nascita,
era amministrata dal Kuomintang. In famiglia si parlava un dialetto
regionale cinese, sicché il nostro eroe impara il tibetano come una
lingua straniera, ed è costretto a impararla a partire dall’età di tre
anni, e cioè dal momento in cui, riconosciuto come l’incarnazione del
13° Dalai Lama, viene sottratto alla sua famiglia e segregato in un
convento, per essere sottoposto all’influenza esclusiva dei monaci che
gli insegnano a sentirsi, a pensare, a scrivere, a parlare e a
comportarsi come il Dio-Re dei tibetani ovvero come Sua Santità.
1 Un «paradiso» raccapricciante
Desumo queste notizie da un libro (Heinrich Harrer, Sette anni nel
Tibet, Mondadori, Oscar bestsellers, 1999), che pure ha un carattere di
semi-ufficialità (si conclude con il «Messaggio» in cui il Dalai Lama
esprime la sua gratitudine all’autore) e che ha contribuito moltissimo
alla costruzione del mito hollywoodiano. Si tratta di un testo a suo
modo straordinario, che riesce a trasformare in capitoli di storia
sacra anche i particolari più inquietanti. Nel 1946, Harrer incontra a
Lhasa i genitori del Dalai Lama, dove si sono trasferiti ormai da molti
anni, abbandonando la natia Amdo. E, tuttavia, essi non sono ancora
divenuti tibetani: bevono il tè alla cinese, continuano a parlare un
dialetto cinese e, per intendersi con Harrer, che si esprime in
tibetano, hanno bisogno dell’aiuto di un «interprete». Certo, la loro
vita è cambiata radicalmente: «Era un grosso salto quello dalla loro
piccola casa di contadini in una lontana provincia al palazzo che ora
abitavano e ai vasti poderi che erano adesso di loro proprietà».
Avevano ceduto ai monaci un bambino di tenerissima età, che poi
riconosce nella sua autobiografia di aver molto sofferto per questa
separazione. In cambio, i genitori avevano potuto godere di una
prodigiosa ascesa sociale. Siamo in presenza di un comportamento
discutibile? Non sia mai detto. Harrer si affretta subito a
sottolineare la «nobiltà innata» di questa coppia (p. 133): come
potrebbe essere diversamente, dato che si tratta del padre e della
madre del Dio-Re?
Ma che società è quella su cui il Dalai Lama è chiamato a governare?
Sia pure a malincuore, l’autore del libro finisce col riconoscerlo: «La
supremazia dell’ordine monastico nel Tibet è assoluta, e si può
confrontare solo con una severa dittatura. I monaci diffidano di ogni
influsso che possa mettere in pericolo la loro dominazione». Ad essere
punito non è soltanto chi agisce contro il «potere» ma anche «chiunque
lo metta in dubbio» (p. 76). Diamo ora uno sguardo ai rapporti sociali.
Si direbbe che la merce più a buon mercato sia costituita dai servi (si
tratta, in ultima analisi, di schiavi). Harrer descrive giulivo
l’incontro con un alto funzionario: anche se non è un personaggio
particolarmente importante, egli può comunque disporre di un «seguito
di trenta servi e serve» (p. 56). Essi vengono sottoposti a fatiche non
solo bestiali ma persino inutili: «Circa venti uomini erano legati alla
cintura da una corda e trascinavano un immenso tronco, cantando in coro
le loro lente nenie e avanzando di pari passo. Ansanti e in un bagno di
sudore non potevano soffermarsi per pigliare fiato, perché il capofila
non lo permetteva. Questo lavoro massacrante rappresenta una parte
delle loro tasse, un tributo da sistema feudale». Sarebbe stato facile
far ricorso alla ruota, ma «il governo non voleva la ruota»; e, come
sappiamo, contrastare o anche solo mettere in discussione il potere
della casta dominante poteva essere assai pericoloso. Ma, secondo
Harrer, non ha senso versare lacrime sul popolo tibetano di quegli
anni: «forse così era più felice» (pp. 159-160).
Incolmabile era l’abisso che separava i servi dai padroni. Per la gente
comune, al Dio-Re non era lecito rivolgere né la parola né lo sguardo.
Ecco cosa avviene nel corso di una processione:
«Le porte della cattedrale si aprirono e lentamente uscì il Dalai Lama
[…] Devota la folla si inchinò immediatamente. Il cerimoniale religioso
esigerebbe che la gente si gettasse per terra, ma era impossibile farlo
a causa della mancanza di spazio. Migliaia di persone curvarono invece
la schiena, come un campo di grano sciabolato dal vento. Nessuno osava
alzare gli occhi. Lento e compassato il Dalai Lama iniziò il suo giro
intorno al Barkhor […] Le donne non osavano respirare».
Finita la processione, il quadro cambia in modo radicale:
«Come ridestata da un sonno ipnotico la folla in quel momento passò
dall’ordine al caos […] I monaci-soldato entrarono subito in azione […]
All’impazzata facevano mulinare i loro bastoni sulla folla […] Ma
nonostante la gragnuola di colpi, i battuti ritornavano come fossero
posseduti da demoni […] Adesso accettavano colpi e frustate come una
benedizione. Fiaccole di pece fumosa cadevano sulle loro teste, urla di
dolore, qui un volto bruciato, là i gemiti di un calpestato!» (pp.
157-8).
Vale la pena di notare che questo spettacolo viene seguito dal nostro
autore in modo ammirato e devoto. Non a caso, il tutto è contenuto in
un paragrafo dal titolo eloquente: «Un dio alza, benedicendo, la mano».
L’unico momento in cui Harrer assume un atteggiamento critico si
verifica allorché egli descrive la condizione igienica e sanitaria del
Tibet del tempo. Infuria la mortalità infantile, la durata media della
vita è incredibilmente bassa, le medicine sono sconosciute, in compenso
circolano farmaci assai singolari: «spesso i lama ungono i loro
pazienti con la propria saliva santa; oppure tsampa e burro vengono
mescolati con l’urina degli uomini santi per ottenere una specie di
emulsione che viene somministrata ai malati» (p. 194). Qui si ritrae
perplesso anche il nostro autore devoto e bacchettone: se pure dal
«Dio-Ragazzo» è stato «persuaso a credere nella reincarnazione» (p.
248), egli tuttavia non riesce a «giustificare il fatto che si bevesse
l’urina del Buddha Vivente», e cioè del Dalai Lama. Solleva il problema
con quest’ultimo, ma con scarsi risultati: il Dio-Re «da solo non
poteva combattere tali usi e costumi, e in fondo non se ne preoccupava
troppo». Ciò nonostante, il nostro autore, che si accontenta di poco,
messe da parte le sue riserve, conclude imperturbabile: «In India, del
resto, era uno spettacolo giornaliero vedere la gente bere l’urina
delle vacche sacre» (p. 294).
A questo punto, Harrer può procedere senza più impacci nella sua opera
di trasfigurazione del Tibet pre-rivoluzionario. In realtà, esso è
carico di violenza e non conosce neppure il principio della
responsabilità individuale: le punizioni possono essere anche
trasversali e colpire i parenti del responsabile di una mancanza anche
assai lieve o persino immaginaria (p. 79). Ma cosa avviene per i
crimini considerati più gravi? «Mi raccontarono di un uomo che aveva
rubato una lampada dorata al burro da uno dei templi di Kyirong. Fu
dichiarato colpevole del reato, e quella che noi avremmo considerato
una sentenza disumana fu portata a compimento. Gli furono pubblicamente
mozzate le mani, e il suo corpo mutilato ma ancora vivo fu avvolto in
una pelle di yak bagnata. Quando smise di sanguinare, venne gettato in
un precipizio» (p. 75). Ma anche reati minori, ad esempio «il gioco
d’azzardo», possono essere puniti in modo spietato se commessi nei
giorni di festività solenni: «i monaci sono a tale riguardo inesorabili
e molto temuti, perché più di una volta è avvenuto che qualcuno sia
morto sotto la rigorosa flagellazione, la pena usuale» (pp. 153-3). La
violenza più selvaggia caratterizza i rapporti non solo tra «semidei» e
«esseri inferiori» ma anche tra le diverse frazioni della casta
dominante: ai responsabili delle frequenti «rivoluzioni militari» e
«guerre civili» che caratterizzano la storia del Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario (l’ultima si verifica nel 1947), vengono fatti
«cavare gli occhi con una spada» (pp. 224-5). E, tuttavia, il nostro
zelante convertito al lamaismo non si limita a dichiarare che «le
punizioni sono piuttosto drastiche, ma sembrano essere commisurate alla
mentalità della popolazione» (p. 75). No, il Tibet pre-rivoluzionario è
ai suoi occhi un’oasi incantata di non violenza: «Dopo un po’ che si è
nel paese, a nessuno è più possibile uccidere una mosca senza pensarci.
Io stesso, in presenza di un tibetano, non avrei mai osato schiacciare
un insetto soltanto perché mi infastidiva» (p. 183). In conclusione,
siamo in presenza di un «paradiso» (p. 77). Oltre che di Harrer, questa
è l’opinione anche del Dalai Lama che nel suo «Messaggio» finale si
abbandona ad una struggente nostalgia degli anni vissuti da Dio-Re:
«ricordiamo quei giorni felici che trascorremmo assieme in un paese
felice» (happy) ovvero, secondo la traduzione italiana, in «un paese
libero».
2. «Invasione» del Tibet e tentativo di smembramento della Cina
Questo paese «felice» e «libero», questo «paradiso» viene trasformato
in un inferno dall’«invasione» cinese. Le mistificazioni non hanno mai
fine. Ha realmente senso parlare di «invasione»? Quale paese aveva
riconosciuto l’«indipendenza» del Tibet e intratteneva con esso
relazioni diplomatiche? In realtà, ancora nel 1949, nel pubblicare un
libro sulle relazioni Usa-Cina, il dipartimento di Stato americano
accludeva una mappa di per sé eloquente: con tutta chiarezza sia il
Tibet che Taiwan vi figuravano quali parti integranti del grande paese
asiatico, impegnato a porre fine una volta per sempre alle amputazioni
territoriali imposte da un secolo di aggressioni colonialiste e
imperialiste. Naturalmente, con l’avvento dei comunisti al potere,
cambia tutto, comprese le carte geografiche: ogni falsificazione
storica e geografica è lecita se essa consente di ridare slancio alla
politica a suo tempo iniziata con la guerra dell’oppio e di avanzare
cioè in direzione dello smembramento della Cina comunista.
E’ un obiettivo che sembra sul punto di realizzarsi nel 1959. Con un
cambiamento radicale rispetto alla politica seguita sino a quel
momento, che l’aveva visto collaborare col nuovo potere insediatosi a
Pechino, il Dalai Lama sceglie la via dell’esilio e comincia ad agitare
la bandiera dell’indipendenza del Tibet. Si tratta realmente di una
rivendicazione nazionale? Abbiamo visto che il Dalai Lama stesso non è
di origine tibetana ed è costretto ad imparare una lingua che non è la
sua lingua materna. Ma concentriamo pure la nostra attenzione sulla
casta dominante autoctona. Per un verso questa, nonostante la generale
ed estrema miseria del popolo, può coltivare i suoi raffinati gusti
cosmopoliti: ai suoi banchetti si scialacquano «squisitezze di tutte le
parti del mondo» (pp. 174-5). A degustarle sono raffinati parassiti
che, nell’ostentare il loro sfarzo, non danno certo prova di
ristrettezza provinciale: «le volpi azzurre vengono da Amburgo, le
perle coltivate dal Giappone, le turchesi via Bombay dalla Persia, i
coralli dall’Italia e l’ambra da Berlino e Königsberg» (p. 166). Ma
mentre si sente affine all’aristocrazia parassitaria di ogni angolo del
mondo, la casta dominante tibetana guarda ai suoi servi come ad una
razza diversa e inferiore; sì, «la nobiltà ha le sue leggi severe: è
permesso sposare soltanto chi è dello stesso rango» (p. 191). Che senso
ha allora parlare di lotta di indipendenza nazionale? Come possono
esserci una nazione e una comunità nazionale se, per riconoscimento
dello stesso candido cantore del Tibet pre-rivoluzionario, i «semidei»
nobiliari, lungi dal considerare concittadini i loro servi, li bollano
e li trattano quali «esseri inferiori» (pp. 170 e 168)?
D’altro canto, a quale Tibet pensa il Dalai Lama, allorché comincia ad
agitare la bandiera dell’indipendenza? E’ il Grande Tibet, che avrebbe
dovuto abbracciare vaste aree al di fuori del Tibet propriamente detto,
annettendo anche le popolazioni di origine tibetana residenti in
regioni come lo Yunnan e il Sichuan, da secoli parte integrante del
territorio della Cina e talvolta culla storica di questa civiltà
multisecolare e multinazionale. Chiaramente, il Grande Tibet costituiva
e costituisce un elemento essenziale del progetto di smembramento di un
paese che, a partire dalla sua rinascita nel 1949, non cessa di turbare
i sogni di dominio mondiale accarezzati a Washington.
Ma cosa sarebbe successo nel Tibet propriamente detto se le ambizioni
del Dalai Lama si fossero realizzate? Lasciamo pure da parte i servi e
gli «esseri inferiori» a cui chiaramente non prestano molta attenzione
i seguaci e i devoti di Sua Santità. In ogni caso, il Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario è una «teocrazia» (p. 169): «un europeo
difficilmente è in grado di capire quale importanza si annetta al più
piccolo capriccio del Dio-Re» (p. 270). Sì, «il potere della gerarchia
era illimitato» (p. 148), ed esso si esercitava su qualunque aspetto
dell’esistenza: «la vita delle persone è regolata dalla volontà divina,
i cui unici interpreti sono i lama» (p. 182). Ovviamente, non c’è
distinzione tra sfera religiosa e sfera politica: i monaci permettevano
«alle tibetane le nozze con un mussulmano solo alla condizione di non
abiurare» (p. 169); non era consentito convertirsi dal lamaismo
all’Islam. Assieme ai rapporti matrimoniali anche la vita sessuale
conosce una regolamentazione occhiuta: «per gli adulteri vigono pene
molto drastiche, ad esempio il taglio del naso» (p. 191). E’ chiaro:
pur di smembrare la Cina, Washington non esitava a montare in sella al
cavallo fondamentalista del lamaismo integralista e del Dalai Lama.
Ora, anche Sua Santità è costretto a prenderne atto: il progetto
secessionista è sostanzialmente fallito. Ed ecco allora le
dichiarazioni per cui ci si accontenterebbe dell’«autonomia». In
realtà, il Tibet è da un pezzo una regione autonoma. E non si tratta di
parole. Già, nel 1998, pur formulando critiche, Foreign Affairs, la
rivista americana vicina al Dipartimento di Stato, con un articolo di
Melvyn C. Goldstein, si è lasciata sfuggire riconoscimenti importanti:
nella Regione Autonoma Tibetana il 60-70% dei funzionari sono di etnia
tibetana e vige la pratica del bilinguismo. Naturalmente, c’è sempre
spazio per miglioramenti; resta il fatto che, in seguito alla
diffusione dell’istruzione, la lingua tibetana è oggi parlata e scritta
da un numero di persone ben più elevato che nel Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario. E’ da aggiungere che solo la distruzione
dell’ordinamento castale e delle barriere che separavano i «semidei»
dagli «esseri inferiori» ha reso possibile l’emergere su larga base di
un’identità culturale e nazionale tibetana. La propaganda corrente è il
rovesciamento della verità.
Mentre gode di un’ampia autonomia, il Tibet, grazie anche agli sforzi
massicci del governo centrale, conosce un periodo di straordinario
sviluppo economico e sociale. Assieme al livello di istruzione, al
tenore di vita e alla durata media della vita cresce anche la coesione
tra i diversi gruppi etnici, come è confermato fra l’altro dall’aumento
dei matrimoni misti tra han (cinesi) e tibetani. Ma proprio ciò diventa
il nuovo cavallo di battaglia della campagna anticinese. Ne è un
esempio clamoroso l’articolo di Bernardo Valli su la Repubblica del 29
novembre. Mi limito qui a citare il sommario: «L’integrazione tra
questi due popoli è l’ultima arma per annullare la cultura millenaria
del paese sul tetto del mondo». Chiaramente, il giornalista si è
lasciato abbagliare dall’immagine di un Tibet all’insegna della purezza
etnica e religiosa che è il sogno dei gruppi fondamentalisti e
secessionisti. Per comprenderne il carattere regressivo, basta ridare
la parola al cronista che ha ispirato Hollywood. Nel Tibet
pre-rivoluzionario, oltre ai tibetani e ai cinesi «si possono
incontrare anche lhadaki, bhutanesi, mongoli, sikkimesi, kazaki e via
dicendo». Sono ben presenti anche i nepalesi: «Le loro famiglie
rimangono quasi sempre nel Nepal, dove anche loro ritornano di tanto in
tanto. In questo differiscono dai cinesi, che sposano volentieri donne
tibetane, conducendo una vita coniugale esemplare» (pp. 168-9). La
maggiore «autonomia» che si rivendica, non si sa bene se per il Tibet
propriamente detto ovvero per il Grande Tibet, dovrebbe comportare
anche la possibilità per il governo regionale di vietare i matrimoni
misti e di realizzare una purezza etnica e culturale che non esisteva
neppure prima del 1949?
3. La cooptazione del Dalai Lama nell’Occidente e nella razza bianca e
la denuncia del pericolo giallo
L’articolo di Repubblica è prezioso perché ci permette di cogliere la
sottile vena razzista che attraversa la campagna anticinese in corso.
Com’è noto, nel ricercare le origini della razza «ariana» o «nordica» o
«bianca», la mitologia razzista e il Terzo Reich hanno spesso guardato
con interesse all’India e al Tibet: è di qui che avrebbe preso le mosse
la marcia trionfale della razza superiore. Nel 1939, al seguito di una
spedizione delle SS l’austriaco Harrer giunge nell’India del nord (oggi
Pakistan) e di qui poi penetra nel Tibet. Allorché incontra il Dalai
Lama, subito lo riconosce e lo celebra come membro della superiore
razza bianca: «La sua carnagione era molto più chiara di quella del
tibetano medio, e in qualche sfumatura anche più bianca di quella
dell’aristocrazia tibetana» (p. 280). Del tutto estranei alla razza
bianca sono invece i cinesi. Ecco perché è un evento straordinario la
prima conversazione che Sua Santità ha con Harrer: egli si trovava «per
la prima volta solo con un uomo bianco» (p. 277). In quanto
sostanzialmente bianco il Dalai Lama non era certo inferiore agli
«europei» ed era comunque «aperto a tutte le idee occidentali» (pp. 292
e 294). Ben diversamente si atteggiano i cinesi, nemici mortali
dell’Occidente. Lo conferma ad Harrer un «ministro-monaco» del Tibet
sacro: «nelle antiche scritture, ci disse, si leggeva una profezia: una
grande potenza del Nord muoverà guerra al Tibet, distruggerà la
religione e imporrà la sua egemonia al mondo» (p. 141). Non c’è dubbio:
la denuncia del pericolo giallo è il filo conduttore del libro che ha
ispirato la leggenda hollywoodiana del Dalai Lama.
Torniamo alla foto di gruppo che ha concluso il suo recente viaggio in
Italia. Fisicamente assenti ma idealmente ben presenti si possono
considerare Richard Gere e gli altri divi di Hollywood, inondati di
dollari per celebrare la leggenda del Dio-Re venuto dall’Oriente
misterioso. E’ doloroso ammetterlo ma bisogna prenderne atto: è ormai
da qualche tempo che, volte le spalle alla storia e alla geografia, una
certa sinistra si rivela in grado di alimentarsi solo di miti teosofici
e cinematografici, senza prendere le distanze neppure dai miti
cinematografici più torbidi.
Dobro dosli na J U G O I N F O !
JUGOINFO
e' il bollettino sulla Jugoslavia ed i Balcani curato dal
COORDINAMENTO NAZIONALE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA - https://www.cnj.it
(vedi archivio: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)
Per contattarci: <jugocoord@...>
La nostra attivita' di informazione via internet, che continua
ininterrottamente (seppur con diverse denominazioni) dal 1997
grazie allo sforzo individuale di pochissimi volontari, puo'
continuare solo con il vostro sostegno. Vi chiediamo pertanto di
SOTTOSCRIVERE SUBITO per JUGOINFO e per le
altre attivita' del Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
usando il:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo
JUGOINFO
is a bulletin on Yugoslavia and the Balkans edited by
ITALIJANSKA KOORDINACIJA ZA JUGOSLAVIJU - https://www.cnj.it
(see archive: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)
For contacts: <jugocoord@...>
Our effort to keep you informed through the net is continuing
without interruption (even if under different denominations)
since 1997 thanks to the voluntary engagement of very few people.
This has a chance to go on only if you support us, by
IMMEDIATELY SUBSCRIBING in favor of JUGOINFO and the other
activities of the Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
by giving your contribution through the Italian account:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo
GRAZIE / HVALA / THANKS
JUGOINFO
e' il bollettino sulla Jugoslavia ed i Balcani curato dal
COORDINAMENTO NAZIONALE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA - https://www.cnj.it
(vedi archivio: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)
Per contattarci: <jugocoord@...>
La nostra attivita' di informazione via internet, che continua
ininterrottamente (seppur con diverse denominazioni) dal 1997
grazie allo sforzo individuale di pochissimi volontari, puo'
continuare solo con il vostro sostegno. Vi chiediamo pertanto di
SOTTOSCRIVERE SUBITO per JUGOINFO e per le
altre attivita' del Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
usando il:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo
JUGOINFO
is a bulletin on Yugoslavia and the Balkans edited by
ITALIJANSKA KOORDINACIJA ZA JUGOSLAVIJU - https://www.cnj.it
(see archive: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)
For contacts: <jugocoord@...>
Our effort to keep you informed through the net is continuing
without interruption (even if under different denominations)
since 1997 thanks to the voluntary engagement of very few people.
This has a chance to go on only if you support us, by
IMMEDIATELY SUBSCRIBING in favor of JUGOINFO and the other
activities of the Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
by giving your contribution through the Italian account:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo
GRAZIE / HVALA / THANKS
PRESERVATIVI
Dopo l'introduzione della religione negli asili e dopo tante pressioni,
da parte vaticana, per imporre i valori cattolici nelle scuole, e'
finalmente esplosa in Croazia la polemica sulla educazione sessuale e
sui contraccettivi.
(Si noti che la notizia che segue - segnalata su exju.org - non e'
stata finora ripresa da alcuna agenzia o organo di informazione
italiano, perche' del clericonazismo croato e delle sue implicazioni e'
bene non parlare.)
---
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jan04/hed6214.shtml
Reuters, January 31, 2004
Croatia Catholic bishops oppose "condom education"
ZAGREB, (Reuters) - Croatia's powerful Roman Catholic Church has
opposed efforts to promote the use of condoms among teenagers to help
prevent AIDS and launched its own sex education programme counselling
chastity and abstinence.
The church's programme, publicised in Croatian media this week, aims to
sideline MEMOAIDS, a course introduced as an optional subject in local
secondary schools to raise awareness about AIDS.
The Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms, which church officials
say "encourages promiscuity and raises the chances of HIV infection
while not being fully successful in preventing pregnancy".
AIDS activists reject this, saying condoms help prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS.
"Our programme has a different approach than MEMOAIDS, which suggests
the use of condoms as protection. The goal is to change the behaviour,
not to promote wider use of condoms," the widely circulated daily
Jutarnji list quoted bishop Valter Zupan as saying on Friday.
Zupan, who heads the Family Council of the Croatian Bishops' Conference
(HBK), added that "experts from Washington have recently proved that
the use of condoms enhances promiscuity and the possibility of HIV
infection".
The Catholic Church counsels chastity and marital fidelity and its
opposition to condoms has sparked growing criticism worldwide as the
number of AIDS victims soars.
The HBK said earlier this week that MEMOAIDS was also unacceptable
because it did not require approval from parents.
Dragan Primorac, Education and Science Minister in the new conservative
government, said his ministry would thoroughly review both programmes
before making any decisions.
Almost 90 percent of people in this former Yugoslav republic declare
themselves Catholics, although surveys suggest more than half approve
of abortion, which the Catholic Church rejects.
Dopo l'introduzione della religione negli asili e dopo tante pressioni,
da parte vaticana, per imporre i valori cattolici nelle scuole, e'
finalmente esplosa in Croazia la polemica sulla educazione sessuale e
sui contraccettivi.
(Si noti che la notizia che segue - segnalata su exju.org - non e'
stata finora ripresa da alcuna agenzia o organo di informazione
italiano, perche' del clericonazismo croato e delle sue implicazioni e'
bene non parlare.)
---
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jan04/hed6214.shtml
Reuters, January 31, 2004
Croatia Catholic bishops oppose "condom education"
ZAGREB, (Reuters) - Croatia's powerful Roman Catholic Church has
opposed efforts to promote the use of condoms among teenagers to help
prevent AIDS and launched its own sex education programme counselling
chastity and abstinence.
The church's programme, publicised in Croatian media this week, aims to
sideline MEMOAIDS, a course introduced as an optional subject in local
secondary schools to raise awareness about AIDS.
The Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms, which church officials
say "encourages promiscuity and raises the chances of HIV infection
while not being fully successful in preventing pregnancy".
AIDS activists reject this, saying condoms help prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS.
"Our programme has a different approach than MEMOAIDS, which suggests
the use of condoms as protection. The goal is to change the behaviour,
not to promote wider use of condoms," the widely circulated daily
Jutarnji list quoted bishop Valter Zupan as saying on Friday.
Zupan, who heads the Family Council of the Croatian Bishops' Conference
(HBK), added that "experts from Washington have recently proved that
the use of condoms enhances promiscuity and the possibility of HIV
infection".
The Catholic Church counsels chastity and marital fidelity and its
opposition to condoms has sparked growing criticism worldwide as the
number of AIDS victims soars.
The HBK said earlier this week that MEMOAIDS was also unacceptable
because it did not require approval from parents.
Dragan Primorac, Education and Science Minister in the new conservative
government, said his ministry would thoroughly review both programmes
before making any decisions.
Almost 90 percent of people in this former Yugoslav republic declare
themselves Catholics, although surveys suggest more than half approve
of abortion, which the Catholic Church rejects.
Milosevic "trial" synopsis
1. JANUARY 20, 2004: A PRIJEDOR WITNESS TESTIFIES
2. JANUARY 21, 2004: "EXPERT WITNESS" TESTIFIES ABOUT WHAT "GENOCIDE"
MEANS TO HIM
3. JANUARY 22, 2004: TUDJMAN'S CABINET CHIEF ADMITS CROATIA MASSACRED
ITS OWN CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR OPERATION FLASH
4. JANUARY 26, 2004: PROSECUTION CLAIMS 2,541 BODIES FOUND AND 70
IDENTIFIED FROM SREBRENICA
5. JANUARY 27, 2004: A NATO SPY EMPLOYED BY THE PROSECUTION TESTIFIES
AGAINST MILOSEVIC
=== 1 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012003.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 20, 2004: A PRIJEDOR WITNESS
TESTIFIES
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 23, 2004
JANUARY 20, 2004 - Karem Misanovic, a Muslim from the National Defense
Secretariat of the Prijedor T.O. testified at the so-called "trial" of
Slobodan Milosevic on Tuesday.
He testified about the takeover of Prijedor, by the Bosnian Serb
Territorial Defense forces, on April 30, 1992. The takeover happened
without firing a single shot being fired. The Serbs were endeavoring
to prevent war from breaking out.
President Milosevic produced a telegram from Alija Mustafic of the B-H
Defense Ministry ordering the Prijedor T.O. to attack the JNA. The
telegram was sent on April 29, 1992 and it was the reason why the
Serbs took over the town the next day.
There were seven Muslims in the Prijedor T.O., including the witness,
and six of them kept their jobs after the take over. From this example
we can see that even after the Serbs took over there was no
discrimination against the Muslims.
The witness eventually left Bosnia and went to Serbia. He stayed in
Serbia until he could go to Germany. He didn't have any problems in
Serbia and he couldn't identify a single Muslim who did.
All in all he was a pretty insignificant witness. You would think that
with just a few days left to go to present their case that the
prosecution would try to come-up with something more than they
presented here.
After Misanovic withdrew Tom Zwann, a social scientist from the
Netherlands took the stand. Mr. Zwann wrote a report about genocide.
The point of his coming to testify was to try and broaden the
definition of genocide for the prosecution.
The prosecution seems to realize that Milosevic isn't guilty of what
most people understand genocide to be, so they are going to use this
witness in order to try and broaden the definition of the word.
Dr. Zwann bemoaned the fact that people measure genocide against the
Jewish experience during the Second World War. He thinks people set
the bar to high when it comes to genocide. He believes that genocide
doesn't have to be a large scale affair. More over he complains that
the legal definition of genocide is too restrictive.
Unfortunately, for the prosecution, Zwann put a caveat on his own
definition of genocide. If the supposed victim is armed and is
fighting a war with the other side then they aren't victims of
genocide.
The Bosnian Muslims were armed, and they were fighting a war that they
started themselves against the Bosnian Serbs. So even under Zwann's
excessively broad definition of genocide the Muslims still aren't
victims.
Zwann's examination in chief was completed on January 20th and
Slobodan Milosevic will cross-examine on January 21st.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012104.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 21, 2004: "EXPERT WITNESS"
TESTIFIES ABOUT WHAT "GENOCIDE" MEANS TO HIM
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 24, 2004
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 21, 2004 - Dr. Ton Zwann, a so-called “expert
witness” from a newly established center for Holocaust studies in
Amsterdam was cross-examined by President Slobodan Milosevic on
Wednesday.
Zwann wrote a report about “genocide” of course he didn’t use any
legal definition of the word. Instead Zwann’s report concentrated on
his own ideas and personal feelings about what he considers genocide
to be.
President Milosevic observed that this witness’s evidence was totally
irrelevant because it constituted nothing more than an opinion that
wasn’t based on any legal definition. Mr. May repeatedly reminded
Milosevic that he wasn’t supposed to make legal arguments, apparently
Mr. May feels that his so-called “courtroom” is no place for making
legal arguments. We wouldn't want something so trivial as the law
getting in the way of this show trial would we Mr. May?
Zwann complained in his report that the legal definition of genocide
was too restrictive. Therefore, he made up his own personal definition
that he used for his report. I’m not sure what exactly Zwann’s
definition of genocide is, but in Dr. Zwann’s world the Partisan Army
of Josip Broz Tito committed genocide against the Ustasha, so that
should tell you something.
In Mr. Nice’s re-examination he asked Dr. Zwann if he could think of
any examples where Serbs engaged in genocidal activity and the witness
replied that the Partisan Army, which contained many Serbs, committed
genocide against the Ustasha.
In addition to claiming that the Ustasha was the victim of genocide at
the hands of the Serbs. Zwann sought to minimize the number of people
killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp by the Ustasha.
President Milosevic quoted data he obtained from the Simon Wiesenthal
Center stating that 600,000 to 700,000 Serbs, and 30,000 Jews and
Gypsies were massacred by Ustasha fascists at the Jasenovac camp, and
Zwann dismissed that data as being exaggerated. Zwann suggested that
the numbers were being inflated for propaganda purposes and that the
“real number” was between 100,000 and 120,000 victims in total,
including the Jewish victims.
Seeing as how the Simon Wiesenthal Center is the one of the most
respected institutions in the field of Holocaust studies in the world,
and has been studying the Holocaust ever since the Second World War.
In view of this fact President Milosevic asked the witness if, he
(whose institution has only existed for 4 months) considered himself
to be more competent than the Wiesenthall Center to assess the
holocaust, and the witness said that he considered their research to
be wrong.
Zwann never explained how come the Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human
rights organization, would be making propaganda for the Serbs. Nor did
Zwann explain where he got his numbers from.
At any rate, Dr. Zwann’s feelings don’t matter. As far as I am
concerned he can take his report and sit under a tree with a bunch of
dumb hippies; they can take some bong hits, they can sing “Kumbaya,”
and they can all discuss what “genocide” means to them. For all I know
that’s how he came up with his ideas in the first place.
Never mind that genocide already has a clear definition set out in
Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide as adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N.
General Assembly on 9 December 1948, and the definition is this:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What happened here is obvious, seeing that they have not a single
shred of proof to accuse Milosevic of genocide, the prosecution has
decided to try and change the definition of genocide. They got some
jackass with a PhD. (Dr. Zwann) to come and put forward a bunch of
touchy feely psychobabble about what he thinks “genocide” is. This has
got to be one of the dumbest thing’s I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen
some pretty stupid things over the course of this fiasco they call a
“trial.”
After Zwann withdrew some administrative matters were discussed. Even
though they are nearly done presenting their pathetic excuse of a
case, the prosecution is still “unable” to provide Milosevic with the
documents for the upcoming witnesses. This is inexcusable, with only 11
days to go, that they can’t have the documents together.
Over two weeks ago Mr. Nice said that they had acquired a number of
documents from the Yugoslav Supreme Defense Council. Milosevic asked
for copies of those documents and still two weeks later he doesn’t have
them. All he wants are some lousy Xerox copies and the prosecution,
ignoring their own Rule 68, won’t give them to him.
After the break, Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman’s former Chief de
Cabinet, was examined by the prosecution. As one would expect, this
witness attributed God-like power to Slobodan Milosevic. This witness’s
basic claim was that every Serb everywhere was a mindless automaton
under the control of the all seeing and all knowing Slobodan Milosevic.
Slobodan Milosevic’s cross-examination of Sarinic was conducted on
Thursday and will be covered by this website in Thursday’s synopsis.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012204.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 22, 2004: TUDJMAN'S CABINET CHIEF
ADMITS CROATIA MASSACRED ITS OWN CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR
OPERATION FLASH
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 27, 2004
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 - Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman’s, former
Cabinet Chief was cross-examined by President Milosevic on Thursday.
Mr. Sarinic believed that the Krajina Serbs were a “Trojan horse” that
had been sent to Croatia to enact the politics of Slobodan Milosevic.
Milosevic joked that his control must have been so great that he was
able to send this “Trojan horse” into the Krajina centuries before he
was even born. The term “Trojan horse” was used more than once by Mr.
Sarinic to describe the Krajina Serbs, so it wasn’t merely a one time
slip of the tongue.
Mr. Sarinic also attempted to say that Milosevic controlled Arkan. He
didn’t have a single piece of proof to back this up. To explain his
lack of proof he said that “Milosevic covers his tracks too well.”
Slobodan Milosevic gave Mr. Sarinic more than he bargained for in his
cross-examination. President Milosevic had procured the transcripts of
top secret meetings held in the office of Franjo Tudjman.
From these transcripts Milosevic observed that Tudjman was speaking
quite openly about his desire to ethnically cleanse the Serbs from the
Krajina. In 1991 Tudjman was talking about "the need to cleanse Western
Slavonia.”
It also emerged that Tudjman, together with this witness and other top
Croatian officials, on April 30, 1995 planned to stage a “Serb” attack
on Croatian vehicles traveling on the Zagreb-Lipovac highway. The idea
behind staging this attack was to provide a pretext for the launch of
Operation Flash. Sure enough, late on that same day this attack was
carried out, and Operation Flash was launched the very next morning on
May 1, 1995.
At first Mr. Sarinic tried to deny these facts, but then he gave in
and admitted that it was true. He said that it was only “military
tactics,” and that “Operation Flash was justified.”
The result of Operation Flash was that thousands of Serbs were killed
or wounded and hundreds of thousands more were made into refugees.
But, oh well, it’s only “military tactics,” right Mr. Sarinic?
To top this off, Zagreb carried out this “Serb” attack on its own
citizens, at the same time as it was negotiating a peace agreement with
the RSK authorities in Knin.
These same people who massacred their own citizens on the highway in
order to provide a justification for their ethnic cleansing operations
have provided the prosecution with some of the intercepts that it is
using as “evidence” against Milosevic.
I’m sure we can trust the authenticity of their tapes, Sarinic himself
even "authenticated" some of the tapes. So what if the Croats murdered
their own people on the highway so that they could have an excuse to
ethnically cleanse the Serbs? They’re much too honest to doctor some
tapes. I’m sure we can trust them.
Mr. Sarinic, told Mr. Nice during the examination in chief that the
RSK Prime Minister, Bora Mikelic and Slobodan Milosevic had a “master
and slave relationship” with Milosevic as the master. It turns out that
Mr. Mikelic watches the “trial” and he saw Sarinic saying this.
Mr. Mikelic wrote a letter which was exhibited by President Milosevic.
In the letter Mikelic explains that he and Milosevic had a
relationship of equality and mutual respect, and that Sarinic knew this
and was spreading lies.
Sarinic was more candid than one might expect. He admitted that the
former Croatian Defense Minister, Martain Spegelj planned the blockade
and attack on JNA barracks in Croatia before the outbreak of
hostilities.
Sarinic also admitted that the United States, and in particular the
Clinton Administration, gave Croatia the green light to carry out
Operation Storm, and that it was the Americans who called off the
operation when it began heading towards Banja Luka.
With a wink and a nod from the United States, Croatia launched the
operation, and because the Americans were the ones running the show it
was the USA who called the operation off when their objectives had been
achieved.
What was their objective? If the result is any indication, it was to
carryout the largest ethnic cleansing in the Balkans since the Second
World War, since that is exactly what happened.
Mr. Sarinic was of the opinion that Croatia was the victim. In his
opinion the Serbs, who had been living in the Krajina for many
centuries, were “occupying” Croatia. He insisted that operations
“Storm” and “Flash” were justified.
Another admission that Mr. Sarinic made was that a French General,
named DeBoul (phonetic) who investigated the shelling of the Markale
Market in Sarajevo told him that the fatal shell could only have come
from Muslim-held positions.
Slobodan Milosevic read out transcripts of Mesic’s remarks at his
meetings with Tudjman. On November 21, 1991 Mesic said that Croatia
should “paint the JNA” as an aggressor army. He said that Croatia
should go to the UN and argue that Yugoslavia no longer existed, and
ask the UN not to recognize Yugoslavia anymore. Mr. Sarinic looked at
the transcript and basically confirmed that it was all in the
transcript, and that it was in line with their position at the time.
It seems like Croatia had a pretty self-important view of itself.
Croatia leaves Yugoslavia; and so on the basis of that it concludes
that Yugoslavia no longer exists. If Delaware left would the United
States cease to exist?
After Sarinic withdrew some administrative matters were discussed.
Even at this late date, Mr. Nice still can’t make-up his mind about
which witnesses he will call. On Monday the prosecution will call, Dean
Manning, an investigator who has been employed by the Office of the
Prosecutor to investigate Serbreica.
=== 4 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012604.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 26, 2004: PROSECUTION CLAIMS
2,541 BODIES FOUND AND 70 IDENTIFIED FROM SREBRENICA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 29, 2004
Monday, January 26, 2004 - Dean Manning an investigator employed by
the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY testified against Slobodan
Milosevic on Monday.
Prior to his employment in the Office of the Prosecutor Mr. Manning
was a detective for the Australian Police.
As an investigator for the prosecution, Mr. Manning prepared a report
about what he has found over the course of the exhumations of mass
graves connected to Srebrenica between 1996 until the present day.
Contrary to media reports the graves have not unearthed 8,000 bodies.
According to Mr. Manning 2,541 different bodies are confirmed to have
been found, and only 70 bodies have been identified by the ICTY.
Manning claimed that the B-H government may have identified more
bodies, but he didn't know how many.
According to Mr. Manning's report 1,175 bodies were killed by gunshot
wounds. 67 were killed by shrapnel or blast injuries. 11 were killed
by a combination of gunshot wounds and shrapnel or blast injuries, and
the cause of death for the rest is undetermined, meaning that the
cause of death for over half of the bodies is unknown.
All of the corpses are men, except for one woman. The youngest body
found is thought to be approximately 12 years old. The vast majority
of the cadavers are of military aged men.
President Milosevic asked Manning if there was any indication that
anybody from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was involved. Manning
said that there was no evidence that anybody from Yugoslavia was
involved with any of the killings.
Manning said that there are only two known perpetrators. One is a VRS
soldier who was later killed in the war, and the other is Drazen
Erdemovic, who is a Croat.
Erdemovic was sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking part in
executions, and was let out of prison after serving only 6 years.
Mr. Manning claimed that it was 30,000 men who had set out to
breakthrough the Serbian lines together with the B-H Army towards
Tuzla in July of 1995, and not the 15,000 that had been claimed by
earlier witnesses.
Mr. Manning knew that people were killed in the fighting around
Srebrenica, but he didn't know where they were buried. Manning held
the opinion that nobody in the graves had been killed in battle, even
though he didn't know how half of them had been killed.
Mr. Manning was only briefly examined by Mr. Nice. Rule 89(F) was used
and the examination-in-chief was over in just a few minutes. President
Milosevic was only given an hour and a half for his cross-examination,
and Mr. Tapuskovic was only given 15 minutes. It seems more than a
little odd that a witness of this nature would be examined so quickly.
The next witness was Reynaud Theunens. He holds the rank of commandant
in the Belgian army, and he works for the Office of the Prosecutor
too. He wrote a report for the Prosecution about the command structure
of the armed forces operating on the territory of the former SFRY. His
cross-examination will be covered in the summary of Tuesday's
proceedings.
=== 5 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012704.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 27, 2004: A NATO SPY EMPLOYED BY
THE PROSECUTION TESTIFIES AGAINST MILOSEVIC
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 30, 2004
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004 – Reynaud Theunens completed his
examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic on
Tuesday.
The first thing you should know about this witness is who he is. Mr.
Theunens holds the rank of commandant in the Belgian army, where he
serves as an active duty intelligence officer. In other words he’s a
NATO spy whose area of operation is the Balkans, and he is currently
employed by the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal.
Mr. Theunens “expert report” was entitled “Armed Forces in the SFRY
and the war in Croatia.” Even the title of his report was misleading
because he didn’t talk about all of the armed forces on the territory
of the SFRY who took part in the war in Croatia. He didn’t mention the
Croatian forces at all. Practically no mention was made of the HVO,
HOS, or ZNG forces, and when President Milosevic would ask the witness
about these forces he would say that it was outside the scope of his
report.
Mr. Theunens only dealt with armed forces that the Serbs were part of.
He didn’t look at all of the warring factions. He tried to say that
volunteer units were the same thing as paramilitary formations. He
didn’t seem to, or want to, understand that a volunteer unit is
subordinated to the command of either the army, or the territorial
defense forces, whereas a paramilitary unit is an armed group that
isn’t subordinated to any legal command structure.
Mr. Theunens had the opportunity to look over many documents from the
JNA, VJ, VRS, and SVK forces. With this in mind President Milosevic
asked the witness if he had seen any document where either he or the
VJ main staff issued orders to the VRS or the SVK forces. Mr. Theunens
reply was “just because we don’t have these documents it doesn’t mean
that they don’t exist.”
The closest thing to an order that Mr. Theunens could come up with was
a request that Milosevic sent to Martic asking him to let UNPROFOR
pass through SVK territory, and the reason why Milosevic sent the
request in the first place was because Akashi had asked him to.
The Yugoslav Army’s 30th and 40th personnel centers came up again and
President Milosevic again had to explain that these centers existed to
pay salaries, pension, and health benefits to the former officers
Yugoslav People’s Army and their families. Nobody who didn’t first
serve in the JNA got a dime from these personnel centers, and this is
material that has already been confirmed and explained by the former
Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic when he came to testify.
There is no proof that these personnel centers issued any orders. They
were just personnel centers, and no army anywhere in the world is
commanded by the personnel department.
This was a wasted day for the prosecution. Not even this NATO spy who
works for the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal could say
that Milosevic or the VJ main staff issued any orders to the SVK or
the VRS or to any other soldier serving outside of the borders of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
1. JANUARY 20, 2004: A PRIJEDOR WITNESS TESTIFIES
2. JANUARY 21, 2004: "EXPERT WITNESS" TESTIFIES ABOUT WHAT "GENOCIDE"
MEANS TO HIM
3. JANUARY 22, 2004: TUDJMAN'S CABINET CHIEF ADMITS CROATIA MASSACRED
ITS OWN CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR OPERATION FLASH
4. JANUARY 26, 2004: PROSECUTION CLAIMS 2,541 BODIES FOUND AND 70
IDENTIFIED FROM SREBRENICA
5. JANUARY 27, 2004: A NATO SPY EMPLOYED BY THE PROSECUTION TESTIFIES
AGAINST MILOSEVIC
=== 1 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012003.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 20, 2004: A PRIJEDOR WITNESS
TESTIFIES
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 23, 2004
JANUARY 20, 2004 - Karem Misanovic, a Muslim from the National Defense
Secretariat of the Prijedor T.O. testified at the so-called "trial" of
Slobodan Milosevic on Tuesday.
He testified about the takeover of Prijedor, by the Bosnian Serb
Territorial Defense forces, on April 30, 1992. The takeover happened
without firing a single shot being fired. The Serbs were endeavoring
to prevent war from breaking out.
President Milosevic produced a telegram from Alija Mustafic of the B-H
Defense Ministry ordering the Prijedor T.O. to attack the JNA. The
telegram was sent on April 29, 1992 and it was the reason why the
Serbs took over the town the next day.
There were seven Muslims in the Prijedor T.O., including the witness,
and six of them kept their jobs after the take over. From this example
we can see that even after the Serbs took over there was no
discrimination against the Muslims.
The witness eventually left Bosnia and went to Serbia. He stayed in
Serbia until he could go to Germany. He didn't have any problems in
Serbia and he couldn't identify a single Muslim who did.
All in all he was a pretty insignificant witness. You would think that
with just a few days left to go to present their case that the
prosecution would try to come-up with something more than they
presented here.
After Misanovic withdrew Tom Zwann, a social scientist from the
Netherlands took the stand. Mr. Zwann wrote a report about genocide.
The point of his coming to testify was to try and broaden the
definition of genocide for the prosecution.
The prosecution seems to realize that Milosevic isn't guilty of what
most people understand genocide to be, so they are going to use this
witness in order to try and broaden the definition of the word.
Dr. Zwann bemoaned the fact that people measure genocide against the
Jewish experience during the Second World War. He thinks people set
the bar to high when it comes to genocide. He believes that genocide
doesn't have to be a large scale affair. More over he complains that
the legal definition of genocide is too restrictive.
Unfortunately, for the prosecution, Zwann put a caveat on his own
definition of genocide. If the supposed victim is armed and is
fighting a war with the other side then they aren't victims of
genocide.
The Bosnian Muslims were armed, and they were fighting a war that they
started themselves against the Bosnian Serbs. So even under Zwann's
excessively broad definition of genocide the Muslims still aren't
victims.
Zwann's examination in chief was completed on January 20th and
Slobodan Milosevic will cross-examine on January 21st.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012104.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 21, 2004: "EXPERT WITNESS"
TESTIFIES ABOUT WHAT "GENOCIDE" MEANS TO HIM
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 24, 2004
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 21, 2004 - Dr. Ton Zwann, a so-called “expert
witness” from a newly established center for Holocaust studies in
Amsterdam was cross-examined by President Slobodan Milosevic on
Wednesday.
Zwann wrote a report about “genocide” of course he didn’t use any
legal definition of the word. Instead Zwann’s report concentrated on
his own ideas and personal feelings about what he considers genocide
to be.
President Milosevic observed that this witness’s evidence was totally
irrelevant because it constituted nothing more than an opinion that
wasn’t based on any legal definition. Mr. May repeatedly reminded
Milosevic that he wasn’t supposed to make legal arguments, apparently
Mr. May feels that his so-called “courtroom” is no place for making
legal arguments. We wouldn't want something so trivial as the law
getting in the way of this show trial would we Mr. May?
Zwann complained in his report that the legal definition of genocide
was too restrictive. Therefore, he made up his own personal definition
that he used for his report. I’m not sure what exactly Zwann’s
definition of genocide is, but in Dr. Zwann’s world the Partisan Army
of Josip Broz Tito committed genocide against the Ustasha, so that
should tell you something.
In Mr. Nice’s re-examination he asked Dr. Zwann if he could think of
any examples where Serbs engaged in genocidal activity and the witness
replied that the Partisan Army, which contained many Serbs, committed
genocide against the Ustasha.
In addition to claiming that the Ustasha was the victim of genocide at
the hands of the Serbs. Zwann sought to minimize the number of people
killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp by the Ustasha.
President Milosevic quoted data he obtained from the Simon Wiesenthal
Center stating that 600,000 to 700,000 Serbs, and 30,000 Jews and
Gypsies were massacred by Ustasha fascists at the Jasenovac camp, and
Zwann dismissed that data as being exaggerated. Zwann suggested that
the numbers were being inflated for propaganda purposes and that the
“real number” was between 100,000 and 120,000 victims in total,
including the Jewish victims.
Seeing as how the Simon Wiesenthal Center is the one of the most
respected institutions in the field of Holocaust studies in the world,
and has been studying the Holocaust ever since the Second World War.
In view of this fact President Milosevic asked the witness if, he
(whose institution has only existed for 4 months) considered himself
to be more competent than the Wiesenthall Center to assess the
holocaust, and the witness said that he considered their research to
be wrong.
Zwann never explained how come the Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human
rights organization, would be making propaganda for the Serbs. Nor did
Zwann explain where he got his numbers from.
At any rate, Dr. Zwann’s feelings don’t matter. As far as I am
concerned he can take his report and sit under a tree with a bunch of
dumb hippies; they can take some bong hits, they can sing “Kumbaya,”
and they can all discuss what “genocide” means to them. For all I know
that’s how he came up with his ideas in the first place.
Never mind that genocide already has a clear definition set out in
Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide as adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N.
General Assembly on 9 December 1948, and the definition is this:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What happened here is obvious, seeing that they have not a single
shred of proof to accuse Milosevic of genocide, the prosecution has
decided to try and change the definition of genocide. They got some
jackass with a PhD. (Dr. Zwann) to come and put forward a bunch of
touchy feely psychobabble about what he thinks “genocide” is. This has
got to be one of the dumbest thing’s I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen
some pretty stupid things over the course of this fiasco they call a
“trial.”
After Zwann withdrew some administrative matters were discussed. Even
though they are nearly done presenting their pathetic excuse of a
case, the prosecution is still “unable” to provide Milosevic with the
documents for the upcoming witnesses. This is inexcusable, with only 11
days to go, that they can’t have the documents together.
Over two weeks ago Mr. Nice said that they had acquired a number of
documents from the Yugoslav Supreme Defense Council. Milosevic asked
for copies of those documents and still two weeks later he doesn’t have
them. All he wants are some lousy Xerox copies and the prosecution,
ignoring their own Rule 68, won’t give them to him.
After the break, Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman’s former Chief de
Cabinet, was examined by the prosecution. As one would expect, this
witness attributed God-like power to Slobodan Milosevic. This witness’s
basic claim was that every Serb everywhere was a mindless automaton
under the control of the all seeing and all knowing Slobodan Milosevic.
Slobodan Milosevic’s cross-examination of Sarinic was conducted on
Thursday and will be covered by this website in Thursday’s synopsis.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012204.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 22, 2004: TUDJMAN'S CABINET CHIEF
ADMITS CROATIA MASSACRED ITS OWN CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR
OPERATION FLASH
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 27, 2004
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 - Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman’s, former
Cabinet Chief was cross-examined by President Milosevic on Thursday.
Mr. Sarinic believed that the Krajina Serbs were a “Trojan horse” that
had been sent to Croatia to enact the politics of Slobodan Milosevic.
Milosevic joked that his control must have been so great that he was
able to send this “Trojan horse” into the Krajina centuries before he
was even born. The term “Trojan horse” was used more than once by Mr.
Sarinic to describe the Krajina Serbs, so it wasn’t merely a one time
slip of the tongue.
Mr. Sarinic also attempted to say that Milosevic controlled Arkan. He
didn’t have a single piece of proof to back this up. To explain his
lack of proof he said that “Milosevic covers his tracks too well.”
Slobodan Milosevic gave Mr. Sarinic more than he bargained for in his
cross-examination. President Milosevic had procured the transcripts of
top secret meetings held in the office of Franjo Tudjman.
From these transcripts Milosevic observed that Tudjman was speaking
quite openly about his desire to ethnically cleanse the Serbs from the
Krajina. In 1991 Tudjman was talking about "the need to cleanse Western
Slavonia.”
It also emerged that Tudjman, together with this witness and other top
Croatian officials, on April 30, 1995 planned to stage a “Serb” attack
on Croatian vehicles traveling on the Zagreb-Lipovac highway. The idea
behind staging this attack was to provide a pretext for the launch of
Operation Flash. Sure enough, late on that same day this attack was
carried out, and Operation Flash was launched the very next morning on
May 1, 1995.
At first Mr. Sarinic tried to deny these facts, but then he gave in
and admitted that it was true. He said that it was only “military
tactics,” and that “Operation Flash was justified.”
The result of Operation Flash was that thousands of Serbs were killed
or wounded and hundreds of thousands more were made into refugees.
But, oh well, it’s only “military tactics,” right Mr. Sarinic?
To top this off, Zagreb carried out this “Serb” attack on its own
citizens, at the same time as it was negotiating a peace agreement with
the RSK authorities in Knin.
These same people who massacred their own citizens on the highway in
order to provide a justification for their ethnic cleansing operations
have provided the prosecution with some of the intercepts that it is
using as “evidence” against Milosevic.
I’m sure we can trust the authenticity of their tapes, Sarinic himself
even "authenticated" some of the tapes. So what if the Croats murdered
their own people on the highway so that they could have an excuse to
ethnically cleanse the Serbs? They’re much too honest to doctor some
tapes. I’m sure we can trust them.
Mr. Sarinic, told Mr. Nice during the examination in chief that the
RSK Prime Minister, Bora Mikelic and Slobodan Milosevic had a “master
and slave relationship” with Milosevic as the master. It turns out that
Mr. Mikelic watches the “trial” and he saw Sarinic saying this.
Mr. Mikelic wrote a letter which was exhibited by President Milosevic.
In the letter Mikelic explains that he and Milosevic had a
relationship of equality and mutual respect, and that Sarinic knew this
and was spreading lies.
Sarinic was more candid than one might expect. He admitted that the
former Croatian Defense Minister, Martain Spegelj planned the blockade
and attack on JNA barracks in Croatia before the outbreak of
hostilities.
Sarinic also admitted that the United States, and in particular the
Clinton Administration, gave Croatia the green light to carry out
Operation Storm, and that it was the Americans who called off the
operation when it began heading towards Banja Luka.
With a wink and a nod from the United States, Croatia launched the
operation, and because the Americans were the ones running the show it
was the USA who called the operation off when their objectives had been
achieved.
What was their objective? If the result is any indication, it was to
carryout the largest ethnic cleansing in the Balkans since the Second
World War, since that is exactly what happened.
Mr. Sarinic was of the opinion that Croatia was the victim. In his
opinion the Serbs, who had been living in the Krajina for many
centuries, were “occupying” Croatia. He insisted that operations
“Storm” and “Flash” were justified.
Another admission that Mr. Sarinic made was that a French General,
named DeBoul (phonetic) who investigated the shelling of the Markale
Market in Sarajevo told him that the fatal shell could only have come
from Muslim-held positions.
Slobodan Milosevic read out transcripts of Mesic’s remarks at his
meetings with Tudjman. On November 21, 1991 Mesic said that Croatia
should “paint the JNA” as an aggressor army. He said that Croatia
should go to the UN and argue that Yugoslavia no longer existed, and
ask the UN not to recognize Yugoslavia anymore. Mr. Sarinic looked at
the transcript and basically confirmed that it was all in the
transcript, and that it was in line with their position at the time.
It seems like Croatia had a pretty self-important view of itself.
Croatia leaves Yugoslavia; and so on the basis of that it concludes
that Yugoslavia no longer exists. If Delaware left would the United
States cease to exist?
After Sarinic withdrew some administrative matters were discussed.
Even at this late date, Mr. Nice still can’t make-up his mind about
which witnesses he will call. On Monday the prosecution will call, Dean
Manning, an investigator who has been employed by the Office of the
Prosecutor to investigate Serbreica.
=== 4 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012604.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 26, 2004: PROSECUTION CLAIMS
2,541 BODIES FOUND AND 70 IDENTIFIED FROM SREBRENICA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 29, 2004
Monday, January 26, 2004 - Dean Manning an investigator employed by
the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY testified against Slobodan
Milosevic on Monday.
Prior to his employment in the Office of the Prosecutor Mr. Manning
was a detective for the Australian Police.
As an investigator for the prosecution, Mr. Manning prepared a report
about what he has found over the course of the exhumations of mass
graves connected to Srebrenica between 1996 until the present day.
Contrary to media reports the graves have not unearthed 8,000 bodies.
According to Mr. Manning 2,541 different bodies are confirmed to have
been found, and only 70 bodies have been identified by the ICTY.
Manning claimed that the B-H government may have identified more
bodies, but he didn't know how many.
According to Mr. Manning's report 1,175 bodies were killed by gunshot
wounds. 67 were killed by shrapnel or blast injuries. 11 were killed
by a combination of gunshot wounds and shrapnel or blast injuries, and
the cause of death for the rest is undetermined, meaning that the
cause of death for over half of the bodies is unknown.
All of the corpses are men, except for one woman. The youngest body
found is thought to be approximately 12 years old. The vast majority
of the cadavers are of military aged men.
President Milosevic asked Manning if there was any indication that
anybody from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was involved. Manning
said that there was no evidence that anybody from Yugoslavia was
involved with any of the killings.
Manning said that there are only two known perpetrators. One is a VRS
soldier who was later killed in the war, and the other is Drazen
Erdemovic, who is a Croat.
Erdemovic was sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking part in
executions, and was let out of prison after serving only 6 years.
Mr. Manning claimed that it was 30,000 men who had set out to
breakthrough the Serbian lines together with the B-H Army towards
Tuzla in July of 1995, and not the 15,000 that had been claimed by
earlier witnesses.
Mr. Manning knew that people were killed in the fighting around
Srebrenica, but he didn't know where they were buried. Manning held
the opinion that nobody in the graves had been killed in battle, even
though he didn't know how half of them had been killed.
Mr. Manning was only briefly examined by Mr. Nice. Rule 89(F) was used
and the examination-in-chief was over in just a few minutes. President
Milosevic was only given an hour and a half for his cross-examination,
and Mr. Tapuskovic was only given 15 minutes. It seems more than a
little odd that a witness of this nature would be examined so quickly.
The next witness was Reynaud Theunens. He holds the rank of commandant
in the Belgian army, and he works for the Office of the Prosecutor
too. He wrote a report for the Prosecution about the command structure
of the armed forces operating on the territory of the former SFRY. His
cross-examination will be covered in the summary of Tuesday's
proceedings.
=== 5 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012704.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 27, 2004: A NATO SPY EMPLOYED BY
THE PROSECUTION TESTIFIES AGAINST MILOSEVIC
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 30, 2004
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004 – Reynaud Theunens completed his
examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic on
Tuesday.
The first thing you should know about this witness is who he is. Mr.
Theunens holds the rank of commandant in the Belgian army, where he
serves as an active duty intelligence officer. In other words he’s a
NATO spy whose area of operation is the Balkans, and he is currently
employed by the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal.
Mr. Theunens “expert report” was entitled “Armed Forces in the SFRY
and the war in Croatia.” Even the title of his report was misleading
because he didn’t talk about all of the armed forces on the territory
of the SFRY who took part in the war in Croatia. He didn’t mention the
Croatian forces at all. Practically no mention was made of the HVO,
HOS, or ZNG forces, and when President Milosevic would ask the witness
about these forces he would say that it was outside the scope of his
report.
Mr. Theunens only dealt with armed forces that the Serbs were part of.
He didn’t look at all of the warring factions. He tried to say that
volunteer units were the same thing as paramilitary formations. He
didn’t seem to, or want to, understand that a volunteer unit is
subordinated to the command of either the army, or the territorial
defense forces, whereas a paramilitary unit is an armed group that
isn’t subordinated to any legal command structure.
Mr. Theunens had the opportunity to look over many documents from the
JNA, VJ, VRS, and SVK forces. With this in mind President Milosevic
asked the witness if he had seen any document where either he or the
VJ main staff issued orders to the VRS or the SVK forces. Mr. Theunens
reply was “just because we don’t have these documents it doesn’t mean
that they don’t exist.”
The closest thing to an order that Mr. Theunens could come up with was
a request that Milosevic sent to Martic asking him to let UNPROFOR
pass through SVK territory, and the reason why Milosevic sent the
request in the first place was because Akashi had asked him to.
The Yugoslav Army’s 30th and 40th personnel centers came up again and
President Milosevic again had to explain that these centers existed to
pay salaries, pension, and health benefits to the former officers
Yugoslav People’s Army and their families. Nobody who didn’t first
serve in the JNA got a dime from these personnel centers, and this is
material that has already been confirmed and explained by the former
Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic when he came to testify.
There is no proof that these personnel centers issued any orders. They
were just personnel centers, and no army anywhere in the world is
commanded by the personnel department.
This was a wasted day for the prosecution. Not even this NATO spy who
works for the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal could say
that Milosevic or the VJ main staff issued any orders to the SVK or
the VRS or to any other soldier serving outside of the borders of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
(italiano / english)
WC : War Criminal : Wesley Clark
1. "Democracy Now" ha intervistato Clark
2. Clark placed career ahead of nation in Kosovo (G. Jatras)
3. General Wesley Clark - From Waco to Yugoslavia
4. Balkan failure is Clark's (Robert Novak)
5. Wesley Clark goes to the Hague (by Andrej Grubacic)
See also / vedi anche:
Michael Moore enlists with General Clark: the pathetic-and
predictable-logic of protest politics (by David Walsh)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/moor-j27_prn.shtml
The Democrats' idea of a general (by Ann Coulter)
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/
story.html?id=b08be3c5-26a4-4274-abcd-87c9a0ca988a
On war criminal Wesley Clark "testimony" at The Hague's ad-hoc
"tribunal", as well as on his biography and future aspirations, see in
our previous mailings:
Wesley Clark's Ties To Muslim Terrorists
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3078
Criminal Clark
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3074
On Criminal Clark's testimony at The Hague
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3043
Almost full transcripts of the "testimony" can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3031
STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3026
Un vero criminale di guerra all'Aia
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3017
War criminal Wesley Clark to testify against Milosevic
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3007
Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden e le elezioni Presidenziali del 2004
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2961
M. Chossudovsky: Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004
Presidential Elections
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2889
History of misinformation tarnishes Clark's military record
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2871
Wesley Clark farà domani il contrario di ciò che ha fatto ieri ?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2825
Wesley Clark fera-t-il demain le contraire de ce qu'il faisait hier?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2811
Wesley Clark War Crimes amply documented
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2822
War Criminal Wesley Clark for President?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2795
=== 1 ===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlo Gubitosa"
To: <pace@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: La sinistra usa e le morti in kossovo
Negli Usa tra un po' ci saranno le elezioni presidenziali, e molti
pacifisti Usa si crederanno costretti a votare l'ex comandante della
missione nato in Kossovo, il generale Wesley Clark, che si presenta
come unica alternativa a Bush, cosi' come molti pacifisti italiani
premieranno con il loro voto molti politici colpevoli di crimini contro
l'umanita', strage e attentato alla costituzione durante i
bombardamenti del 1999.
Negli Usa, la catena radiofonica indipendente "Pacifica Network" ha la
memoria lunga, e il programma radiofonico "Democracy Now" ha
intervistato Clark con delle domande sulla guerra del 1999. In Italia
si annuncia una "dura campagna elettorale", ma state sicuri che le
bombe del 1999 sono un argomento morto e sepolto, come migliaia di
civili jugoslavi.
Il video e la trascrizione dell'intervista si trovano a questo
indirizzo:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224
---
In the January 26th, 2004 issue of the american “DEMOCRACY NOW!”, Clark
Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia.
“DEMOCRACY NOW!” confronts Wesley Clark Over His Bombing Of Civilians,
Use Of Cluster Bombs And Depleted Uranium And The Bombing Of Serb
Television :
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224
In a “DEMOCRACY NOW!” exclusive, General Wesley Clark responds for the
first time to in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia,
the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the
cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as
though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he
gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.
Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not
answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Yugoslavia.
Today candidate to the presidence of the USA, Clark portrays himself as
the antiwar warrior and his rhetoric against the war has escalated
significantly over the past week of campaigning. At his campaign stops,
he has been saying regularly, "The war is wrong."
This is not always what he said.
In February, Clark told CNN, "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know,
we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to
get with us...The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on
this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on
the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the
world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this
evidence and decide who they line up with."
Immediately following the fall of Baghdad to US forces, Clark responded
to a question about finding the alleged weapons of mass destruction,
saying: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on
this."
But as Clark speaks out about the war in Iraq, his own record in a
different war is almost never examined. That is his role as the Supreme
Allied Commander of NATO during the 78 day bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999.Sure, the Clark campaign promotes this in its TV ads - but they
say that he liberated a nation and ended a genocide. Clark mentions it
often in his stump speeches and the debates. But as a qualification to
be commander-in-chief.
What is not discussed is what Clark actually did when he was running a
war.
“DEMOCRACY NOW!” correspondent Jeremy Scahill covered the 78 day
bombing of Yugoslavia from the ground in 1999, the war Clark was
leading as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, BEING QUESTIONED
BY “DEMOCRACY NOW!” CORRESPONDENT JEREMY SCAHILL.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium...
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure did.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I want to know if you are president, will you vow not
to use them.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to
protect the men and women against force.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Even against civilians in the Nis marketplace? Why bomb
Radio Television Serbia? Why did you bomb Radio Television Serbia? You
killed 16 media workers, sir.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were-[in audible - Interview interrupted by
another questioner.]
That was Clark making an exit off the stage. We followed him as he left
the theater and walked down the streets of Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
shaking hands, signing autographs, talking to potential voters. As he
was entering a business establishment, Jeremy Scahill again approached
the General.
Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent
Jeremy Scahill.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio
Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Excuse me -- I'm not --
JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all
journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth
was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that
was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it
set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the
warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the
western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power,
and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the
fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people
who were killed, as I recall.
JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I recall six.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I was there at the time and I knew the families. They
do hold Milosevic accountable and they also hold you accountable, sir.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were ordered to stay there.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And they were makeup artists, and they were engineers,
and they were technicians
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember reading the story, but I want to tell
you about it.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty International said you committed a war crime by
bombing that.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was all looked at by the International
Criminal Tribunal crime by Yugoslavia. All of my actions were examined
and they were all upheld by the highest law in the United States.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And you think a media outlet is a legitimate target?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, but when it is used as command and control,
it is. But then
JEREMY SCAHILL: Even if it kills…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Now wait a minute, you have to let me finish and
then I will let you finish.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Go ahead.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I said is, we would give them the warnings.
It was part of the command and control systems. It was approved as a
legitimate target under the laws of land warfare and went through the
U.S. Government. That was the basis on which we struck. We actually
called the bombers back one time, because there was still -- it was
still unclear to us that we weren't absolutely certain. What we know is
that Milosevic ordered them to stay there, and it was wrong, but I was
doing my duty, and I have been looked at by the law, so -- I mean, I
respect Amnesty International. I think they're a good organization, but
--
JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of
civilians that you essentially were overseeing?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And what about the bombing of the Nis marketplace with
cluster bombs, shredding human beings.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was terrible, but you know in that instance,
if we had got the same incident, there was a cluster bomb that opened
prematurely. It was an accident. And every one of these incidents was
fully investigated. All of the material from the Yugoslavian government
was given to the International Criminal Tribunal, plus as the NATO
commander, I made a full report to the International Criminal Tribunal.
It was all investigated. The pilots who did it, nobody could have felt
worse than the pilots who did it. And I got a letter from a man in
Serbia who said you killed my granddaughter on a schoolyard at Nis. I
know how he must have felt. And I felt so helpless about it. Every
night before I let those bombs go, I prayed we wouldn't kill innocent
people. But unfortunately, when you are at war, terrible things happen,
even when you don't want them to. You can't imagine what those pilots
felt like in those convoys when they struck the convoys. You remember
the convoys?
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Gurdulica were the 72 Albanians were killed.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In that place, too. And they had flown over it a
couple of times.You know, we just -- we were trying to establish some
kind of communications on the ground with the Albanians. The Serbs were
on the nets, and they were jamming all of the communications, and they
were doing imitative communications deception. And nobody could get the
truth about it. We saw the Serb vehicles around the place. And I didn't
make the decision, but they were following orders on my command. And it
was looked at, and so forth. The decision was made as a legitimate
target. It turned out that they had been ordered to stay in there by
the Serbs. The Serbs were surrounding the place to keep them penned in.
It was horrible. You never forget stuff like that. That's why when this
government has used force as it has, it makes me so angry. Because
these people in the White House don't understand -- you don't use force
except as a last, last, last resort.
JEREMY SCAHILL: On April 12th you targeted a passenger train, and then
you showed a video that was sped up at three time the speed. Why?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think -- first of all, the passenger train was
not targeted. The pilot's instructions were to go after a bridge, and
not the train. He felt, as he launched that missile, that all of a
sudden at the very last minute, the train suddenly came into his field
of view. I showed the tape. I did not know that the tape was
accelerated. I don't think it was three times. I think it was
one-and-a-half times. Whatever it was, it was going faster than the
actual speed. It made it look like it was --
JEREMY SCAHILL: But the Supreme Allied Commander, you are ultimately
responsible for all of the information that came out.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's true. I was.
JEREMY SCAHILL: What the actual in real-time speed showed is that the
pilot actually moved the target so that it would hit the train.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't have that information.
JEREMY SCAHILL: 12 people were killed, including an orthodox priest.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's terrible. But, I don't have the
information. When I looked at it, we didn't see that. All of the
material was sent to The Hague and they did not see that either.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think you owe the people of Serbia who died in
that war an apology?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I don't because I did my duty as the
commander for NATO and for the United States.I think Slobodan Milosevic
owes the people of Serbia an apology, because we acted to prevent
regional destabilization, and to be honest, when you take the kinds of
actions that he has done, he was the proximate cause. All we tried to
do was head off the ethnic cleansing through diplomacy, and basically,
he had a plan to go to war, no matter what.
JEREMY SCAHILL: But now the U.S. is supporting a regime of ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo where all minorities have been forced out,
including almost every single Serb.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, we are trying very hard not to
allow that to happen.And we have worked very hard with the Kosovo
Albanians and the Serbs, but to be honest with you that regime that's
north of the Ibar River is a regime that wants to prevent Serbs from
living peacefully with Kosovo Albanians. So, both sides have to share
the blame. They have been under the control of Seselj and also some
under Milosevic and their tactic in 1999 was to provoke the retaliation
by the Albanians to be able to blame the Albanians for reverse ethnic
cleansing. There were -- there were crimes on both sides and they
needed to be investigated. To the best of my ability as NATO commander
at the time, we did.
JEREMY SCAHILL: But then why -- you have a man like Agim Ceku in power,
a man who was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs at
Kraina, a man trained by MPRI in Virginia. Why put a man like that in
charge? What kind of message does that send to ethnic minorities in
Kosovo, when a man who is a basically a war criminal is in charge of
what is going to be the future army in Kosovo.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we looked at his record and it's not clear
that he's going to be in charge of the future army of Kosovo. He did
receive instruction from a contracted U.S. firm at MPRI. He received
basic information after he became there in charge of the Kosovo
protective corps. We thought that was the best way to maintain order
and security in the country.
JEREMY SCAHILL: He has been accused of hate speech by the United
Nations.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Lots of people in that part of the world have
been accused of hate speech, and they shouldn't do it. I met with Agim
Ceku a few times when I was over there, and I told him who I thought
about it. I don't accept that language.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think that he should be in a position of power
in Kosovo?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I'm so far removed from the
issues right now --
JEREMY SCAHILL: But you know him.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But I can’t – yeah – I know him, but what I have
seen of him, he is the one of the more reasonable people in that region.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Because in your ads you say you liberated a nation. And
that’s why I am asking you this question.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The thing is I have got to talk to some other
voters. Is that okay? Can you excuse me?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I am trying to answer all your questions.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Thank you I appreciate it. Thank you for being patient
with me.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.
---
See also / vedi anche:
Wesley Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia
(by Jeremy Scahill)
http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/040126.html
=== 2 ===
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/
index.php?page=opinion&story_id=012304b5_guestw
es
Tucson Citizen
Friday, January 23, 2004
Guest Opinion: Clark placed career ahead of nation in Kosovo
GEORGE JATRAS
letters@...
The Dan Christman and Chuck Larson guest column published on Jan. 8 -
"Gen. Clark's stand vs. Milosevic praiseworthy" - was remarkable as
much for what it didn't say as for the distortions in what it did say.
In praising Clark's testimony against former Yugoslav dictator
Slobodan Milosevic before the International Tribunal at The Hague, the
authors failed to mention that Milosevic was not permitted to question
Clark on what the general had written in his book, "Waging Modern War."
Also, the U.S. government demanded and received the right to edit
videotapes and transcripts of the sessions before they were made
public. Following his secret testimony at The Hague, Clark, in answer
to an inquiry about what should happen to Saddam Hussein,
hypocritically stated that it was important that Hussein's trial not be
behind closed doors, so that the whole world could see justice done.
While the article had high praise in general terms for Clark's
leadership of NATO forces in the Balkans, a critical look at his
performance tells a different story.
In "Waging Modern War" Clark writes about his fury upon learning that
Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo,
before British or American forces.
In an Aug. 3, 1999, article, "The guy who almost started World War
III," The Guardian (UK) wrote: "No sooner are we told by Britain's top
generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's
war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander,
the American Gen. Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers
would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most
frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. 'I'm not
going to start the third world war for you', Gen. Mike Jackson,
commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to
have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault
troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of
Kosovo's provincial capital."
Gen. Clark's buddy in Kosovo was Hashim Thaci, the leader of the Kosovo
Liberation Army which, according to the July 30, 2002, Belfast News
Letter (N. Ireland), is engaged in sex slavery, prostitution, murder,
kidnapping and drugs.
The Daily Telegraph reported on Feb. 19, 2002, that "European drug
squad officers say Albanian and Kosovo Albanian dealers are ruthlessly
trying to seize control of the European heroin market ..." This is the
same Hashim "The Snake" Thaci with whom Clark was photographed in a
triumphal handshake after NATO forces occupied Kosovo.
As for his ability as a military leader, Gen. Clark failed on two
counts: the Kosovo air campaign and his plan for a ground campaign.
While the questionable effectiveness of the air campaign is not solely
his responsibility, his coverup of the results ("Kosovo Cover Up,"
Newsweek, May 15, 2000) are testimony to his dedication to power and
career.
As for a ground war, which Gen. Clark admits that he favored,
he insists that he could have conducted a successful ground war in
Kosovo by sending supporting Apache helicopters through the mountain
passes between Albania and Kosovo, a plan which was described to me by
an Apache pilot as "hare-brained" and "suicidal."
There is no doubt that a ground war with the might of 19 NATO nations
behind it eventually would have succeeded, but at what cost and why? To
feed Gen. Clark's ego and ambition.
Before accepting the judgment of Adm. Larson and Lt. Gen. Christman,
one should also consider the comments of two retired four-star
generals, Gen.Tommy Franks, who led the campaign to capture Baghdad,
and Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An article in the Jan. 12 New Yorker quoted statements they made
shortly after Clark announced his candidacy. When asked if Clark would
make a good president, Franks' short reply was, "Absolutely not." When
asked the same question, Shelton replied that "... the reason he came
out of [his NATO
command in] Europe had to do with integrity and character issues ...
Wes won't get my vote."
Such comments by retired four-star generals about another four-star are
almost unprecedented. They should not be taken lightly.
If Gen. Clark had had his way in Kosovo, we might have gone to war with
Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War, and we
certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an
ill-conceived ground war.
Clark's obsession with career and power is what we saw too often in
senior leaders during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in
those with positions of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the
security of our nation.
Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret.), of Camp Hill, Pa., flew 230 F-4 combat
missions in Vietnam, served for seven years with various NATO
designated units, was the senior Air Force attaché to the Soviet Union
('79-'81) and the senior Air Force advisor to the Naval War College,
where he also served as an instructor in the Strategy Department
=== 3 ===
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
General Wesley Clark
From Waco to Yugoslavia:
The US military was at Waco
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near
Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at
least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants.
As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that
can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine
the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence
that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in
fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire
operation.
If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear
violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the
enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined
circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally
qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous
tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing
attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and
on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always,
described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with
the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a
new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the
continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for
reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/61099a.html
=== 4 ===
Chicago-Sun Times | May 6, 1999 | Robert Novak
Balkan failure is Clark's
Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building anti-American
anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian regime's will? The
blame rests heavily on Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander.
After 40 days, U.S.-dominated NATO air strikes no longer even pretend
to aim solely at military targets. Pentagon sources admit that the
attacks on the city center of Belgrade are intended to so demoralize
ordinary citizens that they force President Slobodan Milosevic to
yield. That has not yet happened, but diplomats believe the grave
damage done to American prestige in Central and Eastern Europe will
outlive this vicious little war.
"The problem is Wes Clark making--at least approving--the bombing
decisions," said one such diplomat, who then asked rhetorically: "How
could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be [supreme allied
commander of Europe]?" Through dealings with Yugoslavia that date back
to 1994, Clark's
propensity for mistakes has kept him in trouble while he continued
moving up the chain of command thanks to a patron in the Oval Office.
In the last month's American newspaper clippings, Clark emerges as the
only heroic figure of a non-heroic war. Indeed, his resume is stirring:
first in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, frequently wounded
and highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow. He
became a full general about as fast as possible in peacetime.
But members of Congress who visited Clark at his Brussels headquarters
in the early days of the attack on Yugoslavia were startled by his
off-the-record comments. If the Russians are going to sail war ships
into the combat zone, we should bomb them. If Milosevic is getting oil
from the Hungarian pipeline, we should bomb it.
NATO's actual air strategy did not go that far, but increasingly, it
has reflected Clark's belligerence. Even the general's defenders in the
national security establishment cannot understand the targeting of
empty government buildings in Belgrade, including Milosevic's official
residence. Civilian damage and casualties in Kosovo and elsewhere in
Serbia are too widespread to be accidental.
Sources inside the U.S. high command say this week's disabling of
Belgrade electrical power facilities was intended to destroy civilian
morale. The Pentagon has announced NATO "area bombing" with "dumb"
bombs carried by B-52s--clearly an anti-population tactic. In a highly
limited war, Clark is using the methods of total war.
One American diplomat with experience in the Balkans, who asked that he
not be quoted by name, told me that ground forces are needed and he is
appalled by the bombing of civilian targets. "It has no military
significance, and it is pointless--utterly pointless," he added. "But
it has a terrible impact on us. This bombing in the heart of the
Balkans is costing us."
That cost is viewed by State Department professionals as the product of
Clark's deaf ear when it comes to diplomacy. His classic gaffe came in
1994 when he went off to meet Ratko Mladic, the brutal Bosnian Serb
commander now sought as a war criminal, at his redoubt in Banja Luka.
Mladic concluded
their meeting by saying how much he admired Clark's three-star general
cap. Impulsively, the American general exchanged hats with the
notorious commander, who has been accused of ethnic cleansing, and even
accepted Mladic's service revolver with an engraved message.
That escapade cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to
Bosnia. He was sacked partly for not exercising sufficient restraint on
the mercurial Clark and for not preventing him from gallivanting off to
Banja Luka. The sequel came at Belgrade a year later during the
diplomacy leading to the
Dayton peace conference. Milosevic, smiling broadly, humiliated Clark
by returning his hat to him. That helps explain the general's intense
personal animosity for the Yugoslav president.
Clark is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general.
Clark's rapid promotions after Dayton--winning his fourth star to head
the Panama-based Southern Command and then the jewel of his European
post--were both opposed by the Pentagon brass. But Clark's fellow
Arkansan in the White House named him anyway. The president and the
general are collaborators in a failed strategy whose consequences cast
a long shadow even if soon terminated by negotiation.
=== 5 ===
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/27grubacic.cfm
December 27, 2003
Wesley Clark goes to the Hague
By Andrej Grubacic
There are two reasons for which Wesley Clark found himself, mid
December, at the witness stand at the Hague. The first reason is that
the Bush Administration has, for state reasons, refused to prohibit his
being a witness. But, the real reason why Wesley Clark has finally
agreed, after two years of procrastination, to go to the Hague is
because he believes that his testimony against Slobodan Milosevic will
help him in his race for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic
Party.
Milosevic could not have wished for a better Christmas present. It has
been said that of all witnesses, Milosevic likes best the ones that
increase the TV viewer rating of the Hague "trial of the century", and
that he cares little what proofs these witnesses have against him. The
accused is anyway not too interested in the process aspect of the
lawsuit itself, rather in the unlimited access to the national and
international public.
He is not very anxious about Clark's testimony, especially since the
General has already made public all that he knows about Milosevic, and
judging by what we have seen in the courtroom thus far, Milosevic seems
to be entertained rather than worried by the prosecution's attempts to
prove the existence of his supposed intent or plans for genocide in
1991 with the help of testimonies of American and German Generals,
which met him for the first time only in the mid 1990s. This could be
an important point in favour of Milosevic, seeing that although he
finds himself in jail, he is a candidate on the list of his Socialist
Party of the Serbian elections. Do not ask me how.
Milosevic, however, seems not to realize that Clark too, will benefit
to the maximum from their confrontation at the Hague. Their new meeting
will be presented to the American public in the following way: The
American General is going to the Hague to accuse the Dictator whose
demise he accelerated, and whose Albanian subjects he saved though an
air campaign, during which not a single American soldier was killed.
Clark, however, has prepared in advance, with the help of the State
Department's lawyers and the goodwill of the Court, such conditions of
testimony which preclude any nasty surprises for him during the
cross-examination: the filmed cross-examination of his testimony will
be aired with a 48-hour delay, once the Americans have checked the
contents and are able to protect their national interests. Milosevic,
on the other hand, will not be given the opportunity to share his point
of view on the duel in the courtroom with journalists.
In the Serbian public it is speculated that a disastrous moment for
Wesley Clark and his presidential campaign would be when Slobodan
Milosevic presents photographs from summer 1994, of a smiling Clark in
the company of Ratko Mladic, fugitive Bosnian General and accused of
war crimes, wearing his hat. That photograph has, however, already been
circulated in America on Tim Rasert's highly viewed TV show.
Clark explained his controversial meeting with Mladic as the result of
his wish upon arriving to Bosnia, to meet all of those involved in the
conflict, adding that at the time, Mladic was not yet accused of war
crimes. In the worst case scenario, from that angle Clark looks like a
naïve and unaware Westerner, who having encountered the sly and
unscrupulous natives, was armed will only the best intentions.
As a guest on Dan Rather's CBS show "60 Minutes", he seemed on the
verge of tears as he talked of the Muslim victims of the Bosnian war.
"This is the first time that I have seen you so shaken up with
emotions", concluded Rather. The General explained that for him,
civilian victims of war are an unbearable sight.
There is another, more important, reason for Clark's visit to the
Hague. By taking the witness stand, Clark will be able to further
portray the difference between him, the soldier that has "freed a
people" from its tyrannical leader, and the current American president
who is also claiming to have "freed a people". That people, the Iraqis,
however, are killing American soldiers whenever the opportunity
presents itself, and "tyrannical dictator" was, until very recently,
still at large and free.
Because of the Iraq war, foreign policy has returned to the front stage
in America: Bush's first televised ad accuses the Democrats of
"attacking the President for fighting terrorism". If patriotism and
defense are the key words in the presidential campaign, then the
Democrats need a candidate who, as a soldier, seems more convincing
than Bush.
Fifty years have passed since the Oval Office was occupied by a General
(Dwight Eisenhower). While Bush managed to avoid being drafter during
the Vietnam War, Clark returned from the war with serious injuries and
a medal for his "bravery". Clark's electoral standing has lost some of
its shine compared to the early weeks of his candidacy, but the Hague
could give it renewed and permanent brilliance.
His visit to the Hague will be news and will most certainly serve to
remind voters that Clark's Kosovo war, in contrast with Bush's war in
Iraq, was not only successful, but also painless (for the US of
course). Clark's electoral campaign has landed its first electoral TV
ad. At the moment when he is shown surrounded by delighted Albanian
Kosovars, the narrator says "and in the Balkans he led a multinational
force that stopped a campaign of terror, freed a people and brought
peace without a single American casualty."
Clark is aiming at several vulnerable spots in Bush's posture. Both
Bush's and Clark's wars have been based on the pretext of "freeing"
Muslim populations. Clark's advantage, however, is that "his" Muslims
are infinitely grateful to him: in Bosnia and Kosovo they are erecting
statues and naming streets and him and Bill Clinton.
Of late, the General has been insisting that his war was more moral
than Bush's, he was stopping genocide, whereas Bush just wanted to get
his hands on the Iraqi oil (CBS "60 Minutes"). Furthermore, in his war
against Yugoslavia, Clark commanded a NATO alliance of 19 member
states, while Bush acts unilaterally and as a bully, with only the
British for allies, and has managed to alienate the rest of the world.
Clark's opponents have admitted openly in the New York Times that they
wished they could find a way to make Iraq resemble Bosnia. It seems
that only to someone in Baghdad, an impoverished and ethnically
cleansed Sarajevo could appear as a success story.
And so overnight the Balkans are back on the political map of the world
once again, having become a convenient trump card in American foreign
and domestic policy. Therefore we should not be surprised at Richard
Holbrooke's and Bernard Kouchner's sudden visit here. Nor should we be
surprised at Morton Abramovitsch, whose article in the Wall Street
Journal a few weeks ago, advocates the independence of Kosovo even
before the Albanians meet any international standards.
Abramovitsch is also insisting on the "contrast" between Iraq and
Kosovo. From the point of view of this Albanian lobbyist, the biggest
problem in Kosovo is that the International Community has not as yet
handed over full control of the province to the Albanians. He does
admit the "Kosovars" (Albanian citizens of Kosovo) are "partly
responsible" for the situation in the province. This is what he holds
against them: "they are very slow in stopping" the violence against the
Serbs, "they are slow" in expressing serious interest in the return of
Serbian refugees, organised crime is "a problem" and the rule of law
still needs to be "firmly established".
This is the talk in Washington. In Belgrade, of course, very few people
believe that there is any significant moral difference between Clark
and Bush, and their wars. From the Belgrade perspective, the difference
between the foreign policies of the Republicans and Democrats is barely
visible. Here the "contrast" of which Morton Abramovitsch writes is not
so self evident.
Why is Clark against the war in Iraq? Because it's Bush's war, not his.
When compared to Saddam, Milosevic was, in the worst case, a small time
authoritarian thug. As the Guardian writes these days: America, like
all empires throughout history, has a consistent approach in
international politics. That approach is not morally consistent;
rather, it is strategically consistent.
The Belgrade perspective is that there is not too much of a difference
between Clinton's supposedly enlightened multilateralism and
"humanitarian intervention", and Bush's wars of terror. This conclusion
is pointed to by the statement of Leslie Gelb, President of the US
Council of Foreign Relations, who is these days arguing in the pages of
the New York Times for the division of Iraq into three separate states
(in 1991 he was supporting the division of Yugoslavia and the
independence of Croatia).
He remembered us in Yugoslavia when he made a demand that the US should
abandon the policy of an "artificially united Iraq" and should break it
up into "the Kurds in the North, the Suniis in the centre, and the
Shiites in the South". "There exists", says Gelb, "an encouraging
precedent" for the strategy of breaking up Iraq into a number of
states. That precedent is called Yugoslavia.
There where the Americans see sharp contrasts, the Serbs see only dark
shadows. This is the context in which Slobodan Milosevic confronted
once again Wesley Clark. One should not be surprised if both of them
leave the courtroom satisfied: they will be playing to an entirely
different public.
* Andrej Grubacic is a historian and social critic from Belgrade, New
Europe. He can be reached at zapata@...
WC : War Criminal : Wesley Clark
1. "Democracy Now" ha intervistato Clark
2. Clark placed career ahead of nation in Kosovo (G. Jatras)
3. General Wesley Clark - From Waco to Yugoslavia
4. Balkan failure is Clark's (Robert Novak)
5. Wesley Clark goes to the Hague (by Andrej Grubacic)
See also / vedi anche:
Michael Moore enlists with General Clark: the pathetic-and
predictable-logic of protest politics (by David Walsh)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/moor-j27_prn.shtml
The Democrats' idea of a general (by Ann Coulter)
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/
story.html?id=b08be3c5-26a4-4274-abcd-87c9a0ca988a
On war criminal Wesley Clark "testimony" at The Hague's ad-hoc
"tribunal", as well as on his biography and future aspirations, see in
our previous mailings:
Wesley Clark's Ties To Muslim Terrorists
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3078
Criminal Clark
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3074
On Criminal Clark's testimony at The Hague
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3043
Almost full transcripts of the "testimony" can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3031
STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3026
Un vero criminale di guerra all'Aia
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3017
War criminal Wesley Clark to testify against Milosevic
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3007
Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden e le elezioni Presidenziali del 2004
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2961
M. Chossudovsky: Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004
Presidential Elections
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2889
History of misinformation tarnishes Clark's military record
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2871
Wesley Clark farà domani il contrario di ciò che ha fatto ieri ?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2825
Wesley Clark fera-t-il demain le contraire de ce qu'il faisait hier?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2811
Wesley Clark War Crimes amply documented
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2822
War Criminal Wesley Clark for President?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2795
=== 1 ===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlo Gubitosa"
To: <pace@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: La sinistra usa e le morti in kossovo
Negli Usa tra un po' ci saranno le elezioni presidenziali, e molti
pacifisti Usa si crederanno costretti a votare l'ex comandante della
missione nato in Kossovo, il generale Wesley Clark, che si presenta
come unica alternativa a Bush, cosi' come molti pacifisti italiani
premieranno con il loro voto molti politici colpevoli di crimini contro
l'umanita', strage e attentato alla costituzione durante i
bombardamenti del 1999.
Negli Usa, la catena radiofonica indipendente "Pacifica Network" ha la
memoria lunga, e il programma radiofonico "Democracy Now" ha
intervistato Clark con delle domande sulla guerra del 1999. In Italia
si annuncia una "dura campagna elettorale", ma state sicuri che le
bombe del 1999 sono un argomento morto e sepolto, come migliaia di
civili jugoslavi.
Il video e la trascrizione dell'intervista si trovano a questo
indirizzo:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224
---
In the January 26th, 2004 issue of the american “DEMOCRACY NOW!”, Clark
Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia.
“DEMOCRACY NOW!” confronts Wesley Clark Over His Bombing Of Civilians,
Use Of Cluster Bombs And Depleted Uranium And The Bombing Of Serb
Television :
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224
In a “DEMOCRACY NOW!” exclusive, General Wesley Clark responds for the
first time to in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia,
the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the
cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as
though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he
gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.
Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not
answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Yugoslavia.
Today candidate to the presidence of the USA, Clark portrays himself as
the antiwar warrior and his rhetoric against the war has escalated
significantly over the past week of campaigning. At his campaign stops,
he has been saying regularly, "The war is wrong."
This is not always what he said.
In February, Clark told CNN, "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know,
we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to
get with us...The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on
this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on
the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the
world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this
evidence and decide who they line up with."
Immediately following the fall of Baghdad to US forces, Clark responded
to a question about finding the alleged weapons of mass destruction,
saying: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on
this."
But as Clark speaks out about the war in Iraq, his own record in a
different war is almost never examined. That is his role as the Supreme
Allied Commander of NATO during the 78 day bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999.Sure, the Clark campaign promotes this in its TV ads - but they
say that he liberated a nation and ended a genocide. Clark mentions it
often in his stump speeches and the debates. But as a qualification to
be commander-in-chief.
What is not discussed is what Clark actually did when he was running a
war.
“DEMOCRACY NOW!” correspondent Jeremy Scahill covered the 78 day
bombing of Yugoslavia from the ground in 1999, the war Clark was
leading as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK, BEING QUESTIONED
BY “DEMOCRACY NOW!” CORRESPONDENT JEREMY SCAHILL.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium...
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure did.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I want to know if you are president, will you vow not
to use them.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to
protect the men and women against force.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Even against civilians in the Nis marketplace? Why bomb
Radio Television Serbia? Why did you bomb Radio Television Serbia? You
killed 16 media workers, sir.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were-[in audible - Interview interrupted by
another questioner.]
That was Clark making an exit off the stage. We followed him as he left
the theater and walked down the streets of Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
shaking hands, signing autographs, talking to potential voters. As he
was entering a business establishment, Jeremy Scahill again approached
the General.
Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent
Jeremy Scahill.
TRANSCRIPT:
JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio
Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Excuse me -- I'm not --
JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all
journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth
was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that
was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it
set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the
warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the
western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power,
and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the
fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people
who were killed, as I recall.
JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I recall six.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I was there at the time and I knew the families. They
do hold Milosevic accountable and they also hold you accountable, sir.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were ordered to stay there.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And they were makeup artists, and they were engineers,
and they were technicians
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember reading the story, but I want to tell
you about it.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty International said you committed a war crime by
bombing that.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was all looked at by the International
Criminal Tribunal crime by Yugoslavia. All of my actions were examined
and they were all upheld by the highest law in the United States.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And you think a media outlet is a legitimate target?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, but when it is used as command and control,
it is. But then
JEREMY SCAHILL: Even if it kills…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Now wait a minute, you have to let me finish and
then I will let you finish.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Go ahead.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I said is, we would give them the warnings.
It was part of the command and control systems. It was approved as a
legitimate target under the laws of land warfare and went through the
U.S. Government. That was the basis on which we struck. We actually
called the bombers back one time, because there was still -- it was
still unclear to us that we weren't absolutely certain. What we know is
that Milosevic ordered them to stay there, and it was wrong, but I was
doing my duty, and I have been looked at by the law, so -- I mean, I
respect Amnesty International. I think they're a good organization, but
--
JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of
civilians that you essentially were overseeing?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.
JEREMY SCAHILL: And what about the bombing of the Nis marketplace with
cluster bombs, shredding human beings.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was terrible, but you know in that instance,
if we had got the same incident, there was a cluster bomb that opened
prematurely. It was an accident. And every one of these incidents was
fully investigated. All of the material from the Yugoslavian government
was given to the International Criminal Tribunal, plus as the NATO
commander, I made a full report to the International Criminal Tribunal.
It was all investigated. The pilots who did it, nobody could have felt
worse than the pilots who did it. And I got a letter from a man in
Serbia who said you killed my granddaughter on a schoolyard at Nis. I
know how he must have felt. And I felt so helpless about it. Every
night before I let those bombs go, I prayed we wouldn't kill innocent
people. But unfortunately, when you are at war, terrible things happen,
even when you don't want them to. You can't imagine what those pilots
felt like in those convoys when they struck the convoys. You remember
the convoys?
JEREMY SCAHILL: In Gurdulica were the 72 Albanians were killed.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In that place, too. And they had flown over it a
couple of times.You know, we just -- we were trying to establish some
kind of communications on the ground with the Albanians. The Serbs were
on the nets, and they were jamming all of the communications, and they
were doing imitative communications deception. And nobody could get the
truth about it. We saw the Serb vehicles around the place. And I didn't
make the decision, but they were following orders on my command. And it
was looked at, and so forth. The decision was made as a legitimate
target. It turned out that they had been ordered to stay in there by
the Serbs. The Serbs were surrounding the place to keep them penned in.
It was horrible. You never forget stuff like that. That's why when this
government has used force as it has, it makes me so angry. Because
these people in the White House don't understand -- you don't use force
except as a last, last, last resort.
JEREMY SCAHILL: On April 12th you targeted a passenger train, and then
you showed a video that was sped up at three time the speed. Why?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think -- first of all, the passenger train was
not targeted. The pilot's instructions were to go after a bridge, and
not the train. He felt, as he launched that missile, that all of a
sudden at the very last minute, the train suddenly came into his field
of view. I showed the tape. I did not know that the tape was
accelerated. I don't think it was three times. I think it was
one-and-a-half times. Whatever it was, it was going faster than the
actual speed. It made it look like it was --
JEREMY SCAHILL: But the Supreme Allied Commander, you are ultimately
responsible for all of the information that came out.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's true. I was.
JEREMY SCAHILL: What the actual in real-time speed showed is that the
pilot actually moved the target so that it would hit the train.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't have that information.
JEREMY SCAHILL: 12 people were killed, including an orthodox priest.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's terrible. But, I don't have the
information. When I looked at it, we didn't see that. All of the
material was sent to The Hague and they did not see that either.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think you owe the people of Serbia who died in
that war an apology?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I don't because I did my duty as the
commander for NATO and for the United States.I think Slobodan Milosevic
owes the people of Serbia an apology, because we acted to prevent
regional destabilization, and to be honest, when you take the kinds of
actions that he has done, he was the proximate cause. All we tried to
do was head off the ethnic cleansing through diplomacy, and basically,
he had a plan to go to war, no matter what.
JEREMY SCAHILL: But now the U.S. is supporting a regime of ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo where all minorities have been forced out,
including almost every single Serb.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, we are trying very hard not to
allow that to happen.And we have worked very hard with the Kosovo
Albanians and the Serbs, but to be honest with you that regime that's
north of the Ibar River is a regime that wants to prevent Serbs from
living peacefully with Kosovo Albanians. So, both sides have to share
the blame. They have been under the control of Seselj and also some
under Milosevic and their tactic in 1999 was to provoke the retaliation
by the Albanians to be able to blame the Albanians for reverse ethnic
cleansing. There were -- there were crimes on both sides and they
needed to be investigated. To the best of my ability as NATO commander
at the time, we did.
JEREMY SCAHILL: But then why -- you have a man like Agim Ceku in power,
a man who was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs at
Kraina, a man trained by MPRI in Virginia. Why put a man like that in
charge? What kind of message does that send to ethnic minorities in
Kosovo, when a man who is a basically a war criminal is in charge of
what is going to be the future army in Kosovo.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we looked at his record and it's not clear
that he's going to be in charge of the future army of Kosovo. He did
receive instruction from a contracted U.S. firm at MPRI. He received
basic information after he became there in charge of the Kosovo
protective corps. We thought that was the best way to maintain order
and security in the country.
JEREMY SCAHILL: He has been accused of hate speech by the United
Nations.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Lots of people in that part of the world have
been accused of hate speech, and they shouldn't do it. I met with Agim
Ceku a few times when I was over there, and I told him who I thought
about it. I don't accept that language.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think that he should be in a position of power
in Kosovo?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I'm so far removed from the
issues right now --
JEREMY SCAHILL: But you know him.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But I can’t – yeah – I know him, but what I have
seen of him, he is the one of the more reasonable people in that region.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Because in your ads you say you liberated a nation. And
that’s why I am asking you this question.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The thing is I have got to talk to some other
voters. Is that okay? Can you excuse me?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I am trying to answer all your questions.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Thank you I appreciate it. Thank you for being patient
with me.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.
---
See also / vedi anche:
Wesley Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia
(by Jeremy Scahill)
http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/040126.html
=== 2 ===
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/
index.php?page=opinion&story_id=012304b5_guestw
es
Tucson Citizen
Friday, January 23, 2004
Guest Opinion: Clark placed career ahead of nation in Kosovo
GEORGE JATRAS
letters@...
The Dan Christman and Chuck Larson guest column published on Jan. 8 -
"Gen. Clark's stand vs. Milosevic praiseworthy" - was remarkable as
much for what it didn't say as for the distortions in what it did say.
In praising Clark's testimony against former Yugoslav dictator
Slobodan Milosevic before the International Tribunal at The Hague, the
authors failed to mention that Milosevic was not permitted to question
Clark on what the general had written in his book, "Waging Modern War."
Also, the U.S. government demanded and received the right to edit
videotapes and transcripts of the sessions before they were made
public. Following his secret testimony at The Hague, Clark, in answer
to an inquiry about what should happen to Saddam Hussein,
hypocritically stated that it was important that Hussein's trial not be
behind closed doors, so that the whole world could see justice done.
While the article had high praise in general terms for Clark's
leadership of NATO forces in the Balkans, a critical look at his
performance tells a different story.
In "Waging Modern War" Clark writes about his fury upon learning that
Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo,
before British or American forces.
In an Aug. 3, 1999, article, "The guy who almost started World War
III," The Guardian (UK) wrote: "No sooner are we told by Britain's top
generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's
war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander,
the American Gen. Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers
would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most
frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. 'I'm not
going to start the third world war for you', Gen. Mike Jackson,
commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to
have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault
troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of
Kosovo's provincial capital."
Gen. Clark's buddy in Kosovo was Hashim Thaci, the leader of the Kosovo
Liberation Army which, according to the July 30, 2002, Belfast News
Letter (N. Ireland), is engaged in sex slavery, prostitution, murder,
kidnapping and drugs.
The Daily Telegraph reported on Feb. 19, 2002, that "European drug
squad officers say Albanian and Kosovo Albanian dealers are ruthlessly
trying to seize control of the European heroin market ..." This is the
same Hashim "The Snake" Thaci with whom Clark was photographed in a
triumphal handshake after NATO forces occupied Kosovo.
As for his ability as a military leader, Gen. Clark failed on two
counts: the Kosovo air campaign and his plan for a ground campaign.
While the questionable effectiveness of the air campaign is not solely
his responsibility, his coverup of the results ("Kosovo Cover Up,"
Newsweek, May 15, 2000) are testimony to his dedication to power and
career.
As for a ground war, which Gen. Clark admits that he favored,
he insists that he could have conducted a successful ground war in
Kosovo by sending supporting Apache helicopters through the mountain
passes between Albania and Kosovo, a plan which was described to me by
an Apache pilot as "hare-brained" and "suicidal."
There is no doubt that a ground war with the might of 19 NATO nations
behind it eventually would have succeeded, but at what cost and why? To
feed Gen. Clark's ego and ambition.
Before accepting the judgment of Adm. Larson and Lt. Gen. Christman,
one should also consider the comments of two retired four-star
generals, Gen.Tommy Franks, who led the campaign to capture Baghdad,
and Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An article in the Jan. 12 New Yorker quoted statements they made
shortly after Clark announced his candidacy. When asked if Clark would
make a good president, Franks' short reply was, "Absolutely not." When
asked the same question, Shelton replied that "... the reason he came
out of [his NATO
command in] Europe had to do with integrity and character issues ...
Wes won't get my vote."
Such comments by retired four-star generals about another four-star are
almost unprecedented. They should not be taken lightly.
If Gen. Clark had had his way in Kosovo, we might have gone to war with
Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War, and we
certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an
ill-conceived ground war.
Clark's obsession with career and power is what we saw too often in
senior leaders during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in
those with positions of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the
security of our nation.
Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret.), of Camp Hill, Pa., flew 230 F-4 combat
missions in Vietnam, served for seven years with various NATO
designated units, was the senior Air Force attaché to the Soviet Union
('79-'81) and the senior Air Force advisor to the Naval War College,
where he also served as an instructor in the Strategy Department
=== 3 ===
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
General Wesley Clark
From Waco to Yugoslavia:
The US military was at Waco
General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near
Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at
least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants.
As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that
can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine
the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence
that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in
fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire
operation.
If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear
violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the
enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined
circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally
qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous
tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing
attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and
on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always,
described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with
the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a
new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the
continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for
reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/61099a.html
=== 4 ===
Chicago-Sun Times | May 6, 1999 | Robert Novak
Balkan failure is Clark's
Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building anti-American
anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian regime's will? The
blame rests heavily on Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander.
After 40 days, U.S.-dominated NATO air strikes no longer even pretend
to aim solely at military targets. Pentagon sources admit that the
attacks on the city center of Belgrade are intended to so demoralize
ordinary citizens that they force President Slobodan Milosevic to
yield. That has not yet happened, but diplomats believe the grave
damage done to American prestige in Central and Eastern Europe will
outlive this vicious little war.
"The problem is Wes Clark making--at least approving--the bombing
decisions," said one such diplomat, who then asked rhetorically: "How
could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be [supreme allied
commander of Europe]?" Through dealings with Yugoslavia that date back
to 1994, Clark's
propensity for mistakes has kept him in trouble while he continued
moving up the chain of command thanks to a patron in the Oval Office.
In the last month's American newspaper clippings, Clark emerges as the
only heroic figure of a non-heroic war. Indeed, his resume is stirring:
first in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, frequently wounded
and highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow. He
became a full general about as fast as possible in peacetime.
But members of Congress who visited Clark at his Brussels headquarters
in the early days of the attack on Yugoslavia were startled by his
off-the-record comments. If the Russians are going to sail war ships
into the combat zone, we should bomb them. If Milosevic is getting oil
from the Hungarian pipeline, we should bomb it.
NATO's actual air strategy did not go that far, but increasingly, it
has reflected Clark's belligerence. Even the general's defenders in the
national security establishment cannot understand the targeting of
empty government buildings in Belgrade, including Milosevic's official
residence. Civilian damage and casualties in Kosovo and elsewhere in
Serbia are too widespread to be accidental.
Sources inside the U.S. high command say this week's disabling of
Belgrade electrical power facilities was intended to destroy civilian
morale. The Pentagon has announced NATO "area bombing" with "dumb"
bombs carried by B-52s--clearly an anti-population tactic. In a highly
limited war, Clark is using the methods of total war.
One American diplomat with experience in the Balkans, who asked that he
not be quoted by name, told me that ground forces are needed and he is
appalled by the bombing of civilian targets. "It has no military
significance, and it is pointless--utterly pointless," he added. "But
it has a terrible impact on us. This bombing in the heart of the
Balkans is costing us."
That cost is viewed by State Department professionals as the product of
Clark's deaf ear when it comes to diplomacy. His classic gaffe came in
1994 when he went off to meet Ratko Mladic, the brutal Bosnian Serb
commander now sought as a war criminal, at his redoubt in Banja Luka.
Mladic concluded
their meeting by saying how much he admired Clark's three-star general
cap. Impulsively, the American general exchanged hats with the
notorious commander, who has been accused of ethnic cleansing, and even
accepted Mladic's service revolver with an engraved message.
That escapade cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to
Bosnia. He was sacked partly for not exercising sufficient restraint on
the mercurial Clark and for not preventing him from gallivanting off to
Banja Luka. The sequel came at Belgrade a year later during the
diplomacy leading to the
Dayton peace conference. Milosevic, smiling broadly, humiliated Clark
by returning his hat to him. That helps explain the general's intense
personal animosity for the Yugoslav president.
Clark is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general.
Clark's rapid promotions after Dayton--winning his fourth star to head
the Panama-based Southern Command and then the jewel of his European
post--were both opposed by the Pentagon brass. But Clark's fellow
Arkansan in the White House named him anyway. The president and the
general are collaborators in a failed strategy whose consequences cast
a long shadow even if soon terminated by negotiation.
=== 5 ===
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/27grubacic.cfm
December 27, 2003
Wesley Clark goes to the Hague
By Andrej Grubacic
There are two reasons for which Wesley Clark found himself, mid
December, at the witness stand at the Hague. The first reason is that
the Bush Administration has, for state reasons, refused to prohibit his
being a witness. But, the real reason why Wesley Clark has finally
agreed, after two years of procrastination, to go to the Hague is
because he believes that his testimony against Slobodan Milosevic will
help him in his race for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic
Party.
Milosevic could not have wished for a better Christmas present. It has
been said that of all witnesses, Milosevic likes best the ones that
increase the TV viewer rating of the Hague "trial of the century", and
that he cares little what proofs these witnesses have against him. The
accused is anyway not too interested in the process aspect of the
lawsuit itself, rather in the unlimited access to the national and
international public.
He is not very anxious about Clark's testimony, especially since the
General has already made public all that he knows about Milosevic, and
judging by what we have seen in the courtroom thus far, Milosevic seems
to be entertained rather than worried by the prosecution's attempts to
prove the existence of his supposed intent or plans for genocide in
1991 with the help of testimonies of American and German Generals,
which met him for the first time only in the mid 1990s. This could be
an important point in favour of Milosevic, seeing that although he
finds himself in jail, he is a candidate on the list of his Socialist
Party of the Serbian elections. Do not ask me how.
Milosevic, however, seems not to realize that Clark too, will benefit
to the maximum from their confrontation at the Hague. Their new meeting
will be presented to the American public in the following way: The
American General is going to the Hague to accuse the Dictator whose
demise he accelerated, and whose Albanian subjects he saved though an
air campaign, during which not a single American soldier was killed.
Clark, however, has prepared in advance, with the help of the State
Department's lawyers and the goodwill of the Court, such conditions of
testimony which preclude any nasty surprises for him during the
cross-examination: the filmed cross-examination of his testimony will
be aired with a 48-hour delay, once the Americans have checked the
contents and are able to protect their national interests. Milosevic,
on the other hand, will not be given the opportunity to share his point
of view on the duel in the courtroom with journalists.
In the Serbian public it is speculated that a disastrous moment for
Wesley Clark and his presidential campaign would be when Slobodan
Milosevic presents photographs from summer 1994, of a smiling Clark in
the company of Ratko Mladic, fugitive Bosnian General and accused of
war crimes, wearing his hat. That photograph has, however, already been
circulated in America on Tim Rasert's highly viewed TV show.
Clark explained his controversial meeting with Mladic as the result of
his wish upon arriving to Bosnia, to meet all of those involved in the
conflict, adding that at the time, Mladic was not yet accused of war
crimes. In the worst case scenario, from that angle Clark looks like a
naïve and unaware Westerner, who having encountered the sly and
unscrupulous natives, was armed will only the best intentions.
As a guest on Dan Rather's CBS show "60 Minutes", he seemed on the
verge of tears as he talked of the Muslim victims of the Bosnian war.
"This is the first time that I have seen you so shaken up with
emotions", concluded Rather. The General explained that for him,
civilian victims of war are an unbearable sight.
There is another, more important, reason for Clark's visit to the
Hague. By taking the witness stand, Clark will be able to further
portray the difference between him, the soldier that has "freed a
people" from its tyrannical leader, and the current American president
who is also claiming to have "freed a people". That people, the Iraqis,
however, are killing American soldiers whenever the opportunity
presents itself, and "tyrannical dictator" was, until very recently,
still at large and free.
Because of the Iraq war, foreign policy has returned to the front stage
in America: Bush's first televised ad accuses the Democrats of
"attacking the President for fighting terrorism". If patriotism and
defense are the key words in the presidential campaign, then the
Democrats need a candidate who, as a soldier, seems more convincing
than Bush.
Fifty years have passed since the Oval Office was occupied by a General
(Dwight Eisenhower). While Bush managed to avoid being drafter during
the Vietnam War, Clark returned from the war with serious injuries and
a medal for his "bravery". Clark's electoral standing has lost some of
its shine compared to the early weeks of his candidacy, but the Hague
could give it renewed and permanent brilliance.
His visit to the Hague will be news and will most certainly serve to
remind voters that Clark's Kosovo war, in contrast with Bush's war in
Iraq, was not only successful, but also painless (for the US of
course). Clark's electoral campaign has landed its first electoral TV
ad. At the moment when he is shown surrounded by delighted Albanian
Kosovars, the narrator says "and in the Balkans he led a multinational
force that stopped a campaign of terror, freed a people and brought
peace without a single American casualty."
Clark is aiming at several vulnerable spots in Bush's posture. Both
Bush's and Clark's wars have been based on the pretext of "freeing"
Muslim populations. Clark's advantage, however, is that "his" Muslims
are infinitely grateful to him: in Bosnia and Kosovo they are erecting
statues and naming streets and him and Bill Clinton.
Of late, the General has been insisting that his war was more moral
than Bush's, he was stopping genocide, whereas Bush just wanted to get
his hands on the Iraqi oil (CBS "60 Minutes"). Furthermore, in his war
against Yugoslavia, Clark commanded a NATO alliance of 19 member
states, while Bush acts unilaterally and as a bully, with only the
British for allies, and has managed to alienate the rest of the world.
Clark's opponents have admitted openly in the New York Times that they
wished they could find a way to make Iraq resemble Bosnia. It seems
that only to someone in Baghdad, an impoverished and ethnically
cleansed Sarajevo could appear as a success story.
And so overnight the Balkans are back on the political map of the world
once again, having become a convenient trump card in American foreign
and domestic policy. Therefore we should not be surprised at Richard
Holbrooke's and Bernard Kouchner's sudden visit here. Nor should we be
surprised at Morton Abramovitsch, whose article in the Wall Street
Journal a few weeks ago, advocates the independence of Kosovo even
before the Albanians meet any international standards.
Abramovitsch is also insisting on the "contrast" between Iraq and
Kosovo. From the point of view of this Albanian lobbyist, the biggest
problem in Kosovo is that the International Community has not as yet
handed over full control of the province to the Albanians. He does
admit the "Kosovars" (Albanian citizens of Kosovo) are "partly
responsible" for the situation in the province. This is what he holds
against them: "they are very slow in stopping" the violence against the
Serbs, "they are slow" in expressing serious interest in the return of
Serbian refugees, organised crime is "a problem" and the rule of law
still needs to be "firmly established".
This is the talk in Washington. In Belgrade, of course, very few people
believe that there is any significant moral difference between Clark
and Bush, and their wars. From the Belgrade perspective, the difference
between the foreign policies of the Republicans and Democrats is barely
visible. Here the "contrast" of which Morton Abramovitsch writes is not
so self evident.
Why is Clark against the war in Iraq? Because it's Bush's war, not his.
When compared to Saddam, Milosevic was, in the worst case, a small time
authoritarian thug. As the Guardian writes these days: America, like
all empires throughout history, has a consistent approach in
international politics. That approach is not morally consistent;
rather, it is strategically consistent.
The Belgrade perspective is that there is not too much of a difference
between Clinton's supposedly enlightened multilateralism and
"humanitarian intervention", and Bush's wars of terror. This conclusion
is pointed to by the statement of Leslie Gelb, President of the US
Council of Foreign Relations, who is these days arguing in the pages of
the New York Times for the division of Iraq into three separate states
(in 1991 he was supporting the division of Yugoslavia and the
independence of Croatia).
He remembered us in Yugoslavia when he made a demand that the US should
abandon the policy of an "artificially united Iraq" and should break it
up into "the Kurds in the North, the Suniis in the centre, and the
Shiites in the South". "There exists", says Gelb, "an encouraging
precedent" for the strategy of breaking up Iraq into a number of
states. That precedent is called Yugoslavia.
There where the Americans see sharp contrasts, the Serbs see only dark
shadows. This is the context in which Slobodan Milosevic confronted
once again Wesley Clark. One should not be surprised if both of them
leave the courtroom satisfied: they will be playing to an entirely
different public.
* Andrej Grubacic is a historian and social critic from Belgrade, New
Europe. He can be reached at zapata@...
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/049.shtml
The Black Legion: A History of the 1st Ustasha Regiment
by Carl Savich
Introduction: Kill a Third, Deport a Third, Convert a Third
The Black Legion
Operation Trio
Srebrenica during World War II
Conclusion
...The systematic genocide committed against the Serbian population of
the NDH by Croats and Bosnian Muslims resulted in a mass uprising and a
resistance movement that led to a civil war. The Black Legion played a
major role in the NDH policy of genocide against the Serbian population
to kill a third, deport a third, and convert a third of the Serbian
population...
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/049.shtml
The Black Legion: A History of the 1st Ustasha Regiment
by Carl Savich
Introduction: Kill a Third, Deport a Third, Convert a Third
The Black Legion
Operation Trio
Srebrenica during World War II
Conclusion
...The systematic genocide committed against the Serbian population of
the NDH by Croats and Bosnian Muslims resulted in a mass uprising and a
resistance movement that led to a civil war. The Black Legion played a
major role in the NDH policy of genocide against the Serbian population
to kill a third, deport a third, and convert a third of the Serbian
population...
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/049.shtml
[In Croazia, tredici anni di regime nazionalista ed anticomunista non
sono riusciti a scalfire la memoria e l'immagine di Tito. Un recente
sondaggio dimostra che la maggioranza della popolazione tuttora
considera Josip Broz la piu' grande figura storica mai prodotta dalla
Croazia. Naturalmente, nel fare queste considerazioni si tace sia il
ruolo di Tito come simbolo di tutti i popoli jugoslavi, non solo di
quello croato, sia il fatto che egli non poteva definirsi semplicemente
"croato", essendo peraltro di origini famigliari miste, ma piuttosto
"jugoslavo". Curiosamente, anche il secondo posto nella classifica dei
"grandi croati" e' detenuto da un personaggio (Nikola Tesla, noto
scienziato originario della Krajna) la cui "croaticita'" e' a dir poco
controversa...]
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=1&NrArticle
=11440
12 January 2004
The 'Greatest Croat'
ZAGREB, Croatia--Josip Broz Tito, the former communist leader of
Yugoslavia, is the greatest Croat in history, according to a recent
poll conducted by a leading local weekly, Nacional.
Almost a quarter of a century after his death, Tito has once again
reappeared among his people, winning 2,055 of the nearly 8,000 votes
cast to determine who is the greatest Croat in history.
Second and third places went to world-renowned scientist Nikola Tesla,
the "master of lightning," and 18th-century physicist, astronomer, and
mathematician Rudjer Boskovic, respectively. Also earning spots among
the top five were writer Miroslav Krleza and late Croatian President
Franjo Tudjman, who shares his position with late basketball star
Drazen Petrovic.
The poll, which aimed to determine whom Croats consider their greatest
compatriot of all time, was conducted over a five-week period. It was
clear from the start that the numbers would swing in favor of the late
leader of Yugoslavia, who led the struggle against fascism during World
War II.
The poll's results sparked much public debate in Croatia. Some claimed
that the survey methods were unreliable, citing the use of votes cast
on the Internet and via mobile phone text messages, among other things.
Others criticized what they felt was an inadequate selection of
candidates to begin with. Still, during the entire five-week process,
Tito's status was not once in jeopardy.
Nacional listed 100 nominees in the poll--among them politicians,
artists, scientists, singers, actors, and many others, some of whose
national origin was questionable.
Writer Ivo Andric, who won the Nobel Prize for literature, for example,
was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina and spent most of his life in the
Serbian capital of Belgrade.
Though the inclusion of certain candidates was predictable, there were
some unexpected ones--among them Stevo Karapandza, a famous chef, who
finished a surprising 10th place in the poll.
Former Prime Minister Ivica Racan, whose coalition government lost the
general elections in November to the center-right Croatian Democratic
Union (HDZ), made a poor showing, at 54th place.
Far ahead of him was General Rahim Ademi, who is accused by the
Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) of committing war crimes during the 1991-1995 homeland war in
Croatia. Ademi garnered 135 votes, putting him in 12th place.
Ademi's colleague, fugitive General Ante Gotovina, who has been on the
run since the ICTY unsealed the indictment against him in 2001, took
30th place.
According to sociologist Drazen Lalic, Tito's triumph in the poll is
not related to any kind of nostalgia for the old Yugoslavia.
"This is a natural reaction from people who have come to terms with
their history," Lalic said. "Participants did not cast their votes
based on ideological criteria, but rather on global recognition. They
remembered that Tito was well-known across the globe, that he was on
the winning side in World War II, and that he said 'no' to Stalin."
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic, who won 266 votes in the poll to end
up in seventh place, agrees that Tito played a great role in fulfilling
Croatia's national interests.
"He led the resistance against Nazi Germany and Italian fascism and
helped in ousting the monarchy. He ruled post-war Yugoslavia with an
iron fist but maneuvered it away from Stalin. On a number of occasions,
despite obvious ruthlessness when dealing his political opponents, Tito
managed to prove he was a great statesman," Mesic told local media.
TITO'S COMEBACK
Following the bloody 1990s war for independence, Croatia worked quickly
to dismantle all symbols of communism, including the legacy of Tito.
However, regardless of prevailing public resentment of Tito, his
diehard followers have never been discouraged.
Several thousand people still gather each year on 4 May in Kumrovec,
the small northern Croatian village where Tito was born, to mark the
anniversary of his death. The sirens wail at 3:05 p.m., the exact time
of his death, and mourners honor the late leader with flowers and old
partisan songs. Many file through the wooden cottage where Tito spent
his childhood.
Many of those who attend the commemoration are elderly World War II
veterans who served under Tito's command.
Evaluating the results of the Nacional poll, some analysts pointed out
that many citizens now regard Tito as a symbol of more peaceful and
relatively prosperous times, when the former Yugoslavia enjoyed
considerable prestige in both the East and the West.
But for others, he remains a tyrant whose failure to begin
democratization in the 1960s ultimately led to the rise of Serbian
strongman Slobodan Milosevic and the tragedies of the 1990s. There are
still many angry voices that caution against forgetting that Tito was
responsible for such evils as the opening of notorious labor camps for
political prisoners.
Speaking for Nacional, professor Zorica Stipetic, a former researcher
at the Institute of the History of the Worker's Movement, said that
globally, Tito was celebrated as one of the most important statesmen of
the 20th century.
In the late 1980s, foreign diplomats put him on a level with Winston
Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, calling him "the last historical
leader from the era of World War II," one who "rejected the Kremlin's
ultimatums and Washington's courting."
"The situation is different in the republics that rose from the ashes
of the old Yugoslavia," Stipetic said. "The emotions here are still
strong, whether positive or negative, because both the negative and
positive consequences of Tito's rule directly influenced and determined
people's destinies."
Like Lalic, Stipetic is convinced that Tito's victory has nothing to do
with a possible comeback of the communist ideology he represented.
"Election day is the only poll that really matters," she said. The
Croats recently voted against the leftist political options that share
common values with Tito's doctrine. According to Drazen Lalic, the
voters who--in the general elections--chose the conservative right-wing
option to rule Croatia in the next four-year term were not guided by
ideology.
"Their arguments against the Social Democratic Party [SDP] were
economic. The SDP-led coalition government simply did not fulfill their
expectations," Lalic said.
Tito's appeal, according to Lalic, lies in the fact that he was not a
"typical" communist.
"He had a bourgeois style of living," he said. "He drove expensive cars
and lived in luxurious houses. He projected an image of a bon vivant
who enjoyed king-size cigars, good whisky, and the company of Hollywood
celebrities such as Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. He was a true
jet-setter."
--by Barbara Peranic
Related Stories:
BRR News: Reincarnating Tito
Celebrations of Tito's 111th birthday in Croatia's Kumrovec are a sign
of the times.
2 June 2003
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=1&NrArticle
=9659
BRR Features: ‘Revolution Is a Process, the Struggle Continues’
Dead 23 years, worshipped, then scorned, and now worshipped again, the
communist leader of the former Yugoslavia is making a comeback.
by Goran Tarlac
16 May 2003
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=4&NrArticle
=9519
Copyright © 2004 Transitions Online. All rights reserved.
sono riusciti a scalfire la memoria e l'immagine di Tito. Un recente
sondaggio dimostra che la maggioranza della popolazione tuttora
considera Josip Broz la piu' grande figura storica mai prodotta dalla
Croazia. Naturalmente, nel fare queste considerazioni si tace sia il
ruolo di Tito come simbolo di tutti i popoli jugoslavi, non solo di
quello croato, sia il fatto che egli non poteva definirsi semplicemente
"croato", essendo peraltro di origini famigliari miste, ma piuttosto
"jugoslavo". Curiosamente, anche il secondo posto nella classifica dei
"grandi croati" e' detenuto da un personaggio (Nikola Tesla, noto
scienziato originario della Krajna) la cui "croaticita'" e' a dir poco
controversa...]
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=1&NrArticle
=11440
12 January 2004
The 'Greatest Croat'
ZAGREB, Croatia--Josip Broz Tito, the former communist leader of
Yugoslavia, is the greatest Croat in history, according to a recent
poll conducted by a leading local weekly, Nacional.
Almost a quarter of a century after his death, Tito has once again
reappeared among his people, winning 2,055 of the nearly 8,000 votes
cast to determine who is the greatest Croat in history.
Second and third places went to world-renowned scientist Nikola Tesla,
the "master of lightning," and 18th-century physicist, astronomer, and
mathematician Rudjer Boskovic, respectively. Also earning spots among
the top five were writer Miroslav Krleza and late Croatian President
Franjo Tudjman, who shares his position with late basketball star
Drazen Petrovic.
The poll, which aimed to determine whom Croats consider their greatest
compatriot of all time, was conducted over a five-week period. It was
clear from the start that the numbers would swing in favor of the late
leader of Yugoslavia, who led the struggle against fascism during World
War II.
The poll's results sparked much public debate in Croatia. Some claimed
that the survey methods were unreliable, citing the use of votes cast
on the Internet and via mobile phone text messages, among other things.
Others criticized what they felt was an inadequate selection of
candidates to begin with. Still, during the entire five-week process,
Tito's status was not once in jeopardy.
Nacional listed 100 nominees in the poll--among them politicians,
artists, scientists, singers, actors, and many others, some of whose
national origin was questionable.
Writer Ivo Andric, who won the Nobel Prize for literature, for example,
was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina and spent most of his life in the
Serbian capital of Belgrade.
Though the inclusion of certain candidates was predictable, there were
some unexpected ones--among them Stevo Karapandza, a famous chef, who
finished a surprising 10th place in the poll.
Former Prime Minister Ivica Racan, whose coalition government lost the
general elections in November to the center-right Croatian Democratic
Union (HDZ), made a poor showing, at 54th place.
Far ahead of him was General Rahim Ademi, who is accused by the
Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) of committing war crimes during the 1991-1995 homeland war in
Croatia. Ademi garnered 135 votes, putting him in 12th place.
Ademi's colleague, fugitive General Ante Gotovina, who has been on the
run since the ICTY unsealed the indictment against him in 2001, took
30th place.
According to sociologist Drazen Lalic, Tito's triumph in the poll is
not related to any kind of nostalgia for the old Yugoslavia.
"This is a natural reaction from people who have come to terms with
their history," Lalic said. "Participants did not cast their votes
based on ideological criteria, but rather on global recognition. They
remembered that Tito was well-known across the globe, that he was on
the winning side in World War II, and that he said 'no' to Stalin."
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic, who won 266 votes in the poll to end
up in seventh place, agrees that Tito played a great role in fulfilling
Croatia's national interests.
"He led the resistance against Nazi Germany and Italian fascism and
helped in ousting the monarchy. He ruled post-war Yugoslavia with an
iron fist but maneuvered it away from Stalin. On a number of occasions,
despite obvious ruthlessness when dealing his political opponents, Tito
managed to prove he was a great statesman," Mesic told local media.
TITO'S COMEBACK
Following the bloody 1990s war for independence, Croatia worked quickly
to dismantle all symbols of communism, including the legacy of Tito.
However, regardless of prevailing public resentment of Tito, his
diehard followers have never been discouraged.
Several thousand people still gather each year on 4 May in Kumrovec,
the small northern Croatian village where Tito was born, to mark the
anniversary of his death. The sirens wail at 3:05 p.m., the exact time
of his death, and mourners honor the late leader with flowers and old
partisan songs. Many file through the wooden cottage where Tito spent
his childhood.
Many of those who attend the commemoration are elderly World War II
veterans who served under Tito's command.
Evaluating the results of the Nacional poll, some analysts pointed out
that many citizens now regard Tito as a symbol of more peaceful and
relatively prosperous times, when the former Yugoslavia enjoyed
considerable prestige in both the East and the West.
But for others, he remains a tyrant whose failure to begin
democratization in the 1960s ultimately led to the rise of Serbian
strongman Slobodan Milosevic and the tragedies of the 1990s. There are
still many angry voices that caution against forgetting that Tito was
responsible for such evils as the opening of notorious labor camps for
political prisoners.
Speaking for Nacional, professor Zorica Stipetic, a former researcher
at the Institute of the History of the Worker's Movement, said that
globally, Tito was celebrated as one of the most important statesmen of
the 20th century.
In the late 1980s, foreign diplomats put him on a level with Winston
Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, calling him "the last historical
leader from the era of World War II," one who "rejected the Kremlin's
ultimatums and Washington's courting."
"The situation is different in the republics that rose from the ashes
of the old Yugoslavia," Stipetic said. "The emotions here are still
strong, whether positive or negative, because both the negative and
positive consequences of Tito's rule directly influenced and determined
people's destinies."
Like Lalic, Stipetic is convinced that Tito's victory has nothing to do
with a possible comeback of the communist ideology he represented.
"Election day is the only poll that really matters," she said. The
Croats recently voted against the leftist political options that share
common values with Tito's doctrine. According to Drazen Lalic, the
voters who--in the general elections--chose the conservative right-wing
option to rule Croatia in the next four-year term were not guided by
ideology.
"Their arguments against the Social Democratic Party [SDP] were
economic. The SDP-led coalition government simply did not fulfill their
expectations," Lalic said.
Tito's appeal, according to Lalic, lies in the fact that he was not a
"typical" communist.
"He had a bourgeois style of living," he said. "He drove expensive cars
and lived in luxurious houses. He projected an image of a bon vivant
who enjoyed king-size cigars, good whisky, and the company of Hollywood
celebrities such as Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. He was a true
jet-setter."
--by Barbara Peranic
Related Stories:
BRR News: Reincarnating Tito
Celebrations of Tito's 111th birthday in Croatia's Kumrovec are a sign
of the times.
2 June 2003
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=1&NrArticle
=9659
BRR Features: ‘Revolution Is a Process, the Struggle Continues’
Dead 23 years, worshipped, then scorned, and now worshipped again, the
communist leader of the former Yugoslavia is making a comeback.
by Goran Tarlac
16 May 2003
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=4&NrArticle
=9519
Copyright © 2004 Transitions Online. All rights reserved.
Ancora sul dibattito in merito a PRC/PSE (vedi anche su:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3129)
diffondiamo il testo, appena pervenutoci, della mozione alternativa
presentata dall'area di Progetto Comunista alla Direzione Nazionale del
partito lo scorso 28/1/2004.
---
La Direzione nazionale esprime un giudizio di dissenso profondo con
l'iniziativa intrapresa a Berlino di costituzione del "partito della
sinistra europea".
UN METODO BUROCRATICO
Il percorso seguito nella realizzazione di questo atto politico ha
avuto un carattere fortemente burocratico e verticistico. I gruppi
dirigenti e il corpo militante del Prc vengono "iscritti" di fatto in
un nuovo partito europeo senza che sia stata loro fornita la
possibilità di conoscere e discutere preventivamente la prospettiva
indicata. Senza che si sia loro fornita un'informazione elementare
sulla natura politica delle forze coinvolte, le loro scelte nei
rispettivi Paesi, il dibattito e le divergenze che le attraversano.
Né vale l'argomento secondo cui la Dn e il futuro Cpn hanno potere
decisionale: perché di fatto vengono convocati a fatto compiuto, ciò
che limita profondamente la libertà decisionale costituendo un indebito
fattore di pressione e condizionamento; e perché in ogni caso una
scelta così rilevante di fondazione di un nuovo partito in Europa
avrebbe richiesto un coinvolgimento ben più largo del Prc, un confronto
serio e prolungato, un reale potere decisionale dei militanti.
UN PARTITO EUROPEO NEORIFORMISTA
Ma soprattutto il merito della decisione assunta suscita un giudizio
radicalmente negativo.
La scelta compiuta configura la costruzione di un soggetto politico
dichiaratamente non comunista, non solo e non tanto per ragioni
"nominali", ma perché privo di un programma di alternativa
anticapitalistica e socialista all'Europa del capitale.
Il Manifesto programmatico prodotto a Berlino si riduce ad un semplice
richiamo di intenti e di valori "progressisti". Non mette in
discussione le basi strutturali e materiali della UE come costruzione
imperialistica, a partire dalla proprietà dei grandi monopoli e delle
banche. Non rivendica un'alternativa di potere della classe operaia e
delle masse oppresse alle classi dominanti del vecchio continente.
Semplicemente rivendica un continente europeo "più democratico,
sociale, ecologicamente sostenibile e di pace". E a tal fine chiede
alla UE e ai suoi governi "un'altra politica economica e sociale", "un
ruolo maggiore ai parlamenti nazionali e a quello europeo", "iniziative
per il disarmo e il rafforzamento del diritto internazionale".
UN RIFORMISMO UTOPICO E SUBALTERNO
E' questa un'impostazione del tutto subalterna e utopica che ignora non
solo la crisi del riformismo al punto di riproporlo, ma la radice di
fondo delle politiche controriformatrici e militariste della UE, che in
quel quadro non sono scelte "sbagliate" rimpiazzabili da altre
politiche ma la conseguenza strutturale della costruzione stessa
dell'Europa imperialista: in quella nuova competizione per i mercati,
per le materie prime, per le zone di influenza che si è aperta nel
mondo dopo il crollo dell'Urss e che investe l'intero scenario
internazionale.
Peraltro è significativo che la rinuncia ad ogni alternativa di potere
all'Europa del capitale finisca col sacrificare, nel manifesto
proposto, caratteri e portata delle stesse rivendicazioni immediate e
dei riferimenti di classe.
Nel Manifesto è assente ogni riferimento al Kosovo, all'Afghanistan,
all'Irak e alla relativa richiesta di ritiro immediato e incondizionato
delle truppe. E' assente ogni riferimento alle lotte della classe
operaia europea dentro una rappresentazione della questione sociale
come pura questione redistributiva tra "ricchi e poveri". E' assente,
clamorosamente, ogni denuncia della socialdemocrazia europea e delle
sue responsabilità antioperaie e filoimperialiste per tutto l'arco
degli anni Novanta.
UNA COMUNE VOCAZIONE DI GOVERNO
Nei fatti il Manifesto di Berlino definisce il profilo del nuovo
partito europeo come quello di una forza di sinistra "critica"
neoriformista proiettata verso prospettive di governo; una forza
misurata sullo stesso terreno delle rivendicazioni di riforma per
preservare o rilanciare spazi di intesa governativa con la
socialdemocrazia e/o con forze di centro liberale. Peraltro la
vocazione di governo è ben sperimentata e inscritta nell'indirizzo
politico-strategico delle principali forze politiche coinvolte
nell'aggregazione: dal Pcf, già partecipe dei bombardamenti in Kosovo
come forza del governo Jospin, alla Pds tedesca, già al governo con la
socialdemocrazia liberale di Schroeder in intere regioni e nella città
di Berlino, sulla base di una cogestione delle politiche di sacrifici e
di tagli alla spesa sociale.
Qui sta la coerenza tra la costituzione del nuovo partito europeo e la
svolta politica di governo che la segreteria nazionale del Prc persegue
in Italia. L'apertura di una prospettiva di governo col centrosinistra
sotto la guida di Prodi -la principale autorità politica dell'Europa
dei banchieri- è incompatibile con ogni politica comunista e di classe
non solo in Italia ma anche sul piano internazionale: essa ha oggi
trovato sul terreno europeo il proprio naturale risvolto e traduzione.
Così come le forze di altri Paesi coinvolte nell'aggregazione hanno
trovato nella svolta di governo del Prc in Italia una ragione di
consolidamento della propria vocazione governativa.
PER UNA PROPOSTA ALTERNATIVA COMPLESSIVA
Per queste ragioni è necessario opporre alla iniziativa assunta a
Berlino una linea politica e strategica complessivamente alternativa,
nazionale e internazionale.
Non si può sostenere la prospettiva di governo con l'Ulivo in Italia (o
non contrapporsi coerentemente ad essa) e al tempo stesso criticare
l'iniziativa di Berlino perché "insufficientemente anticapitalistica e
comunista". Questa impostazione "critica" è profondamente subalterna e
opportunista.
In un caso rivendica l'estensione dell'aggregazione di Berlino ad altri
partiti comunisti di più spiccata tradizione staliniana, il cui
orientamento strategico è anch'esso neoriformista e governista (si
pensi al Pdci): e così concorre a ridurre il comunismo a riferimento
simbolico, retorico, del tutto separato dalla azione politica reale.
In un altro caso si limita a richiedere al nuovo partito europeo un più
coerente rapporto con i movimenti e i conflitti sociali: come se il
rapporto con la lotta di classe non dipendesse dalla prospettiva
politica che si persegue; come se la prospettiva politica che si
persegue non fosse decisiva per lo sbocco dei movimenti e delle loro
ragioni e rivendicazioni.
PER UN'EUROPA SOCIALISTA, PER IL POTERE DEI LAVORATORI, PER
L'OPPOSIZIONE COMUNISTA AI GOVERNI BORGHESI
E' invece essenziale definire una svolta profonda, politica e
programmatica, del nostro partito, arrestando la sua attuale deriva.
Non c'è alternativa all'Europa del capitale dentro un orizzonte
riformistico, oltre tutto fittizio. Solo requisendo la proprietà
privata dei monopoli e delle banche, solo concentrando nelle mani della
classe operaia e della maggioranza della società le leve decisive
dell'economia e della finanza europea è possibile creare le condizioni
di una riorganizzazione su basi nuove della società del vecchio
continente e dare uno sbocco reale alle domande dei movimenti di lotta
che hanno ripreso, con forza, ad attraversarlo. Legare ogni lotta
parziale, ogni speranza di cambiamento alla prospettiva di un'Europa
socialista è il compito decisivo dei comunisti.
Ciò significa assumere apertamente la prospettiva di un'alternativa di
potere alle classi dominanti, in ogni Paese europeo e su scala
continentale. Solo i lavoratori, i giovani, le masse protagoniste dei
movimenti di lotta di questi anni possono costruire un ordine sociale
nuovo. E possono farlo solo rompendo con le forze della borghesia
europea, colpendo le loro basi materiali, le loro radici economiche, i
loro apparati statali, i loro legami internazionali: solo conquistando
il potere politico e basandolo sulla propria forza e sulla propria
autorganizzazione.
A sua volta la lotta per un'alternativa di potere in Europa richiama
l'esigenza dell'autonomia più rigorosa dal potere borghese esistente,
dalle forze di governo del capitalismo europeo.
Rosa Luxemburg, dirigente comunista rivoluzionaria -incredibilmente
celebrata come icona del nuovo partito europeo- affermava che "i
comunisti sono forza di opposizione sino alla conquista del potere
politico". E' questo un fondamento elementare del marxismo
rivoluzionario. La sua rimozione per opera dello stalinismo ha
comportato conseguenze disastrose per il movimento operaio e per i
partiti comunisti a partire proprio dall'Europa. Peraltro tutta la
recente esperienza europea dimostra che ogni subordinazione di forze
del movimento operaio a governi di coalizione con la borghesia
determina la sconfitta del movimento operaio e la crisi delle forze
politiche coinvolte. Non vi è, al riguardo, una sola eccezione.
PER UN'INTERNAZIONALE MARXISTA RIVOLUZIONARIA
Su queste basi programmatiche e di principio è necessario e possibile
lavorare per la rifondazione di un'Internazionale marxista
rivoluzionaria, capace di unificare l'avanguardia operaia e giovanile,
di lottare per l'egemonia nei movimenti di massa, di costruire
un'alternativa di direzione alla socialdemocrazia e ai gruppi dirigenti
neoriformisti. Ed oggi in Europa la crisi di consenso della
socialdemocrazia in settori centrali delle classi subalterne, la crisi
profonda di vecchi apparati di tradizione staliniana, l'emergere sul
terreno della lotta di una giovane generazione possono creare un
terreno più favorevole che in passato per questa politica di
raggruppamento rivoluzionario. Una politica aperta al coinvolgimento di
forze d'avanguardia di diversa collocazione e provenienza ma sulla base
dei principi e degli orientamenti programmatici del marxismo. Perché
fuori e contro quei principi, al di là di ogni eventuale intenzione, si
preparano solo vecchi disastri. Magari in nome del "nuovo".
NONVIOLENZA, RELIGIONE, BERLINO: UNA DERIVA TRASCINATA DALLA SVOLTA DI
GOVERNO CON L'ULIVO
In conclusione, la stessa discussione sull'iniziativa internazionale
del Prc, per il contesto in cui si svolge e per i caratteri che assume,
conferma una volta di più l'esigenza di un congresso straordinario del
nostro partito.
"Nonviolenza", esaltazione della religione, nuovo partito della
sinistra europea, non configurano ambiti separati o scissi ma diverse
angolazioni di un medesimo corso politico. Rappresentano il nuovo abito
politico-culturale della prospettiva di governo del Prc. Un abito che
incontra, non a caso, l'esplicito apprezzamento di settori crescenti
della stampa borghese e del centrosinistra. Com'era prevedibile la
svolta di governo del partito trascina con sé la sua deriva generale.
PER IL CONGRESSO STRAORDINARIO DEL PRC
La Dn ritiene che la deriva in corso vada arrestata, che l'opposizione
comunista vada salvata e rilanciata, che la rifondazione comunista vada
finalmente intrapresa sulle basi del marxismo rivoluzionario. Ma solo i
militanti del partito possono mettere una barra alla deriva. E solo un
congresso, sempre più urgente, può dare finalmente loro la parola.
MARCO FERRANDO
FRANCO GRISOLIA
MATTEO MALERBA
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3129)
diffondiamo il testo, appena pervenutoci, della mozione alternativa
presentata dall'area di Progetto Comunista alla Direzione Nazionale del
partito lo scorso 28/1/2004.
---
La Direzione nazionale esprime un giudizio di dissenso profondo con
l'iniziativa intrapresa a Berlino di costituzione del "partito della
sinistra europea".
UN METODO BUROCRATICO
Il percorso seguito nella realizzazione di questo atto politico ha
avuto un carattere fortemente burocratico e verticistico. I gruppi
dirigenti e il corpo militante del Prc vengono "iscritti" di fatto in
un nuovo partito europeo senza che sia stata loro fornita la
possibilità di conoscere e discutere preventivamente la prospettiva
indicata. Senza che si sia loro fornita un'informazione elementare
sulla natura politica delle forze coinvolte, le loro scelte nei
rispettivi Paesi, il dibattito e le divergenze che le attraversano.
Né vale l'argomento secondo cui la Dn e il futuro Cpn hanno potere
decisionale: perché di fatto vengono convocati a fatto compiuto, ciò
che limita profondamente la libertà decisionale costituendo un indebito
fattore di pressione e condizionamento; e perché in ogni caso una
scelta così rilevante di fondazione di un nuovo partito in Europa
avrebbe richiesto un coinvolgimento ben più largo del Prc, un confronto
serio e prolungato, un reale potere decisionale dei militanti.
UN PARTITO EUROPEO NEORIFORMISTA
Ma soprattutto il merito della decisione assunta suscita un giudizio
radicalmente negativo.
La scelta compiuta configura la costruzione di un soggetto politico
dichiaratamente non comunista, non solo e non tanto per ragioni
"nominali", ma perché privo di un programma di alternativa
anticapitalistica e socialista all'Europa del capitale.
Il Manifesto programmatico prodotto a Berlino si riduce ad un semplice
richiamo di intenti e di valori "progressisti". Non mette in
discussione le basi strutturali e materiali della UE come costruzione
imperialistica, a partire dalla proprietà dei grandi monopoli e delle
banche. Non rivendica un'alternativa di potere della classe operaia e
delle masse oppresse alle classi dominanti del vecchio continente.
Semplicemente rivendica un continente europeo "più democratico,
sociale, ecologicamente sostenibile e di pace". E a tal fine chiede
alla UE e ai suoi governi "un'altra politica economica e sociale", "un
ruolo maggiore ai parlamenti nazionali e a quello europeo", "iniziative
per il disarmo e il rafforzamento del diritto internazionale".
UN RIFORMISMO UTOPICO E SUBALTERNO
E' questa un'impostazione del tutto subalterna e utopica che ignora non
solo la crisi del riformismo al punto di riproporlo, ma la radice di
fondo delle politiche controriformatrici e militariste della UE, che in
quel quadro non sono scelte "sbagliate" rimpiazzabili da altre
politiche ma la conseguenza strutturale della costruzione stessa
dell'Europa imperialista: in quella nuova competizione per i mercati,
per le materie prime, per le zone di influenza che si è aperta nel
mondo dopo il crollo dell'Urss e che investe l'intero scenario
internazionale.
Peraltro è significativo che la rinuncia ad ogni alternativa di potere
all'Europa del capitale finisca col sacrificare, nel manifesto
proposto, caratteri e portata delle stesse rivendicazioni immediate e
dei riferimenti di classe.
Nel Manifesto è assente ogni riferimento al Kosovo, all'Afghanistan,
all'Irak e alla relativa richiesta di ritiro immediato e incondizionato
delle truppe. E' assente ogni riferimento alle lotte della classe
operaia europea dentro una rappresentazione della questione sociale
come pura questione redistributiva tra "ricchi e poveri". E' assente,
clamorosamente, ogni denuncia della socialdemocrazia europea e delle
sue responsabilità antioperaie e filoimperialiste per tutto l'arco
degli anni Novanta.
UNA COMUNE VOCAZIONE DI GOVERNO
Nei fatti il Manifesto di Berlino definisce il profilo del nuovo
partito europeo come quello di una forza di sinistra "critica"
neoriformista proiettata verso prospettive di governo; una forza
misurata sullo stesso terreno delle rivendicazioni di riforma per
preservare o rilanciare spazi di intesa governativa con la
socialdemocrazia e/o con forze di centro liberale. Peraltro la
vocazione di governo è ben sperimentata e inscritta nell'indirizzo
politico-strategico delle principali forze politiche coinvolte
nell'aggregazione: dal Pcf, già partecipe dei bombardamenti in Kosovo
come forza del governo Jospin, alla Pds tedesca, già al governo con la
socialdemocrazia liberale di Schroeder in intere regioni e nella città
di Berlino, sulla base di una cogestione delle politiche di sacrifici e
di tagli alla spesa sociale.
Qui sta la coerenza tra la costituzione del nuovo partito europeo e la
svolta politica di governo che la segreteria nazionale del Prc persegue
in Italia. L'apertura di una prospettiva di governo col centrosinistra
sotto la guida di Prodi -la principale autorità politica dell'Europa
dei banchieri- è incompatibile con ogni politica comunista e di classe
non solo in Italia ma anche sul piano internazionale: essa ha oggi
trovato sul terreno europeo il proprio naturale risvolto e traduzione.
Così come le forze di altri Paesi coinvolte nell'aggregazione hanno
trovato nella svolta di governo del Prc in Italia una ragione di
consolidamento della propria vocazione governativa.
PER UNA PROPOSTA ALTERNATIVA COMPLESSIVA
Per queste ragioni è necessario opporre alla iniziativa assunta a
Berlino una linea politica e strategica complessivamente alternativa,
nazionale e internazionale.
Non si può sostenere la prospettiva di governo con l'Ulivo in Italia (o
non contrapporsi coerentemente ad essa) e al tempo stesso criticare
l'iniziativa di Berlino perché "insufficientemente anticapitalistica e
comunista". Questa impostazione "critica" è profondamente subalterna e
opportunista.
In un caso rivendica l'estensione dell'aggregazione di Berlino ad altri
partiti comunisti di più spiccata tradizione staliniana, il cui
orientamento strategico è anch'esso neoriformista e governista (si
pensi al Pdci): e così concorre a ridurre il comunismo a riferimento
simbolico, retorico, del tutto separato dalla azione politica reale.
In un altro caso si limita a richiedere al nuovo partito europeo un più
coerente rapporto con i movimenti e i conflitti sociali: come se il
rapporto con la lotta di classe non dipendesse dalla prospettiva
politica che si persegue; come se la prospettiva politica che si
persegue non fosse decisiva per lo sbocco dei movimenti e delle loro
ragioni e rivendicazioni.
PER UN'EUROPA SOCIALISTA, PER IL POTERE DEI LAVORATORI, PER
L'OPPOSIZIONE COMUNISTA AI GOVERNI BORGHESI
E' invece essenziale definire una svolta profonda, politica e
programmatica, del nostro partito, arrestando la sua attuale deriva.
Non c'è alternativa all'Europa del capitale dentro un orizzonte
riformistico, oltre tutto fittizio. Solo requisendo la proprietà
privata dei monopoli e delle banche, solo concentrando nelle mani della
classe operaia e della maggioranza della società le leve decisive
dell'economia e della finanza europea è possibile creare le condizioni
di una riorganizzazione su basi nuove della società del vecchio
continente e dare uno sbocco reale alle domande dei movimenti di lotta
che hanno ripreso, con forza, ad attraversarlo. Legare ogni lotta
parziale, ogni speranza di cambiamento alla prospettiva di un'Europa
socialista è il compito decisivo dei comunisti.
Ciò significa assumere apertamente la prospettiva di un'alternativa di
potere alle classi dominanti, in ogni Paese europeo e su scala
continentale. Solo i lavoratori, i giovani, le masse protagoniste dei
movimenti di lotta di questi anni possono costruire un ordine sociale
nuovo. E possono farlo solo rompendo con le forze della borghesia
europea, colpendo le loro basi materiali, le loro radici economiche, i
loro apparati statali, i loro legami internazionali: solo conquistando
il potere politico e basandolo sulla propria forza e sulla propria
autorganizzazione.
A sua volta la lotta per un'alternativa di potere in Europa richiama
l'esigenza dell'autonomia più rigorosa dal potere borghese esistente,
dalle forze di governo del capitalismo europeo.
Rosa Luxemburg, dirigente comunista rivoluzionaria -incredibilmente
celebrata come icona del nuovo partito europeo- affermava che "i
comunisti sono forza di opposizione sino alla conquista del potere
politico". E' questo un fondamento elementare del marxismo
rivoluzionario. La sua rimozione per opera dello stalinismo ha
comportato conseguenze disastrose per il movimento operaio e per i
partiti comunisti a partire proprio dall'Europa. Peraltro tutta la
recente esperienza europea dimostra che ogni subordinazione di forze
del movimento operaio a governi di coalizione con la borghesia
determina la sconfitta del movimento operaio e la crisi delle forze
politiche coinvolte. Non vi è, al riguardo, una sola eccezione.
PER UN'INTERNAZIONALE MARXISTA RIVOLUZIONARIA
Su queste basi programmatiche e di principio è necessario e possibile
lavorare per la rifondazione di un'Internazionale marxista
rivoluzionaria, capace di unificare l'avanguardia operaia e giovanile,
di lottare per l'egemonia nei movimenti di massa, di costruire
un'alternativa di direzione alla socialdemocrazia e ai gruppi dirigenti
neoriformisti. Ed oggi in Europa la crisi di consenso della
socialdemocrazia in settori centrali delle classi subalterne, la crisi
profonda di vecchi apparati di tradizione staliniana, l'emergere sul
terreno della lotta di una giovane generazione possono creare un
terreno più favorevole che in passato per questa politica di
raggruppamento rivoluzionario. Una politica aperta al coinvolgimento di
forze d'avanguardia di diversa collocazione e provenienza ma sulla base
dei principi e degli orientamenti programmatici del marxismo. Perché
fuori e contro quei principi, al di là di ogni eventuale intenzione, si
preparano solo vecchi disastri. Magari in nome del "nuovo".
NONVIOLENZA, RELIGIONE, BERLINO: UNA DERIVA TRASCINATA DALLA SVOLTA DI
GOVERNO CON L'ULIVO
In conclusione, la stessa discussione sull'iniziativa internazionale
del Prc, per il contesto in cui si svolge e per i caratteri che assume,
conferma una volta di più l'esigenza di un congresso straordinario del
nostro partito.
"Nonviolenza", esaltazione della religione, nuovo partito della
sinistra europea, non configurano ambiti separati o scissi ma diverse
angolazioni di un medesimo corso politico. Rappresentano il nuovo abito
politico-culturale della prospettiva di governo del Prc. Un abito che
incontra, non a caso, l'esplicito apprezzamento di settori crescenti
della stampa borghese e del centrosinistra. Com'era prevedibile la
svolta di governo del partito trascina con sé la sua deriva generale.
PER IL CONGRESSO STRAORDINARIO DEL PRC
La Dn ritiene che la deriva in corso vada arrestata, che l'opposizione
comunista vada salvata e rilanciata, che la rifondazione comunista vada
finalmente intrapresa sulle basi del marxismo rivoluzionario. Ma solo i
militanti del partito possono mettere una barra alla deriva. E solo un
congresso, sempre più urgente, può dare finalmente loro la parola.
MARCO FERRANDO
FRANCO GRISOLIA
MATTEO MALERBA
Milena Cubrakovic - nota pittrice jugoslava, nostra cara amica e
compagna impegnata nella battaglia comune di controinformazione sullo
squartamento del suo paese sin dai primordi della trasmissione "Voce
Jugoslava" su Radio Citta' Aperta - e' ricoverata in condizioni molto
serie nella nota clinica romana Aurelia Hospital.
Un intervento chirurgico urgente e' stato rimandato oggi a causa della
scarsita' di sangue disponibile.
Chiunque, nella zona di Roma, potesse donare sangue -- di QUALSIASI
gruppo sanguigno ! -- e' pregato di presentarsi prima possibile alla
clinica facendo il nome della nostra amica. Per ulteriori informazioni,
per i conoscenti che volessero andare a trovare Milena, eccetera, si
possono chiamare i numeri: 349-4555344 ; 06-4828957
Ivan ed Andrea
compagna impegnata nella battaglia comune di controinformazione sullo
squartamento del suo paese sin dai primordi della trasmissione "Voce
Jugoslava" su Radio Citta' Aperta - e' ricoverata in condizioni molto
serie nella nota clinica romana Aurelia Hospital.
Un intervento chirurgico urgente e' stato rimandato oggi a causa della
scarsita' di sangue disponibile.
Chiunque, nella zona di Roma, potesse donare sangue -- di QUALSIASI
gruppo sanguigno ! -- e' pregato di presentarsi prima possibile alla
clinica facendo il nome della nostra amica. Per ulteriori informazioni,
per i conoscenti che volessero andare a trovare Milena, eccetera, si
possono chiamare i numeri: 349-4555344 ; 06-4828957
Ivan ed Andrea
Precisiamo che il centro dove presentarsi per la raccolta del sangue e'
presso il POLICLINICO GEMELLI, non distante dalla clinica dove e'
ricoverata Milena.
E' possibile presentarsi li direttamente, dichiarando di voler donare
sangue per Milena Cubrakovic, ricoverata all'Aurelia Hospital.
Un grazie di cuore a chiunque potesse aiutare / Hvala za pomoc
Inizio del messaggio inoltrato:
> Da: Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia <jugocoord@...>
> Data: Ven 30 Gen 2004 16:25:58 Europe/Rome
> A: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli., jugoinfo@...
> Oggetto: urge sangue
>
>
> Milena Cubrakovic - nota pittrice jugoslava, nostra cara amica e
> compagna impegnata nella battaglia comune di controinformazione sullo
> squartamento del suo paese sin dai primordi della trasmissione "Voce
> Jugoslava" su Radio Citta' Aperta - e' ricoverata in condizioni molto
> serie nella nota clinica romana Aurelia Hospital.
> Un intervento chirurgico urgente e' stato rimandato oggi a causa della
> scarsita' di sangue disponibile.
> Chiunque, nella zona di Roma, potesse donare sangue -- di QUALSIASI
> gruppo sanguigno ! -- e' pregato di presentarsi prima possibile ...
> facendo il nome della nostra amica. Per ulteriori informazioni, per i
> conoscenti che volessero andare a trovare Milena, eccetera, si possono
> chiamare i numeri: 349-4555344 ; 06-4828957
>
> Ivan ed Andrea
presso il POLICLINICO GEMELLI, non distante dalla clinica dove e'
ricoverata Milena.
E' possibile presentarsi li direttamente, dichiarando di voler donare
sangue per Milena Cubrakovic, ricoverata all'Aurelia Hospital.
Un grazie di cuore a chiunque potesse aiutare / Hvala za pomoc
Inizio del messaggio inoltrato:
> Da: Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia <jugocoord@...>
> Data: Ven 30 Gen 2004 16:25:58 Europe/Rome
> A: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli., jugoinfo@...
> Oggetto: urge sangue
>
>
> Milena Cubrakovic - nota pittrice jugoslava, nostra cara amica e
> compagna impegnata nella battaglia comune di controinformazione sullo
> squartamento del suo paese sin dai primordi della trasmissione "Voce
> Jugoslava" su Radio Citta' Aperta - e' ricoverata in condizioni molto
> serie nella nota clinica romana Aurelia Hospital.
> Un intervento chirurgico urgente e' stato rimandato oggi a causa della
> scarsita' di sangue disponibile.
> Chiunque, nella zona di Roma, potesse donare sangue -- di QUALSIASI
> gruppo sanguigno ! -- e' pregato di presentarsi prima possibile ...
> facendo il nome della nostra amica. Per ulteriori informazioni, per i
> conoscenti che volessero andare a trovare Milena, eccetera, si possono
> chiamare i numeri: 349-4555344 ; 06-4828957
>
> Ivan ed Andrea
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/se/pose4a29.htm
www.resistenze.org - popoli resistenti - serbia - 29-01-04
Reportage a proposito del viaggio del VdR ( Voce dei Rom) in Kosovo
tenutosi nei mesi scorsi.
Notizie dal campo e dati sulle comunità zingare in Kosovo.
La pulizia etnica “Umanitaria” degli Zingari in Kosovo
Appartengo all’etnia Rom (più comunemente conosciuta come “zingara,
gitana”) sono nato in Kosovo, Jugoslavia, ed ho vissuto a Pristina
(capitale della regione kosovara). Nell’estate del 2000, dieci anni
dopo, mi trovavo in Macedonia, distante cioè soltanto 30 miglia dalla
cittadina dove avevo vissuto gran parte della mia vita, e che ora non
potevo più visitare.
Ciò è accaduto più di tre anni dopo il “bombardamento umanitario”
effettuato dalle forze statunitensi e NATO congiunte e l’escalation del
conflitto etnico iniziato in Kosovo nel 24 marzo del 1999. Ma era
ancora troppo pericoloso per me, un “Majupi” dalla pelle nera (termine
albanese che connota, suggerisce l’idea di “qualcosa più meschino,
triviale dei rifiuti, della spazzatura”), mettere piede in Kosovo.
Arrivò infine il giorno (2 maggio 2002) in cui potei visitare il mio
luogo natale, carico di così tanti ricordi della mia giovinezza. Ma
quello stesso posto – dov’ero cresciuto con i miei quattro fratelli ed
una sorella, cugini, parenti, vicini di casa, amici – non esisteva più.
Ogni cosa era stata spazzata via. Le case nuove e restaurate, le ville,
i posti di rifornimento di benzina, i motels, erano stati tutti
costruiti nei tre anni precedenti dall’etnia albanese vittoriosa, e
rendevano il Kosovo simile ad un paese straniero, che non riconoscevo
più. Non sapevo più che sentimenti provare, cosa sentire in quel
momento di ritorno. Paura, felicità, rabbia, tristezza?
Il paradosso che mi veniva in mente era che tutta quella ricostruzione
era sponsorizzata dalle agenzie di soccorso e sussidio internazionale e
finanziata dalle società di industrializzazione e investimento con a
capo personalità preminenti, tali Dick Cheney e George Soros. Nel
frattempo, gli zingari, i serbi, gli slavi mussulmani, i bosniaci ed i
turchi, con altre minoranze presenti in Kosovo, stanno morendo di fame!
Mentre la maggioranza di questi enti internazionali si stava vantando
di partecipare ad un “Kosovo libero e democratico”, questi popoli erano
obbligati ad abbandonare le loro case, patendo una pulizia etnica
“umanitaria” sostenuta che è stata praticamente del tutto invisibile al
resto del mondo. La conseguenza ironica dell’azione di soccorso
NATO/statunitense degli albanesi oppressi è che questi ultimi si sono
trasformati a loro volta in oppressori.
A maggio di quest’anno, in qualità di Presidente della Voice of Roma
(VOR = Voce degli zingari), ho diretto un viaggio in Kosovo
accompagnato da delegati rappresentanti dei diritti umani, assistenti
ai profughi e gruppi pacifisti arrivati dagli USA, Germania, Italia ed
Olanda. Poiché gran parte delle persona che lavorano in tali
organizzazioni pensano che il Kosovo sia ora libero e che i suoi
popoli stiano convivendo in pace ed armonia, essi sono sorpresi quando
li informo che in Kosovo le minoranze etniche stanno tuttora fuggendo,
volevo che fossero testimoni oculari di ciò che sta accadendo laggiù.
I delegati hanno ricevuto ospitalità nelle comunità zingare, a sud di
Pristina. Ogni famiglia dava accoglienza a due o più rappresentanti.
Essi sono entrati così in contatto, trascorrendovi tempo e
conoscendole, con persone coinvolte nella violenza del fuoco incrociato
tra serbi ed albanesi, che avevano patito le conseguenze dei pesanti
bombardamenti delle forze NATO guidate dagli USA, sperimentando la
discriminazione da parte delle forze K-FOR, la Polizia U.N., le
organizzazioni internazionali non-governative (NGO), e delle politiche
adottate dai paesi dell’Europa occidentale. I delegati erano atterriti
dai racconti che sentivano, e indignati nel constatare le condizioni
nelle quali gli zingari del Kosovo sopravvivevano.
Dall’arrivo dei “peace-keepers” NATO in Kosovo, più di 300,000
componenti a minoranze etniche sono state “epurate” dalla regione dagli
estremisti albanesi. E’ più di un anno che l’Amministrazione U.N. ad
interim in Kosovo (UNMIK) o l’Organizzazione per la Sicurezza e la
Cooperazione in Europa (OSCE) hanno rilasciato affermazioni circa gli
abusi dei diritti umani subiti dalle minoranze in Kosovo.
Sorprendentemente, alcune NGO come Medici Senza Frontiere (vincitore
del Premio Nobel per la Pace), la Croce Rossa Internazionale, Oxfam, e
molte altre organizzazioni hanno trascurato le minoranze etniche in
Kosovo, non rivolgendo attenzione alle loro problematiche. Gli unici
enti a divulgare notizie sugli abusi dei diritti umani in Kosovo sono
Amnesty International e Human Rights Watch.
La mia domanda è: se i cosiddetti “bombardamenti umanitari” avevano
come finalità l’arresto della “epurazione etnica”, perché le medesime
potenze occidentali sono così restie, avverse a d intervenire a favore
della popolazione zingara e delle altre minoranze kossovare che stanno
soffrendo un’effettiva epurazione etnica?
Tale epurazione etnica, per ciò che concerne gli zingari e a partire
dall’arrivo del 12 giugno 1999 dei peace-keepers dell’ONU ha avuto come
conseguenza il dileguarsi dal Kosovo dell’oltre il 75% di questa
popolazione (oltre 100,000 zingari). Eppure i media e la comunità
“umanitaria” internazionale restano in silenzio. Gli USA e i media
occidentali non hanno catturato sui loro schermi radar nessuno di
questi eventi, o hanno più precisamente e di buon grado ignorato tali
orrori. (vedere il nostro rapporto The Current Plight of the Roma in
Kosovo [L’Attuale Condizione degli Zingari in Kosovo], disponibile
dalla Voice of Roma, P.O. Box 514, Sebastopol, CA 95473.)
La maggioranza degli zingari rimasti in Kosovo (25,000 su una
popolazione che prima della guerra era di 150,000) sono profughi
interni, pur non possedendone lo status officiale. Questi zingari sono
invece etichettati come “profughi interni, apolidi” (IDPs), che,
rispetto ai profughi ufficiali, vedono ulteriormente ridotti i loro
diritti, segregati, limitati in campi con servizi ed attrezzature
scarsissime. Alcuni zingari vivono in enclaves controllate dai serbi.
Nessun altro gruppo etnico si trova nei campi IDPs, soltanto gli
zingari. Perché è così? Soltanto gli zingari non hanno una patria, una
nazione sicura come porto di salvezza. I serbi sono fuggiti in Serbia,
i bosniaci in Bosnia, i Turchi in Turchia e i gli slavi mussulmani in
Macedonia o in Europa occidentale.
I più poveri fra i poveri, stanziati nei campi IDP, gli zingari
affrontano un considerevole livello di discriminazione e oppressione,
che minaccia le loro stesse vite mutilando e paralizzandone la cultura.
Per darvi appena un’idea, l’ONU fornisce a ciascuno zingaro nei campi
IDP una razione mensile di otto chili (17 libbre) di farina, due
cipolle, due pomodori, mezzo chilo (una libbra) di formaggio, ed un po’
di frutta (solitamente marcia). Oltre a questo, vi sono soltanto tre
litri di olio da cucina per famiglia, indifferentemente dal numero di
elementi che la compongono; e non è possibile disporre di altre
forniture (interviste a profughi in campi IDP del Kosovo e Macedonia).
Se queste popolazioni stanno combattendo per sopravvivere fisicamente,
cosa accadrà alla loro cultura?
Un altro esempio che potrei fornire riguarda la richiesta da parte di
un delegato VOR che domandava di poter accedere all’acqua potabile e
per cucinare in un campo di zingari. Il rappresentante ONU replicò.
“Oh, gli zingari sanno come avere cura di se stessi. Sono nomadi; hanno
vissuto le loro vite così.” Se gli zingari devono fronteggiare un tale
abbandono, rigetto da coloro i quali la loro sopravvivenza fisica
dipende, come riusciranno a sopravvivere sia fisicamente che
culturalmente?
Questo stereotipo radicato, che gli zingari siano vagabondi, girovaghi
barbari e selvaggi, e che conseguentemente non abbiano le stesse
necessità dei membri delle società “civilizzate” è contraddetta dai
dati di fatto. In Kosovo, gli zingari hanno vissuto in case per oltre
settecento anni, e la maggioranza di loro non ha mai visto una carovana
di girovaghi. L’effetto di tali stereotipi è quello di disumanizzare
gli zingari e distruggere la loro infrastruttura culturale.
Nel Kosovo “libero” di oggi, nessuno zingaro può spostarsi
liberamente; i suoi figli non possono andare a scuola e non hanno il
permesso di parlare la loro lingua madre. A causa dell’abbandono
forzato delle loro case e del confino coatto nei campi, gran parte
degli zingari ancora in Kosovo non hanno potuto vedere i componenti
delle famiglie vicine da più di tre anni. Ciò implica, fra le altre
cose, che i matrimoni non possono contrarsi secondo le regole sociali
degli zingari. Cosa accade ad una società nella quale è impossibile
formare nuove famiglie?
Come possiamo cambiare la situazione degli zingari, ovunque possa
accadere loro di trovarsi? Qual è la nostra responsabilità verso un
popolo che è stato così ingiuriato ed ignorato per secoli?
Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna (SOS Yugoslavia)
www.resistenze.org - popoli resistenti - serbia - 29-01-04
Reportage a proposito del viaggio del VdR ( Voce dei Rom) in Kosovo
tenutosi nei mesi scorsi.
Notizie dal campo e dati sulle comunità zingare in Kosovo.
La pulizia etnica “Umanitaria” degli Zingari in Kosovo
Appartengo all’etnia Rom (più comunemente conosciuta come “zingara,
gitana”) sono nato in Kosovo, Jugoslavia, ed ho vissuto a Pristina
(capitale della regione kosovara). Nell’estate del 2000, dieci anni
dopo, mi trovavo in Macedonia, distante cioè soltanto 30 miglia dalla
cittadina dove avevo vissuto gran parte della mia vita, e che ora non
potevo più visitare.
Ciò è accaduto più di tre anni dopo il “bombardamento umanitario”
effettuato dalle forze statunitensi e NATO congiunte e l’escalation del
conflitto etnico iniziato in Kosovo nel 24 marzo del 1999. Ma era
ancora troppo pericoloso per me, un “Majupi” dalla pelle nera (termine
albanese che connota, suggerisce l’idea di “qualcosa più meschino,
triviale dei rifiuti, della spazzatura”), mettere piede in Kosovo.
Arrivò infine il giorno (2 maggio 2002) in cui potei visitare il mio
luogo natale, carico di così tanti ricordi della mia giovinezza. Ma
quello stesso posto – dov’ero cresciuto con i miei quattro fratelli ed
una sorella, cugini, parenti, vicini di casa, amici – non esisteva più.
Ogni cosa era stata spazzata via. Le case nuove e restaurate, le ville,
i posti di rifornimento di benzina, i motels, erano stati tutti
costruiti nei tre anni precedenti dall’etnia albanese vittoriosa, e
rendevano il Kosovo simile ad un paese straniero, che non riconoscevo
più. Non sapevo più che sentimenti provare, cosa sentire in quel
momento di ritorno. Paura, felicità, rabbia, tristezza?
Il paradosso che mi veniva in mente era che tutta quella ricostruzione
era sponsorizzata dalle agenzie di soccorso e sussidio internazionale e
finanziata dalle società di industrializzazione e investimento con a
capo personalità preminenti, tali Dick Cheney e George Soros. Nel
frattempo, gli zingari, i serbi, gli slavi mussulmani, i bosniaci ed i
turchi, con altre minoranze presenti in Kosovo, stanno morendo di fame!
Mentre la maggioranza di questi enti internazionali si stava vantando
di partecipare ad un “Kosovo libero e democratico”, questi popoli erano
obbligati ad abbandonare le loro case, patendo una pulizia etnica
“umanitaria” sostenuta che è stata praticamente del tutto invisibile al
resto del mondo. La conseguenza ironica dell’azione di soccorso
NATO/statunitense degli albanesi oppressi è che questi ultimi si sono
trasformati a loro volta in oppressori.
A maggio di quest’anno, in qualità di Presidente della Voice of Roma
(VOR = Voce degli zingari), ho diretto un viaggio in Kosovo
accompagnato da delegati rappresentanti dei diritti umani, assistenti
ai profughi e gruppi pacifisti arrivati dagli USA, Germania, Italia ed
Olanda. Poiché gran parte delle persona che lavorano in tali
organizzazioni pensano che il Kosovo sia ora libero e che i suoi
popoli stiano convivendo in pace ed armonia, essi sono sorpresi quando
li informo che in Kosovo le minoranze etniche stanno tuttora fuggendo,
volevo che fossero testimoni oculari di ciò che sta accadendo laggiù.
I delegati hanno ricevuto ospitalità nelle comunità zingare, a sud di
Pristina. Ogni famiglia dava accoglienza a due o più rappresentanti.
Essi sono entrati così in contatto, trascorrendovi tempo e
conoscendole, con persone coinvolte nella violenza del fuoco incrociato
tra serbi ed albanesi, che avevano patito le conseguenze dei pesanti
bombardamenti delle forze NATO guidate dagli USA, sperimentando la
discriminazione da parte delle forze K-FOR, la Polizia U.N., le
organizzazioni internazionali non-governative (NGO), e delle politiche
adottate dai paesi dell’Europa occidentale. I delegati erano atterriti
dai racconti che sentivano, e indignati nel constatare le condizioni
nelle quali gli zingari del Kosovo sopravvivevano.
Dall’arrivo dei “peace-keepers” NATO in Kosovo, più di 300,000
componenti a minoranze etniche sono state “epurate” dalla regione dagli
estremisti albanesi. E’ più di un anno che l’Amministrazione U.N. ad
interim in Kosovo (UNMIK) o l’Organizzazione per la Sicurezza e la
Cooperazione in Europa (OSCE) hanno rilasciato affermazioni circa gli
abusi dei diritti umani subiti dalle minoranze in Kosovo.
Sorprendentemente, alcune NGO come Medici Senza Frontiere (vincitore
del Premio Nobel per la Pace), la Croce Rossa Internazionale, Oxfam, e
molte altre organizzazioni hanno trascurato le minoranze etniche in
Kosovo, non rivolgendo attenzione alle loro problematiche. Gli unici
enti a divulgare notizie sugli abusi dei diritti umani in Kosovo sono
Amnesty International e Human Rights Watch.
La mia domanda è: se i cosiddetti “bombardamenti umanitari” avevano
come finalità l’arresto della “epurazione etnica”, perché le medesime
potenze occidentali sono così restie, avverse a d intervenire a favore
della popolazione zingara e delle altre minoranze kossovare che stanno
soffrendo un’effettiva epurazione etnica?
Tale epurazione etnica, per ciò che concerne gli zingari e a partire
dall’arrivo del 12 giugno 1999 dei peace-keepers dell’ONU ha avuto come
conseguenza il dileguarsi dal Kosovo dell’oltre il 75% di questa
popolazione (oltre 100,000 zingari). Eppure i media e la comunità
“umanitaria” internazionale restano in silenzio. Gli USA e i media
occidentali non hanno catturato sui loro schermi radar nessuno di
questi eventi, o hanno più precisamente e di buon grado ignorato tali
orrori. (vedere il nostro rapporto The Current Plight of the Roma in
Kosovo [L’Attuale Condizione degli Zingari in Kosovo], disponibile
dalla Voice of Roma, P.O. Box 514, Sebastopol, CA 95473.)
La maggioranza degli zingari rimasti in Kosovo (25,000 su una
popolazione che prima della guerra era di 150,000) sono profughi
interni, pur non possedendone lo status officiale. Questi zingari sono
invece etichettati come “profughi interni, apolidi” (IDPs), che,
rispetto ai profughi ufficiali, vedono ulteriormente ridotti i loro
diritti, segregati, limitati in campi con servizi ed attrezzature
scarsissime. Alcuni zingari vivono in enclaves controllate dai serbi.
Nessun altro gruppo etnico si trova nei campi IDPs, soltanto gli
zingari. Perché è così? Soltanto gli zingari non hanno una patria, una
nazione sicura come porto di salvezza. I serbi sono fuggiti in Serbia,
i bosniaci in Bosnia, i Turchi in Turchia e i gli slavi mussulmani in
Macedonia o in Europa occidentale.
I più poveri fra i poveri, stanziati nei campi IDP, gli zingari
affrontano un considerevole livello di discriminazione e oppressione,
che minaccia le loro stesse vite mutilando e paralizzandone la cultura.
Per darvi appena un’idea, l’ONU fornisce a ciascuno zingaro nei campi
IDP una razione mensile di otto chili (17 libbre) di farina, due
cipolle, due pomodori, mezzo chilo (una libbra) di formaggio, ed un po’
di frutta (solitamente marcia). Oltre a questo, vi sono soltanto tre
litri di olio da cucina per famiglia, indifferentemente dal numero di
elementi che la compongono; e non è possibile disporre di altre
forniture (interviste a profughi in campi IDP del Kosovo e Macedonia).
Se queste popolazioni stanno combattendo per sopravvivere fisicamente,
cosa accadrà alla loro cultura?
Un altro esempio che potrei fornire riguarda la richiesta da parte di
un delegato VOR che domandava di poter accedere all’acqua potabile e
per cucinare in un campo di zingari. Il rappresentante ONU replicò.
“Oh, gli zingari sanno come avere cura di se stessi. Sono nomadi; hanno
vissuto le loro vite così.” Se gli zingari devono fronteggiare un tale
abbandono, rigetto da coloro i quali la loro sopravvivenza fisica
dipende, come riusciranno a sopravvivere sia fisicamente che
culturalmente?
Questo stereotipo radicato, che gli zingari siano vagabondi, girovaghi
barbari e selvaggi, e che conseguentemente non abbiano le stesse
necessità dei membri delle società “civilizzate” è contraddetta dai
dati di fatto. In Kosovo, gli zingari hanno vissuto in case per oltre
settecento anni, e la maggioranza di loro non ha mai visto una carovana
di girovaghi. L’effetto di tali stereotipi è quello di disumanizzare
gli zingari e distruggere la loro infrastruttura culturale.
Nel Kosovo “libero” di oggi, nessuno zingaro può spostarsi
liberamente; i suoi figli non possono andare a scuola e non hanno il
permesso di parlare la loro lingua madre. A causa dell’abbandono
forzato delle loro case e del confino coatto nei campi, gran parte
degli zingari ancora in Kosovo non hanno potuto vedere i componenti
delle famiglie vicine da più di tre anni. Ciò implica, fra le altre
cose, che i matrimoni non possono contrarsi secondo le regole sociali
degli zingari. Cosa accade ad una società nella quale è impossibile
formare nuove famiglie?
Come possiamo cambiare la situazione degli zingari, ovunque possa
accadere loro di trovarsi? Qual è la nostra responsabilità verso un
popolo che è stato così ingiuriato ed ignorato per secoli?
Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna (SOS Yugoslavia)
compensation for families of victims of 1999 bombing /
ripagare le vittime civili dei bombardamenti nato in serbia?
=== ITALIANO ===
http://www.exju.org/comments/616_0_1_0_C/
[ex-nju] jugonews 19-26 gennaio '04
la jugonotizia in rilievo:
ripagare le vittime civili dei bombardamenti nato in serbia?
il ‘difensore civico’ per il kosovo marek novicky
[http://www.ombudspersonkosovo.org/%5d ha chiesto al segretario generale
della nato, jaap de hoop scheffer, in una lettera spedita il 22 gennaio
che alle famiglie delle vittime dei bombardamenti della nato in kosovo
nel 1999 venga assegnato un risarcimento per i danni morali, perché gli
attacchi sono avvenuti a danno di civili e non militari. nella lettera
viene menzionato l’attacco all’autobus vicino a podujevo
[http://www.sramota.com/nato/savine_vode/%5d e all’edificio della posta a
pristina in cui morirono 47 civili, rammentando che finora tutti i
tentativi dei familiari sono rimasti vani. in precedenza, novicki aveva
inviato la stessa richiesta anche all’ex segretario generale george
robertson, senza ricevere alcuna risposta. “in questo senso desidero
ricevere una risposta ora, perché la nato persiste a negare a queste
persone qualsiasi forma di aiuto” ha detto novicki nella sua lettera
inviata a scheffer.
erp.kim [http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo23jan04b.html%5d
=== ENGLISH ===
Kosovo ombudsman asks NATO alliance to consider possibility of
compensation for families of victims of 1999 bombing
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo23jan04b.html
---
ERP KiM Newsletter 23-01-04b
Kosovo ombudsman asks NATO alliance to consider
possibility of compensation for families of victims of
1999 bombing
In an open letter to new NATO secretary general of
NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Kosovo ombudsman Marek Antoni Nowicki
asks for consideration of the possibility of compensation
for families of victims of the 1999 bombing
ERP KIM Info Service
Gracanica, January 23, 2004
(Photo: Marek Antoni Nowicki in search of justice for
victims of NATO bombing)
In today's newsletter we include a letter sent on
January 22, 2004 by Kosovo ombudsman Marek Antoni Nowicki
(Poland) to the new NATO secretary general Jap de Hoop Scheffer
regarding several requests by families of victims killed
during the NATO bombing of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999
for monetary compensation and public acknowledgement,
providing moral satisfaction of responsibility for
attacks on objects that were civil, not military, in nature. The
letter cites especially the bombing of a passenger bus in
Luzani (near Podujevo) resulting in the deaths of 47
persons and the injury of many more, and the bombing
of the post office in central Pristina. Nowicki states
that so far all attempts by these persons to obtain compensation
or public acknowledgement from NATO for their losses have
been in vain, as they have met with absolute silence
on the part of NATO.
Nowicki sent the same request earlier to former
secretary general Lord Robertson but never even
received a response to his letter. Mr. Nowicki therefore
stresses in his new letter:
"In this context, I would respectfully ask you to
provide me with a response as to why NATO persists in
its unwillingness to provide these people with some
kind of relief. Such relief includes, but is not limited to
the possibility of compensation. I sincerely hope that you will
give this request more consideration than your
predecessor did."
Mr. Nowicki concludes his letter with the statement
that he considers it his moral duty as Kosovo
ombudsman not to allow the fate of these people to be
forgotten, emphasizing that he looks forward to a positive response
from NATO his letter.
We enclose the letter we received from the Office of the
Ombudsman Mr. Nowicki in its entirety.
---
Marek Antoni Nowicki
Ombudsperson
Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo
Institucioni i ombudspersonit në Kosovë
Institucija ombudspersona na Kosovu
Address: Agim Ramadani Str. (Ex "Kosovodrvo"
building), Pristina KOSOVO
Adresa: Rr. Agim Ramadani (Ish ndërtesa "Kosovodrvo"),
Prishtinë KOSOVA
Adresa: Ul. Agim Ramadani (Bivsa zgrada "Kosovodrvo"),
Pristina KOSOVO
Tel: ++381 (0) 38 501 401, 545 303, 540 447, 548 087,
Fax: ++381 (0) 38 545 302
e-mail: ombudspersonkosovo@...
web site: www.ombudspersonkosovo.org
22 January 2004
Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
Secretary General
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
Blvd. Leopold III
1110 Brussels
Belgium
E-mail: natodoc@...
Dear Mr. de Hoop Scheffer,
Over the years, following the establishment of the Ombudsperson
Institution in Kosovo in 2000, a great number of residents of
Kosovo have approached me regarding the loss of family
members during the NATO air strikes in 1999. Many of
these cases refer to incidents acknowledged by NATO to
having been mistakes – examples are the bombing of a
passenger bus on a bridge near the village of Lluzane, causing 47 dead
and injuring many more and the bombing of a post office
in central Prishtinë/ Priština.
So far, these persons’ attempts to obtain some sort of compensation or
public acknowledgement from NATO for their losses have
been in vain, as they have met with absolute silence
on the part of NATO. On 21 May 2001, I sent a letter
to your predecessor Lord George Robertson asking him for
some type of recognition in this matter, including the provision of
compensation. Copies of the letter were sent to the
Foreign Ministers of all NATO Member States and to
Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for the
Common Foreign and Security Policy. The letter to Lord Robertson
met with no response. I enclose it in copy for your
information and convenience.
Given the amount of grief caused by these incidents and the fact that
the families of the victims have been waiting for over
four years now to receive an official recognition of
the anguish suffered as a consequence of these tragic
incidents, I consider it important to address this issue
yet again.
In this context, I would respectfully ask you to provide me with a
response as to why NATO persists in its unwillingness to
provide these people with some kind of relief. Such
relief includes, but is not limited to the possibility
of compensation. I sincerely hope that you will give
this request more consideration than your predecessor did.
I am well aware of the fact that I have no formal jurisdiction over
NATO or any of its member states, but I still consider
it as my moral duty as Ombudsperson in Kosovo not to
let the fate of these people be forgotten. The
Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo is still prepared to serve as a
contact point between NATO and the families of the victims,
should this be requested by either side.
I hope for and would appreciate your attention in this matter and look
forward to a positive response, expected and hoped for
by these families and the people of Kosovo,
Yours sincerely,
Marek Antoni Nowicki
Ombudsperson
cc. Harri Holkeri, Special Representative of the
Secretary-General, UNMIK
Holger Kammerhof, KFOR Commander
Foreign Ministers of the NATO Member States
encl. Letter of 21 May 2001 to Lord Robertson,
former Secretary General of NATO
---
Reference:
NATO bombing of Serbia, 1999
The White book: Documents, facts, photos
(the original link on the web-site of the former Yugoslav Foreign
Ministry was removed with all material referring to the bombing
campaign. However the materials have been preserved on some other links
and we are enclosing one of them)
Book1:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/milosevic/bela/bela/
index.htm
Book2:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/milosevic/bela/bela2/
NATO_agr.htm
---
ERP KIM Info-Service is the official Information Service of the
Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Raska and Prizren and works with the
blessing of His Grace Bishop Artemije.
Our Information Service is distributing news on Kosovo related
issues. The main focus of the Info-Service is the life of the
Serbian Orthodox Church and the Serbian community in the
Province of Kosovo and Metohija. ERP KIM Info Service works in
cooperation with www.serbian-translation.com as well as the
Kosovo Daily News (KDN) News List
Disclaimer:
The views expressed by the authors of newspaper articles or
other texts which are not official communiqués or news reports
by the Diocese are their own and do not necessarily represent
the views of the Serbian Orthodox Church
Additional information on our Diocese and the life of the Kosovo
Serb Community may be found at:
http://www.kosovo.com
Copyright 2004, ERP KIM Info-Service
ripagare le vittime civili dei bombardamenti nato in serbia?
=== ITALIANO ===
http://www.exju.org/comments/616_0_1_0_C/
[ex-nju] jugonews 19-26 gennaio '04
la jugonotizia in rilievo:
ripagare le vittime civili dei bombardamenti nato in serbia?
il ‘difensore civico’ per il kosovo marek novicky
[http://www.ombudspersonkosovo.org/%5d ha chiesto al segretario generale
della nato, jaap de hoop scheffer, in una lettera spedita il 22 gennaio
che alle famiglie delle vittime dei bombardamenti della nato in kosovo
nel 1999 venga assegnato un risarcimento per i danni morali, perché gli
attacchi sono avvenuti a danno di civili e non militari. nella lettera
viene menzionato l’attacco all’autobus vicino a podujevo
[http://www.sramota.com/nato/savine_vode/%5d e all’edificio della posta a
pristina in cui morirono 47 civili, rammentando che finora tutti i
tentativi dei familiari sono rimasti vani. in precedenza, novicki aveva
inviato la stessa richiesta anche all’ex segretario generale george
robertson, senza ricevere alcuna risposta. “in questo senso desidero
ricevere una risposta ora, perché la nato persiste a negare a queste
persone qualsiasi forma di aiuto” ha detto novicki nella sua lettera
inviata a scheffer.
erp.kim [http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo23jan04b.html%5d
=== ENGLISH ===
Kosovo ombudsman asks NATO alliance to consider possibility of
compensation for families of victims of 1999 bombing
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo23jan04b.html
---
ERP KiM Newsletter 23-01-04b
Kosovo ombudsman asks NATO alliance to consider
possibility of compensation for families of victims of
1999 bombing
In an open letter to new NATO secretary general of
NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Kosovo ombudsman Marek Antoni Nowicki
asks for consideration of the possibility of compensation
for families of victims of the 1999 bombing
ERP KIM Info Service
Gracanica, January 23, 2004
(Photo: Marek Antoni Nowicki in search of justice for
victims of NATO bombing)
In today's newsletter we include a letter sent on
January 22, 2004 by Kosovo ombudsman Marek Antoni Nowicki
(Poland) to the new NATO secretary general Jap de Hoop Scheffer
regarding several requests by families of victims killed
during the NATO bombing of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999
for monetary compensation and public acknowledgement,
providing moral satisfaction of responsibility for
attacks on objects that were civil, not military, in nature. The
letter cites especially the bombing of a passenger bus in
Luzani (near Podujevo) resulting in the deaths of 47
persons and the injury of many more, and the bombing
of the post office in central Pristina. Nowicki states
that so far all attempts by these persons to obtain compensation
or public acknowledgement from NATO for their losses have
been in vain, as they have met with absolute silence
on the part of NATO.
Nowicki sent the same request earlier to former
secretary general Lord Robertson but never even
received a response to his letter. Mr. Nowicki therefore
stresses in his new letter:
"In this context, I would respectfully ask you to
provide me with a response as to why NATO persists in
its unwillingness to provide these people with some
kind of relief. Such relief includes, but is not limited to
the possibility of compensation. I sincerely hope that you will
give this request more consideration than your
predecessor did."
Mr. Nowicki concludes his letter with the statement
that he considers it his moral duty as Kosovo
ombudsman not to allow the fate of these people to be
forgotten, emphasizing that he looks forward to a positive response
from NATO his letter.
We enclose the letter we received from the Office of the
Ombudsman Mr. Nowicki in its entirety.
---
Marek Antoni Nowicki
Ombudsperson
Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo
Institucioni i ombudspersonit në Kosovë
Institucija ombudspersona na Kosovu
Address: Agim Ramadani Str. (Ex "Kosovodrvo"
building), Pristina KOSOVO
Adresa: Rr. Agim Ramadani (Ish ndërtesa "Kosovodrvo"),
Prishtinë KOSOVA
Adresa: Ul. Agim Ramadani (Bivsa zgrada "Kosovodrvo"),
Pristina KOSOVO
Tel: ++381 (0) 38 501 401, 545 303, 540 447, 548 087,
Fax: ++381 (0) 38 545 302
e-mail: ombudspersonkosovo@...
web site: www.ombudspersonkosovo.org
22 January 2004
Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
Secretary General
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
Blvd. Leopold III
1110 Brussels
Belgium
E-mail: natodoc@...
Dear Mr. de Hoop Scheffer,
Over the years, following the establishment of the Ombudsperson
Institution in Kosovo in 2000, a great number of residents of
Kosovo have approached me regarding the loss of family
members during the NATO air strikes in 1999. Many of
these cases refer to incidents acknowledged by NATO to
having been mistakes – examples are the bombing of a
passenger bus on a bridge near the village of Lluzane, causing 47 dead
and injuring many more and the bombing of a post office
in central Prishtinë/ Priština.
So far, these persons’ attempts to obtain some sort of compensation or
public acknowledgement from NATO for their losses have
been in vain, as they have met with absolute silence
on the part of NATO. On 21 May 2001, I sent a letter
to your predecessor Lord George Robertson asking him for
some type of recognition in this matter, including the provision of
compensation. Copies of the letter were sent to the
Foreign Ministers of all NATO Member States and to
Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for the
Common Foreign and Security Policy. The letter to Lord Robertson
met with no response. I enclose it in copy for your
information and convenience.
Given the amount of grief caused by these incidents and the fact that
the families of the victims have been waiting for over
four years now to receive an official recognition of
the anguish suffered as a consequence of these tragic
incidents, I consider it important to address this issue
yet again.
In this context, I would respectfully ask you to provide me with a
response as to why NATO persists in its unwillingness to
provide these people with some kind of relief. Such
relief includes, but is not limited to the possibility
of compensation. I sincerely hope that you will give
this request more consideration than your predecessor did.
I am well aware of the fact that I have no formal jurisdiction over
NATO or any of its member states, but I still consider
it as my moral duty as Ombudsperson in Kosovo not to
let the fate of these people be forgotten. The
Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo is still prepared to serve as a
contact point between NATO and the families of the victims,
should this be requested by either side.
I hope for and would appreciate your attention in this matter and look
forward to a positive response, expected and hoped for
by these families and the people of Kosovo,
Yours sincerely,
Marek Antoni Nowicki
Ombudsperson
cc. Harri Holkeri, Special Representative of the
Secretary-General, UNMIK
Holger Kammerhof, KFOR Commander
Foreign Ministers of the NATO Member States
encl. Letter of 21 May 2001 to Lord Robertson,
former Secretary General of NATO
---
Reference:
NATO bombing of Serbia, 1999
The White book: Documents, facts, photos
(the original link on the web-site of the former Yugoslav Foreign
Ministry was removed with all material referring to the bombing
campaign. However the materials have been preserved on some other links
and we are enclosing one of them)
Book1:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/milosevic/bela/bela/
index.htm
Book2:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/milosevic/bela/bela2/
NATO_agr.htm
---
ERP KIM Info-Service is the official Information Service of the
Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Raska and Prizren and works with the
blessing of His Grace Bishop Artemije.
Our Information Service is distributing news on Kosovo related
issues. The main focus of the Info-Service is the life of the
Serbian Orthodox Church and the Serbian community in the
Province of Kosovo and Metohija. ERP KIM Info Service works in
cooperation with www.serbian-translation.com as well as the
Kosovo Daily News (KDN) News List
Disclaimer:
The views expressed by the authors of newspaper articles or
other texts which are not official communiqués or news reports
by the Diocese are their own and do not necessarily represent
the views of the Serbian Orthodox Church
Additional information on our Diocese and the life of the Kosovo
Serb Community may be found at:
http://www.kosovo.com
Copyright 2004, ERP KIM Info-Service
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook