Law of the jungle cannot last forever

Denying the responsibility for the caused disaster, and refusing the necessary reparation is a prominent feature of the NATO countries’ law of the jungle.
To this day, the mixture of lies, threats, and the willingness to pursue power politics in violation of any law defines the policies of the NATO countries. That will only come to an end, if more forces will support, what Willy Wimmer demands: putting an end to the law of the jungle and a renewed commitment to international law.

Those who, in violation of applicable international law and in a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, used the NATO military machine against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 28 March 1999, driven by their mere political and especially economic power, want to enforce the acceptance of their aggression’s
consequences by those who were attacked. Their purpose is to achieve a delayed and subsequent legitimation of their bellicose aggression. In this effort they even willingly accept to compel certain NATO and EU Member States, who are particularly affected by the extorted resolution of disputes concerning the territory of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. What they demand from the aggression’s victims on the territory of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, strikes at the very heart of certain NATO and EU Member States and is sowing new
hatred. 
In order to avoid any doubt on the occasion of the 15th NATO-war anniversary against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: to consider a domestic threat to NATO and the EU, to even commence a still refused relentless investigation of this war by all parliaments of NATO and the EU, are not at all sufficient. Who, if not those who, in violation of applicable international law, did wage a crude war of aggression against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, should be punished by the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague? Who, if not those who, in violation
of applicable international law, did wage war against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, must restore the Republic‘ s status as it had existed before the outbreak of this war?
Who, if not those who, in violation of international law, have invaded a United Nations Member State in peace-time, must provide compensation for the damages to life and limb and infrastructure that were caused by their acts of aggression?
The damages to life and limb are sufficiently known. Estimates of the extent of damage to infrastructure as well. Damages caused by using uranous munition can only be estimated.
• Approximately 4,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the NATO aggression.
• About 10,000 people were among those injured as a result of the NATO aggression.
• The amount of damage to any form of infrastructure is over 100 billion dollars.
Today, it is clearer than ever, what led to this European disaster, for the war against the former Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia is nothing else. Europe was full of hope, when the consequences of 1945 seemed to have been
overcome with the national unification of Germany in 1990. Above all, the Soviet Union and the United States of America stood for the success of the Helsinki process.
The Helsinki Charter of 1975 did not only help to overcome the division of Germany and thus of Europe. The peoples of Europe could breathe again, and they cherished the well-founded hope to see that even the long-term consequences of the alleged peace conferences at the end of the First World War were solved by the scales and diplomatic means of the so-called Helsinki process.
Together with Mikhail Gorbachev – and as a close friend of George W. Bush – Helmut Kohl wanted to open a new
chapter in the German-Russian history of the 20th century, which had been determined by immense suffering. He
also had in mind this target with respect to the relations between the Germans and Serbs. At the same time he had in
mind the history since 1914. Only this way you can understand that he had already scheduled a visit to Belgrade in
the summer of 1999, and immediately after the completion of the internationally illegal war against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Honorary Citizen of Europe, Helmut Kohl in Belgrade – and that, after the NATO bombs had wiped out not only lives in Belgrade – it would have been a visible sign that there had existed – and still exists – a different Europe than a Europe of aggression. It is part of the tragedy of those years that it had been Henry Kissinger of all people, the so highly esteemed Henry Kissinger who – after Helsinki and its successes
– had not called for the further development of the valid international law, but had championed the destruction and
elimination of international law that had continuously been developed since the Thirty Years’ War and even before, and that his own government had followed him on this path. The law of the jungle – the power of the strongest – was to set the tone, exercised by the „indispensable nation“ as Mrs Albright had postulated. Not only that henceforth no peace dividend should be paid any longer in Europe and other parts of the world after the end of the Cold War; a war in Europe, in total disregard of international law, was the rejection of international law and the postulated
return to the law of the jungle that had always brought nothing but misery to the people.
It is now – after the wars against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia up to the war against Iraq – almost general understanding that there is no end of history, but there is a limitation to the time of the ruling fist law, such as the international treaties on the Syrian chemical weapons or the interim agreement with Iran demonstrate. Here we must understand that a number of questions from the period between Belgrade and Tehran shine through and demand
our answer:
1. Where were the United States as the haven of freedom and justice in the period from 1999 to 2013?
2. Can there be a prosperous world with international law as the backbone of the international community, without a
Russia that is capable of acting?
3. Is Europe more than the brat, with which everyone do as he likes? •
(Current Concerns, No 1, 26 January 2014)

Are we the last generations? Radioactivity as the gradual extinction of life

Bertell: Well, my background is as a researcher. And I started by studying the effects
of medical diagnostics x-ray, dental x-ray and chest x-ray. We had a huge population that was
followed over three years. So we had about 64 million person years in the study, it is very big.
If you have a big population like that and you have measurable x-ray exposures, you can see
what happens in the population. I am coming from looking at medical x-rays, and then seeing
environmental pollution as bigger. With many other researchers studied the atomic bomb and
they go down to these low levels and I said: Oh it´s not anything! So a lot depends on your
perspective. So when you look at a large population and you start saying and you ask what
happens when they were exposed to radiation, I think generally the question has been wrong.
People ask: How many cancers does it cost. I don’t think that is the answer. Because if you
look at live in general, the most obvious thing is we grow old. And we grow old in a kind of
systematic way and even the cancers are old age diseases. So what I did was to change the
question. And I said: How much medical x-ray would you need to be exposed to so that you
get the equivalent of one year of natural aging. That is a very different research question. In
order to measure natural aging I use the non-lymphatic leukaemia. They go up in a large
population like compound interest, ranging from about age 15 every year there is a 3% to 4 %
increase in the rate of the non-lymphatic leukaemia. It is just when you have money in the
bank that interest is not very big when you are 16 or 20 years old, but by the time you get to
60 that is a large amount of money, it is also a large rate of this cancer. That is why they come
at the end.

So I used that as my measuring stick and asked: how much medical x-ray would be
the equivalent? I actually measured the aging effect of having dental x-rays or chest x-ray.
What was surprising to me: It’s the same amount as you would get background in a year. So it
didn’t make any difference if you got that radiation exposure very fast, because you got a
chest x-ray or whether you had it slowly over a year. You still in terms of vulnerability you
were aged. What that means then practically: If you are in your 20s or 30s and you have an
accident and need extensive x-rays probably you won’t feel much in terms of the difference.
However if you are vulnerable like 60, 70 years old, the annual level of what you experience,
you will experience more vulnerability from the x-rays because it is a percentage and a higher
rate if incidents. So you are more vulnerable as you get older.

And so I started looking at young people who got leukaemia and I mean the cases
under 45 years of age. And I found within certain groups they are something like six times as
likely to get leukaemia in that younger age group. And if you have young people with things
like diabetes arthritis, often we associate them with old age. There it is 12 times as likely to be
in a young group to have leukaemia. So there are some signals to us that a person is
prematurely aged and those people are more vulnerable to radiation exposure. It’s like they
have already moved further on the list. And it’s not exactly medical x-ray, because for
example with people who have heart-disease, some are treated more aggressively with respect
to x-ray. Some people with heart-disease are x-rayed every year. Other have an x-ray may be

five or six years and it was the once who had the x-rays more frequently that came up with the
leukaemia. So I started moving people at the age line according to their own personal record
of medical diagnostic x-ray. And it explains very many biological phenomena. There seems to
be a whole lot of aging processes connected with this.

One of the most remarkable things is very often in radiation studies that men and
women radiation measurements are different. I put them on the exposure age which was your
ordinary age plus your medical exposure. When I did them with exposure age many women
were the same and I found that it had much to do with the cultural difference in the use of xrays.
Many young men had x-rays because of sports. They had all these sport injuries. Women
don’t start to get x-rays until they are pregnant. And then it is mostly dental. And then you get
to the midlife-crisis. So where is a difference in the way we treat men and women and boys
and girls with x-rays.

Interviewer: Could this relate also to this kind of radioactive radiation which we have through atomic testing or Chernobyl?

Bertell: When we get into the nuclear industry whether it is uranium mining or milling
or the reactors or use of weapons or even the radioactive waste, you are into particular
radiation which we can either breathe in or take in in water and food. It can stay in the body
and differentially expose some organs and not other organs. So, you get these small amounts
of radiation operating in the body, and you get what I would call „differential aging“. So
many of the problems we see come from who long this material stays in the body and where it
goes.

Interviewer: So would you say these general reactions of the governments if there is any accident that there is no danger for the citizens, that this is basically wrong?

Bertell: It is basically wrong. It is basically wrong because this particles release energy.
The DNA that carries all your genetic material or the RNA which are the messenger
molecules which run our body, which make our body work. So we have to ask: how much
energy will it take to break them? It only takes 6 to 10 electron-volts of energy to break these
big molecules. If you take something like uranium, which is not considered very radioactive,
just one atom and one event releasing an alpha-particle is over 4 million electron-volts. You
cannot release that in tissue that is living and not do damage. So when you talk probabilities,
you are moving from the fact that you break DNA, you break RNA, you can destroy the
membrane of a cell, you can break things like the mitochondria that can do the energy of the
cell.

You can say, we do not care about all the damage, we only care if this damage leads to a
fatal cancer. So that is the only one will count. You can start making the probability smaller if
you make the end point more particular and say: I don´t care if I get diabetes, I don´t care if
my immune system is down, I don´t care for all these other things.

Interviewer: Iraq DU (Depleted Uranium) Can you say something about DU in weapons as they were used during the Iraq war?

Bertell: Depleted uranium is the waste from the uranium enrichment process, which is a
process needed both for a nuclear reactor and for nuclear weapons. In term for the United
States the greatest amount of waste is depleted uranium. If it is radioactive, it requires a
licence to be able to even handle it. And when they do the tests of these weapons in the

United States they do it in a superbox, which is totally sealed, in the same way they would
experiment with biological warfare, chemical warfare agents. So it is a level for high
protection for even to test it.

It is chemical warfare, because uranium is a heavy metal, a very toxic heavy metal, and
it is also radiological warfare, because these things are radioactive. Something special
happens to it in the field. It is not just like radioactive dust in a mine or a mill. Because if you
put it in a bullet or a missile and it hits the target this friction is enough to set it on fire and it
goes to very high temperature. What happens is it forms an aerosol, which is ceramic or glass.
It is like pottery and putting it in an oven it becomes ceramic. So what you have are very
small particles of glass which are radioactive, which can be breathed, which are light, so they
can move a great distance from the point of impact. It is easily measured 40 kilometers from
impact.

Because of being glass they are highly insoluble in water and that is very important,
because it means they stay in the body longer. To understand that: If you sit in the sun for 15
minutes is not same as if you sit there for 12 hours. So if you take very soluble uranium it can
pass through the body in 12 hours and be gone. Some of the more insoluble may take to years.
But this stuff looks like it is taking 10 years or more. So right now the veterans from the gulf
war – they were exposed in 1991, this is 1999 (in the research) and they are still excreting
between 4 and 5 microgram of this depleted uranium every day in urine. That is totally
unacceptable. It is no wonder they have medical problems. It does damage to the blood, the
bone, the lever, the spleen, the lymph-knots, the kidney. You got this material which is
radioactive inside the body for nine years, ten years. That is why you are dealing with such a
massive and such a mysterious kind of medical syndrome.

According to the Pentagon 400.000 of the American veterans where exposed with
depleted uranium: on the map is the whole southern part of Iraq. So you had 400.000 exposed.
They say 200.000 have sought medical care through the veterans-administrations since they
are home. Of that a 115.000 have been diagnosed with gulf war syndrome, which means these
man are unable to work. Many have died. I have had various estimates that the number of
those that have died reaches upwards 8000 to 10.000. The others can’t work. They have
chronic fetite (fatigue?), vomiting, blinding, headache, inability to sleep, respiratory
problems, various kinds of pain, cramps – just general disability. They also had an abnormal
number of deformed children. And this depleted uranium has been found in seminal fluid. So
it is a very serious problem. If I have to say how much of the gulf syndrome would be due to
depleted uranium, I would guess about 50% of the damage. (.....)

What they like about the uranium is it is free. They get it free because it is radioactive
waste. And it saves the company money because they would have to properly keep it away
from the biosphere. They like it because it is free. (...) 600) It is very much like landmines,
because it will continue to kill long after the war is over. It differentially will kill the women
and the children, because women have high risk tissue, breast and uterine tissue which are
more radiation sensitive. Children are growing so they incorporate more in bones and will
have the long term cancer effects. It is also a violation of the international law because it has
very broad pollution effect that will go across national boundaries. It also makes the
„precision-bombing“ lutecrice (ridiculous?). It is not precision bombing. And I think it also
undermines NATO’s claim of this being a humanitarian war, because what they are doing it
terms of poisoning the land and the people and the water and the food is certainly not
humanitarian. So it is a complete contradiction to everything they claim to be standing for.

I understand from international lawyers that we do not even need a new convention for
it, it is already condemned under international law. The opinion of the human rights tribunal
in Geneva (it is in Strasbourg) is that it is a weapon of „mass and indiscriminate destruction
and therefore it is unlawful“. The United Nations has appointed a reporter for this issue and
they are going to present their brief in August this summer. The World Health Organisation is
trying to set up an Investigative Committee to look at Iraq´s claim, because they now have six
times the rate of childhood cancer and some of the Iraqi Veterans, that were exposed now
have between five and six times the lymphomia and leukaemia rate of veterans that where not
exposed. So the World Health Organisation has asked for funding and volunteers and wants to
do a three year study in Iraq. All of that supportive information is not in, but it is already clear
that it violates the international laws and it certainly violates the public relations material
coming out on this war.

Interviewer: …Severe consequence for future generations?

Bertell: It will have consequences. I have done a lot of work on the Marshall Islands where
they got the fallout from the weapon testing. And the Rongalap people are people that are
dying out, that whole clan.

Interviewer: …Marshall Islands- example

Bertell: It increases infertility and inability to have children. They went for about five
years without even being able to get pregnant. Then they started having spontaneous
abortions, what they call jelly-fish-babies. It is a pregnancy of something like a tumour, a
child is not formed. It is a molar pregnancy. Then they started having deformed birth. But the
birth rate is dramatically down at this whole clan of people and there next generation is
physically less fit. Their birth rate is down, they die younger, in the 30s and 40s. So it is
obvious that this whole line of people is dying, it is not going to survive. What I think we are
doing is that our generation is making a decision on how many future generations there will
be. How much in shorted depends on how careless we are. So we already shortened future
generations because whenever you introduce genetic defect then this line will eventually die
out. But some will go two generations, some will go seven generation.

When you are talking about constant low radiation exposure, what you are doing is
introducing mistakes into the gene-pool. And those mistakes will eventually turn up by killing
that line, that cell line, that species line. The amount of damage determines whether this
happens in two generations or in seven generations or 10 generations. So what we are doing
by introducing more mistakes into the DNA or the Gene pool is we are shortening the number
of generations that will be viable on the planet.

We have shortened the number of generations that will follow us. We have
shortened that already. So we reduced the viability of living systems on this planet,
whether it can recover or not. We don’t have any outside source to get new DNA. So
have the DNA we have, whoever will live on this planet in the future is present right now
in the DNA. So if we damage it we don’t have another place to get it.

There will be no living thing on earth in the future that is not present now in a seed, in
a sperm and the ovum of all living plants and animals. So it is all here now. It is not going to
come from Mars or somewhere. Living things come from living things. So we carry this very
precious seed for the future. And when you damage it you do two things. You produce a less
viable harmonized organism with the environment; at the same time we are leaving the toxic

and radioactive waste around. So you are going to have a more hazardous environment and a
less capable organism. That is a death syndrome for the species, not only for the individual. It
is going to be harder to live. And the body will be less able to take stress and you are
increasing the stress at the same time.

We are responsible for what we turn over to the next generation. It is amazing to me
because I am the daughter of people that came from Europe, migrated to Canada and the
United States for a better life for their children. And it seems that our generation does not care
for the future. It is not our heritage. Our heritage was to give something better to our children,
than we received. And we seem not to care. I find these very strange and I think most of our
grandparents would turn over in their graves, if they would know what we are doing.

Yes we certainly have to chance our heads and there are very good ways to carry this
message. I think we even need a legal protection. We are thinking in terms of a „Seven
Generations Law“, which means that everything that is passed through legislation, you have
to answer the question what is the impact of this to our great grandchildren´s great
grandchildren. You have to be asked an answer this question before you take any major
planning or major changes or major laws. It is the North American indigenous peoples´ rule
that it has to (be) safe for grandchildren´s grandchildren. Otherwise it is not acceptable.

There is no real protection from it but you can reduce the effects by some things.
Certainly stay in the house with windows closed during these bombing episodes and as long
afterwards as possible. But your main concern will be getting it through the food chain. They
are same key-leading agents. They take inorganic material out of living tissues. One very
simple key-leading agent and a mild one is distilled water. You can use distilled water to cook
your vegetables. If there were any uranium in the vegetables it will go out with the liquid.
You can also drink the distilled water instead of either bottled or filtered or regular water.
Distilled water will do the same thing in the body. It will tend to take out the unwanted
inorganic chemicals. Another thing that available generally is „spirulina“, which is a bluegreen
algae you can usually get in a health-food-store. That is also mild key-leading agent and
will help to rid the body of some of these toxins, included the depleted uranium.

Or try to get rid of it through sweat respiration: Saunas. If you get it out through the skin
you save the kidneys. The idea is to get it out of the tissue and out of the blood and then out of
the body instead of going back into storage.

We need to learn to get along with each other, because we live on a small planet. If we
fight over it nobody is going to have it. Another thing is: We are straining the natural ability
of the earth to generate itself. The earth can usually take it back within a year. But when we
measure what we now take out (as) resources (fish, food, iron, coal, oil), all these resources
which we take for our lifestyle. We are now taking out about 1.33 times what the earth can
replenish in a year. So we are running an ecological deficit. In 1992 we were at 1.25, so is
going up. People worry about financial deficit, but that is nothing compared to an ecological
deficit. It means constantly reducing the carrying power of the globe. At the same time we are
increasing in the number of people. If we don’t do something this will be a global dimension
crisis. That´s the reason to say: the most important thing to do is to eliminate the military
globally. The military is one of the most rapid consumer of resources. If you got rid the
military globally you would immediately get rid of the ecological deficit, that we are running
up every year. This is buying us time to set up a better way to live on this planet. Yes, we
need globalisation in the heads. We don’t need Mono-culture, but we need to learn how to
live together on this earth, how to use conflict resolution in place of military, yes we need a
police-force, yes we need laws and courts and that sort of thing. But we don‘t need military.
Military is an abnormality. It is destroying our culture, it is destroying our environment, it is
destroying everything we want. And it is time to get rid of it.

Interviewer: 7 Generations?

Bertell: I would maximize the health of this beautiful living planet as much as I could
and I would say: I give you this with love. Keep it and give it to as many generations as you
can. Life can be good. And live is really a beautiful gift. Not of us has asked for it. None of us
deserves it. It shouldn’t be something that is a disaster for everybody. It should be something
enjoyable and that means that we have to do it differently from the way we are doing it now.
For most people live is a terrible thing. People are committing suicide, because it is so ugly
for them. That is not life. That is not the way it should be. No other species is going around
committing suicide like humans. So there is something very radically wrong with the way we
are behaving.

Caro amico romano, ecco il mio augurio per il Giorno del Ricordo

Conosco chi istituì il Giorno del ricordo, e il primo firmatario, tale Roberto Menia della cosiddetta destra triestina e più tardi “responsabile” nell’avventura di Futuro e libertà per l’Italia con Fini. L’iniziativa fu partorita, dieci anni fa, da coloro che a Trieste ma non solo hanno sempre cercato il consenso soffiando sul fuoco della rivendicazione impossibile, dell’intolleranza nei confronti della minoranza slovena (peraltro autoctona a Trieste e in Friuli nella sua gran parte da almeno 800 anni), della cancellazione delle responsabilità italiane nei territori poi diventati Slovenia e Croazia.

Non ho mai letto sui libri di testo, a scuola, dei lager fascisti nell’attuale Croazia. Non sapevo che l’Italia fascista contasse più campi di concentramento della stessa Germania nazista, ignoravo che nel campo di Rab, in Croazia (dove sono morti migliaia di Sloveni, in gran parte deportati dai rastrellamenti di Ljubljana) la mortalità quotidiana superasse quella di Dachau (dove trovò la morte il fratello di mio nonno). Oggi lo so, ma non ho mai assistito alla celebrazione di quel ricordo, di quelle persone, all’ammissione di quelle colpe. Come ricordare in modo maturo e sereno le vittime delle foibe? Come non dire che quel naturale fenomeno carsico – una grotta verticale – venne utilizzato dagli stessi fascisti, che per primi lo utilizzarono nei territori di Istria e Dalmazia per uccidere e occultare corpi, dedicando alla foiba addirittura una canzone dove questa compare come musa ispiratrice? Come ritrovare un equilibrio nella memoria che rispetti i corpi di Basovizza e tutti gli altri, se tuttora vengono USATI per dei distinguo che, a oltre settant’anni da quei giorni, dovrebbero essere messi da parte per restituire a questo Paese e a quelle terre la verità storica che meritano.

L’unico studio portato avanti da una commissione di professori universitari italiani, sloveni e croati, che ovviamente restituì colpe a entrambe le parti, venne chiuso in un cassetto anche dall’Italia, perché dava fastidio a destra e a sinistra. Gli esuli, e quanti rimasero per continuare ad abitare la loro casa, furono vittime innanzitutto dell’odio che gli italiani avevano seminato in quelle terre. Il carteggio del responsabile di Mussolini per quelle terre con lo stesso Duce parla di “esigenza di pulizia etnica”. E così fecero: persone rastrellate mentre erano al lavoro nei campi, donne e bambini presi e divisi per sempre. Gente uccisa sul posto. I campi di concentramento dislocati anche sul territorio italiano li conoscono in pochi. Pochissimi sanno cosa accadde al loro interno.

Quando, anni fa, visitai il campo di concentramento dell’isola di Rab (Arbe), tra le lapidi non c’era anima viva. Eppure l’Isola era piena di turisti italiani, come ogni anno. All’ufficio informazioni turistiche mi dissero che mai nessuno domandava di quel cimitero della memoria, dove le persone assumevano le sembianze dei più noti ospiti di Auschwitz e morivano di fame, malattie, percosse. Poi, mentre stavo per lasciare quel luogo, un signore arrivò. Capii che era italiano. Scambiammo due parole, scoprendo che a portarci in quel posto era stato lo stesso libro, quel Italiani brava gente? di Del Boca (il più grande studioso del colonialismo italiano). Solo grazie a quella lettura, incontrata da adulti, non certo da ragazzi perché prevista da un programma ministeriale. Solitari ricercatori di una verità storica negata alle vittime come ai colpevoli.

Fu mio padre a consigliarmi la lettura di quel libro, che tutt’ora consiglio a quanti sentono l’esigenza di sapere. Mio padre me lo fece leggere perché sapessi, per poter capire meglio, per distribuire colpe, se mai fosse necessario per la mia generazione, in modo più rispettoso della verità che tanti morti aveva causato. Mio padre, che è nato a Montona d’Istria (oggi Croazia) nel 1942, che a meno di due anni lasciò la casa materna con tutta la famiglia. Mio padre, che sposò una ragazza della minoranza slovena di Trieste, che non cercò mai la verità nella ricomposizione strumentale di mezze verità. Ai morti e alle vittime di una guerra e delle sue conseguenze, prima di tutto, si deve l’amore per la verità. Coltivato poco e male in questo Paese, sempre parziale. Mai nella ricostruzione ufficiale della storia di quelle terre.

La necessità di difendere la memoria antifascista dal mito delle foibe

Foiba fobia

US regime-change operation in Ukraine exposed in leaked diplomatic phone call

By Patrick O’Connor 
7 February 2014

A leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, has exposed the anti-democratic and colonialist character of the Obama administration’s intervention in the former Soviet republic.

The discussion between the two officials includes a detailed review of which right-wing opposition figures Washington is working to install in office, and how it is using the United Nations to rubber-stamp the operation. While Germany and other European powers have worked closely with the Obama administration in promoting the violent protests against President Viktor Yanukovych, the leaked phone call reveals tensions between the imperialist powers. At one point Nuland tells Pyatt, “Fuck the EU.”

The discussion, posted anonymously on YouTube, underscores the thoroughly cynical character of Washington’s public diplomacy. The Obama administration’s rhetoric about “democracy” and the Ukrainian people’s right to determine their own future is a charade, concocted for public consumption. Behind the scenes, government officials speak frankly with one another about the real agenda—advancing Washington’s geo-strategic and economic interests in Eastern Europe by installing pro-US and anti-Russian puppet figures in the Ukrainian capital.

The phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt apparently took place late last month, after President Viktor Yanukovych offered the posts of prime minister and deputy prime minister to opposition leaders Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Vitali Klitschko, respectively.

Referring to Klitschko, head of the UDAR (Strike) party, which has close financial ties with Germany’s ruling conservative party, Nuland tells the ambassador: “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.” Pyatt agrees, saying, “let him stay out and do his political homework.”

Nuland continues: “Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy that who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Pyatt later warns Nuland that “Klitschko has been the top dog” within the opposition, and that she will need to “move fast on all this stuff” and speak with the UDAR leader as part of their “personality management” of the opposition leadership.

The utter criminality of Washington’s drive to install a pliant regime in Kiev sharply emerges in Nuland and Pyatt’s discussion of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the neo-fascist All-Ukrainian Union (Svoboda) party. Nuland describes Tyahnybok as one of the “big three” within the opposition leadership. The State Department operative goes on to tell Pyatt that “what [Yatsenyuk] needs [after he is installed in office] is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside—he needs to be talking to them four times a week.”

These remarks confirm that there is no confusion whatsoever within the Obama administration that it is working in partnership with fascist movements in Ukraine.

Tyahnybok is the leader of the Svoboda party, which was initially called the Social-National Party of Ukraine and featured a neo-Nazi logo. In 2004, Tyahnybok praised right-wing Ukrainian partisans in World War II, who, he declared, “did not fear, but took up their automatic rifles, going into the woods to fight Muscovites, Germans, Jewry and other filth.”

He added that Ukraine still had to be liberated from a “Moscow-Jewish mafia.” In 2005, Tyahnybok signed an open letter to Ukrainian leaders demanding a halt to the “criminal activities” of “organised Jewry,” which, he declared, was attempting to commit “genocide” against the Ukrainian people.

This is one of the “big three” figures with whom the Obama administration is working to install a client regime in Ukraine. Yesterday, Nuland met with several opposition figures, among them Oleh Tyahnybok. No details of the discussion have been made public, but Ambassador Pyatt released via Twitter a photo of a smiling Nuland posing next to the pro-Nazi leader and his colleagues.

Yesterday’s meeting between Nuland and Tyahnybok was not the first. The two also held a closed-doors discussion when she was previously in Ukraine, last December. After that meeting, Nuland staged a photo opportunity in the Kiev central square that has served as the headquarters for the anti-government protests organised by the right-wing opposition, handing out bread to the demonstrators in a show of US support.

In her telephone conversation with Pyatt, Nuland praises UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for deploying a special envoy, Robert Serry, to Ukraine. This, she explains, will “be great, I think, to help glue this thing [i.e., a new government].” These remarks underscore the role played by the UN as an instrument of imperialism, working with the US and its allies to cover up or endorse their predatory operations around the world.

Immediately after praising the UN, Nuland declares, “Fuck the EU,” in apparent frustration that the European powers were not doing more to back the regime-change operation. According to the Kyiv Post, another leaked phone conversation, in German, between EU official Helga Schmid and EU Ambassador to Ukraine Jan Tombinski includes a discussion between the two figures over how the US regards the EU as being “soft” on Ukraine.

In the Nuland-Pyatt discussion, the US ambassador expresses his agreement on the need for the UN to be involved, saying, “we’ve got to do something to make it stick together, because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.” He adds that “we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing.”

Washington is engaged in a ruthless struggle to undermine any obstacle posed by Moscow to its drive to dominate the geo-strategically crucial Eurasia region, the vast land mass stretching from Eastern Europe, extending over the oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia, and reaching to China’s western borders. US imperialism is promoting fascist movements in Ukraine and fuelling the flames of a nascent civil war as a means of advancing its interests and ratcheting up the pressure on the Russian government.

Nuland’s nomination as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs in May last year clearly formed part of the Obama administration’s aggressive strategy. She previously served as a deputy national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and is married to the prominent “neoconservative” commentator and historian Robert Kagan.

Yesterday, Sergei Glazyev, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, claimed that the US was spending $20 million a week sponsoring Ukrainian opposition groups, including supplying them with arms.

Responding to questions about the leaked phone conversation, state department spokesperson Jen Psaki admitted that it was genuine and said that Nuland had apologised to EU figures, before absurdly declaring the incident marked “a new low in Russian tradecraft.”

Psaki said that while the Obama administration had no evidence that the Russian government was responsible for intercepting and leaking the phone conversation, “this is something they have been actively promoting, posting on, tweeting about, and certainly we feel that represents a new low.”

The Obama administration was revealed by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden to have erected a vast surveillance network to eavesdrop on the telephone and Internet communications of the world’s population, including heads of state and government. It is in no position to lecture anybody about “new lows.” Its hypocritical protests nevertheless point to concerns that the leaked conversation could prove damaging to its ongoing campaign against Moscow and the Yanukovych government.

'Nuland apologized, but didn't mention US plans to midwife a new govt in Ukraine'

So long as the US and the EU are united in efforts to replace the government in Kiev, they will tolerate internal spats, Nebojsa Malic, foreign policy expert, told RT.

RT: The EU is one of the most powerful political bloc's in the world. Are we likely to see thestatementsattributed to Nuland damaging relations with Washington?

Nebojsa Malic: Honestly, if I were the EU official, I would demand an apology but considering that they are on the same page with the US government, considering setting up a client regime in Ukraine, I’m inclined to believe that Brussels and various officials there, including commissars including Baroness Catherine Ashton, would tend to gloss over it. Again it’s not necessarily what is done but who does it to whom. And so long as they are united in efforts to replace the government in Kiev with somebody more obedient, they'll tolerate internal spats. Honesty, even the US wiretapping of the EU officials hasn’t done really much to damage relations despite obvious problems with it. I would hold my breath to see the Europeans cleave away from the US on this. On the other hand, it’s very ironic that the US efforts are being effectively undone by the wiretapped phone conversation.

RT: Nuland apologized to her European counterparts, before the State Department tried to laugh it off. Do you think it goes a little deeper than that?

NM: She has apologized for a comment that she is not admitting she made, which is itself a conformation that the comment was indeed made. But what she hasn’t apologized for is the plans to midwife a new government in Ukraine. In other words, she is apologizing for cussing out the EU but she is not apologizing for trying to overthrow the government in Kiev, calling it popular democracy. Obviously there is more to it than that. I don't think anyone in the US establishment feels sorry for what they are trying to do, I think they are very proud of it and they are going to pursue it.

RT: Where do you think the recording came from?

NM: That I honestly don’t know. I’m as stumped as you are. I think it’s most ironic that the US which is collecting everybody’s phone conversations and has been for years had the tables turned in such a fashion, but how the phone conversation came to light I have no idea.

RT: The US accused Russia of hitting a 'new low' for the release of the conversation, given America's own global spying program that's a little rich isn't it?

NM: Well, it’s hypocrisy at its finest. “We are entitled to wiretap the world but Lord forbid somebody else who does it.” Yet, another confirmation that I have been maintaining for several years now is the ultimate hypocrisy of Western policy. Again, it’s not what is being done but who does it to whom. When the US spies on the world that’s fine and good, when the world spies on the US it is obviously horrible and won’t be tolerated. When the US purports to capture a phone intercept somewhere and doesn’t authenticate it and treats it as fact, that’s fine, when somebody else uses the phone receptors of US officials talking, that’s obviously an outrage and won’t be tolerated. Again and again and again, it’s not what has been done but who does it.

RT: This talking about the different opposition leaders, who is going where, is more like a chess game. What power do they really have there?

NM: Consider who is funding these rebels and protesters, where logistics are coming from. They say“OK, we need an international personality to visit” and there is an international personality. They say “We need a high government official identified by name to bless it” and he does exactly that. There is obvious evidence confirming what is actually going on there. Considering that there have been pamphlets found among the rioters, there are exact replicas that have been used previously in Serbia and in Egypt, offered by the people who are on the pay roll of the US government through various US non-governmental institutions and institutes. Again, it’s not very difficult to piece the picture together.

RT:In the alleged call, Nuland wanted to, in slightly different language, freeze out the EU and Klitschko. How are such comments going to be greeted in Ukraine?

NM: If I were Klitschko, I’d be really upset. If I were the other two leaders of the rebels, I’d be upset too. Here we have the situation when a high ranking official of the US government, who has even been to Kiev distributing cookies to demonstrators back to when they were still relatively peaceful, is referring to these guys as "Klitch," "Yatsy" and "Tiny Bock." I would seriously be upset. I would consider this an insult.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

In questi anni, dalla caduta del socialismo reale nei paesi dell’est Europa ad oggi, abbiamo assistito ad un’ondata di revisionismo storico sui fatti della seconda guerra mondiale che non ha precedenti. Il revisionismo storico ha come principale obiettivo la condanna del comunismo e delle azioni dei partigiani comunisti, contestualmente alla riabilitazione di personalità compromesse con i regimi fascisti e nazisti, l’equiparazione dei partigiani con i militanti fascisti. La crisi economica del capitalismo e l’incapacità di questo sistema di uscire dalle sue contraddizioni, spingono i governi ad aumentare le politiche anticomuniste e le campagne revisioniste, per distruggere nei lavoratori l’idea di un’uscita dalla crisi in senso comunista.

Anche le vicende del confine Italo-Jugoslavo sono state utilizzate a pretesto di questa operazione, al fine di equiparare l’esercito partigiano jugoslavo a quello fascista, nascondendo le responsabilità storiche dell’Italia nel periodo fascista, facendo passare i carnefici per vittime, i liberatori per invasori. Nel 2004 in Italia su pressione delle forze di destra, e con la complice accettazione dei partiti di centrosinistra, è stata istituita la “Giornata del Ricordo” che il 10 febbraio di ogni anno commemora le vittime del confine orientale nelle foibe e gli esuli dai territori istriani e dalmati.

La questione delle foibe, viene completamente manipolata. Le ‘vittime’ processate dai partigiani, (non più di 700 documentate) erano state in buona parte a loro volta carnefici, tanto che i premiati per il Giorno del Ricordo sono in prevalenza militi repubblichini. Il numero delle vittime aumentato decine e decine di volte rispetto alle stime storiche, al fine di equiparare artificiosamente le vicende del confine Italo –Jugoslavo con la portata dei crimini nazi-fascisti. Viene rimosso il legame con il regime fascista della stragrande maggioranza dei prigionieri politici uccisi per rappresaglia, e addebitati ai partigiani delitti comuni al fine di gonfiare arbitrariamente il numero delle vittime, e dare l’impressione di una  guerra etnica contro gli italiani. Così anche le motivazioni e i numeri del famigerato “esodo” sono anch’essi inventati e strumentalizzati. Le autorità Jugoslave, al contrario di quanto viene detto sulla presunta ed inventata pulizia etnica, fecero di tutto per far rimanere la popolazione italiana in Jugoslavia, come negare e ritardare il rilascio dei necessari documenti per l’espatrio. Decine di migliaia di italiani continuarono a vivere in Jugoslavia ed oltre un migliaio addirittura vi emigrò dall’Italia.

Al contrario nulla viene detto dell’italianizzazione forzata, dei campi di concentramento, della sistematica uccisione dei dissidenti politici, della vera guerra etnica che anni prima il regime fascista combatté contro le popolazioni jugoslave dei territori annessi all’Italia. Mentre oggi si criminalizza il ruolo delle forze partigiane italiane e jugoslave che insieme liberarono l’Italia nord orientale dalla schiavitù nazi-fascista, si dimenticano le parole che Mussolini pronunciò riferendosi alla politica da tenere nei confronti delle popolazioni jugoslave nei territori italiani: «Di fronte ad una razza inferiore e barbara come la slava non si deve seguire la politica che dà lo zuccherino, ma quella del bastone. I confini dell’Italia devono essere il Brennero, il Nevoso e le Dinariche: io credo che si possano sacrificare 500.000 slavi barbari a 50.000 italiani». Non si trattava solo di un’affermazione, ma di una precisa politica che lo stato fascista perseguì nei confronti delle popolazioni jugoslave, con l’apertura di campi di concentramento a Kraljevica, Lopud, Kupari, Korica, Brac, Hvar, Rab (isola di Arbe) nei quali furono internati migliaia di prigionieri politici e cittadini che si opponevano alla politica fascista. Parole tradotte in azione dai generali fascisti dell’esercito italiano, come quando il Generale Robotti sosteneva in una circolare militare che «si ammazza troppo poco», riferendosi alla situazione delle province jugoslave.I crimini nazi-fascisti vengono accuratamente nascosti e si tenta di far passare i partigiani italiani e jugoslavi che combatterono gli eserciti del Reich e della Repubblica Sociale Italiana come assassini, eludendo così le responsabilità storiche e politiche del fascismo, che sono responsabili di quanto accadde.

Come organizzazioni giovanili di diversi paesi coinvolti nelle vicende del confine Italo-Jugoslavo, confermando la nostra amicizia e la reciproca solidarietà ed azione comune, ci impegniamo a:

-       Difendere la memoria della lotta partigiana e del ruolo primario dei comunisti nella liberazione dal fascismo, oggi minacciata dal revisionismo e dal tentativo di equiparazione storica tra fascismo e comunismo, aumentando le azioni comuni in difesa della memoria storica e del contributo dei partigiani comunisti jugoslavi ed italiani alle lotte di liberazione nei nostri paesi;

-       Rigettare ogni forma di nazionalismo, rifugio di un capitalismo in crisi, e ogni conflitto tra i nostri popoli, sviluppando a partire dalle nostre organizzazioni la più alta forma di solidarietà e internazionalismo proletario, lavorando assieme affinché i nostri popoli possano vivere un futuro di pace e cooperazione solidale;

-       Diffondere tra le nuove generazioni la memoria storica e insieme ad essa la consapevolezza che solo il socialismo può rappresentare la liberazione reale dei popoli dalla schiavitù e dalla minaccia sempre attuale della guerra, imposta per gli interessi dei monopoli e a danno dei lavoratori e dei popoli.

 Morte al fascismo, libertà al popolo!  - Smrt fašizmu, Sloboda narodu!

FGC – Fronte della Gioventù Comunista (Italia) – SKOJ – Lega della Gioventù Comunista di Jugoslavia (Serbia) – MS – Gioventù Socialista (Croazia)

Foibe, blitz degli studenti antifascisti all'Itis di San Secondo

Stamattina una trentina di studenti del Kollettivo Giovanile Autogestito sono andati all'Itis di San Secondo con striscioni e volantini per protestare contro l'istituzione del Giorno del Ricordo

Lunedì 10 febbraio è la Giornata Nazionale per le vittime foibe. Stamattina una trentina di studenti del Kollettivo Giovanile Autogestito sono andati alll'Itis di San Secondo con striscioni e volantini per protestare contro l'istituzione del Giorno del Ricordo. Lo striscione tenuto dai ragazzi recitava 'Contro le menzogne di Stato, ora e sempre antifascisti'. Si sono posizionati all'ingresso ed hanno fatto alcuni interventi al megafono e distribuito volantini agli studenti, che stavano entrando a scuola.

IL VIDEO DELLA PROTESTA: http://www.parmatoday.it/cronaca/video-blitz-studenti-antifascisti-san-secondo.html

"Non accettiamo -hanno dichiarato gli studenti- che all'interno di questa scuola esistano gruppi dichiaratamente neofascisti che godono dell'appoggio dello Stato e delle Istituzioni. Siamo qui in questo giorno perchè il 10 febbraio i gruppi neofascisti celebreranno il Giorno del Ricordo, istituito nel 2004 per ricordare le cosidette vittime italiane delle Foibe. La verità storica è un'altra: qualche centinaio di italiani erano perlopiù funzionari dell'Amministrazione fascista. La Resistenza popolare jugoslava ha contato anche sull'appoggio di diversi italiani: già questo fatto dimostra che non c'era la volontà di fare una pulizia etnica". 

LA NOTA DEGLI STUDENTI. "Nella mattina dell’8 febbraio alle 8:30 davanti all’ I.T.I.S. di San Secondo, il K.G.A. (KOLLETTIVO GIOVANILE AUTOGESTITO ha effettuato un volantinaggio sul tema delle foibe, denunciando il revisionismo storico messo in atto dai gruppi neofascisti e dallo stato Italiano. Questi ritengono che gli italiani caduti in Jugoslavia siano state vittime dell’odio razziale provato dai partigiani Sloveni. La realtà storica è però tutt’altra il fatto delle foibe che riguardano la morte di alcune centinaia di Italiani per lo più funzionari dell’amministrazione Fascista, si spiegano con l’odio popolare e la rivolta nei confronti del regime Italo - fascista occupante dal ’41 di diversi territori della Ex Jugoslavia rendendosi responsabile di innumerevoli crimini di guerra per attuare il loro progetto di pulizia etnica nei confronti della popolazione Jugoslava mietendo 1.500.000 vittime".

La guerra dei Saud contro la Siria

gennaio 26, 2014

Bahar Kimyongür, Global Research, 23 gennaio 2014

Qualsiasi osservatore del conflitto siriano desideroso di saperne di più sulla rivolta anti-regime avrà qualche difficoltà a poterlo fare, data l’inflazione di gruppi armati, oramai oltre un migliaio. La guerra fratricida in cui sono sprofondate le principali milizie jihadiste dall’inizio dell’anno, evidenzia la confusione particolare su ruolo ed evoluzione di al-Qaida nel conflitto. Eppure, al di là delle rivalità economiche e territoriali, la stessa ideologia e la stessa strategia le uniscono e le collegano a un attore chiave nella guerra siriana: il regno dell’Arabia Saudita.

Il wahhabismo siriano prima della guerra
Il movimento religioso fu fondato circa 250 anni dal predicatore estremista Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab nel Najd in Arabia Saudita, non è una moda apparsa improvvisamente in Siria e favorevole alla primavera araba. Il wahhabismo ha una forte base sociale nei siriani che da diversi anni vivono in Arabia Saudita e altre teocrazie della penisola araba. In Siria, gli immigrati del Golfo sono singolarmente chiamati “sauditi” perché al loro ritorno a casa vengono confusi con i veri sauditi. La maggior parte di tali emigranti di ritorno, infatti, sono impregnati di puritanesimo rituale, di costume, familiare e sociale che caratterizza i regni wahhabiti (1). Ma il wahabismo siriano è anche  composto da predicatori salafiti espulsi dal regime di Damasco e ospitati dai regni del Golfo. Nonostante la distanza e la repressione, questi esuli poterono mantenere le reti d’influenza salafite nelle loro regioni e tribù originali. La proliferazione dei canali satellitari wahhabiti in Siria ha rafforzato la popolarità di alcuni esuli siriani convertitisi al “tele-coranismo”. Il più rappresentativo di questi è probabilmente Adnan Arur. Esiliato in Arabia Saudita, lo sceicco della discordia (fitna) com’è soprannominato, anima diversi programmi su Wasal TV e Safa TV, dove ha reso popolari i discorsi anti-sciiti e anti-alawiti, tra cui quello in cui chiede di “macellare gli alawiti e gettarne la carne ai cani.” 

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)