Informazione
=== 2 ===
SQUADRISMO A LA SPEZIA
=== 3 ===
Keine Ehrung für Kriegsherren!
Jedes Jahr am Himmelfahrtstag wird in Aachen der Karlspreis verliehen. Oft waren die Preisträger in den aufgeklärten Teilen der Bevölkerung sehr umstritten, so auch der Preisträger 2007, der ehemalige NATO-Generalsekretär Javier Solana, der unter anderem einer der Hauptverantwortlichen für den völkerrechtswidrigen Jugoslawienkrieg war.Am 30. Januar 1999 hatte man ihm die Alleinentscheidungsbefugnisse ber alle weiteren militärischen Entscheidungen der Balkaneinsätze der NATO übertragen. Der Befehl zum Beginn der Luftangriffe gegen jugoslawische Ziele wurde am 24. März 1999 von Javier Solana erteilt.
Javier Solana ist auch darber hinaus wesentlich mitverantwortlich für die Militarisierung der Europäischen Union, für die militaristische Komponente der geplanten EU-Verfassung sowie die Europäische Rstungsagentur. Auf sein Konto geht auch die "Europäische Sicherheitsstrategie" (das sog. "Solana-Papier").
Viele Aachenerinnen und Aachener, aber auch Menschen aus anderen Gegenden, wollen deshalb gegen die öffentliche Ehrung des Militärpolitikers protestieren.
Neben einer Reihe von Veranstaltungen und Aktionen, die von verschiedenen Gruppen und Organisationen in Aachen im Vorfeld und im Rahmen der Karlspreisverleihung geplant sind, soll Ende März eine große Anzeige im überregionalen Teil der beiden Aachener Tageszeitungen mit möglichst vielen Unterschriften erscheinen, in der die UnterzeichnerInnen erklären, dass sie sich von dieser Ehrung distanzieren und der "Karlspreis zu Aachen" nicht in ihrem Namen vergeben wird. Da die Anzeige bewusst nicht von Organisationen unterzeichnet werden soll, werden möglichst viele EinzelunterzeichnerInnen gesucht. Dieser Aufruf wird von einer Initiative von Einzelpersonen aus verschiedenen Gruppen in Aachen getragen.
Bitte unterstützen Sie unsere Anzeigenaktion: Tragen Sie sich als UnterzeichnerIn ein! Bitte spätestens bis zum 15. März 2007. Sollten wider Erwarten Gelder aus den Kostenbeteiligungen für die Anzeige brig bleiben, so wird das Geld als Rechtskostenhilfe für die Menschen aus Varvarin gespendet.
Folgendes ist der geplante Anzeigentext:
Nicht in unserem Namen!
Nein zur Karlspreisverleihung an Javier Solana!
Als NATO-Generalsekretär war Javier Solana 1999 für den völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg gegen Jugoslawien mitverantwortlich. Ebenso steht er maßgeblich für die zunehmende Militarisierung der europäischen Außenpolitik, die sogar Einsätze von Kampftruppen zur Sicherung der eigenen Rohstoff- und Energieversorgung vorsieht.
Diese Politik ist mit einem gleichberechtigten und friedlichen Zusammenleben der Völker nicht zu vereinbaren. Wir, Bürgerinnen und Bürger aus der Region Aachen und darüber hinaus, lehnen eine Ehrung von Javier Solana ab. Sie ist das falsche Signal für Europa.
---
Zum Papier für eine Europäische Sicherheitspolitik ("Solana-Papier"):
- AG Friedensforschung Uni Kassel: "Die Europäische Union wird nicht wiederzuerkennen sein"
Zu "European Defence Paper" (EDP), EU-Verfassungsentwurf und europäischer Sicherheitspolitik:
- Claudia Haydt/Tobias Pflüger/Jürgen Wagner: EUropas verfasste Militarisierung: Verfassung, Sicherheitsstrategie und Defence Paper
- IMI-Broschre: Die verfasste Militarisierung
- Jürgen Wagner: Die Blaupause für Europas Kriege der Zukunft: Das European Defence Paper
- Aachener Friedenspreis e.V.: Resolution "Gegen diese EU-Verfassung"
Zur Europäischen Sicherheitsstrategie (ESS):
- Klaus Schilder: EU-Entwicklungspolitik: Unter dem Kuratel der Sicherheitspolitik? - Die neue "Europäische Sicherheitsstrategie" bedroht zivile Politikfelder
- Die ESS im Wortlaut: "Ein sicheres Europa in einer sicheren Welt"
- Oliver Schwarz: Die Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik der EU
- Wikipedia: Gemeinsame Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik
- Auswärtiges Amt: Die EU-Sicherheitsstrategie (ESS)
Über Varvarin:
- Projektrat Varvarin: Varvarin, 30. 5. 1999
- Wikipedia: Varvarin
- AG Friedensforschung Uni Kassel: NATO-Opfer klagen auf Schadenersatz - Zehn Zivilisten starben in Varvarin bei einem Luftangriff
- Reiner Luyken (Die Zeit): Die Bürcke - Wie Feuerbälle fielen am 30. Mai 1999 Bomben der Nato auf die Brcke von Varvarin. Warum? Protokoll eines Kriegsverbrechens
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5292 )
www.resistenze.org - popoli resistenti - serbia - 16-02-07
da: www.newworker.org
Lo stesso vecchio capestro per il Kosovo
Nuovo Partito Comunista della Gran Bretagna
New Worker Online, 9/2/2007
La scorsa settimana, sul Kosovo è tornato l’interesse internazionale
in seguito alla pubblicazione della prima stesura di un piano per la
regione, da parte di Martti Ahtisaari, plenipotenziario per le
Nazioni Unite nel Kosovo; per una regione che, anche se dal 1999 è
occupata da contingenti NATO, tecnicamente appartiene ancora alla
Serbia. Non ci sono novità nel piano Ahtisaari, il quale prevede
un’amministrazione autonoma, rappresentanza presso gli organismi
internazionali con proprio inno e bandiera, uno statuto speciale, ma
non la completa indipendenza.
Questo appare come un contentino dato alla Serbia e alla sua residua
minoranza, mentre, favorisce la politica imperialista franco-tedesca,
giacché gli accordi attuali fanno del Kosovo e della Bosnia un
protettorato dell’Unione Europea.
L’annientamento della federazione iugoslava, pianificato dall’asse
imperialista franco-tedesco, è stato realizzato con il supporto di
quello anglo-americano, il tutto nel nome di una fittizia
autodeterminazione, che ha tutelato i diritti di tutte le comunità
presenti, con l’eccezione di quella serba.
I partiti nazionalisti di Slovenia, Croazia, Macedonia e Bosnia,
furono incoraggiati a lasciare la federazione, mentre alle
consistenti minoranze serbe fu negato il diritto separarsi o unirsi
alla Serbia. Questo inevitabilmente ha condotto al tragico conflitto
in Bosnia e Kosovo, e la guerra imperialista del 1999, combattuta
contro un moncone dello stato iugoslavo, non ha risolto il problema
delle nazionalità, né portato pace, prosperità, stabilità nei balcani.
Il piano Ahtisaari fornisce alla comunità serba, ormai circa il 10%
della popolazione della regione, tutte le garanzie internazionali e
dell’ONU, ma queste sono soltanto parole prive di sostanza. Basta
pensare quando agli arabo-palestinesi, nel 1948, furono fatte le
stesse promesse, mentre le Nazioni Unite dividevano la Palestina.
L’imperialismo franco-tedesco non si preoccupa dei diritti delle
piccole nazioni, eccetto quando gli conviene. Richiedevano che fosse
concessa la libertà ai kosovari albanesi, ma i soli ad averne
beneficiato, dopo la fine del controllo diretto di Belgrado, sono
stati quelli fortunati abbastanza da chiedere asilo in Gran Bretagna
e nel resto dell’Unione Europea, quando la guerra incominciò.
La regione del Kosovo è una tra le più povere d’Europa e la metà con
oltre un milione di disoccupati. L’economia è mantenuta a galla
attraverso “aiuti” internazionali e le rimesse dall’estero dei
lavoratori kosovari, le quali incidono per il 13 % del reddito
prodotto dalla provincia. L’euro è la moneta ufficiale. Un ruolo c’è
per il Kosovo nell’UE, ma solo come fornitore di mano d’opera a basso
costo. L’imperialismo franco-tedesco in ogni caso ha gli occhi
puntati sul boccone più ghiotto, che è la Serbia stessa.
Il piano Ahtisaari può facilmente arenarsi, poiché la Russia ha
minacciato di porre il veto al Consiglio di Sicurezza nel caso non
fosse avallato dai serbi kosovari e da Belgrado, e tutti i dirigenti
serbi hanno manifestato la loro opposizione ad un progetto che non dà
loro nulla in più di ciò che già avevano.
L’unica soluzione praticabile per l’ex Jugoslavia rimane un equo e
definitivo accordo che coinvolga tutte le repubbliche, incluse Serbia
e Montenegro. Tutte le truppe straniere devono essere ritirate dai
balcani, permettendo così a tutti gli stati della regione di
risolvere i loro problemi senza interferenze. A tutti i profughi deve
essere concesso il diritto di tornare alle loro case, incluse le
decine di migliaia di serbi cacciati da Croazia, Bosnia e Kosovo.
Traduzione dall'inglese per www.resistenze.org a cura del Centro di
Cultura e Documentazione Popolare
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/default_02112005.asp
La strage nascosta
di Sigfrido Ranucci
"Ho sentito io l'ordine di fare attenzione perché veniva usato il
fosforo bianco su Fallujah . Nel gergo militare viene chiamato Willy
Pete. Il fosforo brucia i corpi, addirittura li scioglie".
È questa la tremenda testimonianza di Jeff Englehart, veterano della
guerra in Iraq. "Ho visto i corpi bruciati di donne e bambini- ha
aggiunto l'ex militare statunitense-il fosforo esplode e forma una
nuvola, chi si trova nel raggio di 150 metri è spacciato".
Testimoni hanno visto "una pioggia di sostanze incendiarie di vario
colore che, quando colpivano, bruciavano le persone e anche quelli
che non erano colpiti avevano difficoltà a respirare", racconta
Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, direttore del centro studi per i diritti
umani di Fallujah.
IL VIDEO - DOCUMENTI - GALLERIE FOTOGRAFICHE - REAZIONI UFFICIALI -
BLOGGERS - PROTAGONISTI - NEWS DALL'IRAQ
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/default_02112005.asp
THE BBC SCHOOL OF FALSIFICATION
BBC documentary ‘Storyville: Milosevic on Trial’ – A Review.
This two-part documentary broadcast on the 12th and 14th February 2007, follows other BBC programmes on Yugoslavia such as the BBC Correspondent programme ‘Mass Killings in Kosovo’ 2002, ‘The Fall of Milosevic’ in 2003, ‘The Real Slobodan Milosevic’ shown in 2004, and the airing of the risible, made for TV movie ‘The Hunt for Justice – the Louise Arbour Story’ made in 2005. Not forgetting the infamous ‘Death of Yugoslavia’, a BBC documentary heavily relied on by the Prosecution at The Hague Tribunal, which was eventually exposed by Milosevic as having incorrect subtitles.
Despite these numerous documentaries all have a consistent thread running through them, all take an anti-Milosevic, anti-Serb and anti-Yugoslavia approach. And most importantly, all fall in line with British government propaganda.
This should come as no surprise to those conversant with the workings of the British media, and the BBC in particular.
There is an infamous incident involving the BBC that took place during the miners’ strike of 1984/85. The main BBC television news showed footage of miners’ pickets charging at the police, yet in reality the police, batons raised, had charged into the miners, the BBC had simply reversed the film. At a later date, when the propaganda damage to the miners had been done, the BBC apologised and blamed the error on a ‘technical problem.’
More recently of course is the example of Iraq’s non-existent ‘weapons of mass destruction’ whereby the BBC uncritically relayed government press releases as if they were independently verified facts, precipitating the unlawful invasion and occupation of a sovereign country at a cost of many thousands of lives, British, American and Iraqi.
Such a role as the propaganda arm, and at times actual partner, of the British government has been performed by the BBC since its inception.
"In August 1953, a coup covertly organised by MI6 and the CIA overthrew Iran’s popular, nationalist government under Mohamed Musaddiq, and installed the Shah in power. The Shah subsequently used widespread repression and torture to institute a dictatorship. The signal for the coup scenario to begin had been arranged with the BBC; the latter agreed to begin its Persian language news broadcast not with the usual ‘it is now midnight in London’, but instead with ‘it is now exactly midnight’." (Web of Deceit’ Mark Curtis Vintage 2003).
In his book ‘Web of Deceit’ author Mark Curtis touches on the role of the media and in particular the BBC, and his comments are worth noting:
"The framing of discussion on issues is critical in setting the boundaries of debate. The (BBC) programme ‘Question Time’ is a microcosm of how the media works here,,,(I)t is acceptable for ‘Question Time’ panellists to criticise each other from within the elite consensus but not for anyone to criticise all of them from outside that consensus.
‘Question Time’ highlights that a major aspect of the ideological system is restricting debate to the best way of managing the existing system and excluding – or marginalising – the possibility of alternatives…….In foreign policy, the choice has simply been presented as whether Labour or Conservative should manage the same set of policies within the single ideology………..The evidence is overwhelming that BBC and commercial television news report on Britain’s foreign policy in ways that resemble straightforward state propaganda organs."
Domestically the credibility status of the BBC is such that when the broadcasting giant gives, for instance, a figure for the numbers in attendance at an anti-war demonstration, people as a rule just double the BBC figure to come up with a more accurate assessment.
Similarly in industrial disputes, the people fighting for their jobs or a living wage know from bitter experience how the BBC will report their dispute.
It comes as no surprise therefore to find that the BBC’s latest offering on the Balkans, a documentary in the Storyville series ‘Milosevic on Trial’ follows the same bias as their previous output.
The documentary boasts from the start that it has 2000 hours of court footage from the Milosevic trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague, together with extensive behind the scenes footage. To the observant viewer this should immediately be cause for concern.
If the ICTY was allowing a film crew such access then it must have been doubly sure that the end result was assured, that it would not raise difficult questions, such as the ICTYs dubious legality, and would cast the Tribunal in a favourable light, otherwise they would not dare risk such an intrusion into the workings of this western funded court.
In Nick Fraser, the Storyville series commissioning editor, they had indeed no reason to worry. Fraser had already commissioned the 2002 documentary, the quaintly titled ‘Milosevic: How to be a Dictator’ (which is a strange title for a person who has won three undisputed elections), and had commissioned Team Production of Denmark and its director Michael Christoffersen for this new task.
Christtoffersen already had on his CV the film ‘Genocide: The Judgement’ made in 1999 at the ICTYs sister tribunal in Rwanda from which he apparently obtained glowing references and is currently working on a film about the trial of Saddam Hussein, again with the apparent support of the occupying regime.
Fraser’s comments on the Storyville website really give the game away as to the complete lack of objectivity in the making of the ‘Milosevic on Trial’ documentary. He states:
"On one side Slobodan Milosevic- nationalist, communist politician, thug; on the other side suave British QC Geoffrey Nice."
"The best thing to do for him (Milosevic) is to die before the judgement can be passed….and that is exactly what he does.’
In regard to the first sentence above, a very astute blog contributor suggested that an alternative description (and a more accurate one) would be:
"On one side Milosevic- statesman, pragmatic politician, man of principle; on the other side personal injuries specialist-sometimes referred to as ambulance chasing- British QC Sir Geoffrey Nice who left the Hague under a cloud following allegations of sexual harassment.’
(The above description of Mr Nice is obviously inspired by the news reports that surrounded his departure from the ICTY in April 2006 and his subsequent knighthood from the British government in January this year).
.
In regard to Fraser’s shameful second sentence, any further comment would be superfluous.
As to the contents of the documentary itself, they prove to be merely regurgitation of old and much discredited western propaganda. Such is the media’s contempt for the truth however, that stories long since exposed as having no foundation in reality, are aired once again as if they had never been refuted nor challenged in the intervening years. It is very tempting therefore to simply dismiss the contents of this documentary out of hand. However we have a responsibility to the historical record to once again tackle this insidious propaganda.
The BBC documentary approached the difficult problem of presenting damning evidence against Mr Milosevic in a rather unsubtle manner. Their strategy was to show selective snippets of witness testimony and then via narration, more often than not from Prosecution QC Geoffrey Nice, explain the significance of it to the viewer. This approach has the effect of shaping the viewers perception of events and particularly of never showing the whole story, rather like the dial-up connection to the Internet when the picture slowly downloads and as you see part of it it can appear different than when you see the picture fully downloaded. In essence the documentary’s task was to prevent the disclosure of the full picture.
The snippet shown from the testimony of Rade Markovic is a case in point.
RADE MARKOVIC.
‘Milosevic on Trial’ showed excerpts from the testimony of Rade Markovic, former head of the Department of State Security of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior. Mr Markovic was a prosecution witness and the excerpts pertained to the command structures existent in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Prosecution was apparently trying to establish if any orders had come down the chain of command that could assist with the indictment against Mr Milosevic. After a brief extract of testimony was shown, the narration intimated that it was satisfactory evidence for the Prosecution. Yet here are brief excerpts from the actual trial transcripts of the cross-examination of Mr Markovic on 26th July 2002, which is unambiguous:
Page 8726
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Radomir, you read countless reports which, along
18 a variety of lines, were submitted by members of the state security sector
19 and which, through respective administrations, were all funneled to the
20 central headquarters; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Since heads of state security services of every country are
23 usually the best-informed people in that country, and especially in view
24 of all those reports, did you ever get any kind of report or have you ever
25 heard of an order to forcibly expel Albanians from Kosovo?
Page 8727
1 A. I never got such a report, nor I --
2 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you, for this reason: That both
3 you and the accused speak the same language. Everything has got to be
4 interpreted. So would you pause between his question and your answer.
5 And Mr. Milosevic, will you remember to do the same, kindly.
6 Yes. If you'd give your answer.
7 A. No, I never heard of such an order, nor have I seen such an order,
8 nor was it contained in the reports I received. Nobody, therefore, ever
9 ordered for Albanians from Kosovo to be expelled.
10 Q. Did you receive any information which would point to such a thing,
11 to the existence of an order, a plan, a decision, a suggestion, or a de
12 facto influence that Albanians from Kosovo were to be expelled?
13 A. No, I never heard of such a suggestion. I know of no plan or
14 design or instruction to expel Albanians from Kosovo.
And:
Page 8729
14 Q. Is it true that whenever there was a suspicion or it was obvious
15 that a member of the police or the army had committed any sort of criminal
16 offence, there was no discussion at all? Legal measures were taken
17 immediately, in accordance with the law, criminal reports were filed and
18 went through the due process?
19 A. I believe that over 200 such criminal reports were actually filed
20 against members of the service, and they were prosecuted. It is also
21 known from reports of the army of Yugoslavia that they did the same thing,
22 and the number of their own criminal reports was close to ours, if not
23 higher.
The above two extracts, from a witness for the prosecution, is testimony to the fact that not only was there no policy to expel civilians from Kosovo but on the contrary, any police or army personnel responsible for committing any sort of criminal offence were prosecuted accordingly. You would never have gathered this from the BBC documentary though.
However this was not the most revealing thing about the testimony of Mr Markovic. Again the extracts below are taken from actual trial transcripts.
Page 8762
7 Q. Let me just take a look here at my notes.
8 First of all, I would like to continue along the following lines:
9 I mentioned your interview with two committees of the parliament of
10 Yugoslavia, the assembly of Yugoslavia. Is it correct that you were
11 arrested only so that by exerting pressure against you, they could accuse
12 me?
13 A. Yes. That's why they arrested me.
14 Q. Here, when you talked to two committees of the parliament of
15 Yugoslavia, you say: "They asked me to accuse Slobodan Milosevic and to
16 admit to criminal acts and to say that I was instructed by Slobodan
17 Milosevic thereof."
18 Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct. I was told that in that case I would not be the
20 one who would be held accountable but that I could choose a country where
21 I would live and that I could get a new identity and that it was
22 indispensable to accuse you so that you would be tried in the country.
And:
Page 8763
15 After having spent four months in detention, I was taken out, and
16 that's when I had this meeting with the head of state security, Goran
17 Petrovic, and Zoran Mijatovic, his deputy, and the Ministry of the
18 Interior of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Mihajlovic. They did say that in
19 court, and you have a record of that. They accepted that we did talk
20 outside the prison premises. They claimed that that was at my request.
21 Q. Was it at your request?
22 A. Had it been at my request, then they certainly would have had a
23 proper order from the investigating judge and then they would not have
24 taken me out for dinner.
25 Q. Is it true that they offered on that occasion to you certain
Page 8765
1 protective measures? They told you you would be in prison for six months
2 and would be tried if you don't agree to charge me falsely, to level false
3 allegations against me? Is that true or not?
4 A. They spoke to me about the difficult position I was in. They
5 warned me against the possible consequences and offered me an option in
6 the form of accusing Milosevic, as the person who issued orders for those
7 criminal offences, which would relieve me of liability before a criminal
8 court.
9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Do you know that in 1998 -- sorry. 1988, the General Assembly of
14 the United Nations adopted by consensus a declaration against torture, and
15 that such treatment that you were subjected to is explicitly forbidden by
16 this declaration, as well as forcing --
17 MR. NICE: Your Honour -- [Previous translation continues]
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. -- statements from detainees, extortion and such things?
20 JUDGE MAY: This doesn't appear to have any relevance to the
21 evidence the witness has given here, none at all. He's been agreeing with
22 you, he's been agreeing to the matters you've put to him, and we're not
23 certainly going to litigate here what happened in Yugoslavia when he was
24 arrested. What we're concerned with, as you know, is events in Kosovo.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the conduct of a puppet
Page 8766
1 regime in Belgrade is completely identical to the false indictment --
2 JUDGE MAY: Precisely the sort of point which we're not going to
3 consider. Now, have you got any more relevant questions for this witness?
4 Or we'll move on.
It would seem from the above that Judge May deemed it irrelevant that a witness had been tortured in jail, bribed and offered a new life in a foreign country if he would give false testimony against President Milosevic. And the BBC documentary crew had all this testimony on film yet decided the torturing of witnesses in the ‘trial of the century’ was not worth a single second of commentary in their ‘objective’ documentary. So much for crusading journalism and the fearless search for truth and justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL OBRAD STEVANOVIC.
Serbia’s former assistant interior minister General Obrad Stevanovic is the Defence witness who’s testimony, the documentary claimed, backfired on Mr Milosevic. The Prosecution stated that Gen Stevanovic’s books and documents, which the Defence handed over to them, included by mistake his personal diary which contained an entry regarding the ‘cleaning up of the terrain’, which the Prosecution insisted was a reference to a conspiracy to hide evidence of crimes committed by the police and army. The documentary made great play on this discovery and the mistake by the Defence, and again ensured that this small nugget of information was isolated from a fuller, more detailed picture.
It is perfectly in order for a documentary to bring attention to any significant Prosecution claims, and although it would of course be impossible to broadcast the entire witness statement, it is also beholden on the documentary makers to make known to their viewers the Defence response to any apparently significant evidence presented. Otherwise you are cherry picking and in fact distorting the reality of the trial testimony.
If the Storyville production team had allowed even a few minutes broadcast of the Defence response the viewers would have realised that contrary to the documentary’s assertion that the Defence had mistakenly handed over Gen Stevanovic’s personal diary, they would have found that the said notebook was actually seized by the Prosecution in 2000 when they investigated Gen. Stevanovic. Therefore the Defence knew that the diary was in the possession of the Prosecution and far from being surprised they were very confident that its contents would be a useful exhibit for Mr Milosevic. And that is how it turned out because it confirmed his case that the police acted lawfully, and it confirmed various points that he had made in his Defence case relating to particular events such as the NATO bombing of the Dubrava Prison.
Moreover as the notebook was a contemporaneous record written for the private use of the witness there could be no accusation that it was written for political purposes.
In regard to the passage in the diary focused on by Mr Nice the diary entry contained the following comments:
"They work perfidiously on that issue. -- They will justify the aggression with evidence of crimes -- Clean-up -- - -- The clean-up of the terrain is the most important" and this was the passage that the Prosecution claimed meant there was a conspiracy to hide evidence of crimes.
That is the part the documentary showed. The following is the response which they did not broadcast:
Gen. Stevanovic explained that the text had a more straightforward meaning and described how the passages the Prosecution had highlighted were references to the activities of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). He said that the terrain needed to be cleaned-up so that the KLA could not create mass-graves and stage atrocities out of their war casualties, and then palm them off as evidence of mass killings that would serve to justify the NATO aggression.
Indeed the KLA has a history of ‘rearranging’ its war dead to create the false impression of a massacre. A notorious case in point is Racak, and Gen. Stevanovic added that they did the same thing at Pusto Selo and Izbica.
Obviously Stevanovic diary passage was not referring to the police’s activity. Nobody ever classifies their own activity as "perfidious" or uses the word "they" to refer to themselves.
Furthermore, in connection with the notebook, Mr Milosevic presented a copy leaflet that the KLA distributed to Kosovo-Albanians during the war. The leaflet instructed the Albanian population to leave Kosovo and travel in large groups towards Macedonia and Albania. The witness had written the text of a similar leaflet into his notebook, and during the cross-examination Mr. Nice had tried to present that text as if the witness was concocting a plan to expel the Albanians from Kosovo.
(Synopsis of Stevanovic testimony on slobodan-milosevic.org).
Amusingly, as the documentary wrongly implied that the Defence team didn’t know what they had handed over to the Prosecution, it is interesting to note that on 25th November 2002 it was the Prosecution that had to admit to the Tribunal that they had not kept track of what it was submitting as evidence. Needless to say this fact didn’t make it into the documentary either.
FREEZER TRUCKS AND SNUFF VIDEOS.
The BBC film, ‘Milosevic on Trial’ regurgitated two already discredited stories. One was the Freezer Truck Story whereby Western propaganda had claimed that Mr Milosevic had ordered a cover-up of the alleged atrocities in Kosovo and was removing the evidence, but unfortunately for him a truck carrying Albanian bodies from Kosovo had crashed into the Danube. The second was the video shown at the ‘trial’ purporting to show, according to Prosecutor Nice, the execution of prisoners by forces under Milosevic’s control. We will briefly recap here our previous response to these two stories.
What links the freezer truck story and the video together, apart from their fictional qualities, is that both originate from a certain Natasa Kandic and her ‘Humanitarian Law Center.’
In his article ‘The Fabrication and Dissemination of Deception’ from 2001 Gilles d’Aymery notes the following:
"Many news reports of atrocities and "genocide" allegedly committed by the Serbs and widely disseminated in the Western main media have originated with a little known NGO in Belgrade, Serbia, the Humanitarian Law Center (HLC). The story of the refrigerated truck filled with corpses that was purportedly dumped in the [river] Danube in April 1999 is a good example.
The HLC was created in 1992 by Natasa Kandic, its present Executive Director. It has been funded by George Soros as well as the National Endowment for Democracy and this year the Ford Foundation provided HLC with a $80,000 grant.
For those not aware George Soros also contributes funds to the ICTY itself.
For those not aware the National Endowment for Democracy is a US government agency founded in 1983 to take over functions that were once the responsibility of the CIA.
Here are some details of Kandic’s record of reliability.
The New York Times of January 26, 2004 published a report commenting on the resignation of USA Today correspondent Jack Kelley over an article he had written in 1999.
The Times report commented:
"In the article, Mr. Kelley wrote about a Yugoslav Army notebook that had a typed order to "cleanse" a Kosovo village, although he did not identify the person who showed him the notebook. He added that United Nations investigators considered this "the strongest and most direct evidence linking the government of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo."
Announcing Kelley’s resignation, the USA Today issue of 13th January 2004 stated that they had concluded a seven-month investigation into "whether Kelley might have embellished or fabricated stories."
According to the New York Times Kelley had claimed as his source for the story, "A human rights advocate" and confirmed that source as "The rights advocate, Natasa Kandic, the executive director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade"
On 30th April 2001, what later became known as ‘the freezer truck hoax’ broke in the western press through Associated Press who under the headline, "Rights Activist Says Yugoslav Army, Police Destroyed Evidence Of Kosovo Atrocities." stated:
"…[Natasa] Kandic [from the Humanitarian Law Center]…cited a report in a local magazine in the eastern Serbian Negotin region, describing how on the night of April 6, 1999, a refrigerated trailer truck was lifted out of the Danube near Kladovo, at the border with Romania"
The vehicle bore license plates from Pec, a western Kosovo city, and allegedly contained 50 bodies. According to Kandic’s center, the bodies were subsequently transferred to a truck with Belgrade plates and driven away."
And the piece continued:
"‘Our investigations produced witnesses who can testify that many people were killed, their bodies buried only to be dug up again and later moved to another place,’ said Natasa Kandic of the Humanitarian Law Center, a leading human rights watchdog organization in Yugoslavia"
The point of this story was to claim that Mr Milosevic had ordered a cover-up of the alleged atrocities in Kosovo and was removing the evidence, but unfortunately for him a truck carrying Albanian bodies from Kosovo had crashed into the Danube.
This story was very timely for Nato and the new Serbian government because at the time Nato was demanding the transfer of Mr Milosevic to the ICTY and as the Independent newspaper commented approvingly, "The bodies are the evidence the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague needs to prove its charge of crimes against humanity against Mr Milosevic."
The story was published worldwide and the BBC even presented a 45-minute documentary on it, on the 27th January 2002 as part of their holocaust memorial season.
However subsequent investigations into this story revealed the following:
The local magazine quoted in the AP article was Timocka Kriminala Revija (criminal review) owned by Dragan Vitomirovic.
Timocka published two articles about a refrigerator truck full of bodies.
The first article, dated 15th September 1999, stated that the truck contained dead Kurds and that the licence plates were Swiss.
However, the second story, published 1st May 2001 the one that Natasa Kandic presented to the world and the source of the allegations against Slobodan Milosevic, the dead Kurds had become the dead Albanians and the Swiss licence plates had become Kosovo license plates.
It further transpired that Dragan Vitomirovic had a brother with a record of smuggling illegal aliens across the Romanian border and moreover, had been encouraged to write the second article by Interior Minister Mihajlovic, a member of the newly installed Nato backed Serbian government.
In regard to Kandic’s claim that, "Our investigations produced witnesses who can testify that many people were killed, their bodies buried only to be dug up again and later moved to another place" it is important to note the following:
Police officer Captain Dragan Karleusa, who was appointed to investigate the allegations, appeared in July 2002 as a prosecution witness at The Hague against Mr Milosevic and admitted that not a single witness deposition had ever been taken. (Trial transcript).
Given that as of July 2002 the investigating officers had not taken a single witness deposition and had not a shred of evidence to substantiate the
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
LINKS / ARTICOLO / LA CAMPAGNA DI "UN PONTE PER..."
*** LINKS ***
Bottino di guerra, il petrolio iracheno alle multinazionali Usa
Stefano Chiarini - Il Manifesto
http://www.osservatorioiraq.it/modules/wfsection/article.php?
articleid=3833
La lotta kurda per il petrolio iracheno
Yo Takatsuki - BBC World Service
http://www.osservatorioiraq.it/modules/wfsection/article.php?
articleid=3914
I sindacati iracheni contro la privatizzazione del petrolio
United Press International
http://www.osservatorioiraq.it/modules/wfsection/article.php?
articleid=3692
Gli iracheni non accetteranno mai questa svendita alle multinazionali
petrolifere
Kamil Mahdi – Guardian
http://www.osservatorioiraq.it/modules/wfsection/article.php?
articleid=3884
Iraq's new oil law: not even a figleaf
By Deirdre Griswold - Workers World
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/iraq-oil-0201/
*** ARTICOLO ***
http://www.osservatorioiraq.it/modules/wfsection/article.php?
articleid=3884
Gli iracheni non accetteranno mai questa svendita alle multinazionali
petrolifere
Il governo iracheno controllato dagli Usa si sta preparando a
togliere al controllo nazionale la risorsa più preziosa del Paese
di Kamil Mahdi
Guardian, 16 gennaio 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1991074,00.html
Oggi l'Iraq è ancora sotto occupazione, e il divario fra coloro che
affermano di governare e coloro che sono governati è pieno di sangue.
Il governo è obbligato verso le forze di occupazione che sono
responsabili di una catastrofe umanitaria e di una impasse politica.
Mentre i cittadini inermi vengono uccisi a piacimento, il governo
continua a essere impegnato a proteggere se stesso, raccogliere i
proventi del petrolio, dispensare favori, giustificare l'occupazione,
e presiedere al collasso della sicurezza, del benessere economico,
dei servizi essenziali, e della pubblica amministrazione.
Soprattutto, la legalità è quasi scomparsa, sostituita da
demarcazioni confessionali sotto una facciata parlamentare. Il
settarismo confessionale promosso dall'occupazione sta facendo a
pezzi la società civile, le comunità locali, e le istituzioni
pubbliche, e sta lasciando la gente alla mercé di leader comunitari
che si sono autonominati, senza alcuna protezione legale.
Il governo iracheno non sta assolvendo nel modo adeguato i suoi
doveri e le sue responsabilità. Sembra perciò incongruo che esso, con
l'aiuto di USAID, della Banca Mondiale, e delle Nazioni Unite, stia
forzando una legge petrolifera generale perché venga promulgata in
prossimità di una scadenza del Fondo Monetario Internazionale per la
fine dello scorso anno. Ancora una volta, un calendario imposto
dall'esterno ha la precedenza sugli interessi dell'Iraq. Prima di
imbarcarsi in misure controverse come questa legge, che favorisce le
società petrolifere straniere, il Parlamento e il governo iracheni
devono dimostrare di essere in grado di proteggere la sovranità del
Paese, e i diritti e gli interessi del popolo. Un governo che non sta
riuscendo a proteggere le vite dei suoi cittadini non deve imbarcarsi
in una legge controversa, che lega le mani ai futuri leader iracheni,
e che minaccia di sperperare la risorsa preziosa, finita, degli
iracheni in un orgia di sprechi, corruzione, e ruberie.
I funzionari governativi, fra cui il vice Prime Ministro, Barham
Salih, hanno annunciato che la bozza di legge è pronta per essere
presentata al Consiglio dei ministri per l'approvazione. Salih era
entusiasta dell'invasione dell'Iraq guidata dagli Usa, e
l'amministrazione guidata dalle milizie kurde che egli rappresenta ha
firmato accordi illegali sul petrolio che adesso sta cercando di
legalizzare. Dato che il parlamento non si sta riunendo regolarmente,
è probabile che la legge sarà approvata in fretta, dopo un accordo
raggiunto con una mediazione sotto gli auspici della occupazione Usa.
L'industria petrolifera irachena è in uno stato precario in
conseguenza delle sanzioni, delle guerre, e dell'occupazione. Il
governo, attraverso l'ispettore generale del ministero del Petrolio,
ha pubblicato rapporti schiaccianti di corruzione su vasta scala e
ruberie in tutto il settore petrolifero. Molti alti funzionari
tecnici competenti sono stati licenziati o degradati, e
l'organizzazione di stato per la commercializzazione del petrolio ha
avuto parecchi direttori. I ministeri e le organizzazioni pubbliche
stanno operando sempre più come feudi di partito, e prospettive
private, confessionali, ed etniche prevalgono sulla prospettiva
nazionale. Questo stato di cose ha risultati negativi per tutti,
tranne per quelli che sono corrotti e privi di scrupoli, e per le
voraci multinazionali petrolifere straniere. La versione ufficiale
della bozza di legge non è stata resa pubblica, ma non c'è dubbio che
essa sarà concepita per consegnare la maggior parte delle risorse
petrolifere alle multinazionali straniere in base ad accordi di
esplorazione a lungo termine e di produzione congiunta [production-
sharing agreements].
La legge petrolifera probabilmente aprirà la porta a queste
multinazionali in un momento in cui la capacità dell'Iraq di regolare
e controllare le loro attività sarà molto limitata. Essa perciò
metterebbe la responsabilità di proteggere l'interesse nazionale
vitale del Paese sulle spalle di pochi tecnocrati vulnerabili in un
ambiente in cui sangue e petrolio scorrono assieme in abbondanza. Il
senso comune, la giustizia, e l'interesse nazionale dell'Iraq
impongono che non sia consentita l'approvazione di questa bozza di
legge in questi tempi anomali, e che contratti a lungo termine di 10,
15, o 20 anni non debbano essere firmati prima che tornino pace e
stabilità, e prima che gli iracheni possano essere sicuri che i loro
interessi siano protetti.
Questa legge è stata discussa in segreto per gran parte dello scorso
anno. Bozze segrete sono state esaminate e commentate dal governo
Usa, ma non sono state diffuse al pubblico iracheno - e nemmeno a
tutti i membri del Parlamento. Se la legge verrà forzata in queste
circostanze, il processo politico ne sarà ulteriormente discreditato.
I discorsi su un fronte moderato che superi le divisioni
confessionali sembrano concepiti per facilitare l'approvazione della
legge e la svendita alle multinazionali petrolifere.
Gli Usa, il Fmi, e i loro alleati stanno utilizzando la paura per
portare avanti i loro piani di privatizzare e liquidare le risorse
petrolifere irachene. L'effetto di questa legge sarà quello di
marginalizzare l'industria petrolifera irachena e di erodere le
misure di nazionalizzazione intraprese fra il 1972 e il 1975. Essa è
concepita come un capovolgimento della Legge 80 del dicembre 1961 che
riprese la maggior parte del petrolio iracheno da un cartello
straniero. L'Iraq pagò caro per questa mossa coraggiosa: l'allora
Primo Ministro, il Generale Qasim, venne assassinato 13 mesi dopo, in
un colpo di stato a guida ba'athista che fu sostenuto da molti di
coloro che fanno parte della attuale alleanza di governo – compresi
gli Usa. Ciò nonostante, la politica petrolifera nazionale non fu
capovolta allora, e il suo capovolgimento sotto l'occupazione Usa non
sarà mai accettato dagli iracheni.
Kamil Mahdi è un accademico iracheno e senior lecturer di economia
del Medio Oriente all'Università di Exeter
(Traduzione di Ornella Sangiovanni)
Articolo originale:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1991074,00.html
*** LA CAMPAGNA DI "UN PONTE PER..." ***
http://www.unponteper.it/informati/article.php?sid=1363
appelli e petizioni: Campagna Nazionale Contro I Profitti Di Guerra
Pubblicato 14 02 2007 da ufficio stampa
Un Ponte per... lancia la campagna nazionale contro la partecipazione
dell'ENI alla rapina del petrolio iracheno.
FIRMA LA LETTERA!
http://www.unponteper.it/sostienici/eni.php
Mentre la violenza sembra l’unica attrice sulla scena irachena,
dietro le porte blindate della Green Zone si va consumando un’altra
tragedia. Il parlamento iracheno sta per approvare la nuova legge che
regolamenterà il settore energetico e aprirà le porte ai cosiddetti
‘investimenti’ delle grandi multinazionali del petrolio, tra cui
l’italiana ENI.
La legge voluta dalla grandi multinazionali petrolifere, ENI inclusa,
prevede l’introduzione dei cosiddetti PSA – Production Sharing
Agreements – i quali consentiranno alle multinazionali enormi
profitti a scapito dell’erario iracheno.
Ma l’ ENI è anche nostra - il 32% delle azioni sono detenute del
Ministero dell’ Economia e Finanze – e questo ci impone di chiedere
con forza che la maggiore compagnia energetica italaina non firmi
accordi ‘immorali’ approfittando dell’ avventura militare, costata la
vita a centinaia di migliaia di civili innocenti.
Il petrolio iracheno non è ancora stato svenduto, la ‘Commissione
governativa sul petrolio’ mira all’approvazione della nuova legge
sugli idrocarburi per fine marzo: i sindacati del petrolio, la
società civile, la popolazione irachena non la vuole e chiedono il
nostro sostegno.
Qui sotto proponiamo la lettera che verrà inviata al Ministro
dell'Economia e Finanze Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa e al presidente
dell'ENI Roberto Poli.
FIRMA ANCHE TU LA LETTERA, così che il nostro messaggio di giustizia
e pace arrivi con forza sotto gli occhi di chi può fermare questa
truffa!!
http://www.unponteper.it/sostienici/eni.php
Per ulteriori informazioni:
Osservatorio Iraq
http://www.osservatorioiraq.it/search.php?query=petrolio
+psa&andor=AND&action=results&submit=Cerca
Carbonweb (inglese)
http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=4&parent=3
Truffa a Mano Armata (scarica il PDF)
http://www.unponteper.it/documenti/campagna petrolio/
crude_designs_italian.pdf
---
Alla Cortese Attenzione
Ministro dell’ Economia e Finanze, Tommaso Padoa Schioppa
Al Prresidente dell'ENI, dott. Roberto Poli
Gentile Ministro, Gentile Presidente,
ci rivolgiamo a voi, come cittadini italiani e, in quanto tali,
comproprietari dell’Eni, una società che vede una partecipazione
dello Stato, e quindi anche nostra, del 32%.
Mentre l’Iraq sprofonda giorno dopo giorno in una violenza senza
fine, il governo iracheno - sotto la pressione dell’amministrazione
statunitense e delle maggiori compagnie petrolifere - sta portando
davanti al parlamento iracheno una nuova legge che regolamenterà il
settore degli idrocarburi e conseguentemente anche i contratti con le
compagnie petrolifere internazionali.
E’ noto che, a seguito dell’occupazione del Paese, le condizioni che
il governo iracheno è disposto a concedere alle imprese estere
interessate a investire nello sfruttamento delle risorse petrolifere
e gasifere sono notevolmente migliorate a favore di tali imprese,
prefigurando la possibilità di una vera e propria rapina ai danni
della popolazione irachena, come è stato denunciato dal sindacato
iracheno dei lavoratori del petrolio, contrario alla svendita della
più importante risorsa del paese e che più volte ha chiesto che tale
legge venisse discussa con il coinvolgimento dei rappresentati del
settore. Evento che non si è mai verificato.
Siamo al corrente del fatto che l’Eni intende investire in Iraq e che
negoziati in tal senso erano già in essere prima della guerra
(accordo siglato con Saddam Hussein nel 1997), in particolare per lo
sfruttamento del giacimento di Nassiriya, proprio il luogo dove era
dislocata la missione militare italiana, e che anche dopo l’azienda
non ha mai smentito, anzi ha confermato, questo interesse.
L’interesse viene ulteriormente ribadito dalle dichiarazioni di Paolo
Scaroni – Amministratore Delegato dell’Eni – sull’inizio di test
sismici per conto della compagnia irachena da effettuarsi nel
Kurdistan iracheno e sull’interesse a fare affari nelle zone
dell’Iraq pacificato.
Noi non crediamo al caso, e in questi quattro anni abbiamo più volte
denunciato (ci sono state anche diverse interpellanze parlamentari)
che la partecipazione italiana alla guerra in Iraq poteva avere
importanti ricadute economiche per l’ENI e che la missione Antica
Babilonia era dislocata a Nassiriya per proteggere il petrolio
prenotato” dall’ENI.
Ci sembrerebbe immorale che, nel negoziare un possibile investimento
in Iraq, l’Eni approfitti di queste condizioni di miglior favore. Non
basta aver ritirato le nostre truppe dal Paese, e sarebbe un segnale
importante verso la popolazione irachena sostenerla nel mantenere il
controllo sulle sue risorse energetiche.
E’ stato calcolato, ad esempio, che in caso di applicazione delle
proposte delineate nel documento “Petroleum and Iraq's Future: Fiscal
Options and Challenger” - pubblicato nell’autunno 2004 dall’
International Tax and Investment Centre (ITIC) - di un ipotetico
Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) al giacimento di Nassiriya, l’Eni
potrebbe trovarsi a lucrare fino a 6 miliardi di euro in più rispetto
alle forme contrattuali utilizzate dall’Iraq prima della guerra.
La ITIC è, come sapete, una lobby volta a “consigliare i governi” in
merito a politiche fiscali ed economiche “responsabili”, come recita
il suo statuto. L’Eni ne fa parte insieme a Shell, Total, BP, Chevron
e dobbiamo credere che ne condivida le proposte e l’azione.
Non chiediamo che l’Eni non investa in Iraq. L’Iraq ha bisogno di
investimenti esteri e del know how di aziende come l’Eni per poter
rilanciare la produzione petrolifera, principale, se non unica,
risorsa su cui basare la ricostruzione del Paese, distrutto da 13
anni di sanzioni economiche e da tre guerre. Riteniamo però che
dovrebbe investire seguendo principi etici, e cioè non approfittando
di una guerra illegale che la maggioranza degli italiani non voleva.
Riteniamo che l’Eni dovrebbe perciò dichiarare la propria
disponibilità a negoziare sulla base delle condizioni che l’Iraq
proponeva prima della guerra, in ossequio ai Principi stabiliti nel
documento ‘Responsabilità d’impresa – Valori e
Comportamenti‘ ( http://www.eni.it/external/eniit/eni/servlet/view/
eni/upload/responsabilita_impresa/etica_del_business/
_2QMm_0_xoidcmWopk/Responsabilita_dimpresa.pdf?
lang=it&sessionId=12397014 ) che l’azienda ha adottato, in
particolare in merito a “Etica degli affari”, “Rispetto degli
stakeholders”, “Rispetto dei diritti umani”, “e “Cooperazione”.
L’Eni potrebbe intanto rendere esplicita tale volontà uscendo dalla
ITIC e prendendo le distanze dalle proposte che questa ha avanzato, e
che sembrano essere le idee guida della nuova legge sul petrolio.
Comprenderanno che sarebbe inaccettabile che l’Italia, da un lato
invii aiuti umanitari per qualche decina di milioni di euro, e
dall’altro, attraverso una azienda che è anche nostra, sottragga
all’erario iracheno miliardi di dollari.
Chiediamo inoltre un incontro per poter meglio illustrare la
situazione e ascoltare la posizione del Ministro e del governo.
Primi Firmatari:
Fabio Alberti - Un Ponte per...
Claudio Avvisati - Delegato RSU Eni Roma
Raffaella Bolini - ARCI
Edo Dominici - A Sud
Giulio Marcon – Lunaria
Alessandra Mecozzi – Responsabile Ufficio Internazionale FIOM-CGIL
Margherita Paolini - Direttore Responsabile di oltreillimes.net
Michele Paolini - Giornalista economico
Luigia Pasi – SdL Intercategoriale
Antonio Tricarico - Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale
Rosita Viola - ICS
http://www.unponteper.it/sostienici/eni.php
(è il nome del piano del Pentagono per la infiltrazione e l'uso di
gruppi terroristici, in Iraq e non solo)
<< ...if it so, then the Sunni militants and the Bush Faction have
the same goal in the current operation: to provoke the Mahdi Army
into action so it can then be destroyed by American forces.
(Here one cannot help but recall the Pentagon's plan to set up the
"Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)," designed to
"infiltrate terrorist groups" and "stimulate" them into action, in
order to flush them out and destroy them. The plan was first
uncovered by William Arkin in 2002. For more, see Into the Dark: The
Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism - http://
empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/2005/01/into-dark-pentagon-plan-to-
foment.html -, and Ulster on the Euphrates: The Anglo-American Dirty
War in Iraq - http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=1034&Itemid=135 )... >>
source : http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/997/32/
(segnalato da E. Magnone su Scienzaepace mailing list - scienzaepace
@...
ADMIN: http://liste.comodino.org/wws/info/scienzaepace
FAQ: http://clima.casaccia.enea.it/staff/marenco/sp-faq.txt )
Program 20.II.2007 Programma
Datumi - da se ne zaboravi Date - da non dimenticare
Vijesti "od Triglava do Vardara Notizie "dal monte Triglav al fiume Vardar"
I combattenti jugoslavi alle parole del presidente Napolitano. L' antifascismo in Istria. Ne parliamo con Vladimir Kapuralin.
Date: February 19, 2007 4:40:08 PM GMT+01:00
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:27:07 -0500
Von: Diana Johnstone
An: truth@public-files
For your information, an article which I am submitting to CounterPunch.
Designing the Zoo
The "International Community" Plan for Kosovo
Diana Johnstone*
February 17, 2007
After nearly eight years of uneasy occupation of the
province of
Kosovo that NATO wrested from Serbian control by 78 days of bombing in
1999, the "International Community" (a fancy name for governments that
follow the lead of the United States) is eager to shift
responsibility for
the intractable situation to someone else. The way out could be a false
"solution" that may provoke either Serbs or Albanians, or both, to
react in
ways that can be blamed for the impending disaster.
This month, the "special envoy of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations for the future status process for Kosovo", former Finnish
president Marrti Ahtisaari, unveiled his proposal for the future of the
disputed province. This "Kosovo Status Settlement" is clearly designed
primarily to soothe the collective ego of the "International Community"
(IC) in its self-assigned role as humanitarian nation builder.
Ahtisaari's plan defines the future Kosovo according to the
IC wish
list. Kosovo, it announces, "shall be a multi-ethnic society, governing
itself democratically and with full respect for the rule of law, the
highest level of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and which promotes the peaceful and prosperous existence of
all
its inhabitants."
Kosovo "shall be..." Not is. Because that description is
about the
exact opposite of what Kosovo is now: a poverty-stricken cauldron of
discontent characterized by violent ethnic hatred, a political system
manipulated by armed clans, a corrupt judicial system, and terrified
minorities (notably Serbs and Roma) deprived of the most basic freedoms,
such as being able to venture out of their besieged homes in order to
shop,
go to school or work their fields.
Not to mention broken down public services, an economy totally
dependent on foreign aid and criminal trafficking, and massive
unemployment
affecting a youthful population easily aroused to violence.
Turning water into wine is nothing compared to transforming
this
failed province into a model democratic multi-ethnic State. But that is
the miracle Ahtisaari is announcing.
And how is this miracle to be achieved?
Albanian separatists seem to be convinced that all that is
needed
is to grant Kosovo total independence. But that is not exactly what
Ahtisaari is proposing. Without pronouncing the word, he is letting the
Albanians conclude that his proposal leads to independence. According to
his Status Settlement, Kosovo is to have the trappings of
independence --
things to play with like "its own distinct flag, seal and
anthem" (but they
must reflect the "multiethnic" nature of the place). It can join the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But the substance of
independence is very much in doubt.
According to the Settlement plan, Kosovo will remain under
strict
international supervision. Control will be exercised by an international
bureaucracy run by the European Union and a military presence led by
NATO,
in three parts:
1. An "International Civilian Representative (ICR), double-
hatted
as the EU Special Representative", appointed by an "International
Steering
Group (ISG) comprising key international stakeholders", will have the
power
to "ensure successful implementation of the Settlement", to "annul
decisions or laws adopted by Kosovo authorities and sanction or remove
public officials whose actions are determined by the ICR to be
inconsistent
with the letter or spirit of the Settlement". So much for political
"independence".
These "key international stakeholders" are, incidentally,
self-appointed and do not include the country with the greatest stake in
Kosovo: Serbia. Rather, they are a reincarnation of what used to be
called, in the nineteenth century, the Great Powers.
2. "A European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) Mission will
monitor, mentor and advise on all areas related to the rule of law."
3. A "NATO-led International Military Presence will provide
a safe
and secure environment throughout Kosovo" until Kosovo's institutions
are
able to do so -- which could conceivably be many years, or 24 hours,
depending on how the "key stakeholders" choose to interpret events.
With some name changes, this is the same sort of
international
supervision that has so far been unable to combat crime, provide real
security to minorities or develop the economy.
Bureaucracy in the New World Order
Government by international bureaucracy seems to be a trend
in the
New World Order. Since the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnia war in
late 1995, Bosnia-Herzegovina has been ruled by a similar combination: a
complicated set of local authorities under the strict supervision of a
"High Representative" (contemporary version of Proconsul or Viceroy) who
can, and does, annul laws adopted by the local democratic
institutions or
dismiss democratically chosen officials who fail to tow the IC line. The
declared purpose of this benevolent dictatorship is to foster
"multiculturalism", but the result is that nationalist antagonism
between
Muslims, Serbs and Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina is as strong as ever, if
not stronger. This eleven-year-old failure is to serve as model for the
Kosovo success story.
But the trend is deeper and broader than the administration
of the
European Union's new protectorates. It applies to the European Union
itself. A number of astute observers note that the complex double-tiered
ruling structure of the Balkan colonies is essentially the same as
that of
the European Union, with its Member States progressively giving up their
democratic decision-making power to the EU Commission, only very
marginally
controlled by a European Parliament with none of the powers or popular
legitimacy of traditional national parliaments.
Even more striking, the "Settlement" spells out in advance a
whole
range of policies and measures for Kosovo, just as the EU draft
"Constitution", rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in
referendums held in 2005, spells out in advance not only structures but
policies. Basic economic policies are left to the "free market", or its
institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the EU Commission.
Deprived of its economic policy-making, the role of the State centers on
defending "human rights", especially treatment of minorities. This
focus on
minority identities actually serves to distract populations from issues
that might produce a majority concerned with redistribution of
wealth. Such
a majority, forgetting identity issues, might demand policies putting
social welfare ahead of the demands of finance capital for ever-
expanding
profits.
Despite its unique features, Kosovo illustrates the
inextricable
mess created by this current imposed version of Western "democracy".
Creating Rights Violations
The post-Cold War capitalist West, totally absorbed in frenetic
consumption of the world's resources, needed to drape itself in a noble
cause. "Human rights" did the trick.
To preserve and expand the U.S.-led Cold War military
machine after
the dismantling of its official adversary, the Warsaw Pact, NATO was
endowed with the new mission of "humanitarian intervention". The 1999
"Kosovo war" was the trial run for this new mission.
The background of the centuries-old Kosovo conflict was
dismissed
as irrelevant by U.S. policy makers in their search for "new Hitlers" on
one side and "victims" on the other -- the cast of characters
required for
staging "humanitarian intervention".
Encouraged by the prospect of getting to play the "rescued
victim"
role, the armed separatist group calling itself the Kosovo Liberation
Army
(KLA) provoked reprisals by shooting policemen and other persons
loyal to
the existing government. Violent repression predictably ensued. NATO
then
chose to interpret the reprisals as part of a deliberate plan of "ethnic
cleansing" and perhaps even genocide. Thanks to ignorant and biased
media
coverage, NATO enjoyed overwhelming popular support for its bombing
campaign and subsequent occupation of Kosovo.
Henceforth, NATO has had to maintain its Manichean
interpretation
in order to justify its intervention. The main instrument for this
purpose
is the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
in The
Hague, which, although formally a "United Nations tribunal", is
essentially
staffed, funded and provided with "evidence" by NATO governments.
The main human problem in Kosovo today is psychological: the
terrible hatred between communities stirred and aggravated by one-sided
foreign intervention. This outside support by Great Powers encourages
Albanian nationalists to seek more and more: more concessions, more
territory, more indulgence toward their mistreatment of non-
Albanians, who,
according to the official NATO narrative, pretty much deserve what they
get. At the same time it leaves Serbs to nurse a bitter sense of
grievance
and unjust humiliation.
Instead of a punitive approach manipulated by NATO powers,
what was
needed to bring lasting peace to the Balkans was some sort of Truth
Commission that would investigate events, motives, grievances and
misdeeds
on all sides in an effort to bring about reconciliation.
Reconciliation can
only be based on a sense of common humanity, which is destroyed by
constant
identification of "guilty" and "victim" ethnic groups.
But an unbiased investigation of the whole Kosovo drama
would risk
revealing the fatally negative role of foreign powers: the United
States,
Germany and NATO.
Thus hatred and prejudice must be perpetuated.
Designing the Zoo
The basic attitude of the decision-makers of the International
Community is that they alone are qualified to make decisions. They are
better qualified than the people directly affected by their decisions.
Lesser peoples must be treated like unruly children, or rowdy animals
in a
zoo, kept in cages designed by those who know best what is good for
them.
This attitude is perfectly illustrated by a gaming exercize
conducted by and for U.S. officials in the fall and winter of 2001
and 2002
intended as preparation for final Kosovo status negotiations. [1]
In these simulations, participants -- mostly American
officials --
played the roles of Serbs, Albanians, Americans and other international
players. The report notes that : "Both simulated 'Serbs' and 'Albanians'
looked to the 'U.S.' as the power broker, ignoring other elements in the
international community like the 'UN', which lacked credibility with
both
sides."
The conclusions were drawn in a report by two main operators of
U.S. Balkan policy, James Hooper, executive director of the influential
Balkan Action Council, and Paul Williams, who served as advisor both
to the
Bosnian Muslim delegation at the 1995 Dayton talks and to the Kosovo
Albanian delegation at the 1999 Rambouillet talks that set the
diplomatic
stage for NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Incidentally, Williams heads the
International Law and Politics group that carried out the exercise
and has
already undertaken to write the Constitution of a future independent
State
of Kosovo.
Their most remarkable conclusion:
" -- When left to their own devices, the 'Albanian' and
'Serbian'
delegations were ready to engage in division and reallocation of
territory,
exchanging land in northern Kosovo for land in southern Serbia and
ignoring
the consequences for Macedonia and Bosnia.
" -- If redistributing territory to promote ethnic
homogeneity is
to be avoided, the international community, led by the United States,
will
have to prevent it."
Leaving aside the reliability of such simulations, what is
truly
remarkable here is the arrogance of U.S. officials, their absolute
certainty that they have the right and the capacity to judge what is
best
for the peoples directly concerned, who must not be allowed to work
out a
possible solution by themselves.
This has been U.S. policy all along. It is generally
forgotten,
because largely ignored at the time, that in 1998, Belgrade attempted to
start negotiations with Kosovo Albanians. Kosovo Albanian leaders
rejected
talks in favor of the implicit promise of NATO intervention on their
behalf
if the situation deteriorated. Then to save diplomatic appearances
before
launching NATO's assault, the U.S. stage-managed last minute
"negotiations"
in Rambouillet chateau in France during which Serbian and Kosovo
Albanian
delegations were kept apart, as both were presented with "take it or
leave
it" proposals drafted by U.S. diplomats. These proposals were
crafted to
obtain Albanian acceptance and Serbian rejection, in order to justify
bombing with the claim that "the Serbs refuse to negotiate" -- which was
not true. Official Serbian compromise proposals were simply ignored.
Adding insult to injury, the Americans at Rambouillet abruptly
promoted Hashim Thaqi, a young rebel leaders with alleged criminal
connections, as head of the Albanian delegation, shoving aside the
better-known respected Albanian intellectuals who had also come to
Rambouillet.
This illustrates a typical feature of U.S. imperial behavior
abroad: select, listen to and promote only the worst elements in the
foreign society you want to influence. Yes, there are, in any society,
better and worse elements. On the one hand, there are shameless
opportunists, flatterers and outright criminals. Their advantage is
that
they are relatively easy to manipulate, at least in the short run.
But not
forever. There comes a time when they demand payment for their services.
The Albanian secessionists in Kosovo are out of patience, and since they
are still armed, the foreign occupiers are getting very nervous.
If the International Community itself is afraid of them,
which is
an urgent motive for giving them what they want before they start
shooting,
then what of the defenseless inhabitants? The remaining non-Albanian
inhabitants of Kosovo, notably Serb-speaking or Roma, live in terror of
these "liberators". And what of the welfare of the majority of
Albanians of
Kosovo, who have been delivered to the control of gangsters, or of
feuding
clan leaders such as Ramush Haradinaj, a favorite of the United States?
Haradinaj was given the post of provisional prime minister of Kosovo
despite a pending indictment for war crimes by The Hague Tribunal.
After
his arrest, while awaiting trial, Haradinaj was indulgently released to
pursue his political activity. It is constantly repeated that "all
Albanians in Kosovo want independence from Serbia", but in these
circumstances, any Albanian who thought otherwise would be ill-
advised to
say so.
On the other hand there are honorable men and women who are
concerned about the welfare of their country and their people. In any
society, there are likely to be a few intelligent and selfless people
who
could be described with the outdated adjective "wise". They are
systematically ignored... or worse.
The Alternative
One such man is unquestionably Dobrica Cosic, Serbia's geatest
living writer, who for a brief period as president of Yugoslavia in 1993
vainly tried to promote peace. Since it was unthinkable to qualify a
Serb's concern for the future of his country as "patriotism", much less
"wisdom", he was stigmatized as "nationalist" and ignored.
Nevertheless,
he has continued patiently to advocate the search for a genuine
compromise
agreement on Kosovo which might be sufficiently acceptable to all
sides to
serve as a basis for reconciliation and peace. In any genuine effort to
bring about mutual reconciliation, his ideas would at least be taken
into
consideration.
In September 2004, Cosic renewed his proposal "for the
Coexistence
of the Albanian and the Serbian People" in an eight-page document
sent to
all interested governments. It includes a detailed reflection on the
background of the Kosovo conflict and its context. While naturally and
inevitably speaking from a Serbian viewpoint, Cosic takes Albanian views
into account and observes a certain symmetry in their national
ideologies.
The "national ideologies of the Albanian and Serbian
peoples", he
writes, include anachronistic political perceptions based on their past
misfortunes: lengthy national subordinations and crushing defeats. The
products of these ideologies --"greater Albania" on the one hand and
"the
Serbian sacred land" of Kosovo on the other -- are myths that "cannot
serve
as a basis for a reasonable and just resolution of contemporary national
and state problems of the Albanian and Serbian people, determined by
complete interdependence of the peoples in the Balkans, Europe and the
world in modern civilization."
Cosic observes that radical changes in the ethnic
composition of
Kosovo, to the advantage of the Albanians, have compelled Serbia to
review
its policy, implying a compromise between Serbia's historical rights
to the
province and the Albanians' demographic rights. Keeping Kosovo within
the
Serbian state "would be a demographic, economic and political burden too
heavy for Serbia, and hampering its normal development."
While the same U.S. representatives who have exacerbated ethnic
hatred between Serbs and Albanians now insist that they must live
together
in a "multi-ethnic Kosovo" with unalterable borders, Cosic acknowledges
that "ethnic Albanians do not want to live together with the Serbs" in
Kosovo and "Serbs cannot live under Albanians; Serbs and Albanians
can live
freely only next to each other". He therefore argues that a territorial
division worked out between the parties themselves could provide the
basis
for a genuine settlement allowing future generations to free themselves
from this centuries-old conflict. Contrary to the U.S. approved
Ahtisaari
"Settlement", which prohibits Kosovo from uniting with neighboring
Albania,
Cosic sees such unification as a possible outcome of an overall
settlement.
Mutual Respect, or Mutual Hatred
Whether or not Serbs and Albanians could work out a "peace
of the
brave", in mutual respect, along the lines suggested by Cosic, has been
reduced to an academic question by U.S. meddling. Some ten years ago, a
few people in Europe were ready to try that peaceful method. Danielle
Mitterrand, the wife of the French President, sponsored round table
talks
in Paris between respected Albanian and Serb intellectuals. Such
initiatives never enjoyed the support of the United States, which
preferred
to promote Albanian gangsters and Serbian flatterers -- both eager
for the
favors of the Empire.
The United States and its "International Community" have done
everything to preclude an accord based on mutual respect. The
inevitable
result is mutual hatred.
It used to be that conquerors grabbed the top spots but left
certain essential structures in place, such as police and courts, so
as to
keep order. The humanitarian conquerors are different: in Kosovo as in
Iraq, they abolish the police and courts as tainted by whoever it is
they
overthrew, and attempt to start from scratch. The result is chaos:
large-scale chaos in Iraq and small-scale chaos in Kosovo.
The province is known as a hub of drug trafficking, transit for
prostitutes bought and sold from desperately poor Eastern European
areas,
notably Moldova, and various other forms of illegal trade. Trash
accumulates uncollected. The local police and courts are described as
corrupt and indulgent toward the criminal activities of their Albanian
brothers, and neither NATO nor the United Nations Mission in Kosovo
(UNMIK)
are able to bring order.
In the midst of this mess, the United States operates the huge,
self-contained strategic military base, Camp Bondsteel, that it built
the
moment U.S. forces entered Kosovo -- the very symbol of the autistic
empire. Revolution could happen in Cuba, but the U.S. military hung
onto
Guantanamo. Never mind what happens in Kosovo, Bondsteel can remain.
Other, less protected occupiers are more nervous. Already, in
March 2004, some of them clashed with huge Albanian mobs that went on a
rampage against Serbs and Serbian churches. Everyone knows that this
could
easily happen again, on a larger scale, and it will be very
embarrassing to
have to shoot at "the victims" in NATO's Manichean reality show.
Emissaries of the IC have announced that Serbia "lost its
right to
govern Kosovo" because of Milosevic's treatment of the province. But
what
gave the United States and its satellites the right to dispose of it as
they see fit? The answer: 78 days of NATO bombing of Serbian bridges,
homes, factories, schools and hospitals, brought to an end when the
faithful IC emissary Ahtisaari conveyed to Milosevic the message that
if he
did not give in, Belgrade would be razed to the ground.
Many Serbs might agree with Cosic that the burden of trying to
govern a violently hostile Albanian population would be too much for
Serbia. Perhaps more than Kosovo, Serbs want to keep their sense of
honor.
Their whole nation has been slandered for close to twenty years by
enemies
intent on grabbing off pieces of the former Yugoslavia for
themselves, on
the pretext that they were "oppressed" by the Serbs. In their
(successful)
effort to curry favor with Western Great Powers, a number of Serbian
politicians and journalists have eagerly spread lies about their own
country in order to demonstrate that "we are better than Milosevic".
The
most significant of these lies is that the Albanians of Kosovo had to be
rescued by NATO because they were "threatened with genocide" -- a
"genocide" no more real than the "weapons of mass destruction" that
served
as pretext for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The Kosovo issue has been used to punish and humiliate
Serbia in a
way that no nation could be expected to accept. Serbia cannot resist
Great
Power dictates, but it can refuse to endorse them. This is not
"nationalism" but elementary dignity.
The Russians and "Plan B"
Although the Ahtisaari plan does not mention "independence",
the
concerned parties seem to get the point It has met with the approval of
Agim Ceku, who as a senior officer in the Croatian army commanded troops
who "ethnically cleansed" Serbs from the Krajina region of Croatia,
before
taking command of Kosovo rebels and rising to his current post of
provisional prime minister of Kosovo. It has been rejected by the
Serbian
government, which states its readiness to grant full autonomy to
Kosovo but
not to give up part of Serbia's historic territory. The Russians
have said
they will not give UN Security Council approval to a plan Serbia
rejects.
Independence for Kosovo is also opposed by European Union Member States
Spain, Slovakia, Rumania, Greece and Cyprus.
The danger of the precedent set by rewarding an armed
secessionist
movement with independent statehood is of concern to much of the world,
since it would almost certainly encourage armed insurrections by ethnic
minority leaders hoping to win Great Power support as "victims" of the
repression they would provoke.
After the death of the non-violent Kosovo Albanian leader
Ibrahim
Rugova, who was denounced in his time for being willing to negotiate
with
Milosevic, Kosovo has fallen into the hands of militia and clan leaders
accused of war crimes. Serbia on the other hand is run by what the IC
describes as "pro-Western democrats". This makes no difference to
the U.S.
tilt toward the Albanians. After all, there is nothing to fear from
"pro-Western democrats", whereas the Albanian nationalists risk running
amok, as they did in March 2004, if they don't get what they consider
was
promised them by NATO's war.
Kosovo Albanian leaders have long announced that they intend to
declare independence, regardless of the UN Security Council.
According to
Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch, "If the UN Security Council
fails to
approve the plan, then Washington could turn to Plan B: unilateral
recognition by the United States, the United Kingdom, and then other
states."[2]
This could lead to armed conflict if an "independent" Albanian
nationalist Kosovo government undertook to extend its rule to Serbian
enclaves, especially the solidly Serb northern part of the province
whose
inhabitants will surely wish to remain part of Serbia. Even Serbs who
might
want to forget about Kosovo cannot easily abandon their compatriots
besieged in Kosovo by fanaticized mobs. The United States will of course
blame the Serbs for whatever goes wrong. And meanwhile NATO has made
contingency plans to evacuate the remaining Serbs from their ancestral
homes in Kosovo -- all to avoid partition, which is ruled out by the
doctrine of imposed "multiculturalism".
* Diana Johnstone is author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and
Western
Delusions, Monthly Review:PlutoPress. She can be reached at
dianajohnstone @ compuserve.com
--------
END NOTES
1 - See the United States Institute of Peace Special Report No. 95,
November 2002, "Simulating Kosovo: Lessons for Final Status
Negotiations".
The government-financed gaming exercises were conducted by the Public
International Law and Policy Group on September 28 and November 2, 2001,
and February 15, 2002 at American University in Washington, D.C.
2. Fred Abrahams, "Kosovo's Tricky Waltz", Foreign Policy In Focus,
February 7, 2007.
16.02.2007 14:05
Izvorni Krležin tekst
Alojzije Stepinec postao je nadbiskupom od Bauerovog ceremonijala sa
svećeničkom službom od dvije i po godine nakon sedmogodišnje
svećeničke prakse kao što je to propisano. Došao je na to mjesto
kao proteže kralja Aleksandra, na temelju svoje solunsko-
dobrovoljačke reputacije.
On je po svome značaju i inteligenciji čovjek jake volje,
ambiciozan, slab psiholog, nenadaren u odabiranju svojih suradnika,
jednostran i fanatički ograničen i kao takav nepristupačan bilo
kakvim argumentima. Okružio se svećenicima iz svoga kraja, živi od
klera potpuno odvojeno, a ljudi koji ga okružuju nisu ni dobri
svećenici, ni obrazovani teolozi, a bave se uglavnom zemaljskim
brigama (konjima, zemljom, vinogradima, trgovinom i t.d.).
Alojzija Stepinca smatra Vatikan za nadbiskupsko mjesto nepodesnim
već godinama. Bilo mu je poručeno sa više crkvene strane u nekoliko
mahova da će ga to što radi “dovesti u Stenjevac ili u Pleterje
(kartuzijanska internacija), a da mu je papinski delegat Marcone
poslije govora u Mariji Bistrici poručio da treba da se bavi po
mišljenju Vatikana “crkvenim stvarima” to je istina.
A. Stepinec kao nadbiskup sprovodi politiku Seniorata. To je politika
koja je računala sa pretpostavkom engleske prevlasti u našim
krajevima. Ta politika predpostavljala je (a predpostavlja i danas)
da će doći do takvog federativnog uredjenja koje će u
rimokatoličkim krajevima naše zemlje zagarantirati crkvi vodeću
ulogu na političkom i na kulturnom sektoru. Nadbiskup Stepinec
eksponirao se danas za parole tkzv. “javnog kršćanskog života”
i za odbranu materijalnog interesa jednog malenog dijela višeg klera
iz uvjerenja da time brani interese crkve, a u tom pogledu njegovo
političko mišljenje potpuno se podudara sa mišljenjem Seniorata.
Papin Delegat (Marcone) doista nije odobravao ove crkvene politike, i
za vrijeme svoga boravka u Zagrebu on je živio na nadbiskupskom dvoru
potpuno izoliran, a za saziv i tekstove rezolucija posljednje
biskupske konferencije doznao je tek iz novina.
Vatikan danas ne odobrava i nikako ne može da odobri sve ovo što
danas A. Stepinec sprovodi kao nadbiskup, koji je kao teolog manji od
ništice i koji kao kratkovidan fanatik uživa u političkom
odobravanju i ovacijama gomila kada vrši crkvene obrede i vodi
procesije. Vatikanu je poznato da se danas upotrebljavaju parole
braka i vjeronauka samo u tu svrhu kako bi se produbio raskol s
vlastima i Vatikanu je poznato da nadbiskup hoće svojim apšenjem da
stekne politički kredit, jer ima namjeru da igra ulogu ne samo
“hrvatskog metropolite” (što nije, jer kao nadbiskup zagrebački
ravan je svim ostalim biskupima u zemlji i t.d.) nego i ulogu
političkoga vodje, jer je to ideal njemu isto tako kao i Senioratu
već godinama.
Sve vatikanske direktive o depolitizaciji crkvenog života i o
spiritualizaciji duhovnog života su pojmovi za Seniorat, koji hoće
da igra političku ulogu, potpuno strani. Seniorat, koji je sastavljen
dobrim dijelom od političkih interesenata traži da javni život bude
kršćanski ne zato, jer je Senioratu stalo do duhovne
kristijanizacije javnoga života nego do političkih privilegija. Od
materijalnih privilegija crkva nema ništa nego samo jedan dio visokog
klera i to jedan vrlo malen i neznatan dio visokog klera.
Nadbiskup koji je u mladosti bio po svom političkom uvjerenju
Koroščevac, dakle čovjek koji se prvenstveno zanosio političkim
idejama i koji kao teolog do danas nije nikada još demantirao
nikakvim svojim djelom da te pretpostavke o njegovom intelektualno
političkom profilu ne bi bile ispravne, taj nadbiskup sve to što
radi radi uz potpuno odobravanje i podršku Seniorata. Seniorat kao
takav danas se ponovno nalazi u potpunom protuslovlju sa vatikanskim
sugestijama pak bi prema tome bilo potrebno za upoznavanje same
problematike ispitati osobni sastav Seniorata po strukturi moralnoj i
materijalnoj.
Vatikan je danas pod uplivom ovih informatora:
1./ Marcone, koji se kao papin delegat po svoj prilici neće vratiti,
2./ Dr. Lacković, nadbiskupov tajnik danas u emigraciji u Rimu,
3./ Dr. Moscatello, otpravnk poslova kod jugoslavenskog poslanstva u
Vatikanu i
4./ emigrantski krugovi iz ustaških i klerikalnih redova.
Kampanja koja se sprovodi protiv nadbiskupa po svoj prilici je uvod u
sudski postupak. Ukoliko bi na temelju takvog sudskog postupka došlo
do pravorijeka na temelju koga bi nadbiskup bio lišen slobode,
Vatikan ne bi pokraj sve svoje najbolje volje mogao da makne
nadbiskupa tako dugo dok bi se ovaj nalazio pod udarom pozitivnih
zakona. Rastava crkve od države, promjena episkopata u najširim
omjerima, depolitizacija crkvenog života u jednu riječ modus vivendi
nije i ne treba da bude nikakav naročiti problem koji je rješiv na
obostrano zadovoljstvo, ali bi juridički fait a ccompli u pitanju
nadbiskupovog sudjenja mogao da stvari komplikuje.
--- In JUGOINFO, "Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia" ha scritto:
>
> "Vecernji list" - www.vecernji-list.hr
>
> http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/741414/
> index.do;jsessionid=59074CDF3C5CC0A9F581B1F131A7EC08.1
>
> Kultura
> 16.02.2007 22:33
>
> KRLEZA O STEPINCU
>
> Novi dokaz o nesnosljivosti ljevicara i nadbiskupa
>
> Autor Mirjana Jurisi´c
>
> (...)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5314
>
>
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook