Informazione
By Rick Rozoff - Global Research, September 24, 2010
Encircling Russia, Targeting China |
(Counterpunch, November 18, 2010) Encircling Russia, Targeting China, NATO'S True Role in US Grand Strategy A crucial question is whether “Western democracy” still has the strength to dismantle this war machine before it is too late. On November 19 and 20, NATO leaders meet in Lisbon for what is billed as a summit on “NATO’s Strategic Concept”. Among topics of discussion will be an array of scary “threats”, from cyberwar to climate change, as well as nice protective things like nuclear weapons and a high tech Maginot Line boondoggle supposed to stop enemy missiles in mid-air. The NATO leaders will be unable to avoid talking about the war in Afghanistan, that endless crusade that unites the civilized world against the elusive Old Man of the Mountain, Hassan i Sabah, eleventh century chief of the Assassins in his latest reincarnation as Osama bin Laden. There will no doubt be much talk of “our shared values”. Most of what they will discuss is fiction with a price tag. The one thing missing from the Strategic Concept summit agenda is a serious discussion of strategy. This is partly because NATO as such has no strategy, and cannot have its own strategy. NATO is in reality an instrument of United States strategy. Its only operative Strategic Concept is the one put into practice by the United States. But even that is an elusive phantom. American leaders seem to prefer striking postures, “showing resolve”, to defining strategies. One who does presume to define strategy is Zbigniew Brzezinski, godfather of the Afghan Mujahidin back when they could be used to destroy the Soviet Union. Brzezinski was not shy about bluntly stating the strategic objective of U.S. policy in his 1993 book The Grand Chessboard: “American primacy”. As for NATO, he described it as one of the institutions serving to perpetuate American hegemony, “making the United States a key participant even in intra-European affairs.” In its “global web of specialized institutions”, which of course includes NATO, the United States exercises power through “continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus, even though that power originates ultimately from a single source, namely, Washington, D.C.” The description perfectly fits the Lisbon “Strategic Concept” conference. Last week, NATO’s Danish secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, announced that “we are pretty close to a consensus”. And this consensus, according to the New York Times, “will probably follow President Barack Obama’s own formulation: to work toward a non-nuclear world while maintaining a nuclear deterrent”. Wait a minute, does that make sense? No, but it is the stuff of NATO consensus. Peace through war, nuclear disarmament through nuclear armament, and above all, defense of member states by sending expeditionary forces to infuriate the natives of distant lands. A strategy is not a consensus written by committees. The American method of “continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus” wears down whatever resistance may occasionally appear. Thus Germany and France initially resisted Georgian membership in NATO, as well as the notorious “missile shield”, both seen as blatant provocations apt to set off a new arms race with Russia and damage fruitful German and French relations with Moscow, for no useful purpose. But the United States does not take no for an answer, and keeps repeating its imperatives until resistance fades. The one recent exception was the French refusal to join the invasion of Iraq, but the angry U.S. reaction scared the conservative French political class into supporting the pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy. In search of “threats” and “challenges” The very heart of what passes for a “strategic concept” was first declared and put into operation in the spring of 1999, when NATO defied international law, the United Nations and its own original charter by waging an aggressive war outside its defensive perimeter against Yugoslavia. That transformed NATO from a defensive to an offensive alliance. Ten years later, the godmother of that war, Madeleine Albright, was picked to chair the “group of experts” that spent several months holding seminars, consultations and meetings preparing the Lisbon agenda. Prominent in these gatherings were Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd’s of London, the insurance giant, and the former chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, Jeroen van der Veer. These ruling class figures are not exactly military strategists, but their participation should reassure the international business community that their worldwide interests are being taken into consideration. Indeed, a catalogue of threats enumerated by Rasmussen in a speech last year seemed to suggest that NATO was working for the insurance industry. NATO, he said, was needed to deal with piracy, cyber security, climate change, extreme weather events such as catastrophic storms and flooding, rising sea levels, large-scale population movement into inhabited areas, sometimes across borders, water shortages, droughts, decreasing food production, global warming, CO2 emissions, the retreat of Arctic ice uncovering hitherto inaccessible resources, fuel efficiency and dependence on foreign sources, etc. Most of the enumerated threats cannot even remotely be construed as calling for military solutions. Surely no "rogue states" or "outposts of tyranny" or "international terrorists" are responsible for climate change, yet Rasmussen presents them as challenges to NATO. On the other hand, some of the results of these scenarios, such as population movements caused by rising sea levels or drought, can indeed be seen as potentially causing crises. The ominous aspect of the enumeration is precisely that all such problems are eagerly snatched up by NATO as requiring military solutions. The main threat to NATO is its own obsolescence. And the search for a “strategic concept” is the search for pretexts to keep it going. NATO’s Threat to the World While it searches for threats, NATO itself is a growing threat to the world. The basic threat is its contribution to strengthening the U.S.-led tendency to abandon diplomacy and negotiations in favor of military force. This is seen clearly in Rasmussen’s inclusion of weather phenomena in his list of threats to NATO, when they should, instead, be problems for international diplomacy and negotiations. The growing danger is that Western diplomacy is dying. The United States has set the tone: we are virtuous, we have the power, the rest of the world must obey or else. Diplomacy is despised as weakness. The State Department has long since ceased to be at the core of U.S. foreign policy. With its vast network of military bases the world over, as well as military attachés in embassies and countless missions to client countries, the Pentagon is incomparably more powerful and influential in the world than the State Department. Recent Secretaries of State, far from seeking diplomatic alternatives to war, have actually played a leading role in advocating war instead of diplomacy, whether Madeleine Albright in the Balkans or Colin Powell waving fake test tubes in the United Nations Security Council. Policy is defined by the National Security Advisor, various privately-funded think tanks and the Pentagon, with interference from a Congress which itself is composed of politicians eager to obtain military contracts for their constituencies. NATO is dragging Washington’s European allies down the same path. Just as the Pentagon has replaced the State Department, NATO itself is being used by the United States as a potential substitute for the United Nations. The 1999 “Kosovo war” was a first major step in that direction. Sarkozy’s France, after rejoining the NATO joint command, is gutting the traditionally skilled French foreign service, cutting back on civilian representation throughout the world. The European Union foreign service now being created by Lady Ashton will have no policy and no authority of its own. Bureaucratic Inertia Behind its appeals to “common values”, NATO is driven above all by bureaucratic inertia. The alliance itself is an excrescence of the U.S. military-industrial complex. For sixty years, military procurements and Pentagon contracts have been an essential source of industrial research, profits, jobs, Congressional careers, even university funding. The interplay of these varied interests converge to determine an implicit U.S. strategy of world conquest. An ever-expanding global network of somewhere between 800 and a thousand military bases on foreign soil. Bilateral military accords with client states which offer training while obliging them to purchase U.S.-made weapons and redesign their armed forces away from national defense toward internal security (i.e. repression) and possible integration into U.S.-led wars of aggression. Use of these close relationships with local armed forces to influence the domestic politics of weaker states. Perpetual military exercises with client states, which provide the Pentagon with perfect knowledge of the military potential of client states, integrate them into the U.S. military machine, and sustain a “ready for war” mentality. Deployment of its network of bases, “allies” and military exercises so as to surround, isolate, intimidate and eventually provoke major nations perceived as potential rivals, notably Russia and China. The implicit strategy of the United States, as perceived by its actions, is a gradual military conquest to ensure world domination. One original feature of this world conquest project is that, although extremely active, day after day, it is virtually ignored by the vast majority of the population of the conquering nation, as well as by its most closely dominated allies, i.e., the NATO states. The endless propaganda about “terrorist threats” (the fleas on the elephant) and other diversions keep most Americans totally unaware of what is going on, all the more easily in that Americans are almost uniquely ignorant of the rest of the world and thus totally uninterested. The U.S. may bomb a country off the map before more than a small fraction of Americans know where to find it. The main task of U.S. strategists, whose careers take them between think tanks, boards of directors, consultancy firms and the government, is to justify this giant mechanism much more than to steer it. To a large extent, it steers itself. Since the collapse of the “Soviet threat”, policy-makers have settled for invisible or potential threats. U.S. military doctrine has as its aim to move preventively against any potential rival to U.S. world hegemony. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia retains the largest arsenal outside the United States, and China is a rapidly rising economic power. Neither one threatens the United States or Western Europe. On the contrary, both are ready and willing to concentrate on peaceful business. However, they are increasingly alarmed by the military encirclement and provocative military exercises carried on by the United States on their very doorsteps. The implicit aggressive strategy may be obscure to most Americans, but leaders in the targeted countries are quite certain they understand what it is going on. The Russia-Iran-Israel Triangle Currently, the main explicit “enemy” is Iran. Washington claims that the “missile shield” which it is forcing on its European allies is designed to defend the West from Iran. But the Russians see quite clearly that the missile shield is aimed at themselves. First of all, they understand quite clearly that Iran has no such missiles nor any possible motive for using them against the West. It is perfectly obvious to all informed analysts that even if Iran developed nuclear weapons and missiles, they would be conceived as a deterrent against Israel, the regional nuclear superpower which enjoys a free hand attacking neighboring countries. Israel does not want to lose that freedom to attack, and thus naturally opposes the Iranian deterrent. Israeli propagandists scream loudly about the threat from Iran, and have worked incessantly to infect NATO with their paranoia. Israel has even been described as “Global NATO’s 29th member”. Israeli officials have assiduously worked on a receptive Madeleine Albright to make sure that Israeli interests are included in the “Strategic Concept”. During the past five years, Israel and NATO have been taking part in joint naval exercises in the Red Sea and in the Mediterranean, as well as joint ground exercises from Brussels to Ukraine. On October 16, 2006, Israel became the first non-European country to reach a so-called “Individual Cooperation Program” agreement with NATO for cooperation in 27 different areas. It is worth noting that Israel is the only country outside Europe which the U.S. includes in the area of responsibility of its European Command (rather than the Central Command that covers the rest of the Middle East). At a NATO-Israel Relations seminar in Herzliya on October 24, 2006, the Israeli foreign minister at the time, Tzipi Livni, declared that "The alliance between NATO and Israel is only natural....Israel and NATO share a common strategic vision. In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of life." Not everybody in European countries would consider that Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine reflect “our common way of life”. This is no doubt one reason why the deepening union between NATO and Israel has not taken the open form of NATO membership. Especially after the savage attack on Gaza, such a move would arouse objections in European countries. Nevertheless, Israel continues to invite itself into NATO, ardently supported, of course, by its faithful followers in the U.S. Congress. The principal cause of this growing Israel-NATO symbiosis has been identified by Mearsheimer and Walt: the vigorous and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States. Israeli lobbies are also strong in France, Britain and the UK. They have zealously developed the theme of Israel as the “front line” in the defense of “Western values” against militant Islam. The fact that militant Islam is largely a product of that “front line” creates a perfect vicious circle. Israel’s aggressive stance toward its regional neighbors would be a serious liability for NATO, apt to be dragged into wars of Israel’s choosing which are by no means in the interest of Europe. However, there is one subtle strategic advantage in the Israeli connection which the United States seems to be using… against Russia. By subscribing to the hysterical “Iranian threat” theory, the United States can continue to claim with a straight face that the planned missile shield is directed against Iran, not Russia. This cannot be expected to convince the Russians. But it can be used to make their protests sound “paranoid” – at least to the ears of the Western faithful. Dear me, what can they be complaining about when we “reset” our relations with Moscow and invite the Russian president to our “Strategic Concept” happy gathering? However, the Russians know quite well that: The missile shield is to be constructed surrounding Russia, which does have missiles, which it keeps for deterrence. By neutralizing Russian missiles, the United States would free its own hand to attack Russia, knowing that the Russia could not retaliate. Therefore, whatever is said, the missile shield, if it worked, would serve to facilitate eventual aggression against Russia. Encircling Russia The encirclement of Russia continues in the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Arctic circle. United States officials continue to claim that Ukraine must join NATO. Just this week, in a New York Times column, Zbigniew’s son Ian J. Brzezinski advised Obama against abandoning the “vision” of a “whole, free and secure” Europe including “eventual Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO and the European Union.” The fact that the vast majority of the people of Ukraine are against NATO membership is of no account. For the current scion of the noble Brzezinski dynasty it is the minority that counts. Abandoning the vision “undercuts those in Georgia and Ukraine who see their future in Europe. It reinforces Kremlin aspirations for a sphere of influence…” The notion that “the Kremlin” aspires to a “sphere of influence” in Ukraine is absurd considering the extremely close historic links between Russia and Ukraine, whose capital Kiev was the cradle of the Russian state. But the Brzezinski family hailed from Galicia, the part of Western Ukraine which once belonged to Poland, and which is the center of the anti-Russian minority. U.S. foreign policy is all too frequently influenced by such foreign rivalries of which the vast majority of Americans are totally ignorant. Relentless U.S. insistence on absorbing Ukraine continues despite the fact that it would imply expelling the Russian Black Sea fleet from its base in the Crimean peninsula, where the local population is overwhelmingly Russian-speaking and pro-Russian. This is a recipe for war with Russia if ever there was one. And meanwhile, U.S. officials continue to declare their support for Georgia, whose American-trained president openly hopes to bring NATO support into his next war against Russia. Aside from provocative naval maneuvers in the Black Sea, the United States, NATO and (as yet) non-NATO members Sweden and Finland regularly carry out major military exercises in the Baltic Sea, virtually in sight of the Russia cities of Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad. These exercises involve thousands of ground troops, hundreds of aircraft including F-15 jet fighters, AWACS, as well as naval forces including the U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12, landing craft and warships from a dozen countries. Perhaps most ominous of all, in the Arctic region, the United States has been persistently engaging Canada and the Scandinavian states (including Denmark via Greenland) in a military deployment openly directed against Russia. The point of these Arctic deployment was stated by Fogh Rasmussen when he mentioned, among “threats” to be met by NATO, the fact that “Arctic ice is retreating, for resources that had, until now, been covered under ice.” Now, one might consider that this uncovering of resources would be an opportunity for cooperation in exploiting them. But that is not the official U.S. mindset. Last October, US Admiral James G Stavridis, supreme Nato commander for Europe, said global warming and a race for resources could lead to a conflict in the Arctic. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin, in charge of Alaska’s coastline, said Russian shipping activity in the Arctic Ocean was “of particular concern” for the US and called for more military facilities in the region. The US Geological Service believes that the Arctic contains up to a quarter of the world’s unexplored deposits of oil and gas. Under the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, a coastal state is entitled to a 200-nautical mile EEZ and can claim a further 150 miles if it proves that the seabed is a continuation of its continental shelf. Russia is applying to make this claim. After pushing for the rest of the world to adopt the Convention, the United States Senate has still not ratified the Treaty. In January 2009, NATO declared the “High North” to be “of strategic interest to the Alliance,” and since then, NATO has held several major war games clearly preparing for eventual conflict with Russia over Arctic resources. Russia largely dismantled its defenses in the Arctic after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has called for negotiating compromises over resource control. Last September, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for joint efforts to protect the fragile ecosystem, attract foreign investment, promote environmentally friendly technologies and work to resolve disputes through international law. But the United States, as usual, prefers to settle the issue by throwing its weight around. This could lead to a new arms race in the Arctic, and even to armed clashes. Despite all these provocative moves, it is most unlikely that the United States actually seeks war with Russia, although skirmishes and incidents here and there cannot be ruled out. The U.S. policy appears to be to encircle and intimidate Russia to such an extent that it accepts a semi-satellite status that neutralizes it in the anticipated future conflict with China. Target China The only reason to target China is like the proverbial reason to climb the mountain: it is there. It is big. And the US must be on top of everything. The strategy for dominating China is the same as for Russia. It is classic warfare: encirclement, siege, more or less clandestine support for internal disorder. As examples of this strategy: The United States is provocatively strengthening its military presence along the Pacific shores of China, offering “protection against China” to East Asian countries. During the Cold War, when India got its armaments from the Soviet Union and struck a non-aligned posture, the United States armed Pakistan as its main regional ally. Now the U.S. is shifting its favors to India, in order to keep India out of the orbit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to build it as a counterweight to China. The United States and its allies support any internal dissidence that might weaken China, whether it is the Dalai Lama, the Uighurs, or Liu Xiaobo, the jailed dissident. The Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on Liu Xiaobo by a committee of Norwegian legislators headed by Thorbjorn Jagland, Norway’s echo of Tony Blair, who has served as Norway’s prime minister and foreign minister, and has been one of his country’s main cheerleaders for NATO. At a NATO-sponsored conference of European parliamentarians last year, Jagland declared: “When we are not able to stop tyranny, war starts. This is why NATO is indispensable. NATO is the only multilateral military organization rooted in international law. It is an organization that the U.N. can use when necessary — to stop tyranny, like we did in the Balkans.” This is an astoundingly bold misstatement of fact, considering that NATO openly defied international law and the United Nations to make war in the Balkans – where in reality there was ethnic conflict, but no “tyranny”. In announcing the choice of Liu, the Norwegian Nobel committee, headed by Jagland, declared that it “has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace." The “close connection”, to follow the logic of Jagland’s own statements, is that if a foreign state fails to respect human rights according to Western interpretations, it may be bombed, as NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Indeed, the very powers that make the most noise about “human rights”, notably the United States and Britain, are the ones making the most wars all over the world. The Norwegian’s statements make it clear that granting the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu (who in his youth spent time in Norway) amounted in reality to an endorsement of NATO. “Democracies” to replace the United Nations The European members of NATO add relatively little to the military power of the United States. Their contribution is above all political. Their presence maintains the illusion of an “International Community”. The world conquest being pursued by the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon can be presented as the crusade by the world’s “democracies” to spread their enlightened political order to the rest of a recalcitrant world. The Euro-Atlantic governments proclaim their “democracy” as proof of their absolute right to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world. On the basis of the fallacy that “human rights are necessary for peace”, they proclaim their right to make war. A crucial question is whether “Western democracy” still has the strength to dismantle this war machine before it is too late. Note: Grateful thanks to Rick Rozoff for his constant flow of important information. Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. She can be reached at diana.josto@... |
Granma International - November 22, 2010
Reflections of Fidel
On Friday, November 19, 2010 in Lisbon, Portugal, the 28 members of that bellicose institution engendered by the United States, decided to create what they cynically describe as "the new NATO."
The institution emerged after World War II as an instrument of the Cold War unleashed by imperialism on the Soviet Union, the country which paid for the victory over Nazism with tens of millions of lives and colossal destruction.
The United States mobilized against the USSR, together with a healthy part of the European population, the extreme right and the Nazi-fascist scum of Europe, full of hatred and prepared to squeeze every advantage out of the errors committed by the very leaders of the USSR after the death of Lenin.
The Soviet people, with great sacrifice, were able to maintain nuclear parity and support the national liberation struggles of many peoples against the efforts of European states to maintain the colonial system imposed by force throughout the centuries; states that were postwar allies of the yankee empire, which assumed command of the counterrevolution worldwide.
In just 10 days – less than two weeks – world opinion has received three great and unforgettable lessons: the G20, APEC and NATO meetings in Seoul, Yokohama and Lisbon, in such a way that all upstanding people who can read and write, and whose minds have not been mutilated by the conditioned reflexes of imperialism’s media apparatus, can have a real idea of the problems currently affecting humanity.
In Lisbon, not one word was uttered that could convey hope to the billions of people enduring poverty, underdevelopment, insufficient food, housing, health, education and employment.
On the contrary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the vain character who figures as secretary general of the NATO military mafia, declared in the tone of a little Nazi fuehrer, that the "new strategic concept" was in order "to act in any part of the world."
It was not for nothing that the government of Turkey was at the point of vetoing his appointment when, in April 2009, Fogh Rasmussen – a neoliberal Dane – in his position as prime minister of Denmark, and using the pretext of freedom of the press, defended the authors of serious offenses to the Prophet Mahoma, a figure respected by all Muslim believers.
More than a few people in the world can recall the close relations of cooperation between the Danish government and the Nazi "invaders" during World War II.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a bird of prey hatched in the skirts of yankee imperialism, and moreover equipped with tactical nuclear weapons many times more destructive than the atom bomb that erased the city of Hiroshima, has been committed by the United States to the genocidal Afghanistan war, even more complex than the Kosovo adventure and the war on Serbia, where its forces massacred the city of Belgrade and were at the point of suffering a disaster if the government of that country had remained firm, instead of trusting in the institutions of European justice in the Hague.
In one of its points, the inglorious Lisbon Declaration affirms in a vague and abstract manner:
"In the strategically important Western Balkans region, democratic values, regional cooperation and good neighborly relations are important for lasting peace and stability."
"KFOR is moving towards a smaller, more flexible, deterrent presence."
Now?
Nor will Russia be able to forget it so easily: the real fact is that when Yeltsin dismembered the USSR, the United States advanced NATO’s borders and its nuclear attack bases to the heart of Russia from Europe and Asia.
Those new military installations also threatened the People’s Republic of China and other Asian countries.
When that took place in 1991, hundreds of SS-19s, SS-20s and other powerful Soviet weapons could reach U.S. and NATO bases in Europe in a matter of seconds. No NATO secretary general would have dared to talk with the arrogance of Rasmussen.
The first agreement on limiting nuclear weapons was signed as early as May 26, 1972, between President Richard Nixon of the United States and Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the aim of limiting the number of anti-ballistic missiles (the ABM Treaty) and to defend certain points against nuclear missiles.
In Vienna in 1979, Brezhnev and Carter signed new agreements known as SALT II, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify those agreements.
The new rearmament promoted by Reagan with the Strategic Defense Initiative put en end to the SALT agreements.
The Siberian gas pipeline had already been blown up by the CIA.
Instead, a new agreement was signed in 1991 between Bush Sr. and Gorbachev, five months before the collapse of the USSR. When that event took place, the socialist bloc no longer existed. The countries that the Red Army had liberated from Nazi occupation were not even capable of maintaining their independence. Right-wing governments that came to power moved into NATO with their arms and equipment and fell into the hands of the United States. The German Democratic Republic, which had made a great effort under the leadership of Erich Honecker, could not overcome the ideological and consumerist offensive launched from the capital itself, occupied by Western troops.
As the virtual master of the world, the United States increased its adventurist and warmongering policy.
Due to a well manipulated process, the USSR disintegrated. The coup de grace was dealt it by Boris Yeltsin on December 8, 1991 when, as president of the Russian Federation, he declared that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. On the 25th of that month, the red hammer and sickle flag flying over the Kremlin was lowered.
A third agreement on strategic weapons was subsequently signed between George W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993, prohibiting the use of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) with multiple warheads. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate on January 26, 1993, by a margin of 87 votes to 4.
Russia inherited the science and technology of the USSR – which in spite of the war and enormous sacrifice was capable of creating a military power on a level with that of the immense and rich yankee empire – the victory over fascism, the traditions, the culture and the glories of the Russian people.
The war on Serbia, a Slavic nation, sunk its teeth hard into the security of the Russian people, something that no government could afford itself the luxury of ignoring.
The Russian Duma – angered by the first Iraq war and that of Kosovo in which NATO massacred the Serb people – refused to ratify START II and did not sign that agreement until the year 2000 and, in that case, in an attempt to save the ABM treaty which, by that date, the yankees weren’t interested in maintaining.
The United States is trying to use its enormous media resources to maintain, deceive and confuse world public opinion.
The government of that country is going through a difficult stage as a consequence of its military adventures. All the NATO countries without exception are committed to the Afghanistan war, as are various others in the world, whose peoples find odious and repugnant the butchery in which rich and industrialized countries such as Japan and Australia, and other Third World nations are involved in to a greater or lesser degree.
What is the essence of the agreement approved in April of this year by the United States and Russia? Both parties have committed themselves to reducing the number of the strategic nuclear missiles to 1,550. Not one word is being said about the nuclear missiles of France, the United Kingdom and Israel, all of them capable of striking Russia. Not one word has been said either about tactical nuclear weapons, some of them with far more power than that which erased the city of Hiroshima. There is no mention of the destructive and lethal capacity of numerous conventional weapons, the radio-electric and other weapons systems into which the United States is channeling its growing military budget, superior to that of all the other nations of the world put together. Both governments know, as many others meeting there do, that a third world war would be the last.
What kind of illusions can the NATO members create? What is the peace for humanity derived from that meeting? What benefit can possibly be expected for the peoples of the Third World, and even for the international economy?
They cannot even offer the hope that the world economic crisis can be overcome, or how much longer any improvement would last. The total public debt of the United States, not only that of central government, but the rest of the country’s public and private institutions, has already risen to a figure that is equal to the world GDP of 2009, which amounted to $58 trillion. Did those meeting in Lisbon maybe think to ask themselves where those fabulous resources came from? Simply, from the economy of all the other nations in the world, to which the United States handed over pieces of paper converted into dollar bills which, for 40 years now, unilaterally ceased having their backing in gold, and now that the value of that metal is 40 times superior. That country still possesses its veto within the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Why wasn’t that discussed in Portugal?
The hope of extracting U.S. troops, those of NATO and their allies from Afghanistan, is an idyllic one. They will have to abandon that country before the defeated hand over power to the Afghan resistance. The United States’ own allies are beginning to acknowledge that dozens of years could go by before that war is over; is NATO prepared to remain there for all that time? Would the very citizens of each one of the governments meeting there allow that? Not to forget that a country with a very large population, Pakistan, shares a border of colonial origin with Afghanistan and a none-too insignificant percentage of its inhabitants.
I am not criticizing Medvedev, he is acting very well in trying to limit the number of nuclear missiles pointing at his country. Barack Obama cannot invent any justification whatsoever for that. It would be laughable to imagine that that colossal and costly deployment of the anti-missile nuclear shield is to protect Europe and Russia from Iranian missiles proceeding from a country which does not even possess a tactical nuclear weapon. Not even a children’s story book could affirm that.
Obama has already admitted that his promise to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan could be delayed and that taxes from the wealthiest contributors are to be immediately suspended. After the Nobel Prize one would have to grant him the prize for the "greatest snake charmer "ever to have existed.
Taking into account the George W. Bush autobiography, which has already become a bestseller, and which some intelligent editor drafted for him, why didn’t they do him the honor of inviting him to Lisbon? The extreme right, the "Tea Party" of Europe, would doubtless have been happy.
NATO summit reveals cracks in Atlantic Alliance
By Peter Schwarz
22 November 2010
On November 20 in Lisbon, NATO adopted a new strategic concept. It is the seventh in the 61-year history of the military alliance and the first since 1999.
The summit was preceded by months of preparation and discussion. A group of experts chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright issued recommendations for the new strategy in May.
After a long tug of war, the strategic concept has now been adopted and was presented to the public in Lisbon. Those attending the summit celebrated it as a historic breakthrough. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “This summit will go down in history. The strategic approach is clear, and it shows we are all working on the same footing.”
In reality, the eleven-page document barely manages to paper over the fault lines that have opened up between the 28 members of the largest military alliance in the world. It is a verbal compromise between divergent interests. The different factions were able to agree on many formulations only at the last minute.
Where the summit was unanimous was that the military should in the future play a far more important role in political and social life. In addition to collective defence with conventional and nuclear weapons, the new strategy sanctions international interventions of various kinds, such as those NATO has already conducted in the former Yugoslavia and is presently carrying out in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and elsewhere in the world.
The strategic concept lists a variety of reasons that could serve NATO as a pretext for war in the future. These include “the proliferation of ballistic missiles, of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction,” “instability, including by fostering extremism, terrorism and trans-national illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people,” and the attacking and disruption of “vital communication, transport and transit routes on which international trade, energy security and prosperity depend.”
Even environmental issues can be exploited for military aims. “Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to affect significantly NATO planning
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
http://www.beoforum.rs/index.php/komentari-beogradskog-foruma-za-svet-ravnopravnih/167-mir-da-nato-ne-protesti-u-lisabonu-portuguese-council-for-peace-and-cooperation-pccp-and-world-peace-council-wpc-komentari-beogradskog-foruma-za-svet-ravnopravnih.html
A Lisbona il via alla Nato globale |
di Tommaso Di Francesco Manlio Dinucci |
Oggi e domani si tiene a Lisbona il summit dei capi di stato e di governo della Nato, cui partecipano per l’Italia Berlusconi, La Russa e Frattini. Uno dei vertici più importanti di quella che il segretario generale Anders Rasmussen definisce «l’alleanza che ha avuto il maggior successo nella storia». Un «successo» che costituisce la nuova narrazione atlantica, una rinnovata filosofia dell’uso della guerra, per un organismo giustificato all’origine per contenere il Patto di Varsavia. Questa nuova «storia di sé» è l’introduzione necessaria, daparte dei leader occidentali, per motivare ora la sua necessità e attualità. Così Anders Rasmuss spiega che finora la Nato ha attraversato due fasi, quella della guerra fredda e quella del dopo-guerra fredda, ed in entrambe «ha funzionato molto bene». Come negarlo? La terza fase atlantica Terminate la prima e seconda fase, annuncia il segretario Rasmussen, è arrivato il momento della Nato-versione 3.0, una alleanza più moderna, più efficiente e più capace di lavorare con i nostri partner a livello globale. Essa ha «una potenza militare che nessun avversario può eguagliare», basata anche sulle armi nucleari che «la Nato deve mantenere finché vi saranno nel mondo tali armi». La minaccia di un attacco militare su larga scala contro il territorio dell’Alleanza è basso, afferma Rasmussen, ma vi è il rischio di attacchi terroristici e missilistici. Oltre 30 paesi stanno infatti acquisendo la capacità di costruire missili balistici. Viene così annunciato che il summit varerà ufficialmente il progetto dello «scudo» anti-missili, che gli Stati uniti vogliono estendere all’Europa. Progetto cui la Russia si oppone, considerandolo una minaccia nei propri confronti, e che la Nato cerca di far digerire a Mosca: a tal fine ha invitato il presidente Medvedev al Consiglio Nato-Russia che si svolgerà a Lisbona subito dopo il Summit, il 20 novembre, per «approfondire la cooperazione politica e rafforzare la comune sicurezza». Oggi, sottolinea Rasmussen, la difesa del territorio dell’Alleanza e dei suoi 900 milioni di cittadini non è circoscritta all’area delimitata dai confini. La globalizzazione ha reso le nostre economie sempre più dipendenti da forniture provenienti da tutto il mondo. Ciò significa che un attacco a queste linee di rifornimento può avere effetti drammatici sulla nostra sicurezza, nel caso ad esempio che le nostre petroliere non potessero più transitare dallo Stretto di Hormuz (all’imboccatura del Golfo Persico tra Iran e Oman). Occorre quindi investire meno nelle forze statiche, dislocate all’interno dei 28 paesi membri dell’Alleanza, e di più nelle forze mobili, in grado di essere proiettate rapidamente fuori del territorio della Nato. La Nato è già oggi impegnata, sulla scia della strategia Usa, in diverse «missioni» militari fuori della sua area geografica: in Kosovo, dove opera per «costruire la stabilità e la pace»; nel Mediterraneo, dove conduce operazioni navali «contro le attività terroristiche»; in Sudan, dove aiuta l’Unione africana a «porre fine alla violenza e migliorare la situazione umanitaria»; nel Corno d’Africa, dove conduce «operazioni anti-pirateria» controllando le rotte marittime strategiche; in Iraq, dove contribuisce a «creare efficienti forze armate»; in Afghanistan, dove ha assunto con un colpo di mano nel 2003 la leadership dell’Isaf, impantandosi però in una guerra che ora la costringe a cercare una «exit strategy». Tanto che oggi è stato convocato a Lisbona il presidente afghano Hamid Karzai. La Nato non sembra però aver imparato nulla dalla lezione afghana: si prepara infatti a nuove «missioni» fuori area. La mutazione genetica Per capire il passaggio sancito dal summit di Lisbona, occorre ricordare quali sono state le prime due fasi della storia della Nato. Attraverso di essa, durante la guerra fredda, gli Stati uniti mantengono il loro dominio sugli alleati europei, usando l’Europa come prima linea nel confronto, anche nucleare, col Patto di Varsavia (fondato nel 1955, sei anni dopo la Nato). Lo scenario cambia radicalmente quando, nel 1991, si dissolve il Patto di Varsavia, quindi la stessa Unione sovietica. Ne approfittano subito gli Stati uniti, che riorientano la propria strategia con la prima guerra del Golfo. Premendo sulla Nato, perché faccia altrettanto: vi è infatti il pericolo che gli alleati europei effettuino scelte divergenti o ritengano perfino inutile la Nato nella nuova situazione geopolitica. Il 7 novembre 1991 il Consiglio atlantico, riunito a Roma, vara la prima versione del «nuovo concetto strategico», in cui si stabilisce che la «sicurezza» dell'Alleanza non è circoscritta all’area nord-atlantica. Poco tempo dopo esso viene messo in pratica nei Balcani. In Bosnia, dopo il voluto fallimento dell’Onu, la Nato interviene nel 1994 con la prima azione di guerra dalla fondazione dell’Alleanza. Segue la guerra contro la Iugoslavia, nel 1999. Gli Stati uniti riescono così a far scoppiare una guerra (che avrebbe potuto essere evitata) nel cuore dell’Europa, rafforzando la loro influenza in questa regione nel momento critico in cui se ne ridisegnano gli assetti politici, economici e militari. Mentre è in corso la guerra, il vertice Nato convocato a Washington impegna i paesi membri a «condurre operazioni di risposta alle crisi non previste dall’articolo 5, al di fuori del territorio dell’Alleanza». Inizia così l’espansione della Nato nel territorio dell’ex-Patto di Varsavia e dell’ex-Urss. Nel 1999 essa ingloba Polonia, Repubblica ceca e Ungheria; nel 2004 Estonia, Lettonia, Lituania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovacchia, Slovenia; nel 2009 Albania e Croazia. Viene inoltre preparato l’ingresso nell’Alleanza di Macedonia, Ucraina, Georgia e Montenegro. Emblematica la pressione Nato sul Caucaso, con il conflitto lanciato dalla Georgia a riconquista dell’Abkhazia e la guerra che ne segue con la Russia nell’estate 2008. Cresce in tal modo l’influenza Usa in Europa, poiché i governi dei paesi dell’ex-Patto di Varsavia e dell’ex-Urss, entrati prima nella Nato e quindi quasi tutti nella Ue, sono legati più a Washington che a Bruxelles. Ora, spiega Rasmussen, si apre la terza fase. Quella di una alleanza che, sotto l’indiscussa leadership statunitense, si propone di estendere il suo dominio su scala globale. Crescerà di conseguenza la spesa militare dei paesi della Nato, che oggi ammonta a circa 1000 miliardi di dollari annui, equivalenti ai due terzi della spesa militare mondiale. (il manifesto, 19 novembre 2010) |
BILANCIO DEL SUMMIT DI LISBONA
L’Europa ingabbiata dagli Usa nella Nato
Tommaso Di Francesco Manlio Dinucci
Nella dichiarazione del summit Nato di Lisbona (20 novembre) si annuncia la creazione di una nuova struttura di comando, più snella ed efficiente. Immutata resta però la gerarchia. Il Comandante supremo alleato in Europa (Saceur) non può essere un militare europeo. Deve, per regolamento, essere un generale o ammiraglio nominato dal presidente e confermato dal senato degli Stati uniti. Solo dopo, formalmente, il Consiglio atlantico viene chiamato ad approvare la scelta. L’attuale Saceur è l’ammiraglio James Stavridis, già a capo del Comando meridionale Usa, la cui area di responsabilità abbraccia l’intera America latina.
Lo stesso criterio vale per gli altri comandi chiave dell’Alleanza. Ad esempio, a capo della Forza congiunta alleata a Napoli c’è l’ammiraglio Sam Locklear III, allo stesso tempo comandante delle Forze navali Usa in Europa e delle Forze navali Usa per l’Africa. Poiché tutti questi alti ufficiali fanno parte della catena di comando statunitense, che per loro ha priorità assoluta, anche le forze alleate europee ai loro ordini sono di fatto inserite nella stessa catena di comando che fa capo al presidente degli Stati uniti. Si capisce quindi perché, anche dopo la guerra fredda, l’Alleanza atlantica sia rimasta così importante per Washington.
L’effetto Nato sull’Europa
Per oltre 60 anni, ha sottolineato il presidente Obama nella conferenza stampa al termine del Summit, la Nato si è dimostrata l’alleanza che ha avuto il maggior successo nella storia: essa ha difeso l’indipendenza dei suoi membri e allevato le giovani democrazie in una Europa unita a libera. Questione di punti di vista. Il successo c’è stato, ma soprattutto a vantaggio degli Stati uniti. Essi sono riusciti a mantenere l’Unione europea, di cui temono la crescente forza economica, sotto la loro tutela politica e militare. Ciò perché i governi europei di ogni segno politico non hanno attuato una politica estera e della difesa diversa da quella degli Stati uniti, ma si sono accodati a loro in cambio di una fetta della torta nell’area di dominio e influenza dell’impero Usa. Come spiega la Commissione europea, la difesa collettiva, in origine di competenza della Ueo, è ora entrata a far parte delle competenze della Nato.
E quelle che Obama definisce le giovani democrazie allevate dalla Nato, ossia i 12 paesi dell’ex-Patto di Varsavia e dell’ex-Urss inglobati nell’Alleanza tra il 1999 e il 2009, sono legate tramite i loro governi più a Washington che a Bruxelles. Ciò ha permesso agli Stati uniti di avere maggiore influenza nella Ue e di estendere la loro presenza militare sul territorio europeo, allargandola verso est, in particolare nelle repubbliche baltiche, in Romania e Bulgaria. E nella dichiarazione del summit si indicano i paesi cui guarda la Nato per un ulteriore allargamento: Bosnia-Erzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Ucraina, Georgia.
La presa militare Usa sull’Europa si rafforzerà enormemente con lo «scudo» missilistico, che i governi europei hanno ufficialmente accettato al summit di Lisbona. L’intera architettura dello «scudo» (batterie missilistiche mobili, radar terrestri mobili, radar e altri sensori su aerei e satelliti) sarà gestita dal Pentagono nel quadro della sua rete globale di comando, controllo e comunicazioni. Le conseguenze sono facilmente immaginabili. Il contenzioso con la Russia è tutt’altro che superato dal clima distensivo, creato ad arte al summit di Lisbona, e sarà acuito dall’ulteriore spinta della Nato verso est. L’Europa rischia quindi di trovarsi ancora una volta in prima linea. Per di più, gli Stati uniti potrebbero un giorno usare l’architettura dello «scudo», da loro controllata, per mettere i paesi europei in allarme su un imminente attacco missilistico (ad esempio da parte dell’Iran) e giustificare così la necessità di un attacco preventivo. Soprattutto a questo è destinato lo «scudo», concepito per proteggere le forze militari proiettate in aree esterne al territorio della Nato.
Questa – ha chiarito al summit il premio Nobel per la pace Barack Obama – resterà un’alleanza nucleare e gli Stati uniti manterranno un efficiente arsenale nucleare per assicurare la difesa di tutti i loro alleati. Ciò significa che gli Usa manterranno le loro bombe nucleari tattiche in Europa e useranno il suo territorio quale base avanzata delle loro forze strategiche nucleari.
L’Italia a stelle e strisce
Ancora più critica diverrà la situazione del nostro paese nel quadro del nuovo concetto strategico, varato dal summit di Lisbona. Acquisterà ulteriore importanza il quartier generale della Forza congiunta alleata a Napoli, che nel 2011 si trasferirà da Bagnoli a Lago Patria in una nuova sede di 85000 m2, con un personale di 2.100 militari e 350 civili. Aumenterà anche l’attività del Comando marittimo alleato e delle Forze navali Nato di supporto e attacco, i cui quartieri generali sono a Napoli, e del Corpo di spiegamento rapido Nato di Solbiate Olona (Varese). A Sigonella entrerà in funzione il sistema Ags, il più sofisticato sistema di spionaggio elettronico non per la difesa del territorio dell’Alleanza, ma per il potenziamento della sua capacità offensiva fuori area, soprattutto in quella mediorientale. A tutto questo si aggiungeranno i missili e altri componenti dello «scudo» Usa e l’Hub aereo militare di Pisa, che sarà messo a disposizione della Nato.
Sarà allo stesso tempo potenziata l’intera rete delle basi Usa. Da quella aerea di Aviano, dove probabilmente saranno concentrate tutte le bombe nucleari Usa in Europa, a quella di Vicenza, base della 173a brigata aviotrasportata e dello U.S. Army Africa (Esercito Usa per l’Africa). Da Camp Darby, la base logistica che rifornisce le forze terrestri e aeree Usa, a quella aeronavale di Sigonella, dove si trova uno dei due centri di rifornimento della U.
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
SPD und Grüne im Kosovo-Diskurs 1999
(von Kurt Gritsch - Zeit-Fragen, 08.11.2010)
Kurt Gritsch unterzieht die mediale Legitimation des „Kosovo-Kriegs“ einer skeptischen Revision
(von Franz Siepe - literaturkritik.de)
Da: truth @ public-files.deData: 21 novembre 2010 14.15.31 GMT+01.00-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:35:10 +0100
Von: "Y.&K.Truempy"
Betreff: Kosovo: Linke 1999 Erfüllungsgehilfen der NATOWeitere Literaturangaben Zu Srebrenica:
Alexander Dorin, Zoran Jovanovic
Srebrenica – wie es wirklich war
Unterdrückte Tatsachen über die an Serben begangenen Massaker 1992–1995Srebrenica
von Alexander Dorin
Die Geschichte eines salonfähigen Rassismus
Weitere Links:
Bücher von Gritsch:Peter Handke und "Gerechtigkeit für Serbien" Eine Rezeptionsgeschichte von Kurt Gritsch von Studienverlag (Broschiert - 24. März 2009)
Inszenierung eines gerechten Krieges?: Intellektuelle, Medien und der "Kosovo-Krieg" 1999. von Kurt Gritsch von Olms, Georg (Taschenbuch - Juni 2010)
=== 1 ===
Pro memoria: Von der «Friedenspartei» zur Kriegstreiberei
SPD und Grüne im Kosovo-Diskurs 1999
von Kurt Gritsch
1999 führte die Nato ihren ersten Krieg out of area, was für Deutschland, das sich an der «Operation Allied Forces» beteiligte, zugleich die erste kriegerische Betätigung seit 1945 darstellte. Die politischen Eliten, welche den neuen Kurs verantworteten, entstammten indes nicht, wie bis zum Ende des kalten Krieges zu vermuten gewesen wäre, dem rechtskonservativen Lager. Ähnlich wie in zahlreichen anderen Nato-Ländern waren auch in Deutschland 1999 linksgerichtete Parteien an der Macht. Deren Bedeutung zur Rechtfertigung der «humanitären Intervention», angeblich zum Schutz der von Serbien bedrohten Kosovo-Albaner, wird von Befürwortern wie Kritikern der Luftangriffe auf Jugoslawien gleichermassen anerkannt.
Nur eine rot-grüne Regierung habe Deutschland in einen Krieg führen können, «ohne die deutsche Gesellschaft einer Zerreissprobe auszusetzen, die alle innenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen an Schärfe und Bedrohlichkeit in den Schatten gestellt hätte.»1 Dabei wurde der Topos des linken Antifaschismus zur Legitimation der Luftangriffe verwendet.2 Wie die USA Deutschland vom Hitler-Terror befreit hätten, müssten nun die Deutschen Jugoslawien vom Neo-Hitler Milosevic befreien:
«Diese Wiederbelebung des Hitler-Gespenstes richtet sich vor allem gegen die bisher kriegsunwilligen Deutschen und die dortige Friedensbewegung, […] Sie wirkt vor allem bei den Medien, die bis heute nicht müde werden, den Krieg als Normalfall hinzustellen.»3
Allerdings hatten die USA NS-Deutschland keineswegs alleine besiegt. Abgesehen von den Westalliierten Grossbritannien und Frankreich hatte die Sowjetunion die Hauptlast getragen und neben Auschwitz zahlreiche weitere Vernichtungslager in Osteuropa befreit. Dennoch kämpfte die UdSSR keineswegs aus humanitären Gründen gegen das «Dritte Reich». Gleiches gilt für die USA, die in den Krieg weder wegen Pearl Harbor eingetreten waren, noch um «die Juden» zu retten, sondern weil sie ihre aussenpolitischen und geostrategischen Interessen insbesondere im Pazifik bedroht sahen.4 Schon von daher bleibt eine auf den Zweiten Weltkrieg aufbauende moralische Rechtfertigung fragwürdig. Eine ethische Verpflichtung durch «Auschwitz» müsste auf einen Krieg aus ausschliesslich humanitären Interessen hinauslaufen, was es in der Geschichte noch nie gegeben hat. Damit kann ein drohender Genozid nur durch pluralistische, heterogene zivile Organisationen wie OSZE und Uno glaubwürdig bekämpft werden.
Diese Präambel sollte vorausgeschickt werden, um die Inszenierung der Luftangriffe als «gerechten Krieg» durch linksgerichtete Politiker in Deutschland besser verstehen zu können – eine Inszenierung, die gerade deshalb so überzeugend gelang, weil SPD und Grüne in ihrer Vergangenheit den Slogan «Nie wieder Krieg» vertreten hatten. Vorgeblich linksgerichtet, konnten sie im historisch günstigen Moment um so leichter konservative Positionen wie die Remilitarisierung der deutschen Aussenpolitik erobern, da sie auf Grund ihrer Geschichte als unverdächtiger in Bezug auf Machtpolitik galten als CDU- und FDP-Kreise. Ähnliches gilt für mehrere Nato-Mitgliedsstaaten. Die «Wandlung der Friedenstauben zu Falken»5 aus moralischen Gründen erfolgte in den USA ebenso wie in Deutschland. Die Grünen trugen wesentlich dazu bei, «einen breiten Konsens in der deutschen Politik und der öffentlichen Meinung zugunsten der Nato-Intervention zu erreichen».6 Während sich deutsche Linke im neuen Interventionismus wie die US-Liberalen auf Menschenrechte und insbesondere auf den Antifaschismus beriefen, bezog die US-Linke ihren Bellizismus aus der «Vorstellung von multikulturellem Pluralismus, dem friedlichen Zusammenleben unterschiedlicher Kulturen und Religionen».7
Der Versuch der CDU/FDP-Regierung Kohl, die Nachkriegsordnung einer Revision zu unterziehen, kam nach der erfolgten «Wiedervereinigung» nicht überraschend. Dass hingegen Sozialdemokraten und Grüne die Bestrebungen des Landes, nach 1945 erneut eine militärisch aktive Macht zu werden, massgeblich befördern würden, verwunderte, oberflächlich betrachtet, eher. Immerhin hiess es im SPD-Programm zur Bundestagswahl 1998 noch, die Bundeswehr diene zur Landes- und Bündnisverteidigung und könne darüber hinaus nur für Uno- oder OSZE-mandatierte Friedensmissionen eingesetzt werden. Die Nato wurde als Verteidigungsbündnis bezeichnet und betont, dass das «globale Gewaltmonopol zur Sicherung des Weltfriedens» ausschliesslich bei den Vereinten Nationen liege.8 «Deutsche Aussenpolitik ist Friedenspolitik»,9 schrieben SPD und Grüne in die Koalitionsvereinbarungen. Auslandeinsätze deutscher Soldaten orientierten sich dort ebenfalls am Völkerrecht. Sogar der Rat der Friedensforscher und die Förderung der Friedensforschung wurden vermerkt.10 Wie konnte es unter diesen Voraussetzungen zum Bruch des Völkerrechts durch die Beteiligung am Luftkrieg kommen?
Die Sozialdemokratie in Krise und Wandel
Hans Joachim Giessmann vom Hamburger Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik machte im Juni 1999 den Anpassungsdruck als Regierungsparteien dafür verantwortlich, «dass fast alle neuen Ideen in der Koalitionsvereinbarung mittlerweile ad acta gelegt worden sind – einschliesslich der Förderung der Friedensforschung».11 Allerdings war die Hoffnung auf eine friedliche Aussenpolitik angesichts der bellizistischen Äusserungen Fischers12 und Schröders13 zu Oppositionszeiten bereits fragwürdig gewesen, mit der Regierungsübernahme verlor sie weiter an Berechtigung. Bei der Reaktivierung militärischer Gewalt als Mittel der Aussenpolitik und damit der Übernahme einer zentralen konservativen Position kam der Koalition aus Sozialdemokraten und Grünen entgegen, dass «sie die einzigen sind, die Kriege führen und gleichzeitig den Protest auf der Strasse lahmen».14 Der Soziologe Ralf Dahrendorf hatte schon 1979 konstatiert, dass rechte Sozialdemokraten nicht zufällig die konsequentesten Konservativen würden. Denn während letztere nach Grundsatzprogrammen suchten, kämen erstere sowohl mit einem Minimum an Programm als auch an Regierung aus, «sie lassen die vorherrschenden Annahmen der Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik unbestritten, kümmern sich im übrigen um law and order und um die Verwaltung des Bestehenden».15 Dies deshalb, weil die Sozialdemokratie angesichts der Institutionalisierung der Demokratie, des Massenwohlstandes und der Bürgerrechte am Ende sei. Da das grosse Programm verwirklicht wurde, machten sich seine Vertreter nun zu Bewahrern.16 Auch wenn der sozialdemokratische Konsensus noch eine Zeitlang überleben werde, sei er dennoch erledigt, weil Wandlungen und neue Entwicklungen nicht mehr hervorgebracht und sogar eigene Widersprüche hervorgerufen würden.17 Vor diesem Hintergrund ist das Renegatentum zu betrachten – ehemalige Linke, die sich von den alten ideologischen Formeln losgesagt und die einst kritisierten Positionen eingenommen haben. Handelt es sich bei diesen «Verrätern»18 um Opportunisten oder um Menschen, die sich weltanschaulich weiterentwickelt haben?19
Der Soziologe Frank Deppe jedenfalls kritisierte am 7.September 1999, dass viele Linke Macht und Interessen nicht analysierten und unfähig seien oder sich dagegen wehrten, herrschende Legitimationsmuster ideologiekritisch zu überprüfen. Deppe zufolge manifestierten sich in der mit «Globalisierung» charakterisierten neuen Weltordnung «ökonomische Sachzwänge, denen sich die Politik unterzuordnen hat».20 Krieg stelle dabei nur eine radikalere politische Gangart einer in sich kohärenten Politik der «Ideologen des dritten Weges, der neuen Mitte und der neuen Sozialdemokratie» dar:
«Der Krieg neuen Typs ist die gewaltsame, aber auch reine Form dessen, was Stephen Gilt […] als ‹disciplinary neoliberalism› bezeichnet hat, das heisst: der Neoliberalismus im Übergang von der Marktliberalisierung zur politischen (auch militärischen) Disziplinierung, denn die Marktliberalisierung hat die Widersprüche, die sie überwinden wollte, keineswegs aufgehoben, sondern eher noch verstärkt und neue Widersprüche und Konflikte erzeugt. Daher tritt nun die Seite der politischen Repression sehr viel stärker in den Vordergrund.»21
Noch Mitte der 1990er Jahre hatten zahlreiche Deutsche ihre Hoffnung auf Frieden in die Politik von Sozialdemokraten und Grünen gesetzt. Wer, wenn nicht die Generation der ehemaligen «68er», von der sich viele Mitglieder der späteren Regierungsparteien in der Friedensbewegung engagiert hatten,22 sollte dafür sorgen? Das Gegenteil war der Fall. Die SPD-Spitze liess sich bereits im Februar 1994 vom nationalistischen Politikwissenschaftler Tilman Fichter,23 zwischen 1986 und 2001 Referent für Schulung und Bildung im Parteivorstand, ideologisch auf einen Nato-Angriff gegen Jugoslawien vorbereiten, obwohl die Parteimehrheit noch im selben Jahr und vor dem «Schlüsselereignis Srebrenica» vergeblich gegen Auslandeinsätze deutscher Soldaten vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht klagte.24 So scheiterte der pazifistische Flügel einerseits am Bundesverfassungsgericht, andererseits am eigenen Vorstand. Mit welchen Argumenten rüstete sich indes die Parteispitze? Es gelte, «Verantwortung zu übernehmen»:
«Denn der versuchte [sic!] Völkermord der Deutschen und Österreicher in Auschwitz an den europäischen Juden verpflichtet geradezu die Demokraten in Deutschland (beziehungsweise in Österreich) zu einem eindeutigen Engagement für Menschenrechte und die bürgerlichen Freiheiten.»25
Unter tatkräftiger Mitwirkung der Grünen wurde Deutschland schliesslich mehr als 50 Jahre nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs erneut zur militärisch aktiven Macht.26 Dabei vollzog sich quasi über Nacht unter Zustimmung einer zur Verfassungsänderung berechtigten Bundestagsmehrheit ein Paradigmenwechsel, der in dieser Geschwindigkeit selbst Konservative überraschte.27 Diesem Konsens unterlagen auch innerparteiliche Kritiker. Die Linke der SPD um den «Frankfurter Kreis» und seinen Sprecher Detlev von Larcher bemühte sich zwar nach Beginn des Nato-Bombardements um ein Ende der Kriegshandlungen, konnte sich jedoch ebenso wenig gegen Schröders Mehrheit behaupten28 wie Vorstandsmitglied Hermann Scheer oder die Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialdemokratischer Juristen (ASJ) unter ihrem Vorsitzenden Klaus Hahnzog.29 Auf dem SPD-Sonderparteitag in Bonn am 12. April stimmte schliesslich eine grosse Mehrheit für die rot-grüne Kosovo-Politik.30 Innerparteilichen Streit gab es auch bei den Grünen, und nicht erst auf dem Parteitag am 13.Mai in Bielefeld, als Fischer von einem militanten Kritiker mit einem Farbbeutel beworfen wurde. Angelika Beer, verteidigungspolitische Sprecherin und Interventionsbefürworterin, erhob nach der Veröffentlichung von Details des Rambouillet-Textes schwere Vorwürfe gegen den Aussenminister.31 Doch auch Proteste der pazifistischen Mitglieder nützten nichts. Der Politologe Elmar Altvater, einer der Gründerväter der Grünen und einer ihrer wichtigsten wissenschaftlichen Köpfe, erklärte anschliessend seinen Rückzug. Er warf den Grünen u.a. vor, durch den Bielefelder Beschluss eine Aussenpolitik zu unterstützen, «die nicht nur für einen illegalen Krieg verantwortlich ist, sondern Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit billigend und unterstützend hinnimmt».32 Altvater bezichtigte seine Partei, mit der Nato ein Kriegsziel zu verfolgen, das jede politische Lösung ausschliesse, indem es entweder die Kapitulation Jugoslawiens, «wie sie im Rambouillet-Diktat (von Vertrag zu sprechen verbietet die politische Kultur) vorgesehen war oder die Zerstörung von Land und Gesellschaft Jugoslawiens und möglicherweise darüber hinaus»33 nach sich ziehe. Die Delegiertenmehrheit habe in Bielefeld den Rubikon überschritten, so Altvater, der für die Politik Fischers vernichtende Worte fand:
«Die Rechtfertigung des Bielefelder Beschlusses mit den ‹Friedensinitiativen›34 des Aussenministers ist daher lächerlich, wenn man Dummheit attestiert, oder zynisch, wenn man annimmt, dass die Leute wissen, worum es geht.»35
Jugoslawien-Diskurs für Nato-Einsätze und Joseph Fischers Rolle
Doch wie war es so weit gekommen? Ein Blick zurück: Bedingt durch ihre Nato-kritische und antimilitaristische Vergangenheit war es für die «68er» grundsätzlich zuerst einmal nicht einfach, in ihrer Rolle als Staatsregenten Krieg als Mittel der Politik zu relegalisieren. Da sie kapitalistischen wie geostrategischen Interessen als Motivation für militärische Gewalt als Oppositionelle offiziell skeptisch (SPD) bis ablehnend (Grüne) gegenübergestanden hatten, konnte man als Regierungskoalition die Basis nur mühsam auf den neuen Kurs umstimmen. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Grünen, welche im Unterschied zur SPD lange Zeit gegen die Integration Deutschlands in die Nato gewesen waren. Die zunehmende Aufweichung der militärische Gewalt ablehnenden Position gelang in den 1990er Jahren durch die Interpretation des «Jugoslawien-Krieges» als vermeintlichen oder tatsächlichen Exzess von Vertreibungen und Völkermord. Die entscheidende Wende geschah durch die Abkehr von der als unzulänglich diskreditierten Uno und zeitgleicher Hinwendung zur Nato. Die Instrumentalisierung des jugoslawischen Bürgerkriegs diente dem Aufbauen des Nordatlantikpakts als angeblich effizientes Lösungsinstrument anstelle von UN-Friedensmissionen. Massgebend war die Wahrnehmung der Bürgerkriegsereignisse in den Parametern des Zweiten Weltkriegs bei gleichzeitiger Zuschreibung der «Nazi-Rolle» an eine Bürgerkriegsseite, i.e. an Serbien. Während alle Parteien Gefangenenlager hatten und die Anzahl nicht disproportional zur militärischen Stärke war, wie das Internationale Rote Kreuz im Sommer 1992 feststellte,36 mutierten gerade im politisch sensiblen Lager der Linken, insbesondere bei den Grünen, Gefangenenlager zu KZs. Gleichzeitig verlor man, absichtlich oder nicht, die Verantwortung aller Kriegsparteien für die Menschenrechtsverletzungen aus den Augen und konzentrierte sich zunehmend nur mehr auf die lange Zeit stärkste Partei, die bosnisch-serbische Seite, die von der JVA unterstützt wurde. Mit der fragwürdigen Kolportierung des angeblichen Genozids an den bosnischen Muslimen war lange vor den Ereignissen von Srebrenica die Basis für einen ethischen Diskurs gelegt, dem sich nicht nur kaum jemand – und erst recht niemand aus der antifaschistischen «Rebellengeneration» – zu widersetzen traute, sondern der gerade wegen seiner Moralisierung dem Denken der «68er-Generation» entsprach. Hatte sie nicht dem Recht der Staatsgewalt die für die eigenen Vorstellungen beanspruchte Moral entgegengestellt und den Faschismus der Väter gegeisselt? Mit derselben Inbrunst predigten sie nun als Regierende das Gegenteil dessen, was sie einst gefordert hatten, aber immer noch im Namen der Humanität: «Aus ‹Frieden schaffen ohne Waffen› wird ‹Frieden – mit aller Gewalt›.»37 Der von der Friedensbewegung entlehnte moralische Imperativ führte dazu, dass alle Argumente unterhalb der grossen ethischen Geste für belanglos erklärt wurden.38
Es lässt sich feststellen, dass SPD und speziell Grüne ihrer Basis generelle Kriegszustimmung prinzipiell zwar schwerer, aber unter «richtiger», i.e. moralisch begründeter Argumentation, glaubwürdiger abringen konnten als Christdemokraten und FDP. Gegen deren Kriegspolitik hätte man als Opposition eher protestiert, was umgekehrt nicht zu erwarten war, weil die CDU militärischem Engagement ausserhalb der bundesdeutschen Grenzen grundsätzlich nicht ablehnend gegenüberstand. Dies erklärt die Stilisierung des autoritären Milosevic-Regimes zur faschistischen Diktatur – denn um den Gesinnungsbruch, der schon lange vorbereitet und nach dem Gang in die Regierung schliesslich umgesetzt worden war, zu verschleiern, knüpfte Rot-Grün an das amerikanische Konzept des «Schurkenstaates» an.39
Bis Ende 1994 noch Gegner einer Nato-Einmischung, wandelte Joseph «Joschka» Fischer seine Position so konsequent,40 dass Verteidigungsminister Volker Rühe (CDU) im Juni 1998 befürchtete, von ihm in der Forderung nach militärischer Intervention in Jugoslawien überholt zu werden.41 Eine, wenn nicht die zentrale Rolle auf dem Weg der deutschen Linken von «make Love not War» zu «Krieg für Menschenrechte» spielte damit ein Mann, der in jungen Jahren als erklärter Antifaschist auf Polizisten eingeprügelt und sich später vom Kleinbürgertum an die Macht gekämpft hatte. Er wurde zur Galionsfigur, zur moralischen Autorität einer Bewegung, die sich für Frieden einsetzte und am Ende Krieg führte. Dabei hatte Fischer 1991 noch seiner Hoffnung Ausdruck verliehen, die Grüne Partei möge genug Kraft haben, damit Pazifisten eine «friedensbezogene Aussenpolitik ohne Militär»42 machten. Ende Dezember 1994 erklärte er, eine deutsche Beteiligung an UN-Einsätzen und die Debatten darüber würden bloss als Türöffner für das Bestreben der Bundesregierung, Deutschland aussenpolitisch voll handlungsfähig zu machen, benutzt.43 Im Streitgespräch mit dem Interventionsbefürworter und Parteifreund Daniel Cohn-Bendit sagte er u.a.:
«Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass deutsche Soldaten dort, wo im Zweiten Weltkrieg die Hitler-Soldateska gewütet hat, den Konflikt anheizen und nicht deeskalieren würden. […] Das ist mein grosses Problem […], wenn ich sehe, wie die Bundesregierung den Bundestag an der Nase, an der humanitären Nase, in den Bosnienkrieg führen will.»44
Was aber hat Fischer vom Interventionsgegner zum Befürworter werden lassen? Seit Srebrenica habe er seine Position verändert, verkündete er am 19. April 1999, denn ihm sei klar geworden, «dass Appeasement gegenüber Milosevic immer nur zu weiteren Massengräbern führen»45 werde. Damit instrumentalisierte Fischer jenes Ereignis, das bis heute westliche Massenmedien und Gesellschaften als Beweis für serbischen Völkermord gilt. Skepsis hierbei ist allerdings nicht nur auf Grund der bis dato nicht sehr zahlreichen Quellen zu Srebrenica46 oder der fragwürdigen Wahrheitssuche durch das Den Haager Tribunal47 geboten. 1999 wandten sich auch Diskutierende gegen die Instrumentalisierung Srebrenicas zugunsten des Nato-Angriffs auf Jugoslawien, die an der Interpretation des Massakers als Völkermord festhielten. So forderte der in Dortmund beheimatete Verein «Vive Zene» (Frauen lebt), der sich in Tuzla um kriegstraumatisierte Frauen kümmert, im Vorfeld des Grünen Parteitags vom 13. Mai 1999 in einem offenen Brief an Minister Fischer u. a. die sofortige Beendigung der Bombenangriffe, die Anklage aller Kriegsverbrecher, egal welcher Seite, eine Uno-Friedenstruppe und die Aufnahme von weiteren Kosovo-Flüchtlingen in Deutschland. Vive Zene begründete ihre Kriegsgegnerschaft folgendermassen:
«Monate, bevor Sie auf der Bundesversammlung der Grünen im Dezember 1995 für militärische Kampfeinsätze der Bundeswehr plädierten, haben wir auf die schreckliche Situation in der sogenannten damaligen ‹Schutzzone› Srebrenica aufmerksam gemacht. […] Wir haben aber auch jedesmal auf Grund unserer eigenen langjährigen Erfahrungen vor Gewalt-Eskalationen im ehemaligen Jugoslawien und in allen Ländern der Welt gewarnt, in denen die militärische Logik den letzten Rest von humanitärem Handeln beseitigt. […] Es ist nicht einfach nur ‹Prinzip›, es ist nicht Pazifismus, der uns leitet, es ist Erfahrung und Bewusstsein, Studium der Historie einschliesslich unserer eigenen deutschen Vergangenheit, Diskussion mit Expertinnen.»48
Explizit distanzierte sich Vive Zene von der militärischen Logik des Aussenministers:
«Herr Fischer, damals auf der Bundesversammlung kannten Sie Srebrenica nicht, auch die Frauen nicht, die bis heute um ihr Überleben nach dem Krieg bemüht sind. […] Sie, Herr Fischer, konnten damals noch nicht einmal den Namen der Stadt, die Ihnen so am Herzen lag, richtig aussprechen. Sie sagten ‹Schrebrenidscha›, das wäre weiter nicht schlimm, hätten Sie nicht so getan, als würden Sie es kennen, und hätten Sie nicht mit ‹Schrebrenidscha› ihre Kriegslogik verinnerlicht.»49
Letztlich setzte der Regierungspolitiker Fischer das um, was er als Oppositioneller vier Jahre zuvor kritisiert hatte. Seine ehedem geäusserte Sorge, mitansehen zu müssen, «wie die rechtlichen und historischen Barrieren abgeräumt werden zugunsten einer völligen Optionsfreiheit der deutschen Aussenpolitik mit militärischen Mitteln»,50 wurde durch ihn selbst zur Realität. Allerdings wurde dies inzwischen in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit positiv interpretiert, und so folgte der Wandlung «vom Paulus zum Saulus»51 eine ganze Generation in der Instrumentalisierung des Massakers von Srebrenica als Argument für militärische Interventionen. Weil Pazifismus «Lifestyle, die Mehrheitskultur der achtziger Jahre»52 gewesen war, hatte sich Fischer, obwohl selbst nicht von pazifistischer Vergangenheit,53 gegen Nato, Wiedervereinigung und militärische Emanzipation Deutschlands gestellt. Und so, wie sich in den 1990ern die Mode von Turnschuhen und Pazifismus in italienische Massanzüge und «humanitäre Interventionen» wandelte, passte Fischer seine politischen Positionen an den Zeitgeist an, wobei er sich bei seinem Aufstieg von links unten nach rechts oben jener Salamitaktik bediente, welche er seinen politischen Gegnern zuvor angekreidet hatte.54
1 Heiko Hänsel/Heinz-Günter Stobbe, Die deutsche Debatte um den Kosovo-Krieg: Schwerpunkte und Ergebnisse. Versuch einer Bilanz nach drei Jahren! (verfasst im Auftrag der Heinrich Böll Stiftung), Berlin, März 2002 (Internet-Publikation als pdf-Datei), S. 121.
2 Zur Diskussion Linke und Krieg vgl. Die Linke im Krieg. Streitgespräch zwischen Jutta Ditfurth, Thomas Ebermann, Jürgen Elsässer und Hermann L. Gremliza, in: Konkret 7/1999, S. 14–19; Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Wer vom Totalitarismus schweigt, sollte auch nicht über die Freiheit reden, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 6–10; Zur Rolle der 68er-Linken vgl. Klaus Theweleit, Logical, radical, criminal. Der Krieg als letztes Mittel, erwachsen zu werden, oder: Warum die Alt-68er in der neuen Regierung ohne Zögern bereit waren, Völkerrecht und Grundgesetz zu brechen, in: Konkret 5/1999, S. 22–29; Gerd Koenen, Ach, Achtundsechzig. Fischer, das «Rote Jahrzehnte» und wir, in: Kommune 2/2001, S. 6–11; Martin Altmeyer, Geschichte, Mythos, Psychodynamik. Deutungsmuster in der 68er-Debatte, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 36ff.; Siegfried Knittel, Aufrechter Gang und krummer Weg. 68er-Revolte paradox, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 39f.: Kurt Seifert, Achtundsechziger Erbe, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 45.
3 Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt (Neue Kleine Bibliothek 94), Köln 20052, S. 78.
4 Vgl. Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit. The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, London 2000, S. 253.
5 Michaela Schiessl, «Politik der Predigten». Während konservative Amerikaner den Kosovo-Krieg stoppen wollen, plädieren die Liberalen für den Einmarsch, in: Der Spiegel 21, 24.5.1999.
6 Hänsel/Stobbe, Die deutsche Debatte um den Kosovo-Krieg, S. 121.
7 Schiessl, Der Spiegel, 24.5.1999.
8 Zitiert nach Ano Neuber, Armee für alle Fälle. Der Umbau der Bundeswehr zur Interventionsarmee, ISW-Report 44, August 2000, S. 7.
9 Jürgen Elsässer, Kriegslügen. Vom Kosovo-Konflikt zum Milosevic-Prozess, Berlin 2004, S. 76.
10 Vgl. Koalitionsvereinbarung zwischen SPD und Grünen, auszugsweise abgedruckt in: Internationale Politik 12/1998, S. 67–79, S. 75. Zitiert nach Jana Puglierin, Zwischen realistischen Interessen und moralischem Anspruch. Eine theoriegeleitete Analyse der deutschen Aussenpolitik seit 1989/90 (Studien zur Internationalen Politik Heft l), Hamburg 2004, S. 55.
11 Hubert Wetzel, «Engstirnig, völkerrechtswidrig, erfolglos». Wissenschaftler kritisieren die Strategie der Nato im Kosovo-Krieg, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 9.6.1999.
12 Vgl. Elsässer, Kriegsverbrechen, S. 38.
13 Schröder hatte als Kanzlerkandidat schon am 16. August 1998 verkündet, sich ein Eingreifen der Nato in Kosovo auch ohne Uno-Mandat vorstellen zu können. Vgl. Ralph Hartmann, Es war Vorsatz im Spiel: Ziel des Krieges war der Krieg, in: Wolfgang Richter/Elmar Schmähling/Eckart Spoo (Hg.), Die Wahrheit über den Nato-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz 2000, S. 62–68, S. 63.
14 Rafik Schami, Mit fremden Augen gesehen, in: Wochenzeitung, 20.5.1999.
15 Ralf Dahrendorf, Lebenschancen. Anläufe zur sozialen und politischen Theorie, Frankfurt a.M. 1979, S. 147.
16 Ebd., S. 149.
17 Ebd., S. 150f.
18 Innerhalb dieser Diskussion wird der Begriff als Abkehr von der traditionellen Lehre und damit sachlich beschreibend und nicht moralisch wertend verwendet.
19 Jörg Lau, Die Verräter sind unter uns. Cohn-Bendit, Enzensberger, Fischer & Co.; Sie kämpften für die Weltrevolution, nun verteidigen sie Grundgesetz, Unternehmertum oder Nato-Bomben. Nie waren Renegaten einflussreicher als heute. Ist ihre Inkonsequenz Klugheit oder Opportunismus?, in: Die Zeit, 22.4.1999.
20 Frank Deppe, Nach dem Krieg ist vor dem Krieg. Die Risiken der «Neuen Weltordnung» und die neue Strategie der Nato, in: Junge Welt, 7.9.1999.
21 Deppe, Junge Welt, 7.9.1999.
22 Zur Geschichte der deutschen Friedensbewegung vgl. Willi van Ooyen, Aspekte der politischen und historischen Entwicklungen der Friedensbewegung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Michael Berndt/Ingrid El Masry (Hg.), Konflikt, Entwicklung, Frieden. Emanzipatorische Perspektiven in einer zerrissenen Welt (Kasseler Schriften zur Friedenspolitik 8), Festschrift für Werner Ruf, Kassel 2003, S. 309–325.
23 Fichter gehörte 1992 zu den Neugründern des Hofgeismarer Kreises, der an die Tradition des ersten Hofgeismarer Kreises national gesinnter Jungsozialisten zwischen 1923 und 1926 anknüpfte. Vgl. www.de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilman_Fichter, 31.8.2010.
24 Elsässer, Kriegslügen, S. 36.
25 Tilman Fichter, In der neuen Heimat der Weltmoral? Deutschland, die Völkergemeinschaft und der bosnische Krieg. Die Gewalt entwaffnen, in: Die Welt, 26.2.1994, zitiert nach Hartmann, Es war Vorsatz im Spiel, S. 63.
26 Zum Wandel deutscher Aussenpolitik seit 1990 vgl. Rafael Biermann, Deutsche Konfliktbewilligung auf dem Balkan – eine Einführung, in: Ders. (Hrg.), Deutsche Konfliktbewältigung auf dem Balkan. Erfahrungen und Lehren aus dem Einsatz (Schriften des Zentrums für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Center for European Integration Studies der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 37), Baden-Baden 2002, S. 13–36.
27 Klaus Naumann, Vorwort, in: Rafael Biermann (Hg.), Deutsche Konfliktbewältigung auf dem Balkan. Erfahrungen und Lehren aus dem Einsatz (Schriften des Zentrums für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Center for European Integration Studies der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 37), Baden-Baden 2002, S. 7–12, S. 7.
28 Christoph Schwennicke, SPD-Linke fordert sofortiges Ende der Kampfhandlungen. «Bombardement der Nato wendet die Katastrophe im Kosovo nicht ab, sondern beschleunigt sie», in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 7.4.1999.
29 Ebd.
30 Reuters, Die Entschliessung der SPD zum Kosovo, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 13.4.1999.
31 swn, Angelika Beer: Nicht alle diplomatischen Spielräume genutzt. Kosovo-Einsatz spaltet die Grünen, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12.4.1999.
32 Elmar Altvater, «Nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank», in: Junge Welt, 19. S. 1999.
33 Ebd.
34 Der Plan vom 14. April 1999 sah eine 24stündige Feuerpause, die Einbindung Russlands in die Nachkriegsentwicklung, ein UN-Mandat, den Rückzug serbischer Truppen, die Entmilitarisierung der UÇK und die Implementierung einer Übergangsverwaltung vor. Der politische Status des Kosovo sollte später geklärt werden. Vgl. SZ, EU will Annan in Friedenslösung einbinden. Staats- und Regierungschefs beraten auf Brüsseler Sondergipfel mit dem UN-Generalsekretär. Forderungen an Belgrad sollen als Resolution in den Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen eingebracht werden, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 15.4.1999. – Am 6. Mai 1999 wurde der Plan auf dem Treffen der G 8 beraten und am 2. Juni angenommen. Das serbische Parlament stimmte am 3. Juni nach der Zusage territorialer Unversehrtheit Jugoslawiens zu.
35 Altvater, Junge Welt, 19. Mai 1999.
36 George Kenney, Desinfomation der Medien führte zur Intervention in Bosnien, in: Novo 27, 3/4 1997, S. 26f., zitiert nach www.novo-magazin.de/itn-vs-lm/novo27-6.htm, 31.8.2010.
37 Heribert Prantl, Franz von Assisi und die Nato. Wohin ist der deutsche Pazifismus verschwunden?, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26.3.1999.
38 Cora Stephan, Der moralische Imperativ. Die Friedensbewegung und die neue deutsche Aussenpolitik, in: Thomas Schmid (Hg,.), Krieg im Kosovo, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1999, S. 269–277, S. 272.
39 Heinz Loquai, Der Kosovo-Konflikt – Wege in einen vermeidbaren Krieg. Die Zeit von Ende November 1997 bis März 1999 (Demokratie, Sicherheit, Frieden 129), Baden-Baden 2000, S. 158.
40 Zur Sichtweise Fischers vgl. Joschka Fischer, Die rot-grünen Jahre. Deutsche Aussenpolitik – vom Kosovo bis zum 11. September, Köln 2007.
41 «Wenn ich Sie sprechen höre, habe ich manchmal Angst, dass Sie die sofortige Bombardierung Belgrads fordern, nur um im Rennen der Realpolitiker weiter vorn zu sein.» Volker Rühe am 19. Juni 1998 im Bundestag, zitiert nach Jürgen Elsässer, Kriegsverbrechen. Die tödlichen Lügen der Bundesregierung und ihre Opfer im Kosovo Konflikt (Konkret Texte 27), Hamburg 2000, S. 38.
42 Prantl, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26.3.1999.
43 Matthias Geis/Andrea Seibel, Warten auf den nächsten Parteitag, in: taz, 30.12.1994. Vgl. auch Fischers Aussagen in der Wochenzeitung Die Woche, 30.12.1994.
44 Geis/Seibel, taz, 30.12.1994.
45 Spiegel-Gespräch, «Milosevic wird der Verlierer sein». Aussenminister Joschka Fischer über den Stand im Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, über die Kriegsziele der Nato und seine fehlgeschlagene Friedensinitiative, in: Der Spiegel, 19.4.1999.
46 George Pumphrey, Sechs Quellen der Srebrenica Legende, 2/2010, zitiert nach www.free- slobo.de/news/l0020gp.pdf, 31.8.2010.
47 Vgl. Germinal Civikov, Srebrenica. Der Kronzeuge, Wien 2009.
48 Vive Zene e. V., Erst «seit Srebrenica»? Das Zentrum für Frauen und Kinder in Tuzia (Bosnien) – Vive Zone e.V. – wendet sich in einem Brief an Joschka Fischer, zitiert nach www.infopartisan.net/archive/kosovo/17199.html, 31.8.2010.
49 Ebd.
50 So Fischer im Interview mit Geis/Seibel, taz, 30.12.1994.
51 Prantl, Süddeutsche Zeitung 26.3.1999.
52 Ebd.
53 Vgl. www.de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka_Fischer, Update 29. Juli 2008.
54 Christian Y. Schmidt, Die Grünen, die Nato und der Krieg, in: Klaus Bittermann/Thomas Deichmann (Hg), Wie Dr. Joseph Fischer lernte, die Bombe zu lieben. Die SPD, die Grünen, die Nato und der Krieg auf dem Balkan (Critica Diabolis 86), Berlin 1999, S. 133–154; Andreas Spannbauer, Der lange Marsch, in: Jürgen Elsässer (Hg.), Nie wieder Krieg ohne uns, Berlin 1999, S. 43–49; Jutta Ditfurth, Zahltag, Junker Joschka! (Teil 1–10), in: Neue Revue zwischen 14.10. und 16.12. 1999.
Bibliographie
Altmeyer, Martin, Geschichte, Mythos, Psychodynamik. Deutungsmuster in der 68er-Debatte, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 36–38.
Amendt, Günter, Psychogramm einer neuen Kriegsgeneration, in: Klaus Bittermann/Thomas Deichmann (Hg.), Wie Dr. Joseph Fischer lernte, die Bombe zu lieben. Die SPD, die Grünen, die Nato und der Krieg auf dem Balkan (Critica Diabolis 86), Berlin 1999, S. 155–159.
Beucker, Pascal, Pazifist der Reserve. Über die politische Karriere des Daniel Cohn-Bendit, in: Konkret 11/1995, S. 12–19.
Biermann, Rafael, Deutsche Konfliktbewältigung auf dem Balkan – eine Einführung, in: Ders. (Hg.), Deutsche Konfliktbewältigung auf dem Balkan. Erfahrungen und Lehren aus dem Einsatz (Schriften des Zentrums für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Center for European Integration Studies, der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 37), Baden-Baden 2002, S. 13–36.
Cohn-Bendit, Daniel, Wer vom Totalitarismus schweigt, sollte auch nicht über die Freiheit reden, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 6–10.
Dahrendorf, Ralf, Lebenschancen. Anläufe zur sozialen und politischen Theorie, Frankfurt a. M. 1979.
Deichmann, Thomas, Scharping-Lügen haben kurze Beine, in: NOVO 45, 3/4 2000, S. 38–43.
Ditfurth, Jutta, Zahltag, Junker Joschka! (Teil 1–10), in: Neue Revue zwischen 14.10. und 16.12.1999.
Hume, Mick, Whose War is it anyway? The Dangers of the Journalism of Attachment, London 1997.
Elsässer, Jürgen, Kriegslügen. Vom Kosovo-Konflikt zum Milosevic-Prozess, Berlin 2004.
Elsässer, Jürgen, Kriegsverbrechen. Die tödlichen Lügen der Bundesregierung und ihre Opfer im Kosovo-Konflikt (Konkret Texte 27), Hamburg 2000.
Elsässer, Jürgen/Markovits, Andrei S.; Ein deutsches Coming-out? Streitgespräch: Die Linke, der Krieg und mögliche Verkürzungen in Goldhagens Holocaust-Analyse. Statt eines Nachworts, in: Dies. (Hg.), «Die Fratze der eigenen Geschichte». Von der Goldhagen-Debatte zum Jugoslawien-Krieg, Berlin 1999. S. 186–202.
Elsässer, Jürgen, Lumpen-Intelligenzija. Die Grünen als Vollstrecker der negativen Aufhebung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, in: Konkret 6/99, S. 16–17.
Erler, Gernot, Ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste. Der deutsche ‹Historikerstreit› im Spiegel des Auslands, in: Gernot Erler/Rolf-Dieter Müller/Ulrich Rose/Thomas Schnabel/Gerd R. Ueberschär/Wolfram Wette (Hg.), Geschichtswende? Entsorgungsversuche zur deutschen Geschichte, Freiburg i.Br. 1987.
Finkenstein, Norman G., Die Holocaust-Industrie. Wie das Leiden der Juden ausgebeutet wird, München/Zürich 2001.
Fischer, Joschka, Die rot-grünen Jahre. Deutsche Aussenpolitik – vom Kosovo bis zum 11. September, Köln 2007.
Gremliza, Hermann L., Wenn die Deutschen Auschwitz nicht erfunden hätten, hätten sie Auschwitz erfinden müssen, in: Wolfgang Schneider (Hg.), Wir kneten ein KZ. Aufsätze über Deutschlands Standortvorteil bei der Bewältigung der Vergangenheit (Konkret Texte 24), Hamburg 2000,
S. 7–12.
Gremliza, Hermann L., Vorwort, in: Jürgen Elsässer (Hg.), Nie wieder Krieg ohne uns. Das Kosovo und die neue deutsche Geopolitik (Konkret Texte 22), Hamburg 1999, 5. 9–12.
Hänsel, Heiko/Stobbe, Heinz-Günter, Die deutsche Debatte um den Kosovo-Krieg: Schwerpunkte und Ergebnisse. Versuch einer Bilanz nach drei Jahren (verfasst im Auftrag der Heinrich Böll Stiftung), Berlin, März 2002 (Internet-Publikation als pdf-Datei).
Hartmann, Ralph, Es war Vorsatz im Spiel: Ziel des Krieges war der Krieg, in: Wolfgang Richter/Elmar Schmähling/Eckart Spoo (Hg.), Die Wahrheit über den Nato-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz 2000. S. 62–68.
Knittel, Siegfried. Aufrechter Gang und krummer Weg. 68er-Revolte paradox, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 39–40.
Koenen, Gerd, Ach, Achtundsechzig. Fischer, das ‹Rote Jahrzehnt› und wir, in: Kommune 2/2001, S. 6–11.
Konkret, Die Linke im Krieg. Streitgespräch zwischen Jutta Ditfurth, Thomas Ebermann, Jürgen Elsässer und Hermann L. Gremliza, in: Konkret 7/1999, S. 14–19.
Kunczik, Michael, Kriegsberichterstattung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in Kriegszeiten, in: Kurt Imhof/Peter Schulz (Hg.), Medien und Krieg – Krieg in den Medien (Medien-Symposium Luzem l), S. 87–104.
Kunstreich, Tjark, Der deutsche Krieg, in: Konkret 6/1999, S. 24–26.
Küntzel, Matthias, Milosevics willige Vollstrecker? Goldhagen, Deutschland und der Kosovo-Krieg, in: Jürgen Etsässer/Andrei S. Markovits (Hg.), «Die Fratze der eigenen Geschichte». Von der Goldhagen- Debatte zum Jugoslawien-Krieg, Berlin 1999, S. 171–181.
Loquai, Heinz, Der Kosovo-Konfikt – Wege in einen vermeidbaren Krieg. Die Zeit von Ende November 1997 bis März 1999 (Demokratie, Sicherheit, Frieden 129), Baden-Baden 2000.
Mies, Maria, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt (Neue Kleine Bibliothek 94), Köln 20052.
Naumann, Klaus, Vorwort, in: Rafael Biermann (Hg.), Deutsche Konfliktbewältigung auf dem Balkan. Erfahrungen und Lehren aus dem Einsatz (Schriften des Zentrums für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Center for European Integration Studies, der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 37), Baden-Baden 2002, S. 7–12.
Neuber, Arno, Armee für alle Fälle. Der Umbau der Bundeswehr zur Interventionsarmee, ISW-Report 44, August 2000.
Ooyen, Willi van, Aspekte der politischen und historischen Entwicklungen der Friedensbewegung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Michael Berndt/Ingrid El Masry (Hg.), Konflikt, Entwicklung, Frieden. Emanzipatorische Perspektiven in einer zerrissenen Welt (Kasseler Schriften zur Friedenspolitik 8), Festschrift für Werner Ruf, Kassel 2003, S. 309–325.
Piper, Ernst (Hg.), Gibt es wirklich eine Holocaust-Industrie? Zur Auseinandersetzung um Norman Finkelstein, Zürich/München 2001.
Puglierin, Jana, Zwischen realistischen Interessen und moralischem Anspruch. Eine theoriegeleitete Analyse der deutschen Aussenpolitik seit 1989/90 (Studien zur Internationalen Politik Heft l), Hamburg 2004.
Rensmann, Lars, Die Walserisierung der Berliner Republik. Geschichtsrevisionismus und antisemitische Projektion: Einwände gegen die These vom geläuterten Deutschland, in: Jürgen Elsässer/Andrei S. Markovits (Hg.), «Die Fratze der eigenen Geschichte». Von der Goldhagen-Debatte zum Jugoslawien-Krieg, Berlin 1999, S. 44–63.
Scharping, Rudolf, Wir dürfen nicht wegsehen. Der Kosovo-Krieg und Europa, Berlin 1999.
Rohloff, Joachim, Kriegsverwendungsfähig. Zwei Möglichkeiten, Auschwitz zu benutzen, um es zu erledigen, in: Wolfgang Schneider (Hg.), Wir kneten ein KZ. Aufsätze über Deutschlands Standortvorteil bei der Bewältigung der Vergangenheit (Konkret Texte 24), Hamburg 2000, S. 54–70.
Schirrmacher, Frank, Luftkampf. Deutschlands Anteil am Krieg, in: Ders. (Hg.), Der westliche Kreuzzug. 41 Positionen zum Kosovo-Krieg, Stuttgart 1999, S. 117–120.
Schirrmacher, Frank (Hg.), Die Waiser-Bubis-Debatte. Eine Dokumentation, Frankfurt a. M. 1999.
Schmidt, Christian Y., Die Grünen, die Nato und der Krieg, in: Klaus Bittermann/Thomas Deichmann (Hg.), Wie Dr. Joseph Fischer lernte, die Bombe zu lieben. Die SPD, die Grünen, die Nato und der Krieg auf dem Balkan (Critica Diabolis 86), Berlin 1999, S. 133–154.
Seesslen, Georg, Kriegsnovelle oder: Wie eine Erzählgemeinschaft für einen moralischen Krieg erzeugt wird, in: Klaus Bitternann/Thomas Deichmann, Wie Dr. Joseph Fischer lernte, die Bombe zu lieben. Die SPD, die Grünen, die Nato und der Krieg auf dem Balkan (Critica Diabolis 86), Berlin 1999, S. 169–184.
Seifert, Kurt, Achtundsechziger Erbe, in: Kommune 3/2001, S. 45.
Spannbauer, Andreas, Der lange Marsch, in: Jürgen Elsässer (Hg.), Nie wieder Krieg ohne uns, Berlin 1999, S. 43–49.
Stephan, Cora, Der moralische Imperativ. Die Friedensbewegung und die neue deutsche Aussenpolitik, in: Thomas Schmid (Hg.), Krieg im Kosovo, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1999, S. 269–277.
Stinnett, Robert B., Day of Deceit. The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, London 2000.
Surmann, Rolf (Hg.), Das Finkelstein-Alibi. ‹Holocaust-Industrie› und Tätergesellschaft, Köln 2001.
Theweleit, Klaus, Logical, radical, criminal. Der Krieg als letztes Mittel, erwachsen zu werden, oder: Warum die Alt-68er in der neuen Regierung ohne Zögern bereit waren, Völkerrecht und Grundgesetz zu brechen, in: Konkret 5/1999, S. 22–29.
Wiegel, Gerd/Klotz, Johannes (Hg.), Geistige Brandstiftung? Die Waiser-Bubis-Debatte, Köln 1999.
Zeit-Fragen, 08.11.2010
„Humanitärer“ Bellizismus
Kurt Gritsch unterzieht die mediale Legitimation des „Kosovo-Kriegs“ einer skeptischen Revision
Von Franz Siepe
di redazione*
Non esiste nessuno stato al mondo in cui una strage di cittadini inermi sia, dopo 36 anni, ancora impunita. Nessuna democrazia, almeno.
Nell'Italia del dopoguerra, invece, tutte le stragi sono rimaste senza colpevoli. Fa eccezione solo quella di Peteano, tre carabinieri uccisi il 31 maggio 1972, grazie a una circostanza irripetuta: l'esecutore materiale - il fascista Vincenzo Vinciguerra – si costituì, ricostruendo nei dettagli la trappola omicida.
Non ci stupisce dunque che il terzo processo per la strage di Piazza della Loggia, a Brescia, 28 maggio 1974, abbia visto concludere il primo grado con l'assoluzione di tutti e cinque gli imputati con una formula equivalente alla vecchia “insufficienza di prove”.
Anzi, ne eravamo praticamente certi. Questo Stato, allora, non aveva sciolto la sua continuità con gli apparati repressivi del fascismo, riciclati in funzione anticomunista dai servizi segreti Usa. Il principale “bombarolo” dei gruppi neo fascisti, Carlo Digilio, ha confessato di esser stato sia un neonazista di Ordine Nuovo che un agente statunitense. Preparando tra l'altro la bomba esplosa in Piazza Fontana, a Milano, il 12 dicembre 1969, di cui era già stata pianificata l'accusa agli anarchici.
Questa parte dello Stato non ha subito mai alcuna riforma effettiva. E' una semplice dependance delle varie agenzie Usa. E la magistratura, quando è stata chiamata a dire una parola chiara sulle stragi, ha sempre preso atto – senza troppe angosce - che esisteva una sovranità superiore, sovraordinante. E intangibile. Ricordiamo che che persino uno degli “eroi” di Tangentopoli, l'attuale senatore Pd Gerardo D'Ambrosio, chiuse le indagini sull'uccisione del ferroviere Giuseppe Pinelli all'interno della questura di Milano sentenziando che era precipitato da una finestra del quarto piano a causa di un “malore attivo” sconosciuto alla scienza medica.
Non esiste infine nessuno Stato che mantenga o imponga, dopo oltre 30 anni, il “segreto di stato” su fatti di questo genere. Indipendentemente dalle coalizioni politiche, anche teoricamente “opposte”, che hanno guidato il governo.
Non ci sono parole abbastanza dure per qualificare uno Stato che, per conservare il potere di una classe dirigente in crisi o incapace, uccide a casaccio i propri cittadini, pretendendo per questo l'impunità. E ogni “assoluzione” in un processo di strage ci ricorda che, dietro la maschera della democrazia, questo potere minaccia il presente e il futuro di questo sventurato popolo. Questa è la realtà da cambiare.
* www.contropiano.org
La Rete dei Comunisti
PIAZZA LOGGIA: PARTI CIVILI PRONTE A APPELLO, STATO HA DEPISTATO
(AGI) - Brescia, 18 nov. - "La citta' non smette di chiedere giustizia e continuera' anche in appello la sua battaglia legale per accertare la verita' giudiziaria di una strage che porta la firma dell'eversione di destra e di un pezzo di Stato connivente". E' questo il messaggio emerso oggi da una conferenza stampa alla Casa delle Memoria di Brescia, dove si e' commentata la sentenza di assoluzione giunta martedi' al termine del processo di primo grado per la strage di piazza Loggia. Una sentenza che ha decretato l'assoluzione dei cinque imputati, Carlo Maria Maggi, Delfo Zorzi, Maurizio Tramonte, Pino Rauti e Francesco Delfino ai sensi dell'articolo 530 secondo comma, dunque per insufficienza di prove. Le parti civili - tra loro anche sindacati e Comune - hanno mostrato la volonta' di non arrendersi. Il parere condiviso e' che "non si e' trattato di un processo storico, ne' inutile: le responsabilita' penali c'erano. La corte ha riconosciuto la presenza di elementi di prova, anche se insufficienti - ha detto Michele Bontempi, del collegio difensivo -. Certo la grande mole di atti non ha contribuito a fare luce. Ora procederemo a riorganizzare in sequenza logica tutte le prove, cosi' da prepararle per i giudici d'appello. La sentenza, avendo equiparato posizioni diverse con la formula assolutoria, mostra elementi di debolezza che impugneremo". E ancora: "Il vero responsabile di questa sentenza e' lo Stato, i cui funzionari hanno iniziato dal luglio 74 una sistematica attivita' di depistaggio che forse si e' perpetuata aanche nel corso di questo processo".
Riguardo, in particolare, alle guardie di finanza morte nelle foibe, va detto che nelle zone del Litorale Adriatico la Guardia di Finanza, come la Pubblica Sicurezza, era, al pari dei corpi armati dell’esercito, alle dipendenze non già dell’Italia, nemmeno della repubblichina di Salò, ma dei tedeschi. Un’ordinanza di Hitler del 10 settembre ’43 diceva infatti che «Gli Alti commissari nella zona d'operazione Litorale Adriatico, consistente nelle province del Friuli, di Gorizia, di Trieste, dell’Istria, di Fiume, del Quarnero, di Lubiana (...) ricevono le istruzioni fondamentali per lo svolgimento della loro attività da me». Soltanto negli ultimi giorni di guerra alcuni reparti di finanzieri passarono al CNL triestino. Riguardo a Norma Cossetto, figlia del gerarca fascista Giuseppe Cossetto, anch’ella fervente fascista, sulla sua fine la testimonianza alla base del riconoscimento attribuitole, come vittima dei partigiani, è quella fornita da una donna che avrebbe visto, dall’interno della propria casa in cui stava nascosta con le finestre sbarrate, quello che accadeva nella scuola di fronte, anch’essa con le finestre chiuse, mentre dal verbale redatto dal maresciallo dei Vigili del Fuoco di Pola il corpo della giovane non appare essere stato oggetto delle mutilazioni di cui parlano le “cronache”, né sarebbe stato possibile stabilire, con le conoscenze mediche dell’epoca, se fosse stata violentata prima di essere uccisa. (Per il caso di don Bonifacio si veda l’articolo del settembre 2008 “La beatificazione di don Bonifacio” scritto da Claudia Cernigoi su “La nuova alabarda”).
Ci furono sì, comunque, episodi di giustizia sommaria, di crudeltà della popolazione, di jacquerie, e poi i morti nei campi di concentramento jugoslavi. La stessa sorte per altro, e anche di peggio, toccò ai prigionieri tedeschi da parte degli Alleati angloamericani e francesi o in Francia ai collaborazionisti di Vichy o, nella stessa nuova Jugoslavia a guida comunista, agli ustascia fascisti e ai cetnici.
In Italia molti fascisti di quelli imprigionati furono rimessi in libertà appena un anno dopo la Liberazione, grazie alla generosa amnistia del segretario comunista Togliatti allora ministro di Grazia e Giustizia, e già alla fine di quello stesso anno, il ’46, ebbe modo di costituirsi il partito politico “Movimento Sociale Italiano” di reduci della Repubblica di Salò ed ex esponenti del regime fascista, partito che dal ’48 è stato nel Parlamento della Repubblica italiana democratica e che già negli anni cinquanta faceva parte delle Giunte comunali di diverse e importanti città.
Soprattutto, è imprescindibile ricordare che la tragica vicenda delle foibe è avvenuta perché c’è stata l’occupazione italiana di vasti territori della Jugoslavia, costata decine di migliaia di morti civili, anche coi campi di concentramento fascisti, perché c’è stata l’aggressione militare dell’Italia alla Jugoslavia, perché le popolazione slave delle zone di confine sono state oppresse dal regime fascista e fatte oggetto della violenza squadrista.
Non è la Jugoslavia che ha aggredito l’Italia, è l’Italia che ha aggredito la Jugoslavia, non è Lubiana che ha occupato terre italiane, è il fascismo che ha fatto della slovena Lubiana una provincia d’Italia, non sono gli jugoslavi ad aver distrutto centri culturali italiani, sono le squadracce fasciste ad aver incendiato l’hotel Balkan sede del Narodni Dom (centro di cultura nazionale slovena), non è Tito ad aver espresso razzismo, è Mussolini che nel ’20 a Pola disse: «Di fronte ad una razza inferiore e barbara come quella 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».
Il Governo Berlusconi ha riconosciuto i crimini commessi dall’Italia e dal fascismo in Libia, riconoscerà anche quelli commessi in Jugoslavia?
Comitato antifascista e per la memoria storica-Parma, 20/11/2010
Da: Comitato antifascista e per la memoria storica - Parma <comitatoantifasc_pr @ alice.it>Oggetto: Comunicato Stampa. NO a via 'martiri delle foibe' , SI a una via ai partigiani italiani all'estero
Data: 17 novembre 2010 22.52.09 GMT+01.00
NO all’intitolazione di una via di Parma ai “martiri delle foibe”SI all’intitolazione di una via di Parma ai partigiani italiani all’esteroIl Comune di Parma, con la riunione di lunedì 15 novembre ‘10 della Commissione Toponomastica presieduta dall’assessore Fecci, ha deciso l’intitolazione di una via della città ai cosiddetti “martiri delle foibe”.Esprimiamo la nostra netta contrarietà di democratici antifascisti di Parma a questa scelta.Vittime delle foibe, al confine nordorientale dell’Italia con l’allora Jugoslavia, sono stati nel settembre-ottobre 1943 e nel maggio 1945 alcune centinaia di italiani in gran parte militari, capi fascisti, dirigenti e funzionari dell’amministrazione dell’Italia occupante la Jugoslavia , collaborazionisti. Si è trattato nel complesso di circa seicento vittime (escludendo dispersi e fucilati in guerra, deportati e morti in campi di concentramento, ecc.) per mano di partigiani jugoslavi, conseguenza dell’odio popolare e della rivolta nei confronti dell’Italia fascista che aveva dagli anni ’20 sottomesso e oppresso le popolazioni slave delle zone di confine e poi aggredito militarmente e occupato interi territori della Jugoslavia fino a fare della slovena Lubiana una provincia d’Italia.Dalla foiba di Basovizza, assunta a simbolo di tutte le foibe, sono state rinvenute le spoglie di una decina di uomini soltanto, e tutti militari tedeschi.Riportiamo alcuni nominativi di italiani riconosciuti quali “martiri delle foibe”.- Cossetto Giuseppe, infoibato nel ’43 a Treghelizza, possidente, segretario del fascio a S. Domenica di Visinada, capomanipolo MVSN (Milizia Volontaria Sicurezza Nazionale, sottoposta direttamente ai tedeschi), già squadrista sciarpa Littorio;- Morassi Giovanni, arrestato a Gorizia nel maggio ’45 e scomparso, Vicepodestà e Presidente della Provincia di Gorizia;- Muiesan Domenico, ucciso nel ’45 a Trieste, irredentista, legionario fiumano, volontario della guerra d’Africa, squadrista delle squadre d’azione a Pirano;- Nardini Mario, ucciso nel ’45 a Trieste, capitano della MDT (Milizia Difesa Territoriale, sottoposta direttamente ai tedeschi), già XI Legione MACA (milizia fascista speciale di artiglieria controaerei);- Patti Egidio, ucciso nel ’45, pare infoibato presso Opicina, vicebrigadiere del 2° Reggimento MDT, già MVSN, GNR (Guardia Nazionale Repubblicana), squadrista;- Polonio Balbi Michele, scomparso a Fiume il 3 maggio ’45, sottocapo manipolo del 3° Reggimento MDT;- Ponzo Mario, morto nel ‘45 in prigionia, colonnello del Genio Navale, poi inquadrato nel Corpo Volontari della Libertà del Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale (antifascista) di Trieste, arrestato per spionaggio sul movimento partigiano jugoslavo in favore del fascista Ispettorato Speciale di PS (Pubblica Sicurezza, sottoposta direttamente ai tedeschi);- Sorrentino Vincenzo, arrestato nel maggio ’45 a Trieste, condannato a morte da tribunale jugoslavo e fucilato nel ’47, ultimo prefetto di Zara italiana, membro del Tribunale Speciale della Dalmazia che comminava condanne a morte con eccessiva facilità secondo gli stessi comandanti militari italiani (“girava per la Dalmazia , e dove si fermava le poche ore strettamente indispensabili per un frettoloso giudizio, pronunciava sentenze di morte; e queste erano senz’altro eseguite”).E’ assolutamente grave, mistificatorio, e inaccettabile che persone come queste, fascisti e criminali fascisti, vengano ricordate definendole “martiri” e attribuendo loro riconoscimenti come l’intitolazione di una via cittadina.Chiediamo alla Giunta Comunale di Parma città delle Barricate antifasciste del ’22 e medaglia d’oro della Resistenza di desistere dal proposito di realizzare “via martiri delle foibe”.Chiediamo al Comune di Parma di dedicare una via ai quarantamila soldati italiani che l’indomani dell’8 settembre ’43 si unirono alla Resistenza jugoslava e combatterono insieme con l’Esercito Popolare di Liberazione Jugoslavo, la metà di loro dando la vita in quell’epica lotta nei Balcani, perla liberazione dal nazifascismo e il riscatto dell’Italia dell’onta in cui il fascismo l’aveva gettata.COMITATO ANTIFASCISTA E PER LA MEMORIA STORICA – PARMA
* L'Arcivescovo del genocidio (Kaos Edizioni, Milano 1999)
Dio è con noi! La Chiesa di Pio XII complice del nazifascismo (Kaos edizioni, Milano 2002)
L'articolo che segue e' apparso su "il manifesto" del 3 Ottobre 1998, giorno della beatificazione di Alojzije Stepinac da parte del papa di Roma:
L'arcivescovo Stepinac, altro che martire
MARCO AURELIO RIVELLI *Costituito il 10 aprile 1941 lo Stato Indipendente Croato, cioè il regime ustascia di Ante Pavelic, fu immediatamente posta in atto una mostruosa crociata volta al totale sterminio dei serbi ortodossi, degli ebrei e dei Rom, gli zingari. Nel corso di quattro anni vennero sterminati all'incirca un milione di esseri umani in una maniera così feroce che non ha avuto eguali, per le modalità, in tutto il corso della seconda guerra mondiale. Se l'atroce sterminio di sei milioni di ebrei avvenne nel chiuso dei campi, e per i più la constatazione dell'Olocausto ebbe luogo solo alla fine del conflitto, i massacri ustascia furono invece posti in atto con la maggiore pubblicità di fronte agli occhi di tutti: nelle strade, nelle piazze, nelle campagne. I torturatori si facevano un vanto di essere ripresi dalle macchine fotografiche nell'atto di uccidere le vittime. Mentre i vescovi tedeschi sostennero sempre di essere stati all'oscuro degli avvenimenti, lo stesso non si può dire dell'episcopato croato, dell'"Ambasciatore Vaticano", Monsignor Ramiro Marcone e dell'Arcivescovo Stepinac. Il numero delle vittime varia da settecentomila ad un milione. L'Enciclopedia Britannica riporta settecentomila, secondo il rapporto redatto dal Sottosegretario di Stato Usa Stuart Eizenstadt nel giugno 1998, inerente l'oro predato alle vittime degli ustascia e nascosto - secondo il rapporto stesso - in Vaticano, sono sempre settecentomila, per l'autore si aggirano intorno al milione. Andrjia Artukovic, Ministro degli Interni dello Stato Croato Indipendente e capo di tutti i campi di sterminio, affermò al suo processo che nel solo campo di Jasenovac i trucidati furono settecentomila. L'orrore della crociata diventa ancora più fosco quando si considera la partecipazione fisica ai massacri di centinaia di preti e frati, in particolare i monaci francescani. Secondo la politica ustascia, i serbi dovevano essere tutti convertiti al cattolicesimo. Il Ministro Mile Budak affermò a proposito dei serbi "... un terzo lo convertiremo, un terzo lo uccideremo, un terzo verrà rimandato in Serbia".
A capo del campo di sterminio di Jasenovac, vi fu per un certo periodo il frate francescano, Filipovic-Majstorovic, detto Frà Satana. Al suo processo si vantò di aver ucciso oltre quarantamila prigionieri. Gli successe alla guida del campo un altro religioso. Nel mio saggio indico i nomi di circa 160 religiosi, colpevoli di partecipazione diretta all'eccidio, ma furono molti di più. Il Resto del Carlino, quotidiano bolognese, in due articoli del 18 e 22 settembre 1941, in pieno periodo fascista, pubblicò a firma di Corrado Zoli due articoli nei quali, inorridito, narrava gli eccidi commessi dai francescani. Altre testimonianze oculari, quelle degli appartenenti all'esercito italiano, la maggior parte delle quali accessibili a tutti conservate negli archivi dello Stato Maggiore - Ufficio Storico.
L'Arcivescovo Alojs Stepinac accolse con calore l'arrivo di Ante Pavelic, il Poglavnik (duce), ordinando che fosse cantato il Te Deum in tutte le chiese dello stato e diffondendo una lettera pastorale che incitava ad appoggiare il nuovo Stato perché esso "... rappresenta la Santa Chiesa Cattolica ...". La Pastorale di totale appoggio al regime di Pavelic vedeva la luce quando già le prime notizie di massacri si erano diffuse e Galeazzo Ciano, Ministro degli Esteri Italiano e genero del Duce, annotava nel suo diario, il 28 aprile 1941, "... spoliazioni, rapine, uccisioni sono all'ordine del giorno". Il 26 giugno 1941, Ante Pavelic, che aveva già al suo attivo il massacro di 180 mila tra serbi ed ebrei, compresi tre vescovi e oltre cento pope ortodossi, concedeva udienza all'episcopato cattolico e, anche in quell'occasione, Stepinac non mancava di esternare lodi per il Poglavnik come documentato dai periodici cattolici, "Katolicki List" e "Hrvatski Narod" del 30 giugno 1941. Da ricordare che il 17 maggio precedente, Ante Pavelic, accompagnato da 120 ustascia in divisa, era stato ricevuto a Roma da Papa Pio XII. Alla fine dell'anno, l'Arcivescovo, che precedentemente con altri 11 religiosi cattolici era stato nominato deputato al Parlamento Croato, riceve la carica di capo dei cappellani delle Forze Ustascia. Più tardi riceverà anche un'altra onorificenza ustascia. Superfluo aggiungere che mai condannerà le efferatezze compiute davanti ai suoi occhi da individui con i quali per quattro lunghi anni intratterrà cordiali rapporti.
Nell'aprile del 1945, gli ustascia in fuga depositano, per ordine di Pavelic, tutti gli atti e i documenti governativi, oltre ad oro gioielli e preziosi rubati alle vittime serbe ed ebree, nell'Arcivescovado di Zagabria, dove verranno nascosti e scoperti dopo alcuni mesi dalle autorità del Nuovo Stato Jugoslavo.
Stepinac non punì mai - naturalmente in maniera ecclesiastica - i sacerdoti che si erano resi colpevoli di delitti, non proibì ai cappellani ustascia di continuare - quanto meno - ad essere testimoni di crimini, né vietò alla stampa cattolica la continua esaltazione del regime e delle sue leggi, e tanto meno censurò pubblicamente un regime reo di siffatte scelleratezze. Qualche apologeta ha scritto in questi giorni che Stepinac elevò alcune proteste contro, si badi bene, le modalità della conversioni ma non,l'affermo recisamente contro i massacri. Mi chiedo se, di fronte ad un eccidio di tale proporzione e nefandezza, per di più non isolato ma commisto ad infiniti altri si possa tacere e non esprimere lo sdegno di uomo di chiesa verso tali assassini. Mi chiedo come si possa assistere a cerimonie cui presenziano criminali conclamati e i loro capi senza rendersi conto di dare con la propria presenza un sostegno di fatto a quel regime sanguinario. Da non dimenticare che il sostegno fu anche dato, dopo la costituzione del Nuovo Stato Jugoslavo alla fine della guerra, alle attività clandestine di terrorismo condotte dagli ustascia che si erano dati alla macchia e dei quali benedì, dentro l'Arcivescovado, alcuni gagliardetti. Infatti, rientrato clandestinamente a Zagabria l'ex capo della polizia ustascia, Lisak, al fine di svolgere un'attività di terrorismo contro la Federazione, appena composta, l'Arcivescovo lo nascose nel suo palazzo, come dichiarato durante il processo dallo stesso Lisak.
Stepinac non fu certamente un martire. Lo stesso Tito chiese a Monsignor Patrizio Hurley, rappresentante ufficiale del Vaticano, di richiamare a Roma l'Arcivescovo, non desiderando una rottura con la Santa Sede, altrimenti avrebbe dovuto arrestarlo, come riportato dall'Unità del 7 novembre 1946 in relazione ad un colloquio fra Tito e Togliatti.
No. Stepinac non fu un martire. Chi scrive, pur avendo visionato migliaia di atti, non ne ha mai trovato uno dove l'Arcivescovo manifestasse la sua pietà per i tanti innocenti trucidati, fra i quali i migliaia di donne e bambini; non ha mai trovato la fiera condanna del Presule per l'uccisione barbara dei vescovi e dei preti ortodossi, nonché dei rabbini: sarebbe stato un gesto di carità cristiana di amore verso il prossimo in un contesto dove imperversava il "Male". No. Questo, Alojis Stepinac non lo fece. Seguitò le sue frequentazioni con i criminali, che in seguito, aiutò a fuggire. Condannato a sedici anni di carcere, fu posto, dopo quattro anni di detenzione, agli arresti domiciliari nel suo paese natale. Morì nel suo letto. Pochi giorni or sono il Centro Simon Wiesenthal ha chiesto al Papa di soprassedere alla beatificazione fino a che non fossero stati meglio accertati i fatti.
Oggi, a Zagabria, Giovanni Paolo II beatifica Alojis Stepinac. Nella teologia cattolica, la santità è il complesso delle perfezioni morali. Propria di Dio in senso assoluto, e, in grado diverso, delle persone che hanno riprodotto in qualche modo la perfezione divina e che hanno modellato la loro vita ad imitazione di quella. Non ci sembra il caso del Cardinale Stepinac.
War Criminal Wesley Clark for President?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2795
James Blunt: «In Kosovo sventai la terza guerra mondiale»
Il cantautore non obbedì all'ordine di attaccare i soldati russi
LONDRA - Avrebbe sventato la Terza guerra mondiale. Chi sarà mai? Un politico, Un generale? Un agente dei servizi segreti? No, nessuno tra questi. A salvare il mondo fu James Blunt, il cantautore britannico di You 're Beautiful che prima di intraprendere la carriera musicale era un ufficiale della cavalleria, quando, nel 1999 in Kosovo, si rifiutò di obbedire al generale americano Wesley Clark che gli ordinò di attaccare un battaglione di 200 soldati russi. Lo ha raccontato lo stesso Blunt ai microfoni di Bbc Radio 5, aggiungendo che «era una situazione folle»: «Ero l'ufficiale responsabile di una truppa di uomini dietro di me».
15 novembre 2010(ultima modifica: 16 novembre 2010)
Sydney Morning Herald
November 15, 2010
I stopped World War III, says James Blunt
James Blunt says he stopped World War III from happening by disobeying a general's order.
The singer, who served in the British army for six years, told the BBC yesterday he refused an order to seize an airfield during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo after the Russians got to it first.
"It was a mad situation anyway," he told BBC Radio 5Live.
"We had 200 Russians lined up pointing their weapons at us aggressively and we've been told to reach the airfield and take a hold of it."
Blunt was a 25-year-old cavalry officer at that time and the head of his unit, which was leading a column of 30,000 NATO troops.
The Kosovo Force (KFOR) soldiers had entered Kosovo under a UN mandate after Yugoslavia withdrew from the region following a 11-week bombing campaign by NATO.
The Yugoslav troops were trying to suppress Kosovo's ethic Albanians' campaign to split from the country.
"I was given the direct command to overpower the 200 or so Russians who were there.
"I was the lead officer with my troop of men behind us....The soldiers directly behind me were from the Parachute Regiment, so they're obviously game for the fight.
"The direct command [that] came in from General and [NATO Supreme Commander Europe] Wesley Clark was to overpower them. Various words were used that seemed unusual to us. Words such as 'destroy' came down the radio."
But Blunt, who said he was "party to the conversation" about the possible attack, said "we were querying our instruction" as it would have meant fighting the Russians.
"Fortunately, up on the radio came [British] General Mike Jackson, whose exact words at the time were, 'I'm not going to have my soldiers be responsible for starting World War III'.
"And after a couple of days the Russians there said 'hang on we have no food and no water. Can we share the airfield with you?'."
Blunt said he would have defied General Clark's orders even without the support of General Jackson, risking a court martial.
"There are things that you do along the way that you know are right, and those that you absolutely feel are wrong, that I think it's morally important to stand up against, and that sense of moral judgement is drilled into us as soldiers in the British army."
General Clark, who has since retired from the US Army, told the BBC in 2000 that he had cleared the possible attack with then NATO Secretary General Javier Solana.
"He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russians got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.
"I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'."
A senior Russian officer also told the BBC in 2000 that the Russians planned to fly in thousands of soldiers after they occupied the airport.
"Let's just say that we had several airbases ready. We had battalions of paratroopers ready to leave within two hours."
Blunt quit the military to become a singer in 2002. His debut album sold 11 million copies, led by the success of his hit song You're Beautiful.
Wesley Clark: The Guy Who Almost Started World War III
by Stella Jatras
August 23, 2003
General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Friend of Bill's (FOB) is considering a run for President of these United States. In an AP report of 29 June, former-President William Jefferson Clinton stated that Wesley Clark would make a fine president, if he ran. After all, what are friends for? There is also a grassroots campaign effort to "draft Wesley Clark" for president which states, "We believe America needs a new president. One who can be a voice for common sense and moderation in these dangerous, uncertain times. One with the unquestionable leadership and foreign policy credentials necessary to win in 2004. We believe that General Wesley Clark might just be – the one. That is why we are trying to convince him to seek the Democratic nomination for president."
Let us look at what kind of a president Wesley Clark would make according to CounterPunch of November 12, 1999, "The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.
"At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.
"With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, 'a horse's ass.' Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the Nato command two months early."
This is the guy who received the Kosovo Campaign Medal after having been granted a waiver, although according to an article in Stars and Stripes(European addition), no one seems to know who granted the waiver in time for the general to get the first medal awarded. Even though he led the international alliance in its 78-day blitz against Yugoslavia, the waiver was necessary because General Clark's service did not meet the criteria for the award which required service in the actual theater of operation. It appears that Clark made no effort to secure similar waivers for the thousands of service personnel who supported the effort from bases outside the combat zone.
On 17 July 2001, General Wesley Clark was confronted in an often heated exchange by his critics at Border's book store where the general was promoting his book, Waging Modern War.Although one of the axioms of Clark's book is that, "A Political Problem Cannot be Solved by Military Force," what he practiced and advocated in Kosovo was just the opposite. When confronted with questions about the misuse of air power and grossly exaggerating the results as exposed in aNewsweek article titled Kosovo Cover-Up of 15 May 2000, targeting civilian targets as stated by Sen. Joe Lieberman, and consorting with KLA terrorists such as Hashim Thaci and Agim Ceku, General Clark's replies were always the same: the questioner was wrong, Sen. Lieberman was wrong, and Newsweek was wrong. "I went to the presentation very much opposed to everything Clark stood for, but it wasn't until I heard him speak and answer questions that I realized how dangerous a man like this is," writes Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret).
'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'
In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) 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 General 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," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR 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. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."
If General Clark had had his way, 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
In his article titled, "A Long, Tough Job," which appeared in the Washington Post on 14 September, Clark writes, "And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
"Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity."
"Rely on international law"? Clinton and his gangsters broke every international law on the books regarding Yugoslavia. "Evidence must be collected?" Evidence of what? The Serbs certainly did not have weapons of mass destruction; nor did they attack us first; nor were they ever a threat to us. His words ring hollow.
You can read "Wes" Clark's letter to the National Albanian American Council of 1 November 2002, in which he says, "Let's stay in touch." For an American general who was supposed to be impartial in a civil war, it is no secret that Clark is the Albanian lobby's fair-haired boy. And why not? He delivered Kosovo to them.
General Clark brags about the fact that not one solder was killed under his command. Even though the Serbs had every opportunity to kill American soldiers, I contend that the Serbs did not want Americans to die at their hands. This was illustrated when Sgt. Christopher Stone of Smiths Creek, Michigan, upon his release, left a note to his prison guards thanking them for treating him with "dignity and respect." The Pentagon declined to release a copy of Stone's note, but a copy was made available to The Associated Press (5 May 1999). The note ended with "Thank you, you are very kind" and "God help you."
Col. David Hackworth, in his 1999 commentaryDefending America, wrote of Clark: Known by those who've served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince, he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die.
Col. Jatras writes that "General Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation. That it happened once again we can thank that other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas."
In this writer's judgement, what this guy is positioning himself for is the VP slot with Hillary running for President. It would be a marriage made in Hell...a Hell for all of us.
Knowing all the above, why would anyone want as president or VP a guy who was willing to start World War III for the sake of his own ego and self-importance?
Sommet de l’OTAN, Lisbonne (Portugal), novembre 2010
Serbie 2010 : Une plaie ouverte sur le « ventre mou » de l’Europe
mardi 16 novembre 2010
par Collectif Bas-Rhin
Zivadin Jovanovic, ancien ministre des affaires étrangères de la République fédérative de Yougoslavie et président du Forum de Belgrade pour un Monde d’Egaux, nous livre dans cet interview un état des lieux 11 ans après la guerre de l’OTAN contre la République Fédérale de Yougoslavie. En près de 10 années, des changements profonds ont ébranlé cette zone des Balkans : thérapie de choc à la sauce "Milton Friedman", occupation militaire, amputation territoriale, colonisation brutale de toute l’économie, paupérisation massive des classes laborieuses...
Zivadin Jovanovic nous dresse un paysage de dévastation qui rompt avec le mythe du "meilleur des mondes" vendu par les milieux atlantistes européens et dont la Serbie est l’une des victimes les plus affligées depuis que les forces pro-occidentales ont pris le pouvoir le 5 octobre 2000 par ce que de nombreux analystes ne craignent plus de qualifier de putsch.
Propos recueillis par notre correspondant à Belgrade pour le site http//:www.lepcf.fr
Lepcf.fr : Monsieur le ministre, vous êtes le président du Forum de Belgrade qui depuis une dizaine d’années anime une réflexion critique et approfondie sur la situation politique, stratégique, sociale et économique de la Serbie et de l’ancien espace yougoslave. Pouvez-vous nous donner un aperçu des activités de l’organisation de vous présidez ?
ZJ : Le Forum de Belgrade pour un monde d’Egaux est une organisation indépendante, non-partisane, une association à but non lucratif qui regroupe des intellectuels de Serbie et de la diaspora serbe. Le Forum promeut la paix, la justice, l’égalité des personnes, des peuples et des États.
Établir la vérité, en général, et en particulier sur les développements récents et passés dans les Balkans, l’ex-Yougoslavie et la Serbie - est aussi l’une des motivations principales de nos membres et amis du Forum.
Le Forum est favorable à la primauté du droit dans les relations internationales par opposition à la règle selon laquelle « la force primerait sur le droit ». Le Forum estime que l’agression de l’OTAN contre la République fédérale de Yougoslavie en 1999 a été une erreur historique de l’Occident dont les conséquences en Europe se paient par la stagnation, l’instabilité et une certaine perte d’identité. Les soit disant négociations de Rambouillet avaient été organisées et gérées par les USA avec un seul objectif : convaincre le public, à l’ouest qu’il n’y avait pas d’autre moyen pour résoudre les problèmes au Kosovo-Métochie, que par un bombardement de la Serbie. Le gouvernement français a malheureusement joué un rôle malhonnête dans ce scénario de manipulations américaines.
"...l’agression de l’OTAN contre la République fédérative de Yougoslavie en 1999 a été une erreur historique de l’Occident dont les conséquences en Europe se paient par la stagnation, l’instabilité et une certaine perte d’identité..."
Ces erreurs sérieuses des USA et de l’UE dans l’approche du problème du Kosovo et de la Métochie resteront une plaie ouverte sur le « ventre mou » de l’Europe pour les décennies à venir.
L’approche du Forum de Belgrade embrasse les questions des droits de l’homme, des droits économiques, sociaux, culturels et autres qui sont d’une importance primordiale, particulièrement aujourd’hui alors que la grande majorité des peuples souffre des conséquences de la crise économique mondiale.
Le Forum a publié plus de 50 livres traitant des questions de sécurité, des relations internationales, des problèmes économiques et sociaux, du terrorisme international, de l’OTAN et de questions constitutionnelles. Il entretient d’importantes collaborations avec d’autres organisations indépendantes semblables à l’étranger.
Lepcf.fr : Le pouvoir en place actuellement à Belgrade et la plupart des organisations issues de la coalition d’opposition au gouvernement d’union nationale de Slobodan Milosevic, le « DOS », célèbrent ces jours-ci les évènements d’octobre 2000 en Serbie. Quelle est votre point de vue sur ces célébrations ?
ZJ : Je doute qu’il y ait réellement de bonnes raisons de célébrer quoi que ce soit. Pendant les dix années qui se sont écoulées, le gouvernement DOS et ses dérivés n’ont pas cessé de promettre une « vie meilleure », l’intégration dans l’Union européenne (présentée comme un paradis sur terre), emploi, démocratie...
En réalité, la grande majorité des quelques 8 millions d’habitants de la Serbie est confrontée aujourd’hui à des problèmes élémentaires de survie : de subsistance alimentaire, de paiement des charges obligatoires (les factures d’électricité et les autres services communaux, la scolarisation des enfants, les médicaments). La société serbe est aujourd’hui profondément divisée avec un fossé énorme entre la poignée des très riches et la masse vivant dans la pauvreté.
La sécession unilatérale de la province du Kosovo-Metohija a donné lieu à des ambitions séparatistes dans d’autres parties de la Serbie (en Raska, en Voïvodine, dans les quartiers sud de Bujanovac, Presevo et Medvedja).
Il convient de rappeler que le renversement du président Slobodan Milosevic a été l’objectif premier de l’agression militaire de l’OTAN en 1999, parce qu’il était perçu comme un obstacle à l’expansion de la politique impériale de Washington dans les Balkans. Ce but ne fut cependant pas atteint au bout des 72 jours de bombardement continu de l’ensemble du pays. En conséquence l’agression se poursuivit par d’autres moyens.
"Je doute fort qu’un gouvernement créé de cette façon puisse de quelque façon être indépendant et démocratique."
Il y a quelques jours de cela, l’ancien ambassadeur US William Montgomery, celui-là même qui, en 1999 et 2000, a coordonné les activités antigouvernementales en Serbie depuis son bureau spécial à Budapest, a confirmé que les États-Unis ont « investi » à l’époque plus de 100 millions de dollars US dans le processus de « démocratisation de la Serbie », ce qui en d’autre termes signifie - dans le renversement du gouvernement légitime de Serbie. Ce montant n’inclut pas les sommes versées à diverses ONG et autres mass-média « indépendants » par la « fondation George Soros pour une société ouverte » et diverses autres sources. Je doute fort qu’un gouvernement créé de cette façon puisse de quelque façon être indépendant et démocratique.
Lepcf.fr : En occident, ces évènements, comme le saccage et le pillage spectaculaire du parlement fédéral ou encore la persécution de députés et élus de gauche pendant les mois d’octobre et novembre 2000, furent présentés (quand ils ne furent pas cachés au public) par les médias français comme des actes « libérateurs » qui allaient ouvrir la perspective d’un avenir radieux et démocratique pour les citoyens de la République de Yougoslavie. Qu’en est-il vraiment d’après vous 10 ans après ?
ZJ : La Serbie est confrontée à de graves problèmes socio-économiques : dette extérieure élevée (environ 35 milliards dollars US aujourd’hui contre 10 Milliards en 2000 pour la Serbie et le Monténégro réunis), chômage élevé (environ 20 %) et la corruption généralisée.
Pour la grande majorité de la population la vie en Serbie est très difficile. Les prétendus « Révolutionnaires » d’Octobre 2000 se sont eux-mêmes mués en caciques, bureaucrates et autres magnats qui ne se préoccupent plus que de la façon de s’enrichir grâce au processus de privatisation et de transition.
La plus grande partie de la population est désorientée et surtout préoccupée par la satisfaction des besoins quotidiens élémentaires en nourriture et en vêtements.
Cette masse aux abois n’est plus en mesure de penser et d’exprimer son opinion sur des questions relatives aux intérêts nationaux et étatiques.
La jeunesse est désespérée, elle n’a pas d’emploi, et elle ne voit pas de perspective. Les prix ne cessent pas de grimper et les revenus chutent. Le salaire mensuel moyen est d’environ 300 euros, la pension de retraite d’environ 150 euros.
"après la « révolution » du 5 Octobre 2000, environ 50.000 cadres supérieurs et fonctionnaires des services publics, de l’économie et du secteur bancaire ont presque instantanément été licenciés et laissés pour compte sans aucun revenu ni indemnités"
Les prix augmentent chaque jour. Cette semaine, par exemple, le prix de l’électricité a augmenté de 30 %. Plus de 10 % de la population totale vit en dessous du seuil de pauvreté et souffre de carence alimentaires. Environ 200.000 enfants souffrent de malnutrition et de nombreuses soupes populaires sont fermées souvent en raison de manque de moyens financiers.
Le pouvoir en place prétend que ces problèmes trouvent leurs racines dans deux arguments massue : premièrement qu’ils sont une conséquence de « l’ère Milosevic » et deuxièmement qu’ils sont une conséquence de la crise mondiale. Les gouvernants actuels ne détiendraient ainsi aucune part de responsabilité dans l’état actuel des choses, bien qu’ils détiennent le pouvoir depuis plus de dix ans maintenant.
La manière dont les médias occidentaux ont présenté les événements en Serbie et en particulier le coup d’État du 5 Octobre 2000 est bien connue. Aujourd’hui, les mass médias les plus influents de Serbie servent les intérêts du Capital, ils se présentent sans vergogne comme les garants de la liberté de la presse. Ce que cette « presse libre » omet de noter par exemple, c’est qu’après la « révolution » du 5 Octobre 2000, environ 50.000 cadres supérieurs et fonctionnaires des services publics, de l’économie et du secteur bancaire ont presque instantanément été licenciés et laissés pour compte sans aucun revenu ni indemnités.
Dans de nombreux cas, ces fonctionnaires ont été démis de leur fonction sous la menace des armes et remplacés par des partisans de la coalition DOS, c’est-à-dire des gens financés par des « ONG » occidentales, organisés en groupes dormants ou actifs, comme ceux qui s’illustrèrent dans l’incendie du bâtiment du Parlement ou dans d’autres actes similaires. Un certain nombre de postes ministériels furent cédés à des émigrés serbes de l’étranger (y compris de France) qui bien qu’ayant des passeports et des diplômes de l’Ouest, avaient de bien modestes connaissances des réalités actuelles de la Serbie.
Après l’assassinat du premier ministre Zoran Djindjic en 2003, environ 12.000 personnes furent emprisonnées, y compris de nombreux journalistes. Certains furent emprisonnés pendant de nombreux mois sans qu’on ne leur ait jamais notifié les charges retenues contre eux.
Lepcf.fr : Peut-on aujourd’hui dresser un bilan détaillé de 10 années de gouvernement dit « démocratique » sur le plan des libertés constitutionnelles et de la concentration de pouvoir qui étaient, d’après les médias occidentaux, les principaux points noir de l’ère Milosevic ?
ZJ : Prenez, par exemple, la liberté de la presse. Pendant toute la durée de la présidence de Slobodan Milosevic, la grande majorité des médias de masse : presse imprimée, électronique, radiophonique et télévisuelle développait les thèses de l’opposition. Il est indiscutable que ces médias de masse ont été financés par des gouvernements étrangers, des fondations, comme celle de Soros et autres ONG.
Aujourd’hui, on ne peut guère plus trouver de médias d’opposition en Serbie. La politique éditoriale de tous les médias actuels est plus ou moins identique : elle est ostensiblement contrôlée par le gouvernement ou par le grand Capital. Les moyens d’information gouvernementaux et publics sont verrouillés.
Selon la Constitution, la démocratie exige la division et l’équilibre, notamment entre les pouvoirs législatif, judiciaire et exécutif, considérés comme des pouvoirs d’État indépendants. Dans la pratique, l’exécutif contrôle les pouvoirs législatif et judiciaire.
Au début de cette année, dans le cadre d’une prétendue « réforme du système judiciaire » le gouvernement a procédé à une révocation technique de tous les juges d’instruction, révocation ou remise à 0 des compteurs qui devait être suivie par leur réélection selon un processus relativement peu clair, tellement peu clair que près de 700 magistrats se sont retrouvés du jour au lendemain sans emploi.
Des évictions de masse qui ne furent justifiée par aucune raison précise. Une grande partie de l’opinion pense cependant que ces évictions "techniques" sont en fait politiques et qu’elles ciblent les magistrats les moins loyaux au parti au pouvoir actuellement (ndlr la Demokratska Stranka, membre de l’Internationale Socialiste). Le cas des juges serbes révoqués a non seulement fait l’objet d’un recours auprès de la Cour constitutionnelle de Serbie, déjà lourdement surchargée de travail par d’autres questions, mais il est aussi devenu un point d’intérêt à Strasbourg et à Bruxelles.
La concentration de pouvoir dans les mains du président actuel de la République de Serbie est une clé pour comprendre la sorte de démocratie promue dans notre pays.
En plus d’être le chef suprême de l’État, le président du conseil national de sécurité et le président du parti majoritaire dans le gouvernement, il nomme le gouverneur de la Banque nationale, il a son quota de juges affidés à la Cour constitutionnelle et il décide des piliers et stratégies de la politique étrangère. Les conseillers de son bureau sont nommés membres de divers organismes, notamment des conseils d’administration de grands médias de masse...
Le fossé séparant le peuple et le gouvernement n’a jamais été aussi profond qu’aujourd’hui.
Quel est le sens de la démocratie dans ces circonstances ? Qui a profité du changement « démocratique » et des « libérations » d’Octobre 2000 ? Les citoyens de Serbie ? Les ouvriers, les paysans, les intellectuels et les jeunes ?
Lepcf.fr : Quelle est la situation économique de la Serbie actuellement en terme de production industrielle, de chômage, de produit intérieur brut ?
ZJ : En Serbie, il y a aujourd’hui un million de chômeurs, 1.5 million de retraités, 0.5 millions de réfugiés et déplacés dont 200.000 Serbes déplacés du Kosovo et Métochie.
Les jeunes de 20 à 35 ans représentent environ 35 % de tous les chômeurs. Les estimations officielles prévoient une augmentation du nombre de chômeur de plus de 100 000. Nul besoin de mentionner ici les milliers de salariés qui reçoivent leurs salaires avec d’énormes retards de plusieurs mois voire plusieurs années.
La « fuite des cerveaux » vers les pays occidentaux se poursuit. La privatisation des entreprises appartenant à l’État et celles relevant de la propriété sociale menée avec des méthodes criminelles a produit une poignée de magnats énormément enrichis et a plongé les masses dans la misère.
Les fonds tirés de ces privatisations n’ont absolument pas aidé à restructurer et moderniser la société ; ils furent très peu investis dans l’emploi et l’investissement productif, mais essentiellement employés à combler le déficit public en les versant au budget de l’État.
Ainsi ce sont l’administration et les services publics qui ont englouti en quelques années une richesse économique accumulée par toutes les générations qui se sont succédées dans les 18e, 19e et 20e siècles.
La dette extérieure de la République fédérale de Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro) en 2000 s’élevait environ à 11 milliards de dollars US. Aujourd’hui cette dette s’élève à environ 37 milliards de dollars pour la Serbie seule.
Une balance des paiements extrêmement négative pousse la Serbie vers un endettement encore plus profond. Aujourd’hui la production industrielle est plus faible qu’à la fin des années 80. La croissance du PIB, qui dans les années 1996, 1997, 1998 s’élevait à un taux régulier de 6 %, est attendue pour cette année à une valeur de 1,5 %.
Lepcf.fr : Un rapport de l’UNESCO publié à la fin des années 2000 soulignait la dégradation sévère des systèmes éducatifs de tous les pays ex-socialistes qui pour beaucoup ont été soumis dès les années 1990 à un traitement de choc néolibéral fatal pour leur système éducatif. Qu’en est-il de l’Éducation en Serbie depuis 2000 ?
ZJ : L’éducation, notamment supérieure, est devenue un privilège des riches. Le manque récurrent de moyens pour les universités d’État, d’une part, et la prolifération rapide des écoles privées et « universités », d’autre part, a entraîné une dégradation brutale de la qualité de l’éducation.
Dans le domaine culturel, la promotion de la littérature et l’enseignement de l’histoire nationale par exemple subissent une dépréciation notable, souvent accompagnée de tentatives de falsification manifestes.
La Culture se voit instrumentalisée dans ce qui semble être une volonté de la soumettre à des grilles de lecture étrangères.
L’enseignement de l’Histoire de la Serbie s’appuie de plus en plus, même à l’école publique, sur des manuels scolaires dont les auteurs sont allemands, américains ou d’autres nationalités.
Lepcf.fr : Est-ce que l’arrivée au pouvoir de la coalition DOS a permis de démocratiser le système de santé ?
ZJ : Les services de santé du secteur public et les médicaments sont aussi devenus très coûteux. Avec cette croissance du chômage et de la pauvreté, beaucoup de gens sont incapables de payer les soins de santé et les médicaments.
Hôpitaux et centres de réadaptation sont aujourd’hui sous-dimensionnés, les dispensaires de l’intérieur du pays qui fonctionnaient depuis plus de 30 ou 40 ans, sont fermés apparemment par manque d’argent.
Le pourcentage des patients souffrant du cancer et de maladies coronaires en Serbie est parmi les plus élevés en Europe. Il est connu que lors de l’agression de 1999, l’OTAN déversa des tonnes de munitions à l’uranium appauvri sur le Kosovo-Métochie et d’autres parties de la Serbie.
Il est maintenant notoire que de nombreux soldats italiens, portugais et espagnols et d’autres ressortissants des pays membres de l’OTAN ayant servi au Kosovo et Métochie eurent à subir les suites d’une exposition à ces munitions radioactives au point d’en décéder.
De nombreux parlements européens ont même été amenés à étudier ce problème allant jusqu’à demander une juste réparation et l’interdiction de la production, du stockage et de l’utilisation de munitions à l’uranium appauvri.
La Serbie est étrangement l’un des seuls pays d’Europe à être resté silencieux sur cette question. Pourquoi ?
Lepcf.fr : .Comment la situation au Kosovo pèse-t-elle sur les questions de politique intérieure en Serbie ?
ZJ : La majorité de l’opinion serbe estime que l’UE et les USA ont tout fait pour priver la Serbie de sa souveraineté légitime sur le Kosovo-Métochie dans le but de récompenser les Albanais, principalement des dirigeants de l’UCK, pour leur coopération pendant l’agression de 1999. Il en va de même concernant la stratégie d’élargissement de l’OTAN vers l’Est.
Le gouvernement ne cesse de répéter qu’il est prêt à négocier avec Pristina sur les questions concernant la vie quotidienne, en particulier la vie des Serbes restés dans la province, mais qu’il ne reconnaîtra jamais l’indépendance du Kosovo. En fait, « les relations de bon voisinage », y compris avec le Kosovo, sont des conditions préalables à l’adhésion à l’UE.
L’opposition affirme que le gouvernement évolue vers une reconnaissance de la sécession, si ce n’est formellement, du moins de facto. Cette affirmation n’est pas infondée.
Le mois dernier, seulement deux jours avant le vote à l’assemblée générale des Nations Unies, le gouvernement serbe a abandonné sa propre proposition de résolution sur le Kosovo-Métochie et a accepté la version dictée conjointement par l’UE et les États-Unis et que le secrétariat général de l’ONU avait adopté le 10 Septembre 2010.
Cette résolution ne fait référence ni à la résolution du Conseil de sécurité 1244 (1999) garantissant l’intégrité et la souveraineté territoriale de la Serbie, ni à l’illégalité d’une sécession unilatérale.
Ce texte demande uniquement l’établissement d’un dialogue entre Belgrade et Pristina, avec les bons services de l’UE. Naturellement les USA, l’UE et Pristina ont applaudi cette « attitude coopérative » de Belgrade et cette résolution qui, d’après leur interprétation, exclut toute discussion sur la question du statut de la Province.
"Le génie diabolique s’est échappé de la lampe à huile. Il n’y retournera pas à n’importe quel prix."
Le problème du Kosovo et Métochie est un vieux problème. Dans son essence, il n’a jamais été le problème de la violation des droits de l’homme des Albanais, mais plutôt celui de 15 % de territoire serbe que certains voulaient et veulent toujours intégrer à un projet de grande Albanie…
En dehors de la sécession unilatérale illégale de la province du Kosovo-Metohija (Mars 2008), des tendances séparatistes s’expriment ailleurs dans le pays (districts du sud de Presevo, Bujanovac, Medvedja, région de Raska, Voïvodine).
Nous en sommes toujours à observer les pleins effets de la sécession unilatérale du Kosovo et Métochie, non seulement en Serbie et dans les Balkans mais aussi en Europe et dans d’autres parties du monde. L’Europe occidentale n’est est pas à sa première erreur. Le génie diabolique s’est échappé de la lampe à huile. Il n’y retournera pas à n’importe quel prix.
L’Occident et principalement les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne ont financé et appuyé l’armement et l’entraînement des terroristes de l’UCK de 1997 à 1999. Aujourd’hui, ces mêmes pays qui ont formellement institué un gouvernement illégal sur 15 % du territoire de la République de Serbie et ont approuvé la création d’une armée d’anciens terroristes, exigent maintenant de la Serbie la reconnaissance de cette sécession comme une sorte de monnaie d’échange pour une admission dans l’UE.
L’ancien ambassadeur des USA à Zagreb, Budapest et Belgrade, William Montgomery reconnaît dans son dernier livre que l’agression de l’OTAN de 1999 était une erreur en raison du trop grand nombre de victimes civiles et parce que les Balkans continuent à être instables.
L’agression de l’OTAN n’a rien résolu, bien au contraire, elle a créé de nouveaux problèmes, elle a encouragé les séparatistes albanais en Macédoine, en Grèce et au Monténégro, ainsi que d’autres mouvements séparatistes en Europe et ailleurs dans le monde.
Le Kosovo, la Bosnie et la Macédoine sont autant de « patates chaudes » et de dossiers épineux que les USA souhaitent dès à présent transmettre à l’UE.
Lepcf.fr : En 2006, le gouvernement de la République de Serbie signa l’accord SOFA octroyant aux forces armées américaines présentes sur le territoire serbe, entre autres droits, un statut diplomatique. En 2007, le Ministre Draskovic, passa un accord permettant cette fois-ci le transit des forces de l’OTAN dans des termes qui furent en réalité ceux du protocole secret de Rambouillet présenté par Albright et refusé à juste titre par le Gouvernement dont vous faisiez partie. Est-ce que ces accords ne signifient pas en d’autres termes que la Serbie est devenue si ce n’est un membre objectif de l’OTAN du moins un candidat à long terme, ce malgré l’inscription en 2008 dans la constitution serbe du principe de neutralité ?
ZJ : À mon avis, la Serbie devrait être neutre et devrait poursuivre une politique étrangère équilibrée. De bonnes relations et des coopérations avec les pays voisins sont dans l’intérêt de la stabilité et du développement de la Serbie.
Des concessions exclusives aux États-Unis, tels que les accords auxquels vous faites allusion, dépouillent les mots de liberté, souveraineté et dignité de tout sens.
Lepcf.fr : Comment jugez vous alors la position du gouvernement serbe actuel qui a essayé en vain d’obtenir de la cours pénale internationale qu’elle se prononce sur la légalité de la déclaration d’indépendance du Kosovo qui viole semble-t-il les accords de Kumanovo incarnés par la résolution 1244 de l’ONU ?
ZJ : La Cour Internationale de Justice a seulement donné un avis formel concernant l’acte de déclaration en évitant de répondre à la question fondamentale suivante : est-ce que la sécession unilatérale d’une minorité nationale est en conformité avec le droit international, ou non ?
Dans ce cas particulier, la sécession des Albanais de Serbie est une violation flagrante non seulement des principes fondamentaux du droit international, mais aussi de la résolution du Conseil de sécurité 1244 (1999) de l’ONU garantissant la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale de la RFY, à savoir la Serbie.
À mon avis, la Serbie, tout en acceptant un dialogue sur certaines questions, devrait néanmoins défendre fermement le caractère durable de la résolution 1244 et demander sa mise en œuvre effective.
Le fait que les USA, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne, pour ne citer que ces quelques pays, aient exprimé un désaccord sur ce point, ne devrait pas faire capituler la Serbie. D’autant plus, qu’une telle position de la Serbie bénéficie d’un soutien continu d’une majorité des pays membres de l’ONU, dont la Russie et la Chine qui sont des membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU.
Cette résolution du conseil de sécurité de l’ONU reste un acte juridique contraignant incontournable pour tous. Sa valeur juridique est supérieure à un avis consultatif émanant de la Cours Internationale de Justice ou de toute autre institution internationale.
Cette question territoriale ne doit pas être instrumentalisée dans les discussions entre l’UE et la Serbie à propos d’une éventuelle adhésion à l’UE.
Belgrade, novembre 2010.
(A écouter aussi cette autre interview de Zivadine Jovanovic réalisé par Michel Collon en mars 2009 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3h72lJ07Rs )
Conversations with Fidel Castro: The Dangers of a Nuclear War By Fidel Castro Ruz and Michel Chossudovsky | |
Global Research, November 13, 2010 | |
Introductory Note From October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order. These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview. The first part of this interview published by Global Research and Cuba Debate focuses on the dangers of nuclear war. The World is at a dangerous crossroads. We have reached a critical turning point in our history. This interview with Fidel Castro provides an understanding of the nature of modern warfare: Were a military operation to be launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the US and its allies would be unable to win a conventional war, with the possibility that this war could evolve towards a nuclear war. The details of ongoing war preparations in relation to Iran have been withheld from the public eye. How to confront the diabolical and absurd proposition put forth by the US administration that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will "make the World a safer place"? A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in the interview is the 'Battle of Ideas". The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching "Battle of Ideas" could change the course of World history. The objective is to prevent the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens to destroy life on earth. The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel's message to the World must be heard; people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war. The "Battle of Ideas" is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro's resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to "make the impossible possible", to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity. When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an "instrument of peace", condoned and accepted by the World's institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction. Fidel's "Battle of Ideas" must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda. This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces. What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people's movement which criminalizes war. In his October 15 speech, Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war: "There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!" The "Battle of Ideas" consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons. In essence, the "Battle of Ideas" consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.
| |
Oggetto: Comunicato Stampa. NO a via 'martiri delle foibe' , SI a una via ai partigiani italiani all'estero
Data: 17 novembre 2010 22.52.09 GMT+01.00
Da: Alessandro Di MeoData: 15 novembre 2010 10.58.42 GMT+01.00Oggetto: L'Urlo del Kosovo a RomaVenerdì sera, 19 novembre, dalle ore 21,30, presso il laboratorio Fusolab in via G. Pitacco 29 a Roma, presentazione del libro e del documentario: L'Urlo del Kosovo
(vedi anche: http://www.unponteper.it/bottega/description.php?II=315&UID=20101115104640 ).
Parole, suoni, emozioni ma anche allegria e... rakija per tutti!
alessandro----------------------- ooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooooo -----------------------
visita: http://unsorrisoperognilacrima.blogspot.com/
"Deve esserci, lo sento, in terra o in cielo un posto
dove non soffriremo e tutto sarà giusto..."
(francesco guccini - cyrano)
Un ponte per... associazione di volontariato per la solidarietà internazionale
Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II, 132 - 00185 - Roma
tel 06-44702906 e-mail: posta@... web: www.unponteper.it
I Z V J E Š T A J
SA SAVJETOVANJA KOMUNISTIČKIH I RADNIČKIH PARTIJA SA NEKADAŠNJEG JUGOSLAVENSKOG PROSTORA
Na osnovu inicijative pokrenute 19. aprila 2009. godine, prilikom obilježavanja 90-e godišnjice osnivanja KPJ, o potrebi iznalaženja modela suradnje KP i RP nekadašnjih Jugoslavenskih republika, u Beogradu je u hotelu «Slavija» u nedelju 7. novembra o.g. održano prvo savjetovanje komunističkih i radničkih partija sa područja nekadašnje zajedničke države. Savjetovanju su se odazvali delegati iz Saveza Komunista BiH, Socijalističke Radničke Partije iz Hrvatske, Jugoslavenske Komunističke Partije Crne Gore, Komunističke Partije Makedonije i domaćina Komunista Srbije. Delegacije svih partija predvodili su njihovi predsjednici. Savjetovanju se nisu odazvali predstavnici komunističkih organizacija Slovenije, kao ni predstavnici Nove Komunističke Partije Jugoslavije iz Srbije. Za datum savjetovanja odabran je početak Velike Oktobarske Socijalističke Revolucije, kao vječite inspiracije i nezaobilaznog činioca, čija su iskustva, dosezi i poruke odigrali ključnu ulogu u formiranju klasne svijesti ugnjetavanih na početku XX st, osnivanju komunističkih i radničkih partija, pokretanju revolucija i oslobodilačkih gibanja u svijetu.
Ključni rezultat sastanka je osnivanje Koordinacionog Odbora, kojeg čine po dva predstavnika svake od prisutnih partija, uz otvorenu mogućnost pristupa novopridošlih članica. Mandat odbora traje dvije godine, koliko traje i njegovo sjedište, nakon čega prelazi u drugu republiku premaa dogovoru na osnovu konsenzusa. Za sjedište Koordinacionog Odbora u prvom mandatu određen je Beograd. Predviđeno je da se KO sastaje redovito dva puta godišnje, a odluke će se donositi konsenzusom.
Postignut je sporazum o izmjeni i protoku informacija i iskustava, sa ciljem bolje prepoznatljivosti na javnoj sceni što bi doprinjelo efikasnijoj artikulaciji vrijednosti rada, koje su potpuno napuštene od strane građanskih partija, nakon secesije 90-ih.
Dogovoren je koordinirani nastup na međunarodnim komunističkim, sindikalnim i mirovnim skupovima.
Iako se ona odvija unutar kapitalističkih okvira, delegati podržavaju širenje suradnje između novonastalih država na svim područjima ljudske djelatnosti, kako bi se ublažile traumatološke posljedice secesionističkih ratova u Jugoslaviji.
Delegati su položili vijenac na počivalište maršala Josipa Broza Tita u «kući cvijeća» i na spmenobilježje gdje je pred 91 godinu osnovana Komunistička partija Jugoslavije.
Delegati su izrazili žaljenje, što se na savjetovanje nisu odazvali predstavnici Nove Komunističke Partije Jugoslavije iz Srbije, a nastaviti će se kontakti radi uspostavljanja funkcionalne veze sa komunističkim organizacijama Slovenije.
10. XI 2010.
Kapuralin Vladimir
---
sull'incontro tra i partiti comunisti e operai dei territori ex-jugoslavi
In base all'iniziativa lanciata il 19 aprile 2009, nel 90° anniversario del KPJ (Partito Comunista Jugoslavo), vista la necessità di trovare modalità di cooperazione tra i partiti comunisti ed operai delle ex repubbliche jugoslave, a Belgrado nell'hotel "Slavija", domenica 7 novembre u.s. si è tenuta la prima consultazione tra i partiti comunisti e operai dei territori dell'ex Stato unitario.
Al convegno hanno partecipato delegati della Lega dei Comunisti della Bosnia-Erzegovina, del Partito Socialista Operaio della Croazia, del Partito comunista jugoslavo del Montenegro, del Partito Comunista della Macedonia nonché gli ospitanti Comunisti di Serbia. Le delegazione di tutte le parti sono state guidate dai loro presidenti. Al convegno non hanno preso parte rappresentanti delle organizzazioni comuniste di Slovenia, ne' i rappresentanti del Nuovo Partito Comunista di Jugoslavia (NKPJ) della Serbia.
Per la consultazione è stata scelta la data d'inizio della Grande Rivoluzione Socialista d'Ottobre, come ispirazione eterna e fattore inevitabile, le cui esperienze, realizzazioni e messaggi giocarono un ruolo chiave nella formazione della coscienza di classe degli oppressi, all'inizio del ventesimo secolo, e la creazione di partiti comunisti e operai, iniziando un movimento rivoluzionario e di liberazione nel mondo.
Un risultato fondamentale dell'incontro è stato l'istituzione del Comitato di Coordinamento, composto da due rappresentanti di ciascuna delle parti partecipanti, con la possibile apertura a nuovi associati. Il mandato del Comitato dura due anni, tempo in cui resterà insediato in una certa sede, dopo di che si sposterà in una diversa repubblica con un accordo preventivo su una base consensuale.
La sede del Comitato di coordinamento inizialmente sarà Belgrado. Si prevede che il Comitato si riunirà regolarmente due volte l'anno; ogni decisione sarà presa consensualmente.
E' stato raggiunto un accordo sulle modifiche al flusso di informazioni ed esperienze, con l'obiettivo di un migliore visibilità nella sfera pubblica che possa contribuire a una più efficace articolazione del lavoro sulla base di quei valori, che sono stati completamente abbandonati dai partiti borghesi dopo la secessione degli anni '90.
È stato concordato di partecipare in maniera coordinata ai raduni internazionali comunisti, sindacali e pacifisti. Malgrado essa si svolga in una cornice capitalistica, i delegati sostengono l'espansione della cooperazione tra i nuovi Stati in tutti i campi dell'attività umana, allo scopo di mitigare gli effetti delle traumatiche guerre di secessione dalla Jugoslavia.
I delegati hanno deposto una corona di fiori sulla tomba del maresciallo Josip Broz Tito, nella "casa dei fiori" e sul luogo commemorativo dove 91 anni fa fu costituito Partito Comunista della Jugoslavia.
Kapuralin Vladimir
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook