Dobro dosli na J U G O I N F O !


JUGOINFO e' il bollettino sulla Jugoslavia ed i Balcani curato dal
COORDINAMENTO NAZIONALE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA - https://www.cnj.it
(vedi archivio: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)

Con piu' di 550 iscritti, il notiziario JUGOINFO rappresenta una
delle voci piu' riconosciute della informazione sulle questioni
internazionali da una prospettiva antimperialista nel panorama
italiano: una voce autogestita, effettivamente autonoma da
logiche istituzionali e "jugo-liquidazioniste" di qualsiasi tipo.
La nostra attivita' di informazione via internet continua
ininterrottamente (seppur con diverse denominazioni) dal 1997.
Essa puo' continuare solo con il vostro sostegno.
SOTTOSCRIVETE per JUGOINFO e per le altre attivita' del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia usando il:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo

Per contattarci: j u g o c o o r d @ t i s c a l i . i t


JUGOINFO is the bulletin on Yugoslavia and the Balkans edited by the
ITALIJANSKA KOORDINACIJA ZA JUGOSLAVIJU - https://www.cnj.it
(see archive: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)

With more than 550 subscribers, the newsletter JUGOINFO is one
of the most appreciated voices of information on international
issues from an anti-imperialistic perspective on the Italian scene:
ours is a self-managed activity, really independent from
institutional and "jugo-liquidationist" logics of any kind.
Our effort to keep you informed through the net is continuing
without interruption (even if under different denominations)
since 1997. This has a chance to go on only if you support us.
MAKE A DONATION for JUGOINFO and the other activities of the
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia by contributing to:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo

For any contacts: j u g o c o o r d @ t i s c a l i . i t


GRAZIE / HVALA / THANKS

KOSMET (deutsch)

[ Gli esponenti dei partiti politici tedeschi, sia di governo
(socialdemocratici) che dell'opposizione di destra, si esprimono in
modo univoco sulla questione dello "status" del Kosmet. Intervistati
dalla radio tedesca internazionale Deutsche Welle, essi sostengono
tutti indistintamente la stessa posizione, che è anche quella della
lobby dell'International Crisis Group e di Wesley Clark (il generale
della NATO che comandò i bombardamenti sulle industrie chimiche, sulle
piazze dei mercati, e sui convogli di profughi della Serbia nel 1999),
e cioè: secessione nel 2005 oppure, ancora, guerra.
Il sostegno al separatismo neonazista nei Balcani è d'altronde motivo
conduttore della politica estera tedesca sin dal 1991, ed evidentemente
l'esperienza delle tragedie provocate finora non induce il mondo
politico ad alcun ripensamento: vogliono spaccare tutto, a quanto pare,
cancellare ogni residua esperienza di convivenza etnica, umiliare e
disperdere i serbi in numerose repubbliche delle banane, narco-stati e
protettorati militari. Coerente con questo progetto politico
complessivo è anche la politica del Ministero degli Esteri tedesco sul
rilascio dei visti agli albanesi, che ha visto più che raddoppiare il
numero dei permessi annuali rispetto a prima del 1999, e consolidarsi
il fenomeno delle "bustarelle" cioè della corruzione nei consolati,
denunciato da J. Elsaesser in un articolo che riproduciamo. (a cura di
Italo Slavo) ]

1. ,,Stück Land ohne Status"

2. ,,Der Kosovo muss unabhängig werden": Wesley Clark (NATO-General)

3. Einladung für Kriminelle. Albanien, die UCK und die deutsche
Visavergabepolitik (J. Elsaesser)


=== 1 ===

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1107644400.php

06.02.2005

,,Stück Land ohne Status"

BERLIN/PRISTINA - Deutsche Parlamentsabgeordnete aller großen Parteien
plädieren im albanischsprachigen Programm des deutschen Staatsrundfunks
,,Deutsche Welle" für die baldige Sezession der südserbischen Provinz
Kosovo. Sie setze sich schon ,,seit vielen Jahren" dafür ein, dem
Gebiet staatliche Souveränität zu verleihen, erklärt die
SPD-Außenpolitikerin Uta Zapf im Gespräch mit dem Sender, der unter der
albanischsprachigen Bevölkerung des Kosovo das beliebteste ausländische
Radioprogramm ist. Ein von Berlin unterstützter Plan der
,,International Crisis Group" sieht vor, dass die Provinzregierung in
Pristina ab Mitte nächsten Jahres souveräne Herrschaftsrechte erhält.
Während die deutsche Außenpolitik seit Jahren auf dieses Ziel
hinarbeitet, rechnen Kritiker mit einem ,,Domino-Effekt in der Region"
und warnen vor einem mafiotischen ,,Schurkenstaat" Kosovo.

Eigener Weg

Seit Ende Januar stimmt die ,,Deutsche Welle" in mehreren Berichten
ihres albanischsprachigen Programms ihr Publikum auf eine baldige
Loslösung des Kosovo aus dem serbischen Staat ein. Bei dem Gebiet
handele es sich um ,,ein Stück Land ohne Status", erklärt der deutsche
Staatssender wahrheitswidrig über die Südprovinz Serbiens.1) Während
der FDP-Außenpolitiker Rainer Stinner in einer Minderheitenmeinung das
Kosovo der direkten Herrschaft Brüssels unterstellen will2), sprechen
sich Abgeordnete der deutschen Regierungsparteien dafür aus, die
Provinz in einen eigenen Staat umzuwandeln. ,,Ich habe den Eindruck, es
war schon immer klar, dass das Kosovo seinen eigenen Weg geht", erklärt
der Vorsitzende des Außenpolitischen Ausschusses des Europaparlaments,
der Deutsche Elmar Brok (CDU).3)

So bald wie möglich

Mit ihren Äußerungen gegenüber der ,,Deutschen Welle" positionieren
sich maßgebliche deutsche Außenpolitiker für die abschließende Debatte
über die Sezession des Kosovo. Die ,,International Crisis Group" (ICG)
hat am 24. Januar einen Plan vorgelegt, der einen Zeitverlauf für die
Loslösung der Provinz vorschlägt. Demnach soll der UN-Generalsekretär
,,so bald wie möglich" einen Sonderbeauftragten (,,Special Envoy")
ernennen, der unmittelbar Gespräche über einen ,,Kosovo Accord"
aufnehmen und darin die staatliche Loslösung der Provinz abschließend
klären wird. Bis zum Herbst dieses Jahres sollen der ,,Kosovo Accord"
sowie eine Verfassung für den neuen Staat vorliegen. Beide Texte
müssten, heißt es bei der ICG, Ende 2005 von einer Internationalen
Konferenz bestätigt werden, bevor die Bevölkerung des Kosovo im
Frühjahr 2006 über ihre Verfassung abstimmen dürfe. Mitte 2006 soll
Pristina souveräne Herrschaftsrechte erhalten, aber weiterhin von einer
,,Kosovo Monitoring Mission" kontrolliert werden.4)

Vorsorge

Die Berliner Außenpolitik arbeitet seit langem auf eine Loslösung des
Kosovo aus dem serbischen Staat hin. Bereits im November 2002 hatte der
damalige UN-Verwalter im Kosovo, der Deutsche Michael Steiner, ein Ende
der serbischen Souveränität über das Gebiet gefordert.5) Im Juli 2003
dekretierte Steiner für die südserbische Provinz ein eigenes Strafrecht
sowie ein Freihandelsabkommen mit Albanien, das die Voraussetzungen
dafür schuf, die wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeit des Kosovo von den
übrigen Landesteilen Serbiens zu verringern.6) Die kommende Sezession
des Kosovo soll auch mit militärischen Mitteln sichergestellt werden.
Es sei nötig, in der Provinz angesichts der beginnenden
Abspaltungs-Verhandlungen ,,Vorsorge zu treffen", erklärte der
verteidigungspolitische Sprecher der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion,
Christian Schmidt: Dazu müsse gegebenenfalls das dort stationierte
deutsche Bundeswehrkontingent aufgestockt werden.7)

Zuneigung

Begleitet werden die außenpolitischen Avancen Berlins vom
albanischsprachigen Programm der ,,Deutschen Welle". Wie eine
Sprecherin des Senders bestätigt, hat sich im Kosovo die Rezeption des
deutschen Rundfunkprogramms vor und während des NATO-Überfalls ,,massiv
erhöht". Eine repräsentative Umfrage aus dem Jahr 2001 ergab, dass 97
Prozent der Provinzbevölkerung den deutschen Sender kannten. Die
,,Deutsche Welle" lag bei der Nutzung an der Spitze aller ausländischen
Rundfunksender: Rund 56 Prozent der albanischsprachigen (aber nur 21
Prozent der serbischsprachigen) Bevölkerungsgruppe gaben an, den
deutschen Sender ,,wöchentlich" zu hören. Dies entspricht weiteren
Ergebnissen der Umfrage, nach denen 96 Prozent der albanischsprachigen
Bevölkerungsgruppe ,,Zuneigung" zu Deutschland äußerten, 66 Prozent der
serbischsprachigen Bevölkerungsgruppe hingegen ,,Abneigung".8)

Schurkenstaat

Kritiker befürchten einen ,,Domino-Effekt in der Region", sollte die
Sezession des Kosovo tatsächlich realisiert werden, und warnen vor
baldigen Verhandlungen.9) Einer Loslösung der serbischen Südprovinz
wird eine Präzedenzwirkung für weitere separatistische Bewegungen
zugeschrieben (z.B. Tschetschenien10)), auch wird mit
Anschlussversuchen an Albanien und Teile Mazedoniens (,,Großalbanien")
gerechnet.11) ,,Der Kosovo ist nach wie vor ein Pulverfass", erklärt
der ehemalige OSZE-Direktor für die Demokratisierung im Kosovo,
Friedhelm Frischenschlager. Beobachter verweisen nicht zuletzt auf die
desolate wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage in dem Gebiet und die
ungebrochene Dominanz mafiotischer Strukturen, die nach wie vor mit der
ehemaligen Untergrundarmee UCK verflochten sind. Der Oldenburger
Soziologe Michael Daxner warnt: ,,Kosovo läuft Gefahr, ein geduldeter
Schurkenstaat zu werden."12)


1) Eine schnelle Unabhängigkeit für Kosovo?; Deutsche Welle Fokus
Ost-Südost 03.02.2005
2) s. dazu Sonderwirtschaftszone
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1082704361.php%5d
3) Kosovo-Debatte im Europaparlament; Deutsche Welle Fokus Ost-Südost
27.01.2005
4) International Crisis Group: Kosovo: Toward Final Status. Europe
Report N°161, 24 January 2005
5) s. dazu Deutscher Verwalter stellt territoriale Integrität
Jugoslawiens in Frage
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1037663753.php%5d
6) s. dazu Berliner Beute
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1058051536.php%5d
und Nationbuilding
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1078874136.php%5d
7) Union: Im Kosovo Vorsorge treffen; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
28.01.2004
8) Kosovo 2001: Spitzenplatz für Deutsche Welle - Fast alle Kosovaren
kennen DW; Deutsche Welle 14.01.2005
9) Experten: Keine Lösung des Kosovo-Status 2005; Der Standard
14.01.2005
10) s. dazu Modell Kosovo
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1087943982.php%5d
11) s. dazu Zum Scheitern verurteilt
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/%5d und Entweder - Oder
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1099790046.php%5d
12) ,,Nach wie vor Pulverfass"; Die Presse 14.01.2005

s. auch Leitbild
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1080255601.php%5d
und Kolonialherren
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1095112800.php%5d

Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik
© www.german-foreign-policy.com


=== 2 ===

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/index.asp?gotos=http://
archiv.tagesspiegel.de/toolbox-neu.php?ran=on&url=http://
archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/10.02.2005/1638912.asp#art

(10.02.2005 )          
POSITIONEN

Der Kosovo muss unabhängig werden

Alles hängt am Status: Sonst verlieren wir den Frieden auf dem Balkan
Von Wesley Clark

In seiner visionären Inaugurationsrede sprach Präsident Bush von
der Herausforderung, die Freiheit in der Welt zu verbreiten. Natürlich
hatten wir vor allem den Irak vor Augen. Aber den Fokus ausschließlich
auf den Irak zu richten, erhöht die Gefahren in anderen Regionen – wie
dem Balkan. Mit jedem Tag nehmen die Spannungen im Kosovo zu, das
Risiko einer Gewaltexplosion steigt, hartumkämpfte Freiheiten sind
wieder in Gefahr. Die USA und die internationale Gemeinschaft müssen
2005 endgültig eine Lösung der Statusfrage des Kosovo herbeiführen –
bevor es zu spät ist, um eine Tragödie noch zu verhindern.

Nach dem Eingreifen der Nato 1999 war der endgültige Status des Kosovo
nie geklärt worden. Er steht unter der Verwaltung der UN, die
Souveränität liegt aber weiterhin bei der Union von Serbien und
Montenegro. Aber nach zehn Jahren Unterdrückung durch Belgrad, gekrönt
von Krieg, Massenvertreibungen und Gräueltaten lehnt die albanische
Mehrheit des Kosovo, 90 Prozent der Bevölkerung, eine neuerliche
Verbindung mit Serbien ab und wird sich nicht mit weniger als der
Unabhängigkeit zufrieden geben. Nach fast sechs Jahren ist ein
Zusammenleben von Serben und Albanern noch immer unmöglich. Serbiens
erklärtes Ziel ist es, die Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo zu verhindern.

Die Spannungen im Kosovo und in Serbien nehmen zu, es ist nicht
auszuschließen, dass es vor Jahresende noch zu einer Explosion der
Gewalt kommt – wenn der Westen dem nicht entgegenwirkt. Weitere
Zusammenstöße wie im vergangenen Frühjahr, als 20 Menschen umkamen und
800 verletzt wurden, würden möglicherweise zu einer schnellen Loslösung
des Kosovo führen – einem Präzedenzfall, der alle amerikanischen und
europäischen Bemühungen torpedieren würden, die multiethnischen Staaten
des Balkans zu stabilisieren.

Nach den Ausschreitungen im vergangenen März haben sich einige die
Frage gestellt, ob diese fragile, unberechenbare und unterentwickelte
Gesellschaft ihren eigenen Staat verdient hat – oder ihn überhaupt
aufrechterhalten könnte. Bei aller Hochachtung für diese Bedenken,
sollte man nicht vergessen, dass der Kosovo bereits zwei demokratische
Wahlen veranstaltet und Fundamente für eine moderne, funktionierende
Wirtschaft gelegt hat. Die Grundlage für eine Eigenstaatlichkeit ist
vorhanden. Der Schutz von Minderheiten kann jedoch nicht gewährleistet
werden, solange es keinen Fortschritt bei der Frage des Status des
Kosovo gibt. Und das ist, natürlich, die Schlüsselfrage.

Teile der politischen, militärischen und publizistischen Elite
Serbiens haben sich nicht von der Milosevic-Ära verabschiedet. Für sie
spielt die Aufteilung des Kosovo eine größere Rolle als das Wohlergehen
der serbischen Minderheit dort. Sie glauben von einer wachsenden
Frustration und Gewaltbereitschaft der Albaner profitieren zu können
und verlegen ihre Anstrengungen darauf, diese Frustration zu fördern.
Ihr Ziel ist eine Teilung des Gebiets, die Serbien die nördlichen, von
Serben bewohnten Gemeinden und einen Teil der geteilten Stadt Mitrovica
zuschlagen und zwei Drittel der Serben im Kosovo, die weiter südlich
leben, abtrennen würde.

Um eine Rebellion der Kosovo-Albaner zu verhindern – und dem darauf
folgenden offenen Kampf um Mitrovica und einer serbischen Offensive um
den Nordkosovo –, muss unter der Führung der Amerikaner sofort eine
Lösung der Statusfrage herbeigeführt werden. Die „Contact Group“ (USA,
Großbritannien, Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien, Russland) und der
UN-Sicherheitsrat haben sich eine Frist bis Sommer 2005 gesetzt, um
über den Entscheidungsprozess der Statusfragen zu befinden. Sie sollten
sofort Kriterien für Verhandlungen festlegen und einen Zeitplan. Die
Rahmenbedingungen für eine Zukunft des Kosovo sollten sein: keine
Rückkehr unter die Herrschaft Belgrads, keine Aufteilung des Landes,
und keine zukünftige Union mit Albanien oder einem anderen Nachbarland.
Die Geschwindigkeit, mit der Kosovo eine volle Unabhängigkeit
zugebilligt wird, sollte von seiner Behandlung der Minderheiten
abhängig gemacht werden. Dieser letzte Punkt ist absolut entscheidend.

Der UN-Generalsekretär sollte zusätzlich einen Sondergesandten
benennen, der Verhandlungen über ein „Kosovo-Abkommen“ beginnen soll,
einschließlich einer neuen Verfassung. Außerdem sollte Ende 2005 eine
internationale Konferenz stattfinden, die das Abkommen absegnet.
Kooperiert Serbien, kann es eine Rolle bei der Formulierung der neuen
Verfassung und der Sicherung der Rechte für Serben spielen. Boykottiert
Serbien jedoch den Prozess und weigert sich Souveränität abzugeben –
die Lage ist zu fragil, als dass der Kosovo weiter als Geisel gehalten
werden kann. Wird die Lösung der Statusfrage im Sicherheitsrat
blockiert, sollten die USA zusammen mit den Europäern die Konferenz
ausrichten, ein Verfassungsreferendum im Frühjahr 2006 veranstalten und
dann den neuen Staat Kosovo diplomatisch anerkennen und unterstützen.

Anders als im Irak wird im Kosovo derzeit nicht gekämpft. Aber jetzt
müssen Maßnahmen ergriffen werden, die zur Lösung der Statusfrage
führen. Sonst laufen wir Gefahr, Frieden wie Freiheit auf dem Balkan zu
verlieren.

Der Autor war oberster Befehlshaber der Nato während des Kosovokrieges
und ist Mitglied der International Crisis Group. Deren Bericht zur Lage
im Kosovo ist unter www.crisisgroup.com publiziert.


=== 3 ===

Junge Welt, 21.2.05 -- www.jungewelt.de

Jürgen Elsässer

Einladung für Kriminelle

Albanien, die UCK und die deutsche Visavergabepolitik

Der Visaskandal in Tirana ist für Außenminister Fischer weit brisanter
als der in Kiew«, urteilte Mafia-Experte und Buchautor Jürgen Roth.
Kein Wunder: Aus Albanien und dem mittlerweile albanisch beherrschten
Kosovo kamen vorzugsweise Kriminelle nach Deutschland, was man
-entgegen der propagandistischen Dauerbeschallung durch die CDU/CSU -
für die Ukraine gerade nicht behaupten kann.
In Zahlen: Die Zahl der ausgegebenen deutschen Visa an der deutschen
Botschaft in Tirana stieg von 8 000 im Jahre 1998 auf 19 000 in den
Jahren 2002 und 2003. Das ist weit weniger als in Kiew, wo die
Vergleichszahlen bei 130 000 (1998) bzw. 300 000 (2001) liegen. Doch
das Schmiergeld für Albaner pendelte mit durchschnittlich 2 000 Euro
pro Genehmigung etwa beim Siebenfachen des Bakschischs in Kiew - das
konnten sich wirklich nur noch Leute leisten, die zu Geld gekommen
waren, und das sind in dem Balkanstaat vorzugsweise Kriminelle. Eine
Zunahme von Verbrechen seitens ukrainischer Banden nach Inkrafttreten
des Volmer-Erlasses im Frühjahr 2000 konnte dagegen bisher nicht
festgestellt werden (siehe jW vom Montag).
Das Bestechungsgeld hatten sich albanische Mittelsmänner vor Ort und
deutsche Beamte »in einer von Korruption fast lückenlos durchsetzten
Visa-Stelle« - so die Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung mit Bezug
auf eine Prüfkommission der deutschen Regierung - geteilt.
»Leichtfertige Visavergabe und das hohe Maß an Korruption« hätten
demnach in Tirana dazu geführt, »daß auch an die Chefs von albanischen
kriminellen Banden Visa ausgegeben« wurden. Das habe das
Bundeskriminalamt schon früher festgestellt. Besonders brisant war die
Ausgabe von Langzeitvisa: Nachdem das Leck in Tirana aufgedeckt worden
war, mußten 350 dieser Persilscheine sofort gesperrt werden, über 1 200
weitere Sperrungen folgten bis heute. Im jüngsten Drogenbericht von
Europol ist dokumentiert, daß im Jahre 2004 »albanische Gruppen ihren
Anteil am Rauschgiftmarkt im allgemeinen und am Heroinmarkt im
speziellen kontinuierlich vergrößert« haben. Drei Faktoren haben
demnach zu dieser Entwicklung maßgeblich beigetragen: »Die Anwesenheit
von Albanern aus Albanien, aus dem Kosovo und aus Mazedonien in nahezu
allen westeuropäischen Ländern, die Existenz vieler Erscheinungsformen
organisierter Kriminalität unter Albanern und das Bestreben einiger
Gruppen, aus Albanien, dem Kosovo und Teilen Mazedoniens ein
selbständiges Groß-Albanien zu schaffen.«
Die albanische Bandenkriminalität ist untrennbar mit der
Kosovo-Untergrundbewegung UCK verbunden - die Terrororganisation
finanziert sich hauptsächlich über den Schmuggel von Heroin und
Zwangsprostituierten. Es ist deshalb nicht verwunderlich, daß sich das
Bundesinnenministerium bereits im Sommer 2004 mit »möglichen
Unregelmäßigkeiten« bei der Visavergabe auch in der Kosovo-Hauptstadt
Pristina beschäftigen mußte. Genaue Zahlen darüber wurden allerdings
bislang nicht vorgelegt.
Während die deutsche Visapolitik gegenüber der Ukraine vor allem die
prowestliche Beeinflussung der dortigen Stadtbevölkerung vorantreiben
sollte und letztlich ein Instrument zur Initiierung der sogenannten
orange Revolution in diesem Winter war, muß die ähnliche Freigiebigkeit
gegenüber Albanern andere Gründe haben - sowohl das albanische
Mutterland wie das UN-verwaltete Kosovo sind bereits jetzt viel
weitgehender unter westlicher Kontrolle als die Ukraine bisher.
Möglicherweise verlangten die UCK-Untergrundgangster, mit denen die
deutsche Außenpolitik schon seit den frühen neunziger Jahren enge
Verbindungen geknüpft hat, von ihren Berliner Paten eine gewisse
Freizügigkeit bei Reisen in den EU-Raum zur Abwicklung ihrer dunklen
Geschäfte. Etwaige Unstimmigkeiten ließen sich durch finanzielle
Zuwendungen aus dem Wege räumen - Politiker, auch deutsche, sind in der
Regel käuflich, sonst hätten sie einen anständigen Beruf gewählt.
Es wäre eigentlich zu schön, wenn der Bundesaußenminister, der mit
seinem humanitären Kriegseinsatz zur Rettung der armen Albaner 1999 zum
beliebtesten deutschen Staatsmann der Gegenwart avancierte, nun über
seine balkanischen Freunde stolpern würde. Leider kann man den Sekt
noch nicht kaltstellen, aber zur Sicherheit sollte man ein paar
Fläschchen im Hause haben.

Dalla lista aa-info @yahoogroups.com

Data: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:55:41 +0100
Da: "momotombo" <momotombo @...>
Oggetto: La strage di Verona: "gesto inconsulto"? La verità è un'
altra


La strage di Verona: "gesto inconsulto"? La verità è un'altra.


I due giovani poliziotti freddati a Verona durante un servizio di
pattugliamento non potevano immaginare che dentro quell'auto, in una
fredda notte di febbraio, oltre al corpo di una povera giovane ucraina
ci fosse un "terminetor", una spietata macchina addestrata per uccidere
.

Già si parla di "gesto inconsulto", di mostro, di squilibri maniacali.

Quello che ha compiuto Arrigoni ( a parte il suo curriculum) non è
niente di tutto ciò Ma la reazione di uno che stava facendo un
"lavoro". Un "lavoro" molto sporco che , probabilmente, aveva imparato
a fare in Somalia: Uccidere per terrorizzare. La reazione di chi solo
ammazzando due pericolosi testimoni può pensare di farla franca.
Perché dopo avrebbero pensato a coprirlo "loro" i suoi committenti;
come da copione.

Queste affermazioni certamente "impegnative" o forse pesanti non sono
il frutto di qualche banale dietrologismo , come molti lettori,
compagne e compagni sicuramente penseranno.

Sono il frutto di una attenta analisi ormai decennale ( partita da una
contro-inchiesta fatta in romagna sui delitti della UNO BIANCA), di
fatti ed eventi classificati come "criminali" che si saldano invece a
quest'ultimo episodio.

Il primo collegamento immediato è con quanto successe al Pilastro nei
primi anni "90 (dove tre carabinieri ausiliari vennero trucidati dalla
banda della "UNO BIANCA" perché giunti nel posto sbagliato nel momento
sbagliato); e l'omicidio di Bilancia di due guardie giurate dopo aver
sparato a una ragazza nigeriana.

La banda della UNO BIANCA era composta da poliziotti legati ai servizi
segreti militari. Si macchiò di decine di omicidi e ferimenti contro
obiettivi apparentemente diversi fra loro: tabaccai, cassieri,
impiegati, benzinai, passanti e testimoni; inoltre zingari e immigrati
senza neanche il pretesto di finte rapine per pochi spiccioli.

Il periodo più intenso del gruppo si colloca nella delicata fase di
transizione dalla prima alla seconda repubblica ( ma già dalla fine
degli anni '80 era attiva "la banda delle coop" che probabilmente
integrata da altri ignoti elementi operava sempre in E. Romagna e nord
delle marche seminando il terrore nei super mercati coop).

Siamo in un momento di scontri senza esclusione di colpi fra apparati e
servizi segreti legati alla vecchia classe politica (attaccata anche
sul fronte giudiziario con tangentopoli) e quelli legati ai poteri
sovra-nazionali che spingono l'acceleratore delle "riforme" ,
accompagnate dalle dichiarazioni e dai gesti simbolici e plateali di
Kossiga ( il picconatore che durante una cerimonia della massoneria
anglosassone di rito scozzese pianta simbolicamente, in un castello
della Scozia, una quercia dicendo:"speriamo cresca bene").

Flaminio Piccoli, vecchio esponente democristiano,denuncia i piani di
poteri "occulti" per distruggere la prima repubblica e in una
intervista dirà: "Per imporre il turbocapitalismo faranno scorrere
fiumi di sangue".

La scoperta e l'arresto della banda della UNO BIANCA, che agiva
indisturbata da anni lasciando tracce e indizi simili a quelle di un
elefante dentro un negozio di cristalleria, avviene probabilmente negli
ultimi strascichi di questo scontro fra vecchi e nuovi poteri
(ricordiamo il furto "simbolico" di una UNO Bianca dentro la sede del
SISDE a Roma).

Ma la scia di sangue e di crimini particolarmente efferati non si
ferma. Siamo di fronte ad una nuova strategia del terrore che si adegua
e si attualizza alla nuova fase che si è aperta in Italia dopo la
sconfitta del movimento operaio nelle sue forme più "rigide" e la
ristrutturazione sociale e produttiva del paese

Se togliamo gli ultimi bagliori delle stragi di Firenze e Milano, lo
stragismo bombarolo si colloca storicamente nel conflitto di classe
sorto negli anni '70. Conflitto che rappresenta forse la punta più
avanzata nel contesto europeo che fa dell'Italia una "anomalia" nel
mondo occidentale (dopo il riflusso del '68) e soprattutto l'anello
debole della catena imperialista euro-atlantica.

Paradossalmente se lo stragismo bombarolo è una strategia
controrivoluzionaria,tesa a colpire ed arrestare i movimenti sociali di
classe, il nuovo terrorismo dei "serial killers", o dei "terminetors",
si colloca in una strategia "rivoluzionaria" del capitale che deve
necessariamente colpire e disgregare nel più profondo il
conservatorismo e le riluttanze , formali ed informali, della società
italiana alla modernizzazione dopo la caduta del blocco socialista dei
paesi dell'Est e della crisi irreversibile dei modelli
socialdemocratici del Nord Europa .

Esorcizzato il "pericolo comunista" e messi nell'angolino i movimenti
antagonisti resta il problema di disgregare e cancellare tutti quegli
elementi di "arretratezza" che costituiscono un ostacolo al pieno
sviluppo di un capitalismo moderno, efficiente, decisionista, capace
di stare al passo con la competizione globale in formazione.

La società italiana non è preparata a questi cambiamenti radicali che
devono avvenire in tempi rapidi perchè la globalizzazione imperialista
non aspetta nessuno ne tollera ritardatari. Occorre dunque colpirla
nelle sue"cattive" abitudini comportamenrali:

il provincialismo, l'assistenzialismo,la socialità, e persino la
famiglia e le tradizioni religiose, quando diventano ostacolo alla
"rivoluzione culturale" del capitale. Occorre disgregare il
"comunitarismo" conservatore -dirà Luttwak (consigliere speciale della
casa bianca e attento"osservatore" dell'Italia-).

È in questo contesto che appare sempre più evidente la figura del
"serial killer", del"mostro".

Tanti eventi criminali,spesso di una ferocia inaudita, come se si
trattasse di azioni coordinate fra loro.

Li accomuna uno spropositato uso della violenza, spesso la mancanza di
un movente plausibile e , soprattutto, l'indignazione popolare che
riescono a scatenare. Come i delitti della UNO BIANCA.



Menzionarli tutti sarebbe impossibile: ricordiamo "Manolo lo slavo",
ergastolano che riesce a fuggire misteriosamente dal carcere di Rimini
e si mette a terrorizzare le campagne del Nord Italia vestito con
pantaloni mimetici e anfibi .

Usa una 357 Magnum per compiere rapine balorde presso case isolate di
agricoltori "terminando" le sue vittime : 9 morti ammazzati.Una volta
catturato confesserà in una intervista di essere uscito dal carcere
"Grazie a quelli della UNO BIANCA".

Poi c'è il "killer" delle pensionate in Puglia, quello dei taxisti in
Toscana che usa strangolare le sue vittime con un laccio alla
"commandos"; ancora quello delle prostitute a Modena che vede
indagato, che strana coincidenza, un altro ex-parà.

Delle conoscenze del "mostro" Bilancia in ambienti legati ad apparati
statali si ha la conferma quando un detenuto , passato per il carcere
di Rimini, viene a sapere molte cose in merito. Volerà, "suicida" giù
dalla finestra della Questura di La Spezia.

Nel frattempo qualche disgraziato, vuoi per essere immigrato, "terrone,
o per aver avuto qualche precedente per reati sessuali finisce in
"graticola" grazie a ben collaudati depistaggi e impianti accusatori
ridicoli (Vedere la vicenda dei catanesi del Pilastro su cui il
settimanale "Avvenimenti" fece una bella contro-inchiesta).

E che dire del lagunare-assaltatore della Val di Susa (magari qualche
compagno di Torino potrebbe verificare).Circa 3 anni fa Questo tizio ,
descritto da amici e parenti come un uomo mite e gentile (come il suo
collega di Verona), un giorno, forse preso dal rimorso , si presenta
dai giudici di Torino confessando di aver compiuto numerosi omicidi
rimasti insoluti, in finte rapine per conto del SISMI. Partono le prime
verifiche e si comincia a capire che il soggetto non è un mitomane.
Verrà trovato morto "suicidato" con un colpo alla testa nel bagno del
tribunale di Torino durante una udienza.

E perché non ricordare il recente "una bomber" che fabbrica ordignetti
in Veneto ? Chi ha un minimo bagaglio conoscitivo sa che la
preparazione o la manipolazione di esplosivi è qualcosa di estremamente
delicata e pericolosa. Solo chi ha frequentato corsi di "alta
specializzazione" può preparare ordigni di questo tipo. Dove avrà
imparato queste tecniche il nostro amico? In quale base NATO o in quali
"missioni di pace"?

Le vicende di Cogne e di Omar ed Erika sono allo stesso tempo le più
devastanti e "spettacolari": leggete attentamente dall'inizio di questi
tragici fatti fino ad oggi nei maggiori quotidiani ed in particolare
"Il resto del carlino" (stranamente sempre attento a particolari che
lasciano aperte sempre altre ipotesi senza , ovviamente , tirare mai
conclusioni) e vi accorgerete di inchieste zeppe di incongruenze,
sparizioni di prove,depistaggi, confessioni degli imputati
contraddittorie.

Cosa hanno in comune questi due delitti ? Molto:innanzitutto
l'apparizione del reparto dei RIS con le loro investigazioni
"scientifiche" (prova del DNA etc.); poi i genitori che ammazzano i
figli e i figli che ammazzano i genitori nella maniera più sanguinaria
e feroce: a colpi di decine di coltellate e con lo spappolamento del
cranio. Tutto questo non in una grande metropoli, dove farebbe meno
clamore,ma nella provincia italiana,nella piccola comunità montana dove
tutto è sempre più tranquillo e non succede mai niente di eclatante.

L'immaginario collettivo è colpito e turbato profondamente.

Ci penseranno i macellai dell'informazione a rendere tutto più macabro
e "terroristico": "non si può essere sicuri neanche fra le mura
domestiche con la propria famiglia".

L'effetto è equivalente a quello di una strage in una stazione a
ferragostoo o durante le vacanze di Natale .

Del resto non è forse accertato che il "mostro di Rostov" in Russia
negli anni '80 era coperto da settori del KGB che stavano preparando la
transizione a partire dallo scardinamento dei principi socialisti che
garantivano sicurezza e protezione assoluta ai bambini. Occorreva
qualcosa di forte , di traumatico per preparare i russi a quello che
sarebbe venuto più tardi. Qualcosa che i russi non avevano mai visto:
un "mostro" con la tessera del PCUS che divorava bambine.

Lo scopo è sempre lo stesso: condizionare e manipolare costantemente
l'"opinione pubblica" attraverso crimini particolarmente efferati.

Se guardiamo tutto quello che è successo in questi ultimi 15 anni nel
nostro paese ci si renderà conto dei cambiamenti radicali avvenuti in
un lasso di tempo relativamente breve (rispetto ai 45 anni precedenti.

Il terrorismo di stato, nelle sue varie forme ed espressioni ,
accompagna e guida questi cambiamenti.

Rispetto a questa situazione assistiamo ad una completa paralisi e
incapacità dei più disparati settori di movimento nel riprendere in
mano i fili della contro-informazione e della contro-inchiesta. È un
chiaro segno dei tempi di crisi che l'antagonismo di classe vive oggi
in Italia. La crisi ideologica della sinistra rivoluzionaria genera
anche l'incapacità di interpretare i fenomeni e sottovalutarli. Spesso
non vediamo questi fatti come una trave nell'occhio e inseguiamo invece
piccole mosche. Un conto è parlare di strategia terrorista dello stato
un conto fare controinformazione su una banda di teppistelli di
quartiere con simpatie naziste.

Occorre ripristinare il vecchio metodo della controinformazione e della
contro-inchiesta .

Occorre che nei vari ambiti di movimento ci siano soggetti che si
prendano cura della raccolta di informazioni , di analizzarle e
catalogarle. Quella sana abitudine che vari gruppi della sinistra
extraparlamentare avevano durante la strategia delle bombe (anche se
il clima evidentemente non è più lo stesso).

Certo, c'è una netta recrudescenza dell'aspetto repressivo. Sono
tornati a selezionare i militanti più scomodi o pericolosi, si ritorna
all'uso dei reati associativi (vedi il 270 bis), si ripristinano le
provocazioni fasciste per irretire le realtà antagoniste dentro la
spirale della guerra per bande. Ma spesso le strategie che non si
vedono sono le più pericolose perché i movimenti non riescono a
leggerle e a riconoscerle e , soprattutto, a collocarle dentro precisi
progetti politici dell'imperialismo e in questa nuova fase dove si
stanno realizzando molti degli obiettivi che il grande capitale voleva
raggiungere anche attraverso l'uso di queste forme "anomale" di
terrorismo .

Speriamo che qualcuno raccolga questo tentativo di stimolare da parte
nostra la discussione e un interesse maggiore rispetto a questi
fenomeni che rientrano a pieno titolo dentro la così detta strategia
della CONTRORIVOLUZIONE.



"I terroristi sono fra noi"

(Antonio Mantella , maresciallo dei carabinieri "suicidato" nella
strage della caserma di Bagnara di Romagna il 16 Nov 1988)


"siamo in tanti"

(Roberto Savi poliziotto killer della Uno Bianca, dopo l'arresto
Dicembre 1994)


"Per imporre il turbo-capitalismo faranno scorrere fiumi di sangue"

(Flaminio Piccoli esponente nazionale della DC nel periodo di
"Tangentopoli")



Alcuni compagni romagnoli promotori della contro-inchiesta sui delitti
della UNO BIANCA negli anni '90)

da ICDSM-Italia:


1. BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP:
Confusing rules and exceptions: Or, why the ICTY should not be judge,
jury and lawmaker (20 February 2005)

2. OPEN LETTER TO THE UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (G.
Louis-Jensen, 11 December 2004)

Lettera aperta di G. Louis-Jensen, rappresentante dell'ICDSM in
Danimarca, alla ex procuratrice del "tribunale" dell'Aia, oggi Alto
Commissario dell'ONU per i Diritti Umani, Louise Arbour...


==========================

26 February Hague International Conference:
The Final Announcement

# http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/167 #

Terzo - e definitivo - annuncio ufficiale della Conferenza dell'Aia
sulle problematiche legate al processo-farsa contro Milosevic e contro
la Jugoslavia (26 febbraio 2005)

==========================

ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it

*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***

IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm

IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm

LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)

==========================

1)

http://www.bhhrg.org/LatestNews.asp?ArticleID=60

BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP:
 
NEWS ANALYSIS

Confusing rules and exceptions: Or, why the ICTY should not be judge,
jury and lawmaker

Date: 20 February 2005

“Extensive research has not led to the identification of any case in
any jurisdiction where counsel has been assigned to an accused person
because he was unfit to conduct his case as the result of impaired
physical health.”

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Trial
Chamber, Decision of 22nd September 2004 

 
In a previous news item, dated 13th September 2004, BHHRG reported on
and criticised the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia to impose defence counsel on Slobodan Milošević.

Commenting on the Order issued by the Trial Chamber on 10th September
2004,[1] BHHRG concluded,

“Crucially, the Trial Chamber offered no legal argument, i.e. by
quoting precedent or law, for using the health of the accused as a
reason for imposing counsel. It simply rescinded all its earlier
decisions, which had been grounded in law and precedent; it stated that
international and domestic law provided precedents for imposing
counsel, without quoting a single one; and it said that it was ‘in the
interests of justice’ to impose counsel. No definition was given of
these interests.”

Since the publication of that Order (which in turn confirmed an oral
ruling given on 2nd September 2004 [2]) the Trial Chamber has given
more detailed reasoning for its decision, and the Appeal Chamber has
upheld that decision. 

(This is in spite of the Appeal Chamber’s decision overturning the
“modalities” laid down by the Trial Chamber for the new regime. In its
Decision of 1st November 2004, the Appeal Chamber criticised the Trial
Chamber for its “excessiveness” in taking away the defendant’s right to
conduct his own counsel, and effectively restored the status quo ante
while upholding the general principle that counsel could be
imposed.[3] This followed the refusal by 92 out of 97 defence witnesses
to testify, after counsel was imposed in September. Although the change
of the modalities means that Mr. Milošević is now once again preparing
and cross-examining witnesses as before, and although he refuses all
contact with imposed counsel, the legal position remains that the ICTY
has invented the principle that a defendant’s right to represent
himself can be overruled for health reasons. The Appeal Chamber upheld
the Trial Chamber’s earlier ruling on this point.)

The Trial Chamber decision of 22nd September 2004 does contain legal
reasoning, most of which was upheld on appeal, and it is therefore
important to revisit this issue in the light of these further legal
statements.

The Trial Chamber issued its “Reasons for Decision on Assignment of
Defence Counsel” on 22nd September 2004.[4] The basic argument of this
document is that the health of the defendant is too fragile for him to
be allowed to defend himself, and that counsel must therefore be
imposed in order to prevent the proceedings from being subject to
excessive delay. The undefined “fairness” of the proceedings is invoked
as an overriding principle in support of this decision.

This report will not concentrate on the merits of the case, which were
dealt with in the report dated 13th September. That report drew
attention to the fact that the right of a defendant to defend himself
in person is clearly enunciated in the ICTY’s own charter (Article 21,
where it is described as a “minimum guarantee”, not subject to any
limitations or qualifications) as well as in all the other relevant
international human rights conventions. It is also forcefully affirmed
in many authoritative national rulings, including most notably the US
Supreme Court’s decision inFaretta v. California(1975). Indeed, the
right was itself clearly enunciated in the Tribunal’s own rulings on
the matter, especially the one dated 4th April 2003, which the
September 2004 decisions overturned.

Instead, the purpose of this report is to look more closely at the
legal methodology employed by the Trial Chamber and the Appeal Chamber
in rescinding their earlier decisions. The legal reasoning is not only
of a disgracefully poor quality; it also calls into serious question
the lawfulness of the Tribunal itself.

One of the key conditions of lawfulness is that the law be clear,
predictable and stable. Yet the reasoning employed by the ICTY
contradicts this fundamental principle. In the explanation given on22nd
September 2004 document, as in the original Order of 10th September
2004 and in the Oral Ruling of 2nd September, the argument is made that
the right to defend oneself in person is not an absolute right, and
that therefore the Trial Chamber has the right to withdraw it. With a
repetition which borders on the compulsive - as if to cover up a guilty
conscience - the Trial Chamber says that the right to defend oneself in
person, recognised by numerous jurisdictions and international
conventions, is in fact not absolute.[5] This point is made repeatedly
in paragraphs 1, 8, 9, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49, and 50. 

The ICTY refers to an earlier ruling which says that the ICTY Charter
is a treaty, and that Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties [6] means that it should be therefore interpreted “in
good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms of the
treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” It
uses this Convention to offset the right to defend oneself in person
(which is described as a “minimum guarantee” in the Charter) and to say
that it must give way to the overarching need for the trial to be fair,
which it will not be if it is repeatedly delayed because of the
defendant’s poor health.

It is unconvincing to see the ICTY suddenly concerned that its trials
should be speedy, when it is (like its sister tribunal, the ICTR in
Arusha) notorious for making defendants wait for years before their
cases come to trial. Had the ICTY Trial Chamber been concerned that the
Milošević trial proceed quickly, it should have prevented the
Prosecution from calling a host of irrelevant “expert” witnesses; it
should have cut down the Prosecution’s time to a few months instead of
two years; and it should have refused to bundle the Bosnia and Croatia
indictments into the same trial as the Kosovo indictment. Apart from
making the trial terribly long, this decision infringed the principle
of extradition law that a defendant cannot be tried for charges other
than those for which he was in fact extradited: the Bosnia and Croatia
indictments were not produced until November 2001, more than two years
after the Kosovo indictment, issued in May 1999, and several months
after the defendant had been transferred to the Tribunal in June 2001.  

But the key point in the ICTY’s reasoning is that the right to
self-defence is not absolute. This reasoning contains a fatal non
sequitur, which destroys the Tribunal’s claim to be acting
lawfully. The simple fact that a general rule may admit of some
exceptions – or the fact that a general legal principle can be limited
and refined by other general statements of principle – does not
invalidate the original rule. Instead, the qualifications render the
general rule more precise. This is what jurisprudence is all about. To
infer, as the ICTY does, from the fact that a right is not “absolute”,
that it can be violated in circumstances not covered by the existing
exceptions is to undermine the very notion of lawfulness itself. In
order for the exceptions or refinements to a rule to count as
justification for a decision to overrule it in a particular case, that
case must be an example of the kind of cases dealt with in the
refinements.

On inspection, it appears that none of the exceptions or refinements
discussed in the ICTY Trial Chamber ruling is relevant to the Milošević
case. As the quotation at the beginning of this report shows, the ICTY
has been unable to find a single precedent for the imposition of
counsel against a defendant’s wishes on the grounds of ill health. The
cases adduced by the ICTY in support of its decision to do so for
Milošević are in fact all different from his, and, as such, legally
irrelevant.

For example, in paragraph 33 of the 22nd September 2004 Decision, the
Trial Chamber states: 

“If at any stage of a trial there is a real prospect that it will be
disrupted and the integrity of the trial undermined with the risk that
it will not be conducted fairly, then the Trial Chamber has a duty to
put in place a regime which will avoid that … It is widely recognised
in domestic jurisdictions that, where an accused who represents himself
disrupts his trial by misbehaviour, he may be removed from the court
and counsel appointed to conduct his defence. There is no difference in
principle between deliberate misconduct which disrupts the proceedings
and any other circumstance which so disrupts the proceedings as to
threaten the integrity of the trial. These are simply examples of
circumstances in which the right to represent oneself must yield to the
overarching right to a fair trial.” [Italics added.]

Leaving aside for a moment the astonishing idea that the Trial Chamber,
a body which is supposed to apply criminal law, says there is no
difference between an intentional act and events which are outside a
defendant’s control – a criminal tribunal must surely place mens rea at
the very centre of its focus - it is noteworthy that in paragraph 67 of
the same ruling, the Trial Chamber specifically dismisses the
Prosecution’s claim that Mr. Milosevic had been deliberately not taking
his prescribed medicine in order to manipulate his health to delay the
trial. It therefore discounts the possibility that his ill health is
deliberately caused, or that he is being deliberately obstructive. In
other words, this discussion of what to do with obstructive defendants
is totally irrelevant. Mr. Milošević precisely wishes to conduct his
own defence, not obstruct it.[7]

This deliberate elision of intentionally disruptive behaviour with
unintentional illness is especially egregious in view of the fact that,
in its own ruling of 4th April 2003, the Trial Chamber had specifically
considered a case from the Rwanda tribunal,Prosecutor v.
Barayagwiza(Case No. ICTR-97-19-T) and concluded that the Milošević
trial was “very different”.[8] In paragraph 40 of the 4th April 2003
decision, the ICTY Trial Chamber described as “correct” the Amici
curiae’s explanation of what the difference was. The Amici had stated:

“The issue was whether the ICTR Trial Chamber would allow defence
counsel to withdraw from the case in circumstances where the accused
had instructed defence counsel not to represent him in any respect
during the trial. That Trial Chamber held that the accused was
boycotting the trial, that his actions were obstructing the course of
justice, and that defence counsel should not withdraw. Thus, the Amici
Curiae note that Barayagwiza chose not to attend his trial and,
crucially, that he did not assert his right to self-representation;
whereas the Accused in the present case has consistently asserted his
right to represent himself.” [9]

In other words, it is dishonest for the Trial Chamber now (on 22nd
September 2004) to invoke the imposition of counsel in cases where the
defendant is deliberately disruptive, when its earlier rulings clearly
say that this is not an issue in the Milošević trial.

The Trial Chamber uses the same subterfuge in discussing other
qualifications of the general right to defend oneself in person. It
discusses, for instance, its Decision in the Šešelj case, dated 9th May
2003.[10] That ruling approves the imposition of a “standby counsel” to
assist the defendant, whom it also accuses of being obstructive. It is
logically and legally unacceptable to use such a case (whatever one
might think about its merits) to justify imposing counsel on Milošević,
because the imposition is not of “standby counsel,” but instead of
defence counsel, and in any case the defendant has not been found
guilty of deliberate obstruction.

The Trial Chamber then invokes a European Court of Human Rights ruling
from 1992, Croissant v. Germany.[11] Yet as withBarayagwiza, the Trial
Chamberhad already made clear in the 4th April 2003 ruling that this
was not relevant to the Milošević case. The issue turned on whether a
German regional court had the right to impose a third lawyer on a
defendant who already had two. The irrelevance of this to the Milošević
case is threefold: (1) the defendant did not want to defend himself;
(2) he did not suffer from ill health; and (3) the imposition was of an
additional lawyer, not the removal of the ones he had chosen. The
waters were also muddied by the fact that the case was brought to the
ECHR when Mr. Croissant objected to being forced to pay the imposed
lawyer’s legal costs, following his conviction.

It is true that the European Court of Human Rights, which found against
Croissant, does allow for counsel to be imposed against a defendant’s
wishes “in the interests of justice”, and that this phrase is not
defined. But it is also clear that the ECHR approved the imposition of
a third lawyer because it considered that the complexity of the case
required it. So the case is not relevant to the Milošević case: the
complexity of the case has never been invoked as a reason for imposing
counsel, and Croissant did not want to represent himself.

The ICTY then invokes the US Supreme Court Faretta case, and admits
that that ruling confirmed that it is a “fundamental” constitutional
right in the USA to defend oneself in person. The Trial Chamber again
says that this general rule admits of exceptions, which it lists. Yet
the exceptions include only “serious and obstructionist misconduct” by
the defendant and the imposition of “standby counsel” when requested by
the defendant. In other words, the exceptions in Faretta do not support
the Trial Chamber’s argument in the Milošević trial: they refute it.

The ICTY then further claims that even Faretta was hedged around by
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California in 2000.[12] The ICTY’s
discussion of this case is so tendentious that it seems that whoever
wrote the 22nd September 2004 Decision is deliberately misrepresenting
the evidence. It says that both Martinez and Faretta agree that the
right to pro se defence is “not absolute”. But Martinez qualified that
right only for appeal hearings following conviction, not for trial
hearings. Worse, the ICTY seems to be practising deliberate obfuscation
when it quotes Martinez thus:  “Even at the trial level, the
government’s interest in ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the
trial at times outweighs the defendant’s interest in acting as his own
lawyer.” This sentence is quoted as if it supported the ICTY’s decision
to impose counsel on Milošević “in the interests of justice”. But it is
being quoted out of context, in particular by omitting the previous
sentences which read thus: “We have further held that standby counsel
may participate in the trial proceedings, even without the express
consent of the defendant, as long as that participation does not
‘seriously undermine’ the ‘appearance before the jury’ that the
defendant is representing himself … Additionally, the trial judge is
under no duty to provide personal instruction on courtroom procedure or
to perform any legal ‘chores’ for the defendant that counsel would
normally carry out.” Given that this is the sentence immediately prior
to the statement that “the government’s interest in ensuring the
integrity and efficiency of the trial at times outweighs the
defendant’s interest in acting as his own lawyer”, it is clear that
this statement, quoted by the ICTY in support of its own appeal to
“justice” as a reason for imposing counsel, actually refers only to the
obvious fact that a judge cannot be expected waste valuable trial time
coaching an untrained defendant if he elects to represent himself. This
is the conflict of “interest” in question. The statement does not
provide a general rule for the imposition of counsel “in the interests
of justice”. It is simply a misreading of the law, whether deliberate
or accidental, to say that these rulings provide a precedent for the
imposition of counsel on health grounds.

The same applies to the ICTY’s allusion to cases in English and
Scottish law where counsel can be imposed in order to protect witnesses
in rape cases from the trauma of being cross-examined by their alleged
attacker. To bring this into the equation is incredible, for the ICTY
is notorious for proving anonymity for its witnesses, allowing
testimony by video link, and providing other forms of protection for
witnesses, for precisely this reason. These highly exceptional measures
have become (unfortunately) very common in the ICTY, even though they
diminish the defendant’s rights. But nowhere has the issue of trauma
been claimed to be legally relevant to the question of imposing counsel
on Milošević.

The ICTY then makes the extraordinary claim that the jurisprudence of
several civil law countries (France, Germany, Belgium, the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia) requires the presence of a defence lawyer in
serious criminal trial. The fact that it introduces this apparently
decisive argument right at the end of very length legal reasoning gives
rise to suspicion - a suspicion aggravated by the ICTY’s vague
statement that the justification for these rules “appears to be” that
the state requires defendants to have adequate defence. Why “appears to
be”? Do the authors of the document not know what the justification
is? It certainly seems that they are unfamiliar with the civil law
systems of which they speak: Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides that a defendant may elect
to defend himself in person, but the ICTY omits to mention this. 

In any case, to adduce jurisprudence from civil law systems is a
subterfuge. While it is true that the ICTY procedures contain some
elements from the civil law tradition – the judges can question
defendants and witnesses, for instance – the basic structure of the
Tribunal is overwhelmingly adversarial. In adversarial systems, the
Prosecution is given huge scope to present his case, and this is why
the Defence is supposed to be on the same level as it. In inquisitorial
systems, by contrast, the emphasis is less on prosecution, but instead
on the judge’s professional duty to ascertain the truth. Indeed, it is
impossible to see how a civil law system could function without the
presence of the defendant in court, since the judge will need to
question him. Yet this is what the ICTY proposes to do with Mr.
Milošević.

The key point is therefore this: no legal system in the world
recognises a difference between a defendant being too ill to defend
himself, and too ill to stand trial. If Mr. Milošević is too ill, the
trial should come to an end immediately. The ICTY has invented this
distinction for the purposes of imposing defence counsel on Mr.
Milošević, just as soon as his defence got under way: It asked its
doctors to answer the question whether Mr. Milošević was too ill to
defend himself, not whether he was too ill to stand trial. [BHHRG has
asked to see the medical reports: no reply has been received from the
ICTY so far.] The ICTY has also invented the principle that a defence
counsel may be imposed on a sick defendant, saying that Mr. Milošević
will be tried in absentia if he is too ill to appear in court. No
jurisdiction countenances this, even for defendants who are represented
by counsel. 

The point, though, is not to draw attention to the inherent injustice
of overruling a defendant’s right to defend himself in person. It is,
instead, to highlight the logical and jurisprudential flaws in the
ICTY’s reasoning. These flaws call into question the Tribunal’s very
lawfulness. Lawfulness consists in the correct application of
rules. The repetition of the fact that the right to self-defence is not
absolute is quite insufficient as to justify curtailing it beyond those
circumstances laid down in law and precedent. This is what has happened
in the Milošević case. As the ICTY itself admits, there is no precedent
in any jurisdiction for imposing counsel on a sick defendant. In the
absence of any legislator empowered to change the law, or indeed of any
attempt on the part of the ICTY to make any kind of appeal to a body
other than itself (the International Court of Justice, for instance, or
the European Court of Human Rights), the Hague Tribunal should have
applied the law as it currently stands. That it has done the opposite
shows it to be a law unto itself.

 
[1] “Order on Request for Certification to Appeal the Decision of the
Trial Chamber on Court Assigned Counsel,” 10th September 2004,
http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/order-e/040910.htm

[2] http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/040902IT.htm

[3] http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/appeal/decision-e/041101.htm#47

[4] http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/040922.htm

[5] It is stated repeatedly in paragraph 1, 8, 9, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45,
49, 50,

[6] http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm

[7] It should be noted that the diagnosis of Mr. Milosevic’s health is
itself open to question. The defendant asked for different physicians
to examine him, alleging that the ones appointed were going to
manipulate their reports to fit the imperatives of the Tribunal. BHHRG
has asked the ICTY to provide the doctors’ reports but it has not yet
received a reply. The doctors were asked to rule on whether the
defendant was too ill to defend himself, a loaded question. Defendants
are often said to be too ill to stand trial, in which case the trial
does not take place, or collapses. The distinction between being too
ill to stand trial and too ill to defend oneself in person has been
completely invented for the purposes of this trial.

[8] The ICTR ruled against Barayagwiza’s application for his counsel to
withdraw on 2nd November 2000, on the grounds that he was being
obstructive and refusing to present a case at all. See
http://www.ictr.org/default.htm

[9] Paragraph 15.

[10] http://www.un.org/icty/seselj/trialc/decision-e/030509.htm, see
especially the discussion in paragraphs 20-30.

[11] The judgement can be read
here: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/
view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Croissant&sessionid=99
0462&skin=hudoc-en

[12]
http://tech.clayton.edu/mshapiro/Para%201107%20Criminal%20Litigation/
Martinez%20v%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20of%20California.htm


==========================

2)

[Lettera aperta di G. Louis-Jensen, rappresentante dell'ICDSM in
Danimarca, alla ex procuratrice del "tribunale" dell'Aia, oggi Alto
Commissario dell'ONU per i Diritti Umani, Louise Arbour...]

Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 17 Dic 2004 17:04:57 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: ICDSM: An Open Letter to Louise Arbour

**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Canadian Justice Louise Arbour, who fabricated, on direct orders of the
Clinton administration, during its war of aggression against Yugoslavia
in May 1999, the 'initial indictment' against President Milosevic
before the Hague Tribunal, is now the UN High Commissioner for human
rights. In that capacity, she recently visited Denmark. After her
visit, ICDSM member from Denmark, respected architect Mr. Godfred
Louis-Jensen, continuously engaged in the promotion of the truth on the
the dangerous Hague political farce in judicial robes and on the
struggle of President Milosevic, addressed her with the following Open
Letter:

****************************************************************
OPEN LETTER TO THE UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
****************************************************************

Enighedsvej 3
2920 Charlottenlund
D E N M A R K.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND.

Charlottenlund, 11 December 2004

Dear Louise Arbour,

Re.: The Political Trial of President Milosevic: Open Letter to the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights


How as a Canadian jurist could you be oblivious of the fact that a
Canadian officer's testimony invalidates the legitimacy of your Initial
Indictment filed while Canada as a member of the NATO was bombing the
F.R. of Yugoslavia, a small nation that in consequence lost its
meaningful capacity to negotiate peace?

On 30th November 2004, when visiting the Danish Institute for Human
Rights (DIHR), speaking at a public meeting you were briefly answering
a couple of questions also on the conduct and progress of the so called
trial against former Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic.

Your answers, as well as my verbal questions are transcribed below (A).
As you were previously the Chief Prosecutor at the International War
Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY), I ask you to kindly allow me a
couple of comment and further queries:

1) In rather striking contrast to a great many international jurists,
law professors as well as criminal lawyers incl. Bjørn Elmquist, a
former member of the Danish Parliament and current Chairman of DIHR
expressing their alarm and concern over the ICTY's imposition of
counsel on Mr. Milosevic (B), which was decided and executed at the
very start of his defense case in early September this year, you were
concluding that the records of the Tribunal are "absolutely impeccable"
(Sic!).

That would jar on the ears of anyone aware of the facts and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet as if the
ICTY were affording Mr. Milosevic every occasion for due process and
fair trial - and even "to excess" - you stressed that the former
Yugoslav president has been "allowed to act unrepresented by councel".
Most recently however the Appeals Chamber - without relying on any
authority whatsoever - decided, that what they now would see as
"substantial disruption of the proceedings" does not require any proof
that the accused had the intention of disrupting the proceedings, a
decision which appears to permit the effective removal of Mr. Milosevic
from the courtroom altogether (C).

Thus opening the door to in absentia trial the ICTY has already made a
mockery also of your suggestion that "councel has been made available
to him". Yet, on that day in Copenhagen you proudly were declaring to
"be the first one to champion the right of any person accused of any
crime to defend himself" - including obviously Mr. Milosevic's to
self-representation in his defence too. As in the circumstances at the
DIHR it did not come out clearly what the OHCHR may in fact do to
promote and protect the rights of Mr. Milosevic, I ask you to kindly
let us know in concrete terms when you are going to exercise your
proposed "championship"?

That exercise might indeed provide an opportunity for you to prove the
very profound consciousness of the right of others associated with, and
said even to be ingeniously created by human rights instruments.

2) If the ICTY were not a political construct, the Trial Chamber could
simply restore Mr. Milosevic´s right to self-representation. If on the
other hand the Tribunal were truly an international judicial
institution - as it is suggested by its name - committed to respect the
Rule of Law, then why would it make such an incredible mess of its own
case, the Prosecution's case?

Without commenting further on the ICTY's performance either as
political or criminal, may I ask you if as responsible for the Initial
Indictment (D) against Mr. Milosevic you did somehow follow the
resulting trial proceedings? You may not of course have been reading up
to 32.079 pages of Trial Transcripts, but surely you studied hearings
specifically devoted to the infamous incident at Racak - which
triggered NATO's war?

The "massacre at Racak" in fact is the one and only count in the
`Kosovo case` dating back to the period prior to the start of the NATO
aggression on 23 March 1999. Hence I find it hard to believe that you
are not aware of the testimony of your countryman, Canadian General
Maisonneuve (E) - a former Head of the OSCE's KVM Regional Centre in
Prizren, Kosovo and these days reportedly a NATO Chief of Staff - who
on Wednesday 29 May 2002 was testifying in The Hague that on the 15th
of January, 1999 he did not know that KLA members had been killed at
Racak, nor in fact that civilians had been killed either (F). In
response to Mr. Milosevic insisting that he "had to know that it was
KLA members", this expert witness - who was in fact in command of the
OSCE's verification mission present at Racak - could not even verify
that anybody were killed there on the day of the alledged "massacre".
The evidence of this key witness for the Prosecution includes wounded
people that he did see to the hospital in nearby Stimlje, in the
afternoon - however they were not members of the KLA, but "a lady and a
young girl" (Trial Transcripts, p.5904, l.1). General Maisonneuve
clearly told the court that "on the 15th, he didn't know" of any
killings! And may I ask you:
Which commander would personally see civilians to the hospital, if in
fact he knew that others had been shot and killed under his very
observing eyes?

It is obviously a crucial point in this 'trial' against Mr. Milosevic,
that only by the 16th did the commanding general learn about those 45
persons alledgedly killed at Racak, as in the early morning hours a
number of bodies were "discovered" on a nearby hill. In the hearing
General Maisonneuve was in fact dissociating himself from the infamous
statement of KVM Head, American Ambassador William Walker - but by that
fundamentally challenging the particular count, which has it that i.a.
"villagers attempting to flee from the Serb police were shot throughout
the village", the general's testimony in fact completely undermines
your Initial Indictment against President Milosevic, as well as against
Milan Milutinovic (then President of Serbia), Nikola Sainovic (then
Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia), Colonel General Ojdanic (then Chief
of the General Staff of the VJ) and the late Vlajko Stojiljkovic (then
a Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia).

At our meeting on 30 November 2004 you appeared to wish to repudiate
the facts with reference to some BBC-reports of "bodies lying on the
ground".
These however did not appear until later, as you well know - and the
schedule of persons killed, which was eventually attached as an
appendix to your Initial Indictment, does not tie up convincingly with
the your account of the incident - which never made sense at all,
anyway.

The testimony of the commander of the OSCE verifiers, your countryman
was never contradicted during the Prosecution's case - suggesting that
on this particular point at least you are entirely wrong.

The NATO's campaign thus started with a lie - and so did your Initial
Indictment. May I summarize this reasoning by suggesting, that the
rights of Mr. Milosevic are in fact set aside in the interest of the
then U.S. President Clinton, the British Prime Minister Blair and other
Western leaders deciding on the NATO war - and even in a presumed
interest of your own international career.

I am not a criminal lawyer, but as an architect I am quite capable of
finding and judging the facts. As a citizen of Denmark - a NATO country
which regrettably did participate also in what is known to some as "the
conflict in Kosovo" - I hereby challenge your claim of any "absolutely
impeccable" records of the ICTY's case against Mr. Milosevic, and in
particular your theory of what happened "in Racak on January 15th,
1999" (G).
May that suffice to suggest that in respect for international law, and
in fairness also to the peoples of Serbia and the F.R. of Yugoslavia,
this 'trial' at The Hague must now lead to an expeditious release of
Mr. Milosevic, who as President dutyfully stood up to defend his
country.

Faithfully Yours,
Godfred Louis-Jensen, architect

PS: The above contents have been transmitted to Danish and
international press as an open letter in abbreaviated form.

C.C:
President Milosevic, c/o SLOBODA Freedom Association, Belgrade
Bjørn Elmquist, Chairman, Council of the Danish Institute for Human
Rights (DIHR)
Morten Kjærum, Executive Director, Danish Institute for Human Rights
(DIHR)
Tiphaine Dickson, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
Lieutenant-General J.O. Michel Maisonneuve, NATO HQ SACT COS, Norfolk,
Va.


Enclosures:


A. Transcript of Questions and Answers given by Mme Louise Arbour on
Tuesday November 30th, 2004:

[transcript starts]

GODFRED LOUIS-JENSEN:

Q. I am Godfred Louis-Jensen, an architect. Not a lawyer, I am a member
of the International Committee for the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic.

My question to you is this: Do you not agree, that Mr. Milosevic does
indeed have the right to defend himself? If so - when are you going to
see to it? What are you going to do about it?

Now, I have a small additional question: A countryman of yours, General
Maisonneuve, was testifying in The Hague that: On the 15th of January,
1999 - when General Maisonneuve actually entered the village of Racak
in Kosovo - he "did not know that anybody were killed" (1).

That testimony completely undermines your Indictment (2). Don't you
agree?

Mme LOUISE ARBOUR:

A. I am not aware of Monsieur Maisonneuve - or whoever he was?
testifying in the trial of Milosevic in The Hague, but if indeed he
testified and if he said that in Racak on January 15th, 1999 he didn't
see that anybody had been killed, he should have turned on the BBC as
there he could see the bodies lying on the ground. He may not be able
to see from that who were responsible for it. But if that is the extent
of his testimony I think that it has been amply contradicted by
otherwise very credible evidence.

As to Mr. Milosevic's right to defend himself, I would be the first one
to champion the right of any person accused of any crime to defend
himself. I think that he has been offered that (...) to excess: He has
been allowed to act unrepresented by councel. Councel has been made
available to him. I do not comment on his performance either as
represented or not, but I think that the records of the Tribunal on
affording him every occasion for due process and fair trial are
absolutely impeccable.

[transcript ends]


B. Lawyers Appeal. ICDSM, 29 July 2004:

http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm


C."Substantial Disruption" at The Hague: Will Slobodan Milosevic be
Tried in Absentia?". Global Research, November 2004:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC411A.html


D. ICTY INDICTMENT, Case No.IT-99-37. Louise Arbour, 22 May 1999:

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm


E. On Canadian General Maisonneuve:

http://www.act.nato.int/multimedia/bios/maisonneuve.htm


F. Testimony of Canadian General Maisonneuve. ICTY, 29 May 2002:

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020529ED.htm

Excerpts from Trial Transcripts, p.5841, l.14 onw.:

Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. I'm asking you, Mr. Maisonneuve, in view of your obligations as a
verifier - and I assume that there is also your obligation to tell the
truth - you had to know, on the 15th when you entered Racak that it was
KLA members who were killed there. Isn't that right or is that not
right?

A. On the 15th, I did not know that KLA members had been killed. In
fact, I did not know that civilians had been killed either. It was on
the 16th that we discovered the bodies, and I can tell you, from my
observations, that these bodies were civilians. In my assessment, they
were not members of the KLA, the bodies that we found.


G. Excerpts of the ICTY's Initial Indictment, Counts 1 - 4:

98. Beginning on or about 1 January 1999 and continuing until the date
of this indictment, forces of the FRY and Serbia, acting at the
direction, with the encouragement, or with the support of Slobodan
MILOSEVIC, Milan MILUTINOVIC, Nikola SAINOVIC, Dragoljub OJDANIC, and
Vlajko STOJILJKOVIC, have murdered hundreds of Kosovo Albanian
civilians. These killings have occurred in a widespread or systematic
manner throughout the province of Kosovo and have resulted in the
deaths of numerous men, women, and children.
Included among the incidents of mass killings are the following:

a. On or about 15 January 1999, in the early morning hours, the village
of Racak (Stimlje/Shtime municipality) was attacked by forces of the
FRY and Serbia. After shelling by the VJ units, the Serb police entered
the village later in the morning and began conducting house-to-house
searches.
Villagers, who attempted to flee from the Serb police, were shot
throughout the village. A group of approximately 25 men attempted to
hide in a building, but were discovered by the Serb police. They were
beaten and then were removed to a nearby hill, where the policemen shot
and killed them. Altogether, the forces of the FRY and Serbia killed
approximately 45 Kosovo Albanians in and around Racak.

Kappa Vu Edizioni - Libreria Librincentro

Presentano

Venerdì 25 febbraio - ore 18 - Libreria Librincentro

Via Viola - Udine


Il Kosovaro

di Bruna Sibille-Sizia

(Kappa Vu Edizioni)


Interverranno insieme all'autrice:

Tito Maniacco
(scrittore)

Angelo Floramo
(critico)


La storia vera di un profugo kosovaro ospitato in Friuli dall'autrice.

Un racconto, tra prosa e poesia, scritto dalla penna di una delle più
talentuose scrittrici del Friuli Venezia Giulia. Un poema che mette in
luce, attraverso le parole di Talif, il profugo, i disastri che la
guerra ha portato sia nelle coscienze delle persone sia nel paesaggio e
nella storia di un paese. Una storia dura, affrontata senza mezze
parole, con una scrittura decisa e senza fronzoli, che mette in risalto
le sofferenze e le ingiustizie di un periodo che ha segnato e segna
tutt'ora profondamente tutta l'area balcanica.


"A Pancevo, ricordo, / la piazza era affollata / per la grande Fiera
dell'anno. / Sfilavano i cavalli / sul dorso le belle coperte / rosse o
multicolori / tessute a disegni. / Pesa, il ricordo del passato. / Oggi
Pancevo distrutta / è una fornace di veleni chimici.".


Bruna Sibille-Sizia, nata nella Slavia Friulana a Sedilis (Tarcento),
ha camminato in parallelo tra narrativa e giornalismo. Come
corrispondente e inviata di quotidiani e settimanali nazionali e
collaboratrice di varie riviste ha trattato in particolare problemi
politico-militari. Ha scritto romanzi e racconti legati alla Resistenza
e alla storia del Friuli.


Info: Mauro Daltin - Ufficio Stampa Kappa Vu Edizioni

Tel: 0432530540 - www.kappavu.it - info @...

http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3939/1/51/

Indagini sui monopolisti dell’energia dei Balcani

25.02.2005 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
L’azienda britannica EFT in Italia è nota per la questione legata alla
centrale idroelettrica Buk Bijela e la minaccia del canyon del fiume
Tara. Oggi tale azienda è sotto inchiesta in diversi Paesi per
malversazioni e tangenti, sospetti pure i rapporti coi politici locali
ed esteri


I giornali montenegrini ritornano a parlare della società britannica
EFT (Energy Financing Team), il principale fornitore di energia
elettrica nei Balcani ed il principale importatore per il Montenegro.
Secondo quanto riporta il quotidiano “Vijesti”, nell’edizione del 16
febbraio scorso, sono state avviate le indagini sulla EFT da parte del
Serious Fraud Office - SFO della Gran Bretagna. Questa sarà la prima
indagine del genere condotta in accordo con la legge sulle tangenti, in
vigore da tre anni in Gran Bretagna. Come attori principali figurano
Vojin Lazarević e Vuk Hamović, accusati di aver guadagnato un extra
profitto, grazie a dei contratti sospetti con l’Azienda elettrica della
Republika Srpska (Elektroprivreda RS).

Nel frattempo sono state avviate delle indagini anche in Bosnia
Erzegovina. Il procuratore speciale, Jonathan Ratel, ha affermato che
sono stati accusati gli ex leader della Elektroprivreda RS, Boško Lemez
e Svetozar Aćimović, per frode di 167 milioni di marchi tedeschi, ma
non ha voluto commentare se tra gli accusati figurano anche Hamović e
Lazarević della EFT. Il procuratore Ratel ha affermato di possedere
tutta la documentazione necessaria per proivare che la Elektroprivreda
RS vendeva l’eccedenza di energia elettrica alla EFT ad un prezzo più
basso e poi, manipolando le gare d’appalto, facilitava il monopolio
della EFT ed un profitto del 40%, mentre il profitto usuale per questo
settore va dal 1% al 5 %.

Ma, questa non è la prima volta che Hamović e Lazarević si trovano
sotto inchiesta. Il settimanale “Monitor” (11 febbraio) riporta che la
prima indagine sulla EFT fu condotta dall’Alto rappresentante per la
Bosnia Erzegovina, Paddy Ashdown, nel 2002. Risultava sospetto il fatto
che l’Elektroprivreda RS esportasse energia elettrica al Montenegro
tramite un intermediario, la londinese EFT, che per il solo 2002 ha
guadagnato 10,8 milioni di dollari. Inoltre, alla gara d’appalto per
l’acquisto dell’eccedenza di energia elettrica del 2002, soltanto la
EFT presentò la domanda, mentre l’Azienda elettrica del Montenegro
(Elektroprivreda Crne Gore) non era interessata alla gara. Più tardi
però l’Elektroprivreda Crne Gore acquistò la stessa energia elettricità
dall’EFT, ma a prezzi molto più alti. Bisogna ricordare che prima che
esistesse la EFT, le esportazioni di energia elettrica dalla Republika
Srpska al Montenegro erano dirette.

Anche se era ovvio che la EFT guadagnava decine di milioni di euro
grazie a transazioni sospette, l’inchiesta non ha dato risultati
significativi e la posizione della EFT nei Balcani è rimasta
intoccabile. Secondo “Monitor”, Lazarević e Hamović hanno avuto, a
parte l’appoggio dei politici locali, una forte protezione dall’estero.
Così, Charles Crawford, l’ex ambasciatore britannico in Bosnia
Erzegovina, era intervenuto a favore della EFT mentre Ashdown faceva
delle inchieste sul funzionamento dell’azienda. Poi, c’è anche Robert
Gelbard, allora delegato per i Balcani del presidente americano Bill
Clinton, adesso ingaggiato dalla EFT per la difesa dell’azienda in Gran
Bretagna.

Inoltre, l’anno scorso gli affari sospetti tra l’EFT e l’Azienda
elettrica della Serbia (Elektroprivreda Srbije) sono finiti sotto le
indagini della Commissione d’inchiesta del parlamento serbo. Si
sosteneva che Hamović e Lazarević avessero guadagnato un extra profitto
di 50 milioni di dollari con contratti con la Serbia relativi al 2003.
Si speculava che, addirittura, degli infiltrati distruggesse apposta il
sistema elettro-energetico serbo, per poter ottenere una maggiore
importazione di elettricità.

Ma nonostante l’inchiesta, la posizione dell’EFT in Serbia non è
mutata. Secondo “Monitor” le relazioni tra la leadership politica e la
lobby dell’energia elettrica sono molto strette. Il settimanale
montenegrino mette in relazione diretta Hamović e Lazarević con il
Presidente serbo Koštunica, intendendo i due come finanziatori del
premier serbo.

Dall’altra parte il Montenegro non ha avviato alcuna indagine
sull’azienda EFT. E il Ministro dell’economia, Darko Uskoković, ha
dichiarato che il Montenegro non è interessato alle indagini in corso
sulla EFT, anche se detta azienda è l’importatore esclusivo di
elettricità del Paese.

Allora perché il Montenegro non è interessato ad aprire un’inchiesta?
Anche qui “Monitor” cerca spiegazione nei numerosi ed oscuri legami tra
i rappresentanti governativi del Montenegro e la EFT.

Prima di tutto, bisogna ricordare che Vojin Lazarević ha fatto parte
del governo montenegrino per 3 anni. Prima è stato Ministro senza
portafoglio e poi, a partire dal 1998 al 2001, consulente sull’energia
del Primo ministro montenegrino, allora Filip Vujanović, attuale
presidente montenegrino. Inoltre, Lazarević controllava le donazioni
dell’USAID, approvate per risolvere i problemi energetici, nel 1999. Si
sospetta che le donazioni fossero manipolate da parte della GML
International Limited, allora l’azienda intermediaria per il commercio
dell’elettricità, di proprietà di Hamović, con sede in Gran Bretagna
(la EFT è stata creata nell’ottobre del 2000).

Va ricordato che Vuk Hamović, attuale comproprietario della EFT, era il
direttore della «Energoprojekt» - Belgrado, la quale ha sviluppato la
controversa analisi ambientale a favore della centrale idroelettrica a
Buk Bijela, in Republika Srpska, che prevedeva l’inondamento del canyon
del fiume Tara, protetto da tempo dall’UNESCO come patrimonio mondiale.
Anche qui la EFT figurava come partecipante alla gara d’appalto per la
centrale idroelettrica, è come più che probabile futuro concessionario,
dove il contratto prevedeva degli alti profitti per il concessionario.
Per il momento le attività sulla centrale Buk Bijela sono state sospese
perché il parlamento montenegrino ha adottato la Dichiarazione sulla
difesa del fiume Tara, ma resta ancora da vedere come finirà il
progetto della centrale idroelettrica.

Un’altra considerazione: è possibile che il funzionamento della EFT sia
ovunque sospetto, ma non in Montenegro? Per avere un’idea completa
sulla EFT bisogna raccogliere sia le informazioni provenienti dalla
Republika Srpska, Bosnia Erzegovina, Serbia e Gran Bretagna, dove sono
state avviate alcune indagini, sia dal Montenegro, dove siamo ancora in
attesa di eventuali indagini. Soltanto così si potrebbe avere una
storia oggettiva sul funzionamento controverso della EFT.

Da: ICDSM Italia <icdsm-italia @...>
Data: Gio 24 Feb 2005 12:42:09 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague


[ T. Dickson, giurista canadese, consulente legale dell'ICDSM, rivela
gli ultimi abusi compiuti dalla "corte" dell'Aia e li paragona alle
modalità con cui agiva la "Star Chamber", famigerato tribunale politico
del XVII e XVIII secolo... ]

www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

Beyond the Star Chamber:
Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague

by Tiphaine Dickson

www.globalresearch.ca 20 February 2005

The URL of this article is:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC502A.html

------------------

Editor's Note

We bring to the attention of our readers this important analysis by
Tiphaine Dickson on the Milosevic trial, which points to the blatant
criminalization of international law in support of the US-NATO led
military invasion and occupation of Yugoslavia.

What we are dealing with in the case of the Hague Tribunal is the
criminalization, at the institutional level, of a UN sponsored body.

The ICTY has not only been involved in the cover-up of US-NATO war
crimes and atrocities, but in the indictment through Star Chamber
procedures, of the former head of state for the crimes committed by the
invading NATO forces, not to mention the atrocities carried out by
their proxy terrorist organization, including the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA), which was granted in the wake of the 1999 invasion, despite
its links to Al Qaeda and organized crime, the status of a bona fide UN
body.

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals
legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide
"who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals. This
criminalization of the State is not limited to the Bush administration,
it permeates the UN system, which supports US-NATO led military
interventions under the disguise of peacekeeping. These humanitarian
interventions led by the war criminals, are implemented under the
auspices of what is euphemistically called the international community.

Peacekeeping in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq is
tantamount to military occupation.

Needless to say, to reach their design, war criminals in high
office must also redefine the contours of international law,
establishing a system reminiscent of the Star Chamber procedures of the
17th Century.

And this is precisely the thrust of Tiphaine Dickson's
investigation, on the Milosevic trial.

------------------

On February 14th, The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) hearing the Milosevic case
resumed proceedings after having adjourned last week following a UN
physician’s opinion that Slobodan Milosevic would require some days to
recover after having been affected by influenza in early February.
Media coverage had again complained of "delays in the trial", and of
illness—generally described as "bouts of flu"-- as the cause of "lost
time". The Chamber faulted President Milosevic for "wasting time" in
his examination of the former Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia with
respect to the secession of the former republics and of foreign
involvement in the conflicts that ensued as a result. Mr. Milosevic was
told the questions—of evident relevance, and indeed of crucial
importance-- were "pointless". The Prosecutor has asked for the
proceedings to continue in absence of Mr. Milosevic. The situation is
ominous and there is evidence that the ICTY is poised to take radical
measures, including the interruption, and ultimately the premature
conclusion of Slobodan Milosevic's defense.

Indeed, the ICTY, a UN Security Council institution, has set the
stage to justify ending these proceedings, while holding President
Milosevic responsible for the result, in four rulings, two of which
were handed down in the last two weeks. First, counsel is imposed
against his will. Second, in absentia proceedings are approved. Third,
imposed counsels are not allowed to withdraw from the case for ethical
reasons. And finally, the duration of the Prosecution case is
artificially reduced, and the time afforded to Slobodan Milosevic
inflated by counting his cross-examinations of Prosecution witnesses as
time devoted to his defense, in an unusual order devoted to statistics.
Slobodan Milosevic is either directly or indirectly made responsible
for the unfortunate state of affairs in all four decisions. All is in
place to wrap it up.

In September, the Trial Chamber imposed counsel against the clear
wishes of the defendant, a practice described by the United States
Supreme Court as having been largely abandoned since the unlamented
late 16th and early 17th century Star Chamber, an executive entity
infamous for trying political cases. The Chamber’s decision to impose
counsel with broad powers to determine the strategy of the defense
created a crisis, as defense witnesses refused to cooperate with
imposed counsel Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins, previously
ICTY-appointed amici curiae (friends of the court), thrust upon
Slobodan Milosevic as defense advocates, oblivious to the fact that
they’d been parties in the proceedings for over two years, and that
this created-- at minimum-- an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Kay
complained bitterly, and publicly, about the non-cooperation of the
defense witnesses (the Chamber had received Slobodan Milosevic’s list
of witnesses when they imposed counsel), and complained of Milosevic’s
lack of cooperation as well, as the proceedings came to a virtual
standstill with a mere trickle of witnesses making the trip to testify
in The Hague.

The imposition of counsel upon an unwilling accused-- in clear
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which provides for the minimum fundamental right to defend oneself in
person-- was approved, as a matter of law, by the Appeals Chamber (the
initial imposition was appealed against by Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins)
last November. The ruling reduced this right-- which is guaranteed by
the ICTY’s own Statute as a minimum fundamental right-- to the rank of
a mere "presumption". In so doing, the ICTY’s President, American
Theodor Meron, stated that all the "minimum" fundamental rights
afforded to the accused by the ICTY’s Statute (which were imported,
almost verbatim, from the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, leaving out only—inexplicably-- the Covenant’s provision of the
right to be tried by an independent, impartial, and competent court)
were "at a par" with the right to represent oneself in person. In other
words, the right for a defendant to represent himself is just a
"presumption" as are all the other basic, fundamental, internationally
recognized, minimal trial rights provided by the ICTY’s Statute, such
as the right to know the nature of the charge, the right to remain
silent, the right to present evidence in the same conditions as the
Prosecutor, the right to an interpreter, and the right to be tried in
one’s own presence. In fact, they are all stripped of their essence as
rights. The ad hoc international legal order holds them to be mere
"presumptions" to be violated at the discretion of a trial chamber when
expedient, or "justified". And as they are no longer really rights, it
then follows that they cannot even really be violated. And if they
can’t be violated, there is not much incentive to respect them, much
less guarantee them, as "minimal rights", nor to sanction or remedy
their breach.

President Meron’s decision was almost universally understood as
having handed a victory to President Milosevic, as it overturned, not
the legality, nor even the propriety, of the imposition of counsel, but
rather the modalities set out by the Trial Chamber for such
"assignment"—that is the ICTY’s delicate formulation-- of counsel.
Hence, President Meron directed that Mr. Milosevic be allowed to
present his defense and question his own witnesses, with imposed
counsel on standby in case of illness. Elsewhere in the Appeals Chamber
ruling, however, President Meron made a startlingly ominous claim: the
right to be tried in one’s presence is not absolute (it, too, it seems,
is but a "presumption") and can be obviated by "substantial disruption"
of the proceedings. This disruption need not be deliberate or even
intended by the accused, and can be caused merely by illness. The
possibility of holding in absentia proceedings in the Milosevic case as
a result of illness (as had been forcefully advocated by the former US
Ambassador for War Crimes Issues, David Scheffer, in the International
Herald Tribune last summer), had just been approved by the Appeals
Chamber.

In early February, President Meron denied a request by imposed
counsels to resign from the proceedings, citing ethical incapacity to
continue in absence of cooperation from the "client", and complaining
of his public criticism of their work. The British barristers directly
blamed President Milosevic —the very person whose rights are being
violated by this imposition-- for their ethical predicament: "[T]he
accused has made a relationship of ‘candid exchange and trust’
impossible ." President Meron accordingly took Kay and Higgins’ word
for it, and set the responsibility for their inability to act for an
unwilling accused squarely at the feet of the very victim of the
measure: "an accused does not have the right to unilaterally destroy
the trust between himself and his counsel." (Although, as President
Milosevic had pointed out at a previous hearing, it is impossible to
destroy, unilaterally or otherwise, something that has never existed in
the first place.) Thus, citing the Appeals Chambers’ previous ruling in
the equally astonishing (and dismal, from a legal and human rights
perspective) case of General Vidoje Blagojevic, President Meron
resolved any and all ethical issues-- including such questions of
interest to lawyers everywhere, such as: how do you represent a client
who refuses your services, who will not speak to you, whose witnesses
do not trust you, who will not communicate facts to you, (such as those
relevant to a defense, including alibi) and how does one act for an
unwilling accused when one has acted for another party in the very same
proceedings?—by insisting on counsel’s obligations towards the ICTY, an
institution not recognized as a legitimate legal body by Slobodan
Milosevic. President Meron held that: "In such circumstances, "where an
Appellant unjustifiably resists legal representation from assigned
Counsel, Counsel’s professional obligations to continue to represent
the accused remain."

It is unfortunate that President Meron’s decision does not reveal
whether the British Bar Council provided an opinion with respect to the
ethical issues raised or whether one was in fact sought by imposed
counsel. Whatever the position of the UK Bar, a venerable institution
whose opinion might well have been of assistance to this debate, as far
as the ICTY is concerned, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins must continue to act,
as President Meron held that President Milosevic cannot be allowed to
"manufacture" a reason for counsels’ withdrawal by refusing to
cooperate. To "permit" him to do so, wrote Theodor Meron, would be to
"render nugatory" the Appeals Chamber decision to approve imposition of
counsel! One can only admire the perfection of that argument’s
circularity.

As a final indication that these proceedings may well (soon) be
derailed, late last week, the Trial Chamber issued an odd calculation
of the time devoted by both parties, the Prosecutor and Mr. Milosevic,
to the presentation of their respective cases. The ruling goes so far
as to count the minutes the institution has apparently suffered through
in what was announced as the "Trial of Century". This bizarre
accounting of time, unheard of in normal trials, and glaringly at odds
with known practice in the adversarial system, is meant to suggest that
these proceedings have gone on tediously long, and that in "bending
over backwards" the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia now
risks violating the "integrity" of international justice if it
continues to afford such overwhelming fairness to the accused. Such a
suggestion stands in sharp contrast with the reality of a skewed
process which has, from the moment the defendant was indicted—that is
at the height of an illegal bombing campaign, in the course of a war of
aggression against the nation of which he was the legitimate President,
by a Prosecutor who diligently informed the media that his new status
would disqualify him from negotiating peace— has not been characterized
by fairness, but by the steady violation of President Milosevic’s
rights and of international law itself.

These proceedings have indeed, on occasion, been excruciatingly
slow, but the main victim has been President Milosevic, "transferred"
to The Hague -- that is snatched from a Belgrade facility without
recourse to common law courts and in violation of the Yugoslav
constitution, according to the (then) Yugoslav constitutional court--
and detained under UN authority since June 28th, 2001. It is
astonishing to note that international justice, or what attempts to
portray itself as such, would tolerate the four and a half year
detention of a man suffering from malignant hypertension, and worse
yet, employ his illness as a justification, only once his defense had
begun, to impose counsel, in a display of medical concern much less
apparent during Ms. Del Ponte’s inexplicably historical/political
marathon presentation of evidence, much of which was not immediately
relevant, putting it mildly, to the charges contained in the
indictments. That the ICTY would attempt to blame Slobodan Milosevic
for this interminable trial is absurd. Indeed, the Prosecution's case,
presented while investigations were ongoing was for many observers
unintelligible, and meandering.

His surprisingly underreported defense, however, threatens to shed
some light on what he (and increasingly, his witnesses) have described,
not as the “Balkan Wars”, but as a single war against Yugoslavia, a
state no longer in existence, whose last days were punctuated by aerial
bombings not seen in Belgrade since they were carried out by the Allies
at the end of WWII and Nazi Germany in 1941. That is the war President
Milosevic is beginning to investigate in his defense, and that may well
be the reason why suddenly "time is being wasted", the "trial has drawn
on long enough", and that the "integrity" of the proceedings are now at
stake. Indeed, this defense could well present the very "substantial
disturbance" required to shut it—and perhaps the whole institution--
down.


Global Research Contributing Editor Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal
defence lawyer specialized in international criminal law based in
Montréal. She was lead counsel for the defence in one of the first UN
trials prosecuting genocide before the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda.

----------

Related articles by Tiphaine Dickson

Iraqi Elections Under Military Occupation: Canada Complicit in a
Parody of Democracy
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC501A.html

The Hague ICTY Tribunal: Star Chamber it Is! by Tiphaine Dickson
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC409A.html

Presiding Judge in Milosevic Trial resigns Cathrin Schütz
interviews Canadian lawyer Tiphaine Dickson
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC402A.html

"That Is The Nature Of The Beast": Why The Hague ICTY Cannot Afford
Slobodan Milosevic’s Right to Self-Representation by Tiphaine Dickson
and Aleksandar Jokic
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html

-----------

Email this article to a friend

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG
article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@...

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: crgeditor@...

© Copyright TIPHAINE DICKSON GLOBAL RESEARCH 2005.

www.globalresearch.ca

return to home page


==========================

ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it

*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***

IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm

IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm

LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)

==========================

==========================

ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it

*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***

IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm

IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm

LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)

==========================


Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Gio 24 Feb 2005 16:32:38 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] MILOSEVIC "TRIAL": THE DEFENSE PHASE


MILOSEVIC "TRIAL": THE DEFENSE PHASE


1. LINKS

2. NEWS:
Testimonies by Ivashov, Primakov, Barriot, Balevic, Jovanovic ...

3. SOME OTHER CASES
Evidence on Crimes Against Sarajevo Serbs / NATO Hides Evidence of the
Own War Crimes / Balkan Countries under Pressure by ICTY


NOTE: the following links and articles are from various sources,
including anti-Milosevic sources or sources which do NOT support ICDSM


=== 1. LINKS ===


JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

by Allison Mars ton Donner. Excerpt from: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR
CRIMES: WHAT ROLES FOR NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL, AND HYBRID TRIBUNALS?;
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law; Annual
Meeting. Washington: 2004

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/asal2004.htm

Milosevic "trial" summaries

http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/4272

Will Sympathetic Testimonies Help Milosevic?

http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=455

Serbian poll shows positive attitude toward Milosevic rising

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/beta021705.htm

---

SEE ALSO, on the anti-yugoslav website www.iwpr.net :

MILOSEVIC JUDGES FACE NEW CHALLENGE Appeals chamber's decision to
restore accused's right to defend himself will require judges to
maintain firm control of the trial. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 380, November 05, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_380_1_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC CALLS FOR CLINTON Former Serb leader wants high-profile
witnesses to testify by Christmas. By Alison Freebairn in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 381, November 14, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_381_1_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC JUDGES FACE CRUCIAL CHOICE Trial chamber's handling of
lawyer's request to leave case could damage more than one reputation.
By Alison Freebairn in London
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 382, November 19, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_382_2_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC ALLY DEFENDS BELGRADE TAKEOVER OF KOSOVO Former head of the
Kosovo assembly justifies the process that ended the region's autonomy
in 1989. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 384, 03 December, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_384_3_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC LAWYERS MUST STAY Trial chamber refuses British pair's
request to withdraw, arguing that it would be against the interests of
justice. By Alison Freebairn in London
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 385, December 10, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_385_5_eng.txt

SERBS WERE VICTIMS OF “FUNDAMENTALISM” Former UN peacekeepers tell
Milosevic trial that they saw only “victims” of Croat, Muslim and
Albanian aggression. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_1_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC ALLY BEGINS MARATHON TESTIMONY Former constitutional court
judge argues that Slovenes and Croats bear responsibility for the wars
that destroyed Yugoslavia. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_2_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC LAWYER FIGHTS TO LEAVE CASE British barrister makes final
plea to tribunal president to be allowed to withdraw from high-profile
trial. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_3_eng.txt

MILOSEVIC ALLY SUGGESTS SERBS RECTIFIED WRONGS Ex-Serbian leader seems
to hope testimony will portray him as a responsible politician,
protecting his nation’s interests. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 390, January 21, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_390_1_eng.txt

WITNESS DISPUTES RACAK FINDINGS Milosevic trial hears alternate view
of life in Kosovo - and of infamous massacre. By Ana Uzelac in The
Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 391, January 28, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_391_1_eng.txt


=== 2. NEWS ===


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/
20041111/ts_nm/milosevic_dc

Reuters - November 11, 2004

Milosevic Wants Clinton to Testify by Christmas

By Paul Gallagher

AMSTERDAM - Slobodan Milosevic called on judges to
subpoena former U.S. President Bill Clinton and
British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, saying
he would like them to testify at his war crimes trial
by Christmas.
The former Yugoslav president, charged with genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans
in the 1990s, opened his defense in August in what is
seen as Europe's most significant war crimes trial
since the end of World War II.
Milosevic asked for The Hague tribunal to also summon
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former German
Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping, former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright and retired U.S. General
Wesley Clark.
"We're talking about William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, Anthony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder and Rudolf
Scharping in the first group," he said, also adding
retired general Clark, who directed the 1999 NATO
bombing of Serbia, to his list.
"I would ask you to issue an order now for them to be
heard if possible before the Christmas recess,"
Milosevic said.
Milosevic, who has been on trial in The Hague since
February 2002 charged with ethnic cleansing in
Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, said he had done the
groundwork by sending letters to embassies and
providing clarification when asked why he wanted the
witnesses to give evidence during his defense case.
"By conclusive action it has been shown that they are
not willing to appear," Milosevic told the trial's
three judges in a webcast of a hearing at the U.N.
tribunal.

KEY LEADERS
Presiding judge Patrick Robinson said he would not
issue a subpoena unless Milosevic submitted his
request in writing.
"You must make a written submission setting out the
circumstances which show that they are unwilling to
come and setting out the evidence you want them to
give," he said. (...)
Milosevic won back the right to lead his own defense
earlier this month in an appeal against a decision by
judges in September to appoint two lawyers to manage
and present his case to prevent trial delays due to
his ill health.
Milosevic, who has described himself as a peacemaker
in the Balkans and does not recognize the court, has
dismissed the charges he faces as politically
motivated "lies" and declined to enter a plea. Pleas
of not guilty were entered on his behalf.

---

IVASHOV AND RYZHKOV TO APPEAR AS DEFENSE WITNESSES AT MILOSEVIC TRIAL
IN HAGUE

RIA Novosti - November 18, 2004

MOSCOW, November 18 (RIA Novosti) - Leonid Ivashov and Nikolai Ryzhkov
are flying on Friday to The Hague to appear as witnesses for defense at
the trial of ex-Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, Leonid Ivashov,
vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, told RIA
Novosti.
"Nikolai Ryzhkov and myself are flying on Friday to The Hague to give
evidence. The current head of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Yevgeny Primakov, will also go to The Hague at the end of the
month," Mr. Ivashov said.
He pointed out that the aim of his appearance at the trial is to give
objective witness evidence about processes that were under way inside
the federal republic of Yugoslavia and around it.
Mr. Ivashov motivated his desire to address the court by the fact that
"on the other side high-profile NATO officials come forward with
statements, exonerating themselves and justifying the aggression. They
demonize Milosevic, the Serbs and the political leadership of
Yugoslavia."
According to him, the Russian representatives will appear in the
courtroom of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on
Saturday and Sunday.
This week, defense witnesses for the former Yugoslav president resumed
giving evidence. Slobodan Milosevic is accused of genocide in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo. The
first to take the witness stand was Mihail Markovic, who was considered
to be the ideologist of the Socialist Party of Serbia, whose chairman
is still Mr. Milosevic.
Mr. Ivashov took a direct part in efforts to settle the Kosovo crisis
as a representative of Russia's Defense Ministry, while Mr. Ryzhkov
headed the committee of the State Duma (lower house of Russian
parliament) to render assistance to Yugoslavia. Mr. Ivashov repeatedly
visited the country and had meetings with the Yugoslav leadership.
Yevgeny Primakov in March 1999, being Russia's prime minister, turned
back his plane over the Atlantic on which he was flying for a visit to
the United States in protest against the US decision to begin the
bombing of Yugoslavia.
The tribunal in September of this year attempted, contrary to the will
of Mr. Milosevic who was defending himself, to saddle him with a
Western lawyer whose remit included defining defense witnesses, the
nature of evidence, and its interpretation. Following which witnesses
began refusing en masse to testify.
Also refusing to come to The Hague were Russian witnesses for Mr.
Milosevic, since "in those conditions appearance as a defense witness
could be used against Milosevic and did not promote objectivity and
adoption of a just decision," the Russian general indicated.
The resumption of the trial became possible after the court again
allowed the accused to defend himself.
Judge Patrick Robinson said in The Hague last week that Mr. Milosevic
must complete his defense within 150 working days and any
unpremeditated break unconnected with an illness will be included in
this period. Mr. Milosevic indicated that he would demand an extension
of the period concerned, allocated for his defense. He also requested
that former and current western leaders - Bill Clinton, Tony Blair,
Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, Gerhard Schroeder and Rudolf
Scharping - be summoned to the trial and heard out.

Story Filed: 2004-11-18 11:51
Copyright 2004 RIA Novosti
Posted for Fair Use only.

---

http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=2&nav_id=30581&order=priority&style=headlines

Beta (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 23, 2004

Walker “described Kosovo intervention as inevitable”

THE HAGUE – Russian General Leonid Ivashov has taken
the stand for the defence in the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic before the Hague Tribunal.
The former commander of Russia’s international forces,
told the court that the head of the 1998-99 Kosovo
Verification Mission, William Walker, had said as
early as February 12, 1999, that Serbs had no business
in the province.
“Walker had already said on February 12, 1999, in
answer to my question of what the chances looked for a
peaceful resolution to the Kosovo crisis, that there
would be an inevitable military intervention in the
spring and that Serbs had no business in Kosovo,” said
Ivashov.
The witness also told the court that former US
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had personally
promised Kosovo Liberation Army leader Hashim Thaci
that there would be a referendum on independence for
Kosovo if the guerrilla organisation agreed to foreign
troops being deployed in the province.
“The Russian General Staff Headquarters had
information about 11 camps in Kosovo and northern
Albanian were terrorists were being trained. We
passed this information to General Wesley Clark with
the intention of together putting an end to the Kosovo
Liberation Army’s terrorist activities.
“Unfortunately General Clark said that NATO had no
good intelligence reports to confirm this, which was
simply not true,” said Ivashov.
The witness also told the court that Russian military
leaders had spoken to the ambassadors of fifteen Islam
countries about the training of terrorists and that
the Iranian ambassador had confirmed the participation
of Taliban and Al-Qaida members in Kosovo.

---

http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30599&style=headlines

B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 24, 2004

Ivashov attacks NATO in testimony

THE HAGUE - The Hague Tribunal finished hearing
evidence from Russian general Leonid Ivashov, who said
that Russia was in possession of information as early
as 1997 that NATO would attack Yugoslavia.
At the time, Ivashov was in charge of following the
situation in Yugoslavia and reporting back to then
Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice suggested that the witness’s
claims regarding the intentions of NATO and the US to
attack Yugoslavia could be a result of skimming
through American military handbooks and news paper
articles and documents which the witness quotes, but
cannot present to the court.
He then asked Ivashov if the Russian, who have been
know to “eavesdrop on their own leaders" make a habit
of eavesdropping on western officials as well, to
which the general replied that as far as eavesdropping
on foreign officials is concerned, he can point to a
time he listened in to a conversation in March 1999 of
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright encouraging
Hashim Thachi to incite a rebellion in Kosovo.
"Eavesdropping on terrorists is legal and allowed."
Ivashov said.
He added that the Kosovo Liberation Army and NATO were
an alliance both politically and militarily at the
time, and that no political moves on the side of
Belgrade could have prevented the bombing.
Nice mentioned reports from the Russian members of the
Contact Group in Kosovo that list various abuse of
human rights perpetrated by the Serbian side in
Kosovo, to which Ivashov answered that the Contact
Group has always been full of compromises and that
while they accused Belgrade of such acts, the reports
talked about the KLA as a terrorist organization,
which in his opinion, proves the compromising nature
of this organization.
When Prosecutor Nice accused Ivashov of being far to
involved in the interests of Yugoslavia, Ivashov said,
“I did defend the interests of Yugoslavia, as an
independent and sovereign state. I tried to fight for
the acknowledgement of human rights and the UN
charter. I had no other interests. I am as loyal to
keeping the peace as any NATO general is."
Milosevic was visibly pleased with the testimony,
addressing Ivashov at the end saying, “Thank you
general Ivashov, and have a good trip!"
Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov is
expected to take the stand as a defense witness for
Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal next Tuesday.

---

http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=88321

MakFax (Macedonia) - November 24, 2004

Ivashov continues to testify in Milosevic defense

Former Head of the Russian Defense Ministry Department
for International Military Cooperation,
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, today will continue to
testify as a defense witness for Slobodan Milosevic.
The blame for the humanitarian catastrophe, imputed to
Milosevic by the prosecution, is really on NATO, said
Ivashov in his Tuesday testimony for the events in
Kosovo during the NATO operation in 1999.
I've talked with some Albanians and I know that many
of them escaped from NATO bombs and that the number of
fugitives in the end of the bombardment was three
times larger than in the beginning, stated Ivashov.
He said that NATO used Kosovo and Yugoslavia
territories for testing different weapons.
Russian top military officials, on May 5 1999,
concluded that NATO used Kosovo and Yugoslavia for
testing new ammunition types and depleted uranium,
said Ivashov. (...)

---

http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30599&style=headlines

B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 24, 2004

Primakov in Hague next week

THE HAGUE – Former Russian prime minister Yevgeny
Primakov is expected to take the stand as a defence
witness for Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal
next Tuesday.
The court today finished hearing evidence from Russian
general Leonid Ivashov, who said that Russia was in
possession of information as early as 1997 that NATO
would attack Yugoslavia.

---

MILOSEVIC SHOULD BE ACQUITTED, SAYS RUSSIAN GENERAL

BBC Monitoring International Reports - November 29, 2004

Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax-AVN web site

Moscow, 29 November: Col-Gen Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the
Geopolitical Problems Academy, hopes that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will acquit ex-president
Slobodan Milosevic.
"Milosevic should be acquitted, and I hope that ICTY judges will return
a reasonable verdict in compliance with the law and conscience,"
Ivashov, who was summoned by the ICTY as a witness for the defence last
week, told Interfax-Military News Agency today. According to him, all
accusations against Milosevic are far-fetched and too thin.
Ivashov said that Russian witnesses for the defence were trying to
create the real picture of the events in Yugoslavia. "We are trying to
prove that Kosovo was destabilized by terrorist attacks by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) and drug traffickers, who funded terrorist cells
and mercenaries. All these facts forced Belgrade to take steps to
protect peaceful residents and destroy the KLA, which had expanded to
the size of a regular army," he said.
"Those who are being tried in The Hague are Serbs, their president and
generals, who were just discharging their duties," Ivashov said.
Ivashov, former head of the Russian Defence Ministry's international
military cooperation directorate, and Nikolay Ryzhkov, a member of the
Federation Council and former chairman of the USSR Council of
Ministers, were summoned by the ICTY as witnesses for the defence of
Milosevic, who is accused of genocide in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as well as
crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo.

Source: Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, Moscow, in English
1245 gmt 29 Nov 04

---

http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=88818

MakFax (Macedonia) - November 29, 2004

Primakov to testify in defense of Milosevic

The former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov
will testify in the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as a witness of
defense in the trial against the former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic.
Primakov will testify on Tuesday, when the trial
resumes.
The former Russian prime minister is the third witness
in Milosevic defense, since the right to defend
himself was granted back to the accused in the
beginning of this month. Previously, in Milosevic's
defense testified the Serbian Academician Mihajlo
Markovic and the retired Russian General Leonid
Ivashov.
Milosevic told the Tribunal that he will cross examine
the witness more briefly than usual, because the
witness will be staying in The Hague only one day.
Nevertheless, that is an open issue, because according
to the Tribunal, Primakov can be a very important
witness, whose testimony may not be over in one day.
Yevgeny Primakov, incumbent President of the Russian
Chamber of Commerce, was Russian prime minister at the
time of NATO-led air strikes on Yugoslavia.
Along with the Milosevic's trial, the trials of Kosovo
Albanians members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
- Fatmir Limaj, Isak Musliu and Haradin Balaj, former
chairman of the Republika Srpska's Assembly Momcilo
Krajisnik and of the Bosnian officers - Naser Oric,
Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura, will continue
this week, starting as of today, when all of them will
face trial over war crimes charges.

---

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6952759

Reuters - November 30, 2004

Primakov: Milosevic for Peace, Not 'Greater Serbia'

By Emma Thomasson

THE HAGUE - Slobodan Milosevic was a peacemaker who
did not want to fight for a "Greater Serbia," while an
anti-Serb West stoked the bloody collapse of
Yugoslavia, Russia's Yevgeny Primakov said Tuesday.
Primakov, former Russian foreign minister and prime
minister, was testifying in defense of the former
Yugoslav president, who is charged with genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans
in the 1990s.
Primakov said the Western media had portrayed Serbs as
"aggressors" and after Bill Clinton was elected U.S.
president in 1992, Washington became increasingly
anti-Serb.
"It became ever more apparent that their course was to
weaken Serbia, to not allow it to gain strength and
possibly even to complete the process of Yugoslavia's
complete disintegration," he told the U.N. tribunal in
The Hague.
Primakov, prime minister in 1998-99, blamed the West,
in particular Germany, for fueling violence in Kosovo
in the late 1990s by supporting the separatist Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) despite earlier labeling them
terrorists.
"The initiators and provocateurs of so many events in
Kosovo was the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army," he
said, adding that a mass exodus of refugees from the
region started only after NATO launched airstrikes in
March 1999.
In an allusion to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Primakov
said Kosovo had set a precedent for military action
without a U.N. mandate.
"This undermines undoubtedly the international order,"
he said.

NO "GREATER SERBIA" PLAN
Primakov said the West was wrong to assume that
Milosevic wanted to create a "Greater Serbia" or to
unify all Serbs in a state as the multi-ethnic
Yugoslav federation crumbled.
During his first meeting with the former Serb
strongman in 1993, Primakov said he specifically asked
Milosevic whether he had plans for a "Greater Serbia."
"He said this could only be achieved in theory and at
the price of great bloodshed and 'I'm not prepared to
do that,"' Primakov said of Milosevic's reply. "He had
no plans and conducted no actions to achieve a Greater
Serbia."
Primakov noted that Milosevic accepted the 1993
Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia and imposed an
economic blockade after the Bosnian Serb parliament
rejected the plan.
"You wanted a peaceful solution," he said to
Milosevic.
The 1992-5 Bosnian war ended after U.S.-sponsored
talks in Dayton, Ohio. Primakov said former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright had told him Dayton would
not have worked without Milosevic's support.
Primakov said Milosevic also tried to stop violence in
Kosovo and told the Russian prime minister on a visit
to Belgrade on the eve of the NATO bombing he was
prepared to pull his forces out of Kosovo if NATO
withdrew from the border with Macedonia.
"We never had the chance to tell what we had
achieved," Primakov said. "Barely had our plane taken
off then the bombing of the airport started."
The former Yugoslav president won back the right to
lead his own defense earlier this month after the
court appointed two lawyers in September to defend him
to stop his ill health causing more delays to an
already marathon trial.
Milosevic has accused the tribunal of bias against him
and the Serb people, saying it is designed to cover up
NATO war crimes in Kosovo. He has refused to enter a
plea to the charges and pleas of not guilty were
entered on his behalf.
Milosevic, a Belgrade law school graduate, wants to
call more than 1,000 witnesses in his defense
including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Albright
and Clinton.

---

http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5154960&startrow=51&date=2004-12-
01&do_alert=0

Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - December 1, 2004

WEST IS BEHIND MANY DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE - PRIMAKOV

Poskakukhin

THE HAGUE - Yevgeny Primakov, chairman of Russia's
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, believes that the
West is behind many developments in Ukraine.
In a RIA Novosti interview, Primakov described as
"thoughtless" the position of those who dismiss the
opinion concerning the presidential poll prevailing in
Ukraine's eastern part.
"The part of Ukraine which accounts for more than 79%
of GDP is totally disregarded in their conclusions by
those who claim to be able to resolve things in a fair
way," he thinks.
"It seems to me that this is a rash position, which,
unfortunately, is backed by the West," Primakov said.
In his opinion, those who stick to this point of view
fail to understand that such a stand may trigger "not
only a split of Ukraine, but also have a negative
impact on Russia".
"At the same time, differences between Russia and the
West are intensifying. Who needs it all?" he added.
Primakov also pointed out that he would not draw any
parallels between the events of the 1990s in
Yugoslavia and current developments in Ukraine.
In his view, Yugoslavia collapsed mainly because in
1990 elections the Communist League of Yugoslavia
suffered a setback in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and
Macedonia.
"These four republics were poised to withdraw from
Yugoslavia under the flags of other parties," Primakov
indicated. "The Communist League retained its
positions in Serbia and Montenegro. This, he believes,
was the reason for an "ideological approach" to
Slobodan Milosevic.
Another distinctive feature of the Yugoslav events,
Primakov believes, was that Yugoslavia was split as a
state, which was not set up around one people.
"The processes going on in Ukraine are entirely
different," he stressed.
Primakov on Tuesday appeared as a witness for defence
at an International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia
trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

---

http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5176084&startrow=41&date=2004-12-
06&do_alert=0

2004-12-06 15:46 * MILOSEVIC * TRIAL * PRIMAKOV *

MILOSEVIC DID NOT SEEK TO CREATE A GREAT SERBIA

MOSCOW, December 6 (RIA Novosti) - "In January 1993, Milosevic told me
he did not seek to create a Great Serbia. He understood that could be
achieved through shedding seas of blood, if at all," Yegeny Primakov,
the chief of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and Trade, an academician,
said in the Postscriptum program on Channel 3. Mr. Primakov has
returned from The Hague where he appeared at the trial of
ex-Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic for the defendant.
"I told about his role in adopting the Vance-Owen Plan that was being
discussed at a conference in Geneva where Mr. Milosevic flew at
Russia's suit. And he helped achieve a breakthrough there. The
delegation of the Republic of Serbia had rejected constitutional
changes stipulated in the plan before he arrived. The conferees even
could not pass to discussing the territorial division issue," said Mr.
Primakov.
Mr. Primakov said he had spoken to Mr. Milosevic in prison for nearly 6
hours. Before than he was searched three times and he went through 15
doors.
Mr. Primakov said Mr. Milosevic was strong in spirit as a fighter.
"Milosevic said he felt better when he was allowed to defend his case
in public," said Mr. Primakov.
Speaking about reasons behind his decision to speak as a defense
witness at the trial, Mr. Primakov said it was his civil duty and the
desire to prove the justness of Russia's policy of that time.
Mr. Primakov believes the trial is biased in favor of the prosecution.
"Along with other witnesses from Russia we have done everything
possible to make the trial honest," said Mr. Primakov.
Mr. Primakov said he had appeared in court in connection with two
incidents in Bosnia and later on in Kosovo as he was the chief of the
Russian foreign intelligence service at the time and then headed the
foreign ministry and the government.
Mr. Primakov added he had used relevant official documents and the
records of his telephone talks with US Vice-President Gore,
PresidentChirac, the Italian and British prime ministers, as well as
the records of his numerous conversations with President Milosevic.
"Therefore the documentary evidence provided in its English version was
not propaganda material," concluded Mr. Primakov.

---

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_386_4_eng.txt

(...)

Briefly noted:

The lawyers tasked with defending Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
tribunal have applied for permission to appeal a decision by judges to
prevent them from withdrawing from the case.
In the request, submitted on December 14, Steven Kay QC and his
assistant Gillian Higgins argue that Judge Patrick Robinson, Judge
O-Gon Kwon and Judge Iain Bonomy were wrong to reject their argument
that the current arrangement risks placing the lawyers in breach of the
tribunal's code of conduct.
They also say the judges should have taken into account opinions
expressed by the prosecution lawyers working on the case and by the
tribunal's Association of Defence Counsel, which they say support their
position. And they suggest that the judges failed to give enough weight
to the specific circumstances surrounding their request to withdraw from
the trial, and applied an inappropriate precedent when making their
decision to deny it.
Higgins and Kay - who formerly served in the role of amicus curiae in
the Milosevic trial - were first assigned the task of conducting the
former
Yugoslav president's defence in September, amid growing concerns that
his poor health meant it was no longer practical to allow him to
represent
himself.
But Milosevic, determined to continue on his own, refused to communicate
with them, and a series of witnesses declined to come to court in
protest at the decision to impose counsel.
The appeals chamber subsequently ruled that Milosevic should be allowed
to play the primary role in conducting his own defence, with assigned
counsel on standby should they be needed.
The issue now in hand is whether Kay and Higgins themselves should have
to play this role, or whether they can be allowed to resign from their
posts.
It is now down to the judges hearing Milosevic's case to decide whether
the two lawyers should be allowed to proceed to the appeals chamber
to argue their position.

Source: IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 386, December 17, 2004

---

http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#6

Blic (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 12, 2005

Patrick Barriot: USA involved in 'Storm'

In continuation of court trial against former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
Tribunal, Patrick Barriot, witness of the defense said
that USA 'were directly involved in the attack by
Croatia Army on Kninska Krajina in summer 1955'.
'Americans were directly involved in 'Storm'
operation. That was a terrible operation in which
about 2,000 Serbs were killed and more than 200,000 of
them ethnically cleansed', Barriot said. As a medical
doctor he was within international forces in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Croatia.
Barriot also spoke about release of two French pilots
captured by the Republic of Srpska Army in 1995.
According to his words, several French politicians who
negotiated with RSA commander General Ratko Mladic
over release of the pilots took considerable amounts
of money under false excuse that Ratko Mladic was
requesting ransom. He added that Mladic told the
negotiator of French Government, retired General
Pierre-Mario Galoaou that he would release the French
pilots if then French HQ chief-of-staff, General Duen
shake hands with Mladic.
'The pilots were released on December 123 after Duen
and Mladic shook their hands. Mladic has not got a
cent, but French politicians took millions', Bario
said.
Barriot also said that for years he had been a colonel
in French Army in charge of security in civil
protection.

---

http://www.tanjug.co.yu/

Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 12, 2005

West backed Nazism, fundamentalism: Milosevic

THE HAGUE - The International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) continued on Wednesday
its trial against former Serbian president Slobodan
Milosevic by a testimony of defence witness French
military physician Patrick Barriot, who presented a
document issued by French intelligence services,
according to which Mohamed Atta, pilot of one of the
planes which had hit the World Trade Centre in New
York on September 11, 2001, had been in
Bosnia-Herzegovina on several occasions between 1994
and 1999.
According to Milosevic and his witness, this proves
that "Islamic terrorism is deeply rooted in
Bosnia-Herzegovina," which, as both of them
underscored, was one of the major causes of ethnic
clashes in the former Yugoslavia.

THE HAGUE-SREBRENICA-ASHDOWN
THE HAGUE - Witness for the defence at the trial of
Slobodan Milosevic Patrick Barriot denied on Wednesday
the report made by the Republika Srpska commission on
the Srebrenica victims in 1995, by asserting that the
report was "dictated" by the high representative of
the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paddy Ashdown and that the number of victims
exaggerated.
Barriot, after testifying for the defence, answered
questions put by the Chief Prosecutor of the war
crimes tribunal Carla del Ponte.

---

Blic online 1/13/05

Patrick Bario testified in the Hague Tribunal:
Terrorist from New York was in Bosnia

Yesterday, in continuation of court trial against former president
of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
tribunal, French military doctor Patrick Bario, witness of defense,
presented a document sourced from French intelligence services
according to which Muhammad Ata, pilot of a plane that hit the
World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, was
in Bosnia and Herzegovina on several occasions between 1995
and 1999.
According to Milosevic and his witness that is a proof of 'deep-rooted
Islamic terrorism in BiH' that is one of the chief reasons
of national conflicts in former Yugoslavia.
Bario also said that USA took part in operation of
Croatia Army called 'Storm' carried out in August 1995.
In 1994 Bario was in Bihac Region and in Velika Kladusha.
He pointed out that Islamic fundamentalists caused
Moslem-Moslem conflict between the 5th Corpus of BiH
Army and followers of Fikret Abdic in Cazinska Krajina.
'The consequence of that conflict was 40,000 Moslem refugees.
Most of them found shelter in the Republic of Srpska', Bario
claimed. Bario was former member of UN protection forces in
Croatia and BiH. He was also stationed in Kosovo.
'Serbs in Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia were not aggressors
but found themselves in a position to defend themselves.
Serbs only responded to aggression and that is what
happened in Croatia in 1991 and in Srebrenica in 1995',
the witness said. He accused former UNMIK chief Bernard
Kouchner to have been on the side of Albanian population
in Kosovo and to have acted outside mandate given to him
by UN.
'Terrorists in Kosovo were receiving support from several
sides. Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke were
giving them diplomatic support', Bario claimed referring to
information he got from intelligence services.
During cross-questioning, the chief prosecutor of the Hague
tribunal Carla Del Ponte tried to dispute the document from
BiH that Bario presented to the Court. She said that the
document in question was not in relation with court trial
against Milosevic. She also disputed its authenticity.

---

http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read/
message.html?mid=911428287&sort=d&start=36195

http://www.tanjug.co.yu/

Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 18, 2005

The Hague syndrome - way for interference in internal affairs

MOSCOW - The Hague syndrome as an avenue for
interference in the internal affairs of "weak
countries" will become in the foreseeable future the
main topic of discussions on a new world order, and
the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic serves as a warning to all leaders of states
that are not to the liking of the West, Russian
Politics Journal assessed in its latest edition.
In a number of articles and interviews with defence
witnesses in the trial of Milosevic before the war
crimes tribunal, as well as with the brother of the
defendant Borislav Milosevic, the thesis is elaborated
that the intervention against Yugoslavia was the
result of a number of geopolitical factors that arose
following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, but also a
"personal contribution" of former US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright....

---

IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 393, February 11, 2005

COURTSIDE: MILOSEVIC TRIAL

By Ana Uzelac in The Hague

The trial of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic adjourned
this week after a short cross-examination of witness Mitar Balevic, who
began his testimony in late January.
Milosevic, who fell ill with flu last week, the first serious bout of
any illness since his defence case began in October last year, told the
judges he was still feeling unwell.
He asked to begin examination in chief of his next witness - former
Serbian foreign minister Vladislav Jovanovic - next week. The judges
granted the request, and Jovanovic is expected to begin his testimony
on February 14.
During the two sessions that did take place this week, prosecutors
tried to shake Balevic's interpretation of the situation in Kosovo
throughout
the near-decade of the Balkan wars.
In his main testimony two weeks ago, Balevic spoke of the sufferings
Kosovo Serbs were subjected to during this period on the part of their
Albanian neighbours - including humiliation, expulsions and killings.
He insisted it was the Kosovo Albanians, not the Serbs, who embraced
nationalism and harboured ambitions to have an "ethnically clean"
province.
Although the prosecutors presented film clippings and other evidence to
challenge some of this interpretation of events, Balevic remained
unyielding it his views.
Throughout the testimony, the former Yugoslav president kept his witness
mostly focused on the factual background of the indictment, rather than
on the charges themselves.
By the end of it, however, he did move to more concrete allegations
covering the period after the beginning of the NATO bombardments
of Serbia in 1999, when troops under Milosevic's command are alleged
to have expelled some 800,000 Albanians in one of the major operations
of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
During cross-examination, Balevic confirmed he that saw masses of Kosovo
Albanians leaving the capital Pristina at the time, but remained adamant
that they were not expelled by the Serb security forces, as the
indictment alleges.

MILOSEVIC'S LAWYER ORDERED TO STAY

The president of the Hague tribunal this week refused permission for
British lawyers Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins to withdraw from their
roles as assigned counsel in the Milosevic trial.
The former Yugoslav president is currently presenting his defence in
person, but the two lawyers remain involved in the case and have
recently
been representing his interests mainly in legal and technical matters.
Judge Theodor Meron's decision, made public on February 7, appears to
close all the formal ways for the two lawyers to withdraw from the case
they were assigned to in September last year.
After repeated bouts of high blood pressure prevented Milosevic from
starting his defence case on schedule this summer, the trial chamber
decided to assign him a defence team against his will, appointing Kay
and Higgins.
The two lawyers had long been involved in the trial as amici curiae or
friends of the court assigned to ensure that Milosevic, who was acting
as his own lawyer at the time, received a fair trial.
Upon their appointment as assigned counsel, Milosevic refused to
communicate with the duo and on several occasions publicly challenged
their competence in the courtroom. His proposed defence witnesses
reacted
to the development by boycotting the court, effectively bringing the
trial to
a halt. Kay and Higgins appealed their own appointment this autumn and
lost - but they won an important concession for Milosevic, who was again
allowed to prepare his witnesses and conduct the examination in chief.
Almost at the same time, the two lawyers asked to be removed from the
case, claiming that Milosevic's refusal to cooperate made it impossible
for
them to function properly as his lawyers.
The court's Registrar - in charge, among others, of assigning and
withdrawing the defence lawyers - initially redirected their request to
the trial chamber, which refused it, and later turned the request down
himself.
Kay and Higgins then appealed to the tribunal president, asking him to
reverse these decisions.
But Judge Meron denied the appeal on all grounds put forward by the
lawyers.

The most important of these appears to be Meron's conviction that the
accused must not be allowed to claim a breakdown in communication in the
hope that this would then result in the withdrawal of his defence team.
Instead he advised Kay and his assistant to "realise the breadth of
activities they can carry out even in the absence of Milosevic's
cooperation and to continue making the best . efforts . that are
possible
under the circumstances".
"Representing criminal defendants is not an easy task," Meron wrote in
the ruling that conclusively tied the two unwilling British lawyers to
their
equally unwilling client. "Assigned counsel would do well to recognise
that fact."
Kay has already warned the trial chamber that if they refuse to let him
leave, he will do so anyway and face the potential consequences at the
British Bar Council. It was not immediately clear whether he now
intended to act on this warning.

(See Milosevic Judges Face Crucial Choice, TU No 382, 19-Nov-04
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_382_2_eng.txt )

DEFENCE CASE LENGTH

Milosevic has so far spent 3,465 minutes - 57 hours and 45 minutes - or
around 14.5 out of the 90 sitting days allocated to his defence case.
The information - the first systematic account of time Milosevic has
spent thus far in the defence stage of the Hague's most high-profile
case - was released by tribunal judges this week.
A year ago, the trial chamber allocated Milosevic 90 days in which to
run his defence case - the same amount that the prosecution spent
on their phase of the trial, which began in February 2002. A further 60
days were allocated to the prosecution for cross-examining the defence
witnesses, amounting to a total of 150 sitting days allocated to this
part
of the trial.
Milosevic has repeatedly complained that he was allocated for his
defence only half of the roughly 300 days the prosecutors spent
presenting
their case.
But in this first public account of time spent on the defence case, the
judges made a point of stressing that during the prosecution phase,
Milosevic in fact used more time cross-examining the witnesses that the
prosecutors used in presenting their testimonies in chief.
Now, the judges counted, the prosecutors have used almost 11 full
sitting days in cross examination. Another almost three days were used
for administrative matters, the judges announced on February 10.
The judges warned this amounted to more than two-thirds of the total
time Milosevic has spent on his case in chief - the amount of time that
was allocated to the defence case.
The judges intend to publish similar records on a regular bases, they
announced.

Ana Uzelac is IWPR's programme manager in The Hague.

---

http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#NATO%20destroyed%20authority%20of%20United%20Nations,%20Jova
novic

Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - February 16, 2005

NATO destroyed authority of United Nations, Jovanovic

THE HAGUE - The intervention against FR Yugoslavia in
1999 has destroyed the authority of the United
Nations, said on Wednesday in the war crimes tribunal
Vladislav Jovanovic, who, as former foreign minister
of FR Yugoslavia and FRY ambassador to the UN, took
the stand as a witness of the defence in the trial of
Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
"An intervention against a member of the United
Nations can be approved only by the Security Council,
as the only body that is competent to allow the use of
force. NATO did not ask for permission Security
Council, because it knew that it would never get it
and that is why by attacking FR Yugoslavia it violated
the UN Charter," Jovanovic said.

---

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_394_4_eng.txt

COURTSIDE: MILOSEVIC TRIAL

By Ana Uzelac in The Hague

Another loyal ally of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic took
the stand in The Hague this week, and testified that the accused had
tried
to prevent the bloodshed that ravaged the former Yugoslavia throughout
the Nineties.
The testimony of the smartly dressed and soft-spoken former Serbian
foreign minister Vladislav Jovanovic aimed to disprove prosecution
claims
that Milosevic was in control of the events in Croatia and Bosnia.
Jovanovic depicted his former boss as a man with good intentions and
limited powers, who wanted to help Serbs in Croatia and later in Bosnia,
but could not influence their political and military leadership as much
as the prosecutors claim he could.
But during the cross-examination, prosecutors managed to produce
evidence showing that Belgrade was well-informed about the events in
Bosnia and had openly debated issues such as changing the ethnic
structure
of that country with Bosnian Serb leaders.
Milosevic is facing more than 60 charges of war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide on three separate indictments pertaining to wars
fought in the Nineties in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo respectively.
Large part of Jovanovic's testimony focused on the early years of the
wars, and the actual break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The witness
tried
to prove that the break-up was the result of a plan that Croatia and
Slovenia
had developed years before, and that the wars were a result of the
"unilateral secessionist policy" of those republics.
The two had "great help from other countries - Germany, Austria and the
Vatican", the diplomat said, echoing the main thesis of Milosevic's
defence that Yugoslavia fell victim to an international conspiracy to
destroy it.
Jovanovic also testified about the various international negotiations
and peace talks that he participated in as a foreign minister for Serbia
and later rump Yugoslavia, claiming that Serb delegations were regularly
victimised at such events by diplomats from the West and from other
former Yugoslav republics alike.
A similar thesis has already been put forward by many other witnesses
in the court - including former Serbian deputy prime minister Ratko
Markovic
and one other Milosevic associate, retired Belgrade law professor Smilja
Avramov.
Obviously exasperated about having to sit through yet another hearing
about the same issues, presiding Judge Patrick Robinson warned the
accused that he was "beating the point to death". Milosevic seemed
unmoved, and continued much in the same vein for the greater part of
the testimony.
But the former president did manage to introduce some potentially
important pieces of evidence relating to the extent of his influence on
the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia through Jovanovic's testimony.
The witness claimed that Milosevic was only moderately well informed
about what was happening in Bosnia, and was dependant on news from
the Bosnian Serb leaders, with whom he had a deteriorating relationship.
During cross-examination, Jovanovic insisted that Milosevic had learned
of the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica, and the murders of some 7,000
Muslim
men and boys that followed it, from "the news".
Jovanovic insisted that the wars in Croatia and Bosnia were both
"internal conflicts" and that the Belgrade government and Milosevic
personally had little influence on the military and political leaders
of both
nations.
To prove this, Milosevic and his witness used a United Nations Secretary
General report from the summer of 1992, which stated that the Bosnian
Serb troops were "not subject to orders from Belgrade". The report also
spoke of "the emergence of General [Ratko] Mladic and the forces under
his command as an independent actor".
The exact nature of the relation between Mladic and Milosevic could
prove to be crucial for establishing the latter's responsibility for
crimes
listed in the Bosnian indictment - especially for genocide.
This document prompted the presiding judge to stress that the passage
was "very strong and very important" for Milosevic's defence case.
Judge Robinson advised the defendant to try to find the people who
wrote the report for the UN Secretary General and bring them to court to
testify.
"It would be immensely strengthening for your case if you could secure
[their] testimony," the presiding judge said, advising Milosevic to
"utilise the services of his defence counsel" for this.
But Milosevic - who does not recognise Steven Kay, the defence counsel
assigned to him by the court last year - let this remark pass without
comment.
Jovanovic went on to testify about the deterioration of relations
between Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leaders, who had refused a
number of peace plan options put to them.
By 1993, the witness told the court, these relations "became strained
[and] sometimes they would totally break down".
"Our meetings became mostly disputes," he said.
During the course of the cross examination, however, prosecutor Geoffrey
Nice managed to punch a few holes in the theory of Milosevic's supposed
ignorance of the real situation in Bosnia.
Nice quoted numerous diplomatic dispatches that the Belgrade government
received during the war warning it of the ongoing crisis in Bosnia, as
well as a number of public UN documents, including a resolution from
spring of 1993 in which the Security Council calls upon Belgrade to
"prevent
the genocide" in Bosnia.
He also read from a transcript of a session of a body set up to
"coordinate" Bosnian Serb politics with those of Belgrade, where
Jovanovic
is quoted advocating "ethnic homogenisation" of territories under Serb
control by encouraging a voluntary exchange of populations.
Although scheduled to last only a week, Jovanovic's testimony has not
yet been completed and the judges - increasingly critical of the way
Milosevic is using the time allocated to his defence case - have
announced they will be issuing their opinion on this matter soon.

Ana Uzelac IWPR's programme manager in The Hague.

Source: IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 394, February 18, 2005


=== 3. SOME OTHER CASES ===


Politika: Interview: Serbian Minister, a member of the National Council
for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal:
Serbian government takes resolute steps to meet all obligations towards
Hague tribunal

http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/
vest.php?pf=1&id=7236&url=%2Fvesti%2Fvest.php%3Fpf%3D1%26id%3D7236

BiH War Crimes Chamber to Take Cases This Month (by Beth Kampschror)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2005/02/08/feature-02?print=yes

Hungary will seek evidence of Croatia's failure to fully cooperate with
ICTY
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=hot&NID=ehot/politika/
H2085323.4yc

Lazarevic to Surrender to Hague Tribunal, Lukic May Follow (by Jelena
Tusup)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2005/01/28/feature-01?print=yes

General Vladimir Lazarevic goes to The Hague voluntarily
http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/
vest.php?pf=1&id=8596&url=%2Fvesti%2Fvest.php%3Fpf%3D1%26id%3D8596

Croatian Justice, Interior ministers with European counterparts on
cooperation with ICTY
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=hot&NID=ehot/politika/
H1282585.4yc

---

http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=54373&LangID=1
Seeurope.Net / Tanjug - January 11, 2005

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA:

ICTY Has Evidence of Crimes Against Sarajevo Serbs

Marko Mikerevic, Sarajevo Higher Military Court judge
during the war, has said that he has documentation and
the names of 123 Bosniaks who had ordered or directly
participated in the torture and killing of Serbs in
Sarajevo.
"I submitted the documentation to The Hague Tribunal
after the war, when I left Sarajevo," Mikerevic told
the Republic of Srpska media, adding that it will be
very difficult to establish the exact number of Serbs
that were killed in Sarajevo, but that the number is
between 8,000 and 10,000 people.

---

Ojdanic defence seeking NATO archives

12:19 December 01 | B92

THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - The Hague Tribunal has begun a three day
discussion of the demand by defence representatives of former Yugoslav
Army chief of staff Dragoljub Ojdanic for access to NATO documents on
the conflicts in Kosovo.
The defence is seeking access to all documents relating to the period
from January to June 1999, the period of the offences for which Ojdanic
has been indicted by the tribunal.
The demand includes intelligence information and records of intercepted
telephone conversations which included Ojdanic.
The defence claims that a number of official NATO statements have
indicated that such documents exist, including a statement by then NATO
Commander Wesley Clark that intelligence reports were a significant
component of the war in Kosovo.
Former Hague Tribunal Prosecutor Louise Arbour also claimed that the
indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for crimes in Kosovo was based on
significant documentation made available by British intelligence
services.
"Great Britain announced at one point when Louise Arbour was visiting
that their intelligence services up to that time had made available the
largest number of published documents in the history of the
intelligence service and that this had been done for the Tribunal
Prosecution," Ojdanic defence lawyer Tomislav Visnjic told B92.
The defence believes that the opening of the archives would be of use
in showing that there was no plan to expel Albanians from Kosovo, which
is one of the allegations levelled at Ojdanic, Milosevic, former
Serbian president Milan Milutinovic, former deputy Yugoslav prime
minister Nikola Sainovic and four senior army officers who have still
not been arrested.
Representatives of the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Turkey and Bosnia will take part in the debate at The
Hague on opening the NATO archives. Other NATO member states have made
written submissions but will not attend the debate.

---

NATO in Del Ponte's gunsights

12:37 December 01 | Beta

THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic
has not been arrested because NATO is politically unwilling to do so,
Carla Del Ponte said today.
The Hague Tribunal prosecutor told the BBC that NATO had enough
information to find everyone sought by the tribunal, including
Karadzic, but that until recently there had been no political will to
do so.
She added that the situation had now changed, but that it was now too
late because NATO had left Bosnia and passed responsibility to the
European Union.
"NATO is strange. They helped a lot with gathering evidence but always
claimed that they had no mandate to locate fugitives," said Del Ponte.

---

Why NATO won't open its archives

11:00 December 02 | B92

THE HAGUE -- Thursday - Debate continues today in the Hague Tribunal on
the demand of Dragoljub Ojdanic's defence counsel for NATO to give
access to its archives on its attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999.
Counsel for the former Yugoslav Army chief of staff are asking the
court to order NATO members and countries bordering Serbia and
Montenegro to make documentation on Kosovo available, including
intelligence information acquired by monitoring telephone conversations
of Yugoslav officials.
The demand has already been refused by the Netherlands, Canada and the
United Kingdom, all of whom are demanding that the court not accept the
defence argument that the release of the documents is the only way to
collect evidence relevant to Ojdanic's defence.
"If the defence wants certain documents, it must specify information,
conversations and people, rather than a fishing expedition and seeking
free access to documentation without knowing what it contains," NATO
representatives argued.
They also argued that opening the documents had national security
implications which could not be ignored.
Ojdanic defence counsel Peter Robinson said that the expert reports and
statements of NATO and Hague Tribunal officials indicated that the
archives of the countries could contain a large amount of information
gathered by eavesdropping and other intelligence work and that the
defence believed these would show that Ojdanic had not taken part in
any kind of plan to expel Kosovo Albanians or commit war crimes.
Representatives of the United States, Germany and France are to give
responses to the demands today.

More updates from ICDSM-Italia

1. 26th February Hague International Conference:
### The Final Announcement ###

[ Terzo - e definitivo - annuncio ufficiale della Conferenza che si
terrà all'Aia sabato prossimo... Con un accorato APPELLO ]

2. ICDSM-Italia: Communiqué

[ Per la versione italiana vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/4165 ]

3. CDSM: Press Release - New Web Site

[ Un nuovo sito internet per la difesa di Slobodan Milosevic:
www.free-slobo-uk.org ]


==========================

ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it

*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***

IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm

IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm

LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)


=== 1 =====================


26 February Hague International Conference:
The Final Announcement

[ Terzo - e definitivo - annuncio ufficiale della Conferenza che si
terrà all'Aia sabato prossimo, sulle problematiche legate al
processo-farsa contro Milosevic e contro la Jugoslavia. L'annuncio
comprende ora i titoli di tutti gli interventi.
Si noti, oltre alla conferma della presenza di Ramsey Clark
dell'International Action Center, l'inserimento nel programma di nuovi
nomi importanti: Bhim Singh (già membro della Corte Suprema
dell'India), Dragoslav Ognjanovic, Hans Köchler.
Per ulteriori informazioni si veda:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/162

### Rinnoviamo in questa occasione il nostro APPELLO: ###

Per l'organizzazione di questa Conferenza lo sforzo economico è ai
limiti delle possibilità dell'ICDSM, che è stato perciò costretto a
prevedere un biglietto d'ingresso. Inoltre, c'è bisogno di fondi per la
pubblicazione degli Atti della Conferenza e per tutte le iniziative
successive in programma, di sensibilizzazione e di protesta.
SENZA MEZZI FINANZIARI, LA DIFESA DI MILOSEVIC NON HA CHANCES.
Il "Tribunale" garantisce infatti solamente le spese essenziali per il
viaggio dei "testimoni" in occasione delle udienze; ma tutte le spese
di documentazione, comunicazione, gli spostamenti per la preparazione
delle udienze, i contatti e tutte le attivita' dei consulenti legali di
Milosevic (da non confondere con gli "avvocati d'ufficio" imposti
dall'accusa) e del Comitato di difesa vanno autofinanziate. Inoltre,
servono soldi per pubblicare i testi relativi al "processo- farsa",
poiche' la loro diffusione via internet ha una presa limitata, e con il
trascorrere del tempo queste informazioni si disperdono e vanno perdute.
Si valuta che sia indispensabile raccogliere almeno 10mila euro al mese
per far fronte a tutte le necessita' di assistenza legale, di
documentazione e di comunicazione. Le sottoscrizioni piu' regolari e
consistenti finora sono arrivate dalla Serbia e dalla Germania, dove
esiste una nutrita comunita' di emigrati, per un ammontare mensile di
poche centinaia di euro.
Si badi bene: NON ESISTONO ALTRE FONTI DI FINANZIAMENTO. Una legge
passata dal Parlamento serbo nella primavera 2004 - che in linea di
principio avrebbe garantito una parziale copertura delle spese - e'
stata subito "congelata" in seguito alle minacce occidentali. Una
qualsivoglia campagna di finanziamento su basi volontarie a Belgrado e'
praticamente irrealizzabile. A causa delle scelte estremistiche, in
senso neoliberista, del regime instaurato il 5 ottobre 2000 la
situazione sociale e' disastrosa, la disoccupazione dilaga, i salari
sono da fame, chi ha i soldi per
mangiare li tiene ben stretti e solo in pochi casi e' disposto a
rischiare la galera (o peggio: vedi le torture in carcere nella
primavera 2003, durante la cosiddetta "Operazione Sciabola") in
attivita' politiche o di solidarieta' a favore di Milosevic: il quale
viene tuttora demonizzato dai media locali (tutti in mano a societa'
occidentali, soprattutto tedesche) esattamente come da noi. A tutti
deve essere infine chiaro - se ancora ci fosse bisogno di ripeterlo -
che al di la' delle menzogne giornalistiche NON ESISTE ALCUN "TESORO
NASCOSTO" DI MILOSEVIC, e che il nostro impegno per la sua difesa e'
insostituibile oltreche' indispensabile.

La Sezione Italiana dell'ICDSM, ringraziando tutti quelli che hanno
finora contribuito alla campagna di autofinanziamento, chiede che lo
sforzo in tal senso prosegua, cosi' come sta proseguendo in tutte le
altre realta' nazionali.
CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:

Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ]


**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
23 February 2005
**************************************************************

Third (final) Announcement

I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e

The Hague Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic: Emerging Issues in
International Law

The Hague, Saturday, 26 February 2005
Golden Tulip Bel Air hotel, Johan de Wittlaan 30

Conference admission is 10 EUR (payable at the entrance only).
Admission for media representatives is free.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Press Release below contains the Timetable and
titles of the contributions of the participants who finally confirmed
their arrival and communicated the titles to the Organizational
Committee. The last news we declare with pleasure is participation of
Professor Bhim Singh, Senior
Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Participation of one of the
legal associates of President Milosevic (Dr Branko Rakic or Mr.
Dragoslav Ognjanovic) who will give remarks about the course of the
defense case is also expected. Due to these facts, the Timetable will
be a subject of minor last minute changes.
Copies of the contribution of Dr Alexander Mezhyaev (Russia) "The
process against Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague Tribunal: some problems
of the International Law" will be available for the interested
attendants.
It is expected that a delegation of the participants will meet
President Milosevic on Friday, 25 February afternoon.

The Conference is organized by the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) and Vereinigung für Internationale
Solidarität e.V. (Association for the International Solidarity)

Contact person: Vladimir Krsljanin,
e-mail: slobodavk @... , tel.: +381 63 8862 301

Contact phone at The Hague: +31 (0) 622 733 213


PRESS RELEASE

I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e

The Hague Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic: Emerging issues in
international law

Saturday 26 February 2005 - 13.30-19.00
Golden Tulip Bel Air Hotel, Johan de Wittlaan 30 -
The Hague/NL

Press contact for interview requests until 25 February 2005:
Tel.: +31134673451
Fax +31134631951
gsm +31651262642
e-mail ssicc @...

Conference Presidium:
Christopher Black (Chair), Professor Velko Valkanov, Dr Branko Rakic

Timetable:
14:00-14:40 Ramsey Clark (USA)
The right to a fair trial in international and comparative law

14:40-15:20 Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans Köchler (Austria)
Global Justice or Global revenge? International Criminal
Justice and the Role of the United Nations Security Council

15:15-16:00 Tiphaine Dickson (Quebec)
Imposition of counsel at The Hague: Beyond the Star Chamber

16:00-16:20 Coffee Break

16:20-16:40 Professor Velko Valkanov (Bulgaria)
The foul foundations of the Tribunal

16:40-17:00 Dr. John Laughland (UK)
The Hague: Destroying the principles of Nuremberg

17:00-17:20 Professor Aldo Bernardini (Italy)
International law turned upside down: Yugoslavia crisis and President
Milosevic's case

17.20-17:40 Christopher Black (Canada) A laywer's remarks on the
Milosevic trial

17:40-18:00 Coffee Break

18:00-19:00 Panel Discussion
Panelists: Christopher Black, Tiphaine Dickson, Dr. John Laughland, Dr.
Branko Rakic as well as other speakers

Language: English
Conference admission: 10 EUR.

Admission for media representatives is free

Interview application until 25 February, 2005 via mediacontact:
Tel.: +31134673451
Fax +31134631951
gsm +31651262642
e-mail ssicc @...


*************************************************************
*************************************************************

URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL

******************************

After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.

We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the creation
of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.

*******************************************

The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.

President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.

Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal
properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German
section of the ICDSM (still the only one with regular contributions)
are enough only to cover minimal additional work at The Hague connected
with contacts and preparations of foreign witnesses. Everything else is
lacking.

***********************************************************

3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.

Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.

Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:

Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS

or

Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5

************************************************************

All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank
transfers, please do not hesitate to contact us:

Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @...
Phone: +49 172 7566 014

Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @...
Phone: +381 63 8862 301

The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a
parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.

***************************************************************

For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!

On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,

Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic

*************************************************************

SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm

To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)


=== 2 ===


ICDSM-Italia: Communiqué

On January 4, 2005, a joint meeting of ICDSM-Italia and the Group of
Atheists and Dialectic Materialists (GAMADI) was held at the GAMADI
seat in Rome.
Considering that within GAMADI a specific "Committee for Yugoslavia"
has been already active for a while, and since this committee in fact
coincides with the active members of ICDSM-Italia, during the meeting
it was decided through a unanimous vote to formally unify the two
groups.
GAMADI offered all its support to the activities on Yugoslavia and
Milosevic, and agreed to issue a 4-pages, dedicated regular supplement
in its monthly printed bullettin "La Voce" (The Voice of GAMADI), under
the title "Committee for Yugoslavia of GAMADI and Italian Section of
the ICDSM".
Given the recent resignation of Fulvio Grimaldi from the charge of
ICDSM-Italia speaker, Miriam Pellegrini Ferri, the president of GAMADI,
took the responsability of coordinating ICDSM-Italia for the time
being. A former partizan in the Liberation struggle against
nazifascism, well-known for her steady committment to the cause of the
peoples under attack by the imperialism, Miriam Pellegrini Ferri called
for an active engagement and contribution of all members in the
activities of ICDSM-Italia.

(January 2005)


=== 3 ===


Salutiamo l'apertura di un nuovo sito internet per la difesa di
Slobodan Milosevic:

www.free-slobo-uk.org , afferente al Comitato britannico

---------- Initial Header -----------

From : "Ian Johnson" i-johnson @ lineone.net
To : icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Cc :
Date : Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:02:53 -0000
Subject : CDSM: Press Release - New Web Site



COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC - UK

PRESS RELEASE.



NEW WEB SITE

www.free-slobo-uk.org

The CDSM-UK today announced the launch of their new web site, which
they see as
a valuable weapon in the ongoing struggle to defend Slobodan Milosevic
in his
heroic defence of the truth currently being conducted at the illegal
Hague
tribunal in the Netherlands.


A CDSM spokesperson commented:

" For many people Slobodan Milosevic is still the President of the
Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. The reasons for this are first, because he was
removed
from office unconstitutionally and then illegally taken out of the
country and
second, because the principled stand he has taken at The Hague court
has proved
inspirational for all those who believe in truth and justice.

The reality behind the break-up of that sovereign country and the
demonisation
of not only Mr Milosevic but also that entire nation needs to be
exposed not
only for the historical record but also for an understanding of what
followed.

Moreover, the disregard for international law, evident in the Nato
bombing of
Yugoslavia and the current occupation of the Serb province of Kosovo,
opened the
door for today´s attack on Iraq.

The claim of `weapons of mass destruction´ supposedly held by Iraq has
been
exposed as false.

Equally false however, but not known to the general public, were the
lies told
about Yugoslavia. The web site is aimed at the general public and
intends to
address that deliberate deception."

CDSM-UK can be contacted on: cdsm @ free-slobo-uk.org


Thursday 10th February 2005.



ENDS.

=== PISA 22/2 e 2/3 ===

COMPETIZIONE GLOBALE E RESISTENZE POPOLARI

                         PARLIAMONE CON

                          WALDEN BELLO

Direttore Esecutivo del "Focus on the Global South", basato a Bangkok,
e Professore della Sociologia e l'Amministrazione Pubblica presso
l'Università delle Filippine.

                        STEFANO CHIARINI
             Inviato a Bagdad de "Il Manifesto"

PISA MARTEDI 22 FEBBRAIO ORE 21.15
BIBLIOTECA COMUNALE

PROMUOVE L'INCONTRO IL
COMITATO CITTADINO PER IL RITIRO IMMEDIATO
DELLE TRUPPE DALL'IRAQ

(Verdi per Pisa, Comitato ARCI Pisa, PdCI, Circolo A.Gramsci, Circolo
ARCI agora', Circolo PRC "Tognetti", Area "L'Ernesto" PRC Pisa)

ADERISCONO E PARTECIPANO ALL'INIZIATIVA:
RETE LILLIPUT Pisa- LEGAMBIENTE Pisa - LEGAMBIENTE Valdera -
Ass.ITALIA/CUBA Pisa - ASSOCIAZIONE  RAPHAEL  - EMERGENCY Gruppo Pisa -
COMITATO CITTADINO DI SOLIDARIETA' CON LA PALESTINA - RIFONDAZIONE
COMUNISTA - APRILE PER LA SINISTRA Pisa  - ASSOCIAZIONE COMUNISTA IL
PIANETA FUTURO - FOROCONTADINO - CONFEDERAZIONE COBAS PISA - FORUM
SOCIALE di Volterra - FORUM SOCIALE di Pontedera


In questa occasione di confronto e dibattito lanceremo l'idea di un
COMITATO CITTADINO CONTRO CAMP DARBY, in grado di unificare le grandi
energie espressesi in questi anni contro una base che è la guerra
presente sul nostro territorio, dalla quale partono le armi che
distruggono quotidianamente centinaia di esseri umani.

PROPONIAMO SIN DA ORA AL POPOLO DELLA PACE DELLA NOSTRA CITTA' UNA
ASSEMBLEA CITTADINA APERTA PER MERCOLEDI 2 MARZO ORE 21 PRESSO LA
BIBLIOTECA COMUNALE CON L'OBIETTIVO DI COSTITUIRE UN COMITATO CITTADINO
APERTO ED UNITARIO CONTRO LA BASE  MILITARE U.S.A. DI CAMP DARBY.


=== PISA: ATTI DEL CONVEGNO ===

In seguito al convegno "Mediterraneo para Bellum", organizzato a Pisa
nel dicembre 2004 dal Comitato Nazionale per il ritiro immediato delle
truppe dall'Iraq
[VEDI: https://www.cnj.it/INIZIATIVE/pisa121204.htm ],
i rapporti tra le varie realtà territoriali che si battono contro le
basi italiane e USA/NATO  si sono rafforzati.
Gli atti del convegno testimoniano di un lavoro e di unaunità di
intenti oggettiva che nei prossimi giorni diverrà lotta unitaria e
coordinata, a partire alle manifestazioni del 19 febbraio e  19 marzo,
mobilitazioni nazionali e mondiali per la liberazione del popolo
irakeno e di Giuliana Sgrena, contro l'occupazione dell'Iraq e per il
ritiro immediato delle truppe .

GLI ATTI DEL CONVEGNO SARANNO IN VENDITA PRESSO LO STAND DELL’ERNESTO
AL CONGRESSO NAZIONALE DEL P.R.C. AL LIDO DI VENEZIA (3 – 6 MARZO).

E’ POSSIBILE RICHIEDERE UN CERTO NUMERO DI COPIE SCRIVENDO A:

Walter  del Circolo AGORA’ di Pisa: walter.l @...


=== MILANO 23/2 ===

Il Comitato per il ritiro delle truppe dall'Iraq di Milano

mercoledì 23 febbraio, ore 20.30
c/o Casa della cultura, via Borgogna 3 Milano

 ( nei pressi di Piazza San Babila, MM1)

organizza il convegno:

 
Iraq dopo il voto: fra resistenza e imperialismo.

Per il ritiro incondizionato di tutte le truppe di occupazione.

 
INTERVENGONO:

Walden BELLO
direttore di Focus on Global South (Bangkok), docente di sociologia e
amministrazione pubblica dell'università di Manila

Claudio GRASSI
segretaria nazionale del PRC, area Essere comunisti

Marco FERRANDO
direzione nazionale del PRC, area Progetto comunista

Mauro CASADIO
Rete dei comunisti

Enrico BARONI
segreteria regionale lombarda della CUB

Dario CASATI
Comitato Milano-Brianza;

Redlink; Comitato contro la guerra di Milano; Comitato lavoratori
contro la guerra- Como.


Per l’imperialismo statunitense e i suoi alleati lo scopo del processo
elettorale e stato fin dall'inizio quello di legittimare a posteriori
una guerra illegale e di stabilizzare il regime fantoccio insediato a
Baghdad dalle truppe di occupazione: si è contrapposta questa pretesa
"democrazia" sotto il tallone dell'occupante alla legittima Resistenza
armata.

Ora il voto c'è stato: una parte della popolazione si e recata alle
urne, ma per dire anche in questa forma che il potere spetta al popolo
iracheno e che le truppe straniere devono andarsene. Questa, tuttavia,
non è la volontà degli occupanti: per questo le elezioni, lungi dal
portare "pace" e "democrazia" al popolo iracheno, hanno piuttosto
creato un rischio di guerra civile che l'amministrazione Bush si
appresta a sfruttare per giustificare la prosecuzione dell'occupazione
militare e il proprio intervento nell'area.

La resistenza irachena, come quella palestinese, sono irriducibili e
sembrano in grado di tenere in scacco la soverchiante forza militare
degli occupanti: tuttavia il piano militare non è sufficiente per
ottenere lo scopo. Sono in gioco gli interessi strategici ed economici
che accompagnano la globalizzazione e che impongono all'imperialismo
l'occupazione permanente neocoloniale di quelle aree, anche senza una
loro stabilizzazione.

Il processo di liberazione non può essere, pertanto, frutto della sola
azione dei movimenti di liberazione interni: è decisivo che le
resistenze locali, sacrosante, crescano e siincrocino con le resistenze
globali. Da tempo, purtroppo, il movimento contro la guerra stenta a
far sentire la sua voce, con pesanti conseguenze. È essenziale che
tutte le componenti del movimento trovino la forza per rielaborare la
propria esperienza e superare i limiti della propria iniziativa.

Una prospettiva dieffettiva liberazione per i popoli del Iraq e del
Medio Oriente non può realizzarsi senza la cacciata delle truppe
imperialiste. Questo risultato, oggi come ieri, richiede la saldatura
fra la lotta del popolo iracheno, in tutte le sue forme, e un forte
movimento internazionale di lotta contro la guerra e contro
l'imperialismo che ne è la causa principale.

Per questo è urgente rilanciare anche nel nostro paese l'impegno per
costruire il più ampio movimento per il ritiro incondizionato di tutte
le truppe straniere dall’Iraq, a partire da quelle italiane.

 
Comitato per il ritiro delle truppe dall'Iraq - Milano

Per adesioni telefono 334 1169002                   

Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mar 22 Feb 2005 12:11:54 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Statements from the UK and Ireland Sections of
ICDSM


SUPPORTING THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
IN DEN HAAG, FEBRUARY 26TH:

Statements from the UK and Ireland Sections of ICDSM

[ Comunicati stampa delle Sezioni britannica ed irlandese dell'ICDSM -
Comitato Internazionale per la Difesa di Slobodan Milosevic - in
sostegno alla Conferenza con Ramsey Clark e noti esperti di diritto
internazionale, sabato prossimo all'Aia ]

--------------------------------------------------------

T h e H a g u e, 26 F e b r u a r y 2005
THE MILOSEVIC PROCESS: EMERGING ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e

---> http://www.icdsm.org/Conference.doc

http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/162

C o n f e r e n z a I n t e r n a z i o n a l e
IL PROCEDIMENTO DELL'AIA CONTRO SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
QUESTIONI DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE
L' A i a, 2 6 f e b b r a i o 2 0 0 5

--------------------------------------------------------


STATEMENT FROM COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC - UK

As we write this piece Slobodan Milosevic and other Yugoslav political
prisoners are on trial at the US sponsored Hague 'tribunal' for no
other reason than they had the courage to defy Nato and the New World
Order and attempted to protect the independence of their country and
the interests of its citizens.
Slobodan Milosevic is currently conducting his own defence, a
fundamental right for any accused, but a right that he and his
supporters have had to fight tooth and nail to protect, as anyone
following the 'trial' process will be aware.
Although suffering from life threatening health problems his defence
presentation is being hampered by artificial time restrictions imposed
by the 'tribunal', restrictions that were not imposed on the
prosecution, resulting in both insufficient rest periods and
preparation time.
Followers of the 'trial' will also know that Mr Milosevic is not using
his defence to defend himself but is using it to defend his country and
its people and to accuse the Western powers of deliberately financing,
aiding and abetting the destruction of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. It is in that sense that this 'trial' is of immense
importance.
The bogus charges against him have not stood up to close examination
but on the contrary, they have revealed the political nature of these
proceedings.
To understand events in the world today, the occupation of Iraq, the
interference in elections in Georgia, Belarus and the Ukraine, the
fictitious 'war on terror' and the butchering of international law, it
is essential to understand what was done to the sovereign state of
Yugoslavia.
What this means in other words is that to support the defence of
Slobodan Milosevic is not only supporting the President, is not only
supporting the slandered citizens of Yugoslavia, but is supporting all
those who cherish true freedom and democracy, who cherish truth and
justice, and it is supporting those who oppose the idea that the world
should be organised and run for the benefit of a tiny financial elite
at the expense of the vast majority of the world's population.
It is for these reasons that we ask you to support this struggle, to
support the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
(ICDSM) and its national sections.
Please make every effort to support the forthcoming public meetings in
Britain, details of which will be announced shortly.
And please permit us to leave you with the following quote:

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was
not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I
was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out -
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Niemoeller (victim of the Nazis).

For further information please visit the web sites:

www.free-slobo-uk.org and www.icdsm.org

18th February 2005.
Ends.


---------- Initial Header -----------

From : cdsmireland @ eircom.net
Date : Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:56:37 +0000
Subject : Statement from ICDSM (Irish Section) Supporting the
International Conference

STATEMENT FROM COMMITTEE TO DEFEND
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC - (IRISH SECTION) - 18.2.2005


Supporting the International Conference
"The Hague Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic: Emerging Issues in
International Law"


We live in strange times. When fun is equated with destruction and
murder. Consider if you will this comment summarising a personal
military ethos and directed to us by former latrine orderly US Marine
officer Lieutenant General James Mattis...
"It's fun to shoot some people. You go into Afghanistan, you've got
guys who slap women around for five years because they don't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood anyway, so it's a
hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
It was this same Lieutenant General Mattis who dismissed photographic
evidence of the slaughter by US-led forces of dozens of people at an
Iraqi wedding party last year.
Among the dead were 27 members of the extended Rakat family their
wedding guests and even the band of musicians hired to play at the
ceremony.
11 of the dead were women. 14 were children.
In November last year Operation Phantom obliterated the historic and
beautiful city of Falluja in Iraq the home of over 300,000 people
before the merciless onslaught by US forces.
Hundreds of thousands of children and an equal number of the sick and
the elderly have died in Iraq as a direct result of sanctions imposed
on Iraq by the United Nations.
There were no weapons of mass destruction so Iraq constituted no threat
to countries in the West. Clearly the specific purpose to invading Iraq
was to reduce the country to third world status and lessen its
influence in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate
interests across the globe.
World populations conditioned through the media principally to
accepting the basic concept of the "enemy" and the "alien" respond in
Pavlovian fashion to such words as "evil" and "dictator" and are
correspondingly evoked into a war like mode and disposition and as
often as not this leads to a manufactured desire for revenge.

The unrelenting remorseless media demonisation of the Serbian people
and President Slobodan Milosevic serves as exemplar without parallel of
this Orwellian consciousness controlling process.

War is an immensely profitable enterprise for a relatively small number
of people for whom it is an absolute necessity to control the
consciousness or to put it another way annihilate the consciousness of
millions of people across the globe.
The most effective way to do this is through sensationalism which is
basically a disguised form of sadomasochism. In short you create a
desire for and addiction to all that is sensational...
Public crucifixions were certainly sensational as were public
beheadings and hangings and gladiatorial contests . Unquestionably all
this blood letting paved the way for an acceptance of slaughter
unlimited in mass warfare.
Desensitisation is the purpose of this exercise. In this blood soaked
age the capacity to desensitise the great mass of people everywhere is
truly phenomenal. Drugs and excessive use of alcohol and an addiction
to loveless and mechanistic style pornography obliterating any concept
of affection or consideration for others is projected as "normal" and
all that is debased and meretricious and gratuitously violent is daily
fare on television screens across the world . No longer are we afforded
time to reflect as we are ceaselessly besought by the deceivers and
would be manipulators of the collective consciousness to "move forward"
as we are bade quite sternly to "come to terms with" grief and loss and
the leave taking of loved ones and matters over which we may have
little or no control but nevertheless require reflection.
Perhaps we should resist this cold blooded imperative to live precisely
in the moment as we might perhaps challenge the martial call to "move
forward" perceiving it to be in no way concerned with our personal or
collective welfare but rather to be a directive to conform to an ethos
of a militaristic even imperialistic ethos.

In the struggle for truth, justice and peace over imperialism and
warfare join the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
in its support of President Slobodan Milosevic and other Yugoslav
political prisoners who are currently on trial at the US/NATO sponsored
"tribunal" in The Hague.

John Kelly
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (Irish Section)
For further information please do not hesitate to contact us at:
cdsmireland @ eircom.net
Tel: +044 45787 or +086 1963134
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)

LETTER TO LEGAL ORGANISATIONS, NGO's AND POLITICAL PARTIES ......

The letter hereunder was sent to the President or Chairperson of the
following organisations:
The Law Society (Dublin and Belfast), The Bar Council (Dublin and
Belfast), Irish Government Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, The
Labour Party of Ireland Foreign Affairs Department, the Green Party of
Ireland Foreign Affairs Department, The Communist Party of Ireland
Foreign Affairs Department, National Forum on Europe, Irish Peace
Society, Helenic Society University College Dublin, Amnesty
International of Ireland, Pax Christi, General Delegation of Palestine,
Ambassador to Cuba, Cuba Support Group, Professor Hill, Department of
History Trinity College Dublin.

Letter and attached material sent per emails to dozens of non
Governmental and anti war and environmental groups and individuals and
the media.

25.1.2005
THE HAGUE' Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic: Emerging Issues in
International Law

International Conference 26th February 2005 - The Hague

Dear President/Chairman

I wish to draw your attention to the forthcoming Conference which is
scheduled to take place in The Hague in The Netherlands on 26th
February 2005. The Conference is open to the Public and is to be held
in the Golden Tulip Bel Air Hotel, Johan de Wittlaan 30 (close to the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) from 1.30pm
to 7.00 pm. Conference admission is 10 Euro.

As more and more peace organisations and Human Rights Lawyers and
Barristers world-wide campaign for the abolishment of the illegal NATO
sponsored and controlled so called Tribunal on former Yugoslavia in The
Hague, it is worth noting the forthcoming Legal Conference which is
scheduled to take place in The Hague on 26th February 2005.

With the passing of time it has become clear to most people, that so
much of what passed as "news" about Iraq as disseminated by the global
mainstream media was simply not true. It was pro war propaganda used by
the USA and its puppet states to rally world public support for Western
military and Western corporate take over of Iraq.
Precisely the same situation applied regards the war in The Balkans -
the 1999 NATO aggression against the peoples of Yugoslavia was based on
a LIE.

Please find enclosed further details about the Conference to include a
list of guest speakers.

I have also enclosed for your convenience a list of quality Hotels
which are quite conveniently located to the ICTY area.

Would it be possible for the information package enclosed herein to be
placed in the official library please.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further
information or if you wish to meet one of our members to discuss the
issues of The Hague Tribunal and the war in The Balkans generally.

Sincerely,
June Kelly
Co ordinator
International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic (Irish Section)

(Full postal address was included to all on above list)
Tel/Fax: +044 45787 - Mobile: 086 1963134
?
Email: cdsmireland @ eircom.net

For additional information or statements, media representatives are
free to
contact speakers by Phone:
Tiphaine Dickson (Montreal) + 1 450 263 7974
Christopher Black (Toronto) + 1 416 928 6611
Ramsey Clark (New York) + 1 212 475 3232
Vladimir Krsljanin (Belgrade) + 381 63 886 2301


*******************************************************************

To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy )
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org (ICDSM UK)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)



==========================

ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it

*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***

IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm

IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm

LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)

==========================

["Psicologia delle masse e fascismo 'light' in Italia": un articolo di
Jasna Tkalec]

http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/feb2005/tkalec.html
Arhiva : : Februar 2005.

Psihologija masa i fašizam light u Italiji

Promijeniti sve da se ne promijeni ništa

U davnim tridesetim godinama minulog vijeka neseretni je psihijatar
Wilchelm Reich (umro umno poremećen u zatvoru najslobodnije države
svijeta, SAD-a) napisao veoma zanimljivu knjižicu, koja je savršeno
objašanjavala uspon i uspjeh nacifašizma u masama. Knjiga se zvala
"Masovna psihologija fašizma".

A kako je s tim stvarima danas, kad se sve izmijenilo? Kako je rekao
Lampedusa, u čuvenom romanu i kasnije u Viscontijevom filmu "Gepard":
sve se promijenilo, da se ne bi izmijenilo ništa... Bilo je to tako na
Siciliji, zaostalom i izoliranom otoku, kojim su surovim feudalnim
apsolutizmom vladali Burboni i njihovi namjesnici, sve dok nije došao
Garibaldi i njegove "crvene košulje". Garibaldinac Nino Bixio, usprkos
očekivanjima naprednih, krvavo je ugušio pobunu seljaka protiv
sicijalnske aristokracije i zemljoposjednika i na svaku granu maslinika
objesio po jednog "prostaka"...

Na čelo zemlje došli su pijemontezi, odnosno dinastija Savoja, ali se
za sirotinju ništa nije izmijenilo. Ujedinjenjem Italije južnjačka
bijeda ostala je to sve do dana danšnjeg... Prezirana, zaostala,
divlja, krvavo iskorištavana i najsurovije kažnjavana za najmanji
neposluh...

U dvadesetogodišnjoj vladavini fašizma, koliko je trajao Mussolinijev
režim, malobrojni su bili uvjereni fašisti, psi režima, s nožem u
zubima, crnom košuljom, pendrekom i ricinusovim uljem.

A ipak ti su malobrojni fašisti sa svojim operetskim "Maršem na Rim" i
manje operetskim batinanjem uništili jake i veoma brojne socijalističke
organizacije na sjeveru zemlje, razbili zadrugarski pokret, potrošačke
zadruge, organizacije socijalističke omladine, pošto su prebili i
pobacali kroz prozore i s balkona gradonačelnike manjih i većih gradova
i na smrt pretukli njihove advokate, zapalili Društvene domove od Trsta
do Bologne i Rima, a socijalističke agitatore napojili ricinusom. Broj
onih što su tukli i palili bio je neznatan, ali kako je napisao Nenni:
"Fašizam je pobijedio ne zbog terora malobrojnih, već zbog konformizma
većine, koja je pristala uz režim i trajno se prilagodila fašizmu."

Baš o tome govori poznato Moravijino djelo "Konformist", pretočeno u
istoimeni film Bernarda Bertolluccija. Prihvaćajući iz konformizma
fašistički režim protagonist priče odlazi u Pariz i glumeći da je
opozicionar uvlači se u intelektualne krugove talijanske političke
emigracije u Francuskoj. Tamo, srdačno prihvaćen u krugovima
antifašista, priprema umorstvo svog pokrovitelja i nekadašnjeg
profesora na Univerzitetu... Uvaženog naučnika i njegovu mladu ženu
fašisti zvjerski ubiju na putu u šumi.

No šta vrijedi pisati knjige i pravite filmove, ako priblesavo
čovječanstvo stalno, kao nedotupavi đak, pravi iste pogreške?

Režim umjesto partija i vođa masa

Svakako situacija u kojoj se našao svijet nakon pada Berlinskog zida
ide tome na ruku. Kad se srušila takozvana "gvozdena zavjesa"
oslobodivši "okova totalitarizma" milione i otvorivši "put na istok"
svjetskom kapitalu, evropska - smjesta reformirana - ljevica previdjela
je dramu, koja će se dogoditi... Kapitaliizam, lišen opasnog rivala,
potpuno je pobjesnio. To bješnjenje zapanjilo je one koji su živjeli na
pravoj, odnosno "pobjedničkoj" strani, na zapadu i sjeveru zemaljske
kule. Oni su, budući da su komunisti i njihove masovne partije nestali
sa političke pozornice, očekivali od kapitalizma lojalno ponašanje. Ali
vuk ostaje vuk i hrani se jaganjcima...

Budući da nije više bilo protuteže ni opasnog neprijatelja, koji bi ga
mogao napasti, kasni se kapitalizam prepustio dotad susprezanim
neumjerenostima i devijacijama, bez zadrške. Pobjednički marš
imperijalizma više ništa nije moglo obuzdati. Više nije postojala
prijetnja, nekad realna na evropskom Zapadu, koja se čini smiješnom
današnjim vlastodršcima, da bi se široke narodne mase, koje su još bile
čvrsto vezane za političke partije i njihove ideologije, ako ih previše
nagaze, mogle okrenuti i odustavši od opreznog pristajanja uz sistem,
učiniti skok, koji bi značio njegovo radikalno odbacivanje.

Kako je danas van pameti i sama pomisao na takvo što, kasni je
kapitalizam mogao bez straha pokazati svoje istinsko lice. A ono je kao
i uvijek light fašizam, a drugačije i ne može da bude , jer to je u
samoj prirodi vlasti, naročito vlasti, koja počiva na svemoći kapitala.

Prvi i najbolji primjer za to stanje stvari u Evropi i svijetu jeste
Italija Silvija Berluconija.

Fašizam je režim, a šta je režim? To je vremensko-prostorni zatvoreni
krug u kojem su moralna pravila donedavno općeprihvaćena, sada
poništena i pogažena, a sama logika okrenuta naglavačke. U takvom
naopakom sistemu izgleda logično, dubokoumno i mudro sve ono što je
nelogično, apsurdno i glupo, ali budući da se to opsesivno i neprestano
ponavlja, postaje uobičajeno i normalno.

Šta je normalno? – pitao se Lav Tolstoj i s njim teoretičar
književnosti Viktor Šklovski. Normalan je onaj, odgovara Tolstoj, koji
u jednom vremenu najbolje usvoji i saživi se sa svim postavkama,
predodžbama i predubeđenjima toga vremena... A onda to vrijeme mine i
ono što je bilo normalno postaje apsurdno, zastarjelo i smiješno...
Nešto kao staromodne haljine – dobre jedino za maskaradu.

Italija, najtradicionalnija zemlja u Evropi, a stalno opsjednuta
modernitetom i ovoga je puta kao i 1922. pojurila u prve redove, poput
ambicioznog đačiča.

Da bi se sve što se događa u toj zemlji shvatilo treba znati šta je
dvadesetgodišnji fašistički režim značio za Talijane. Za osvještene on
je značio apsolutno zlo, ukidanje demokracije, nasilje, rasne zakone,
imperijalističke ratove, ratnu katastrofu, koja se s njemačkom
okupacijom i savezničkim bombardiranjem pretvorila u općenarodnu
tragediju te krvavi partizanski i ustvari građanski rat.

Ali za mase koje su ga živjele i proživjele tokom dvadeset godina
fašizam je značio i uobičajeni način mišljenja, koji je ostavio duboke
tragove. Za siromašne seljake, koji su umirali od malarije na
zapuštenom jugu, on je značio isušivanje močvara, kakvu-takvu agrarnu
reformu, uvođenje osmosatnog radnog dana i pojavu državnih instutcija
za brigu o djeci i materinstvu te nekakvu obrazovnu i zdravstvenu
politiku... Značio je i slavu pobjede u ratovima u Africi,
samozadovoljnu sliku jednog naroda i jedne monarhije, koja je napokon u
vlastitim očima stekla dignitet i opila se nacionalnim ponosom. Pobjeda
u borbi za žito, pobjeda u borbi protiv boleština, masovno preseljenje
težaka bezemljaša sa sjevera u isušene močvare centra Italije, na
takozvani Agro Romano, gušenje svake "subverzije", odnosno opozicije,
izgradnja novih gradova u slavu rimskih legija, sa zvučnim imenima
Littoria, Sabaudia, Latina, rast industrije i opće zaposlenosti, koja
je proizvodila za vojsku, opijali su mase. Društvo je država, a ona je
u prvom redu kasarna i stadion i narod je zadovoljan. Bavi se svojim
poslom, dok ga gladijatori zabavljaju, po starom prokušanom receptu
rimskog imperija.

Revizionizam

A danas? Danas jasno nije više moguće tako. Ali se zato počinje
slikanjem fašizma kao dobroćudnog paternalizma. Berlusconi tvrdi da
fašizam uopće nije bio tako dramatičan moment u historiji Italije kako
to govori ljevica, jer su opozicionari jednostavno konfinirani, to jest
poslati na plaćene ferije na Lipare ili Poncu i Kikladske otoke, sve
sama krasna mjestašca, današnje skupe vrhuške najeksluzivnijeg turizma.

Ipak te perle, što ih bacaju sa svih šest (tri državna i tri privatna)
berlusconijevih TV kanala njegovi istomišlljenici i pripuzi, nisu još
same po sebi toliko opasne. Daleko je gora zatvorenost sistema,
navođenje publike da se bavi glupostima i samom sobom i da sa treskom
zatvori prozore prema istinskim svjetskim zbivanjima i problemima kako
talijanskog društva i Evropske Zajednice, tako i svijeta.

Nije da o tim problemima ne govore i vijesti i mnogi specijalizirani
komentari. Ali govore onako i onoliko kako to režimu i njegovom
protagonisti Silviju Berlusconiju odgovara. Kreveljenje na TV kanalima
je dopušteno, izrugivanje i imitiranje premijera je uobičajeni ispušni
ventil. Ono što nije dozvoljeno jeste ozbiljna i duboka sociološka
analiza situacije u kojoj se danas nalaze Italija, Evropa i svijet.
Radikalizam je prepušten Radikalnoj partiji, a ona je izravni eksponent
politike SAD-a u Italiji i Evropi, jer su talijanski radikali –
transverzalni.

Ljevičarima na televiziju pristup nije zabranjen, ali za njih
jednostavno nema vremena, osim za po koju rečenicu u debatama, jer
čitavo TV vrijeme do kraja pokrivaju sve gluplji i sve ništavniji
programi, u kojima se ne događa ništa osim igara za maloumne. Pošast na
svim kanalima jeste poplava svuda sličnih ili jednakih kvizova, lišenih
obrazovnog cilja, jer nisu usmjereni na sticanje znanja već
predstavljaju vid igre ne sreću. A sve to se čini s namjerom da potpuno
zaokupi i anestezira gledaoce.

Uz to treba dodati ogromne zarade na reklamama, jer sve televizije i
javne i privatne, žive od propagandnih poruka koje, da bi došle na
ekran, moraju proći kroz agenciju Publitalija, a ova je opet vlasništvo
Silvija Berlusconija. I tako u Italiji Berlusconi i njegovi drže svu
medijsku tj. informativnu, ekonomsku i političku vlast. Preostaje još
ona sudska – koja im se opire, ali kako se čini, ni ona neće dugo.
Namjerno se zaboravlja i prenebegava činjenica, da bi suvremena
demokracija trebala počivati na jednakosti u pristupu javnim
institucijama, zaštiti prava manjina, na podjeli vlasti, na uvažavanju
pluralizma, na otvorenosti.

Belusconi i njegov model ponovo su uspostavili autarhičnu zatvorenost,
koja ne dopušta protivljenje, jer po vlastitom shvaćanju predstavlja
najbolji od mogućih svjetova.

Umjesto pendreka – ekran

Kod toliko ogromnog monopola nad sredstvima informiranja i uz toliko
opčinjavanje masa u suvremenoj Italiji političko ubojstvo je potpuno
nepotrebno. Ono predstavlja prevaziđenu, zastarjelu metodu – metodu
prošlog vijeka. Mase su zaokupljene gledanjem Big Bruthera ili Otoka
slavnih, zabavama i zabavljačima, koji ih opijaju svakidašnjim
trivijalnostima, golotinjom, plesanjem, pjevanjem i ljubakanjima i tako
u beskraj, dok potpuno ne otupi svaka forma osporavanja i svaka želja
za ozbiljnim razgovorom i istinskom kritikom i kontestacijom. Cijeli
dan se prikazuje kako obični ljudi ili slavne ličnosti provode vrijeme
u banalnim zanimacijama, kako se svađaju, pare, ljube ili tuku u kući
iz koje nema izlaza ili na usamljenom otoku.

Taj usamljeni otok i ta zatvorena kuća u kojoj milioni gledaju
ishitrene trivijalnosti, istinska su metafora današnje Italije i
svijeta te stanja svijesti, koje prevladava.

U Italiji je Berlusconijev režim baš zbog toga zasnovan na širokom,
gotovo plebiscitarnom pristajanju masa, kao i na jednoobraznom načinu
mišljenja. I evo nas opet u jednoumlju, ali onom sufliranom od
kapitalizma, i to onog kasnog. A šta dalje?

Treba odmah objasniti: stvarnost je danas mnogo manje dramatična od
prvog i pravog fašizma, ali baš zato čini sve forme osporavanja,
različitog mišljenja i neslaganja daleko bezopasnijim i beznačajnijim
nego nekad.

Režimu više nisu potrebni ricinus i pendreci da bi stvarao i održavao
opće pristajanje i odobravanje. Dovoljan je pristup i monopol nad
sredstvima informiranja - u prvom redu nad televizijom. Pendrek je
zamijenjen televizijskim ekranom.

Eto tako napreduje light fašizam u Italiji i svugdje drugdje. A fašizam
light kao i light hrana izaziva bulimiju, stalnu glad i stalnu potrebu
za sve većom količinom jela, odnosno za sve većom količinom TV i
telematske zabave đubretarskog tipa i sadržaja.

Davna je istina, koju je već iskušala Catarina Medici, kraljica
Francuske, u osam vjerskih ratova s hugenotima: zabranom se ne postiže
ništa, zlo se tako ne može iskorjeniti.Štaviše, ono se uvećava, dok ga
dopuštanje i tolerancija umanjuje. Ranije su istu paradogmu već bili
pokazali vjerski progoni i Bartolomejska noć. Grozan pokolj nije smirio
ni preplašio reformirane – štaviše oni su gordo podigli glave i s
pjesmom bogu istine ponosno se penjali na gubilišta.

Što su više palili hugenote, više su se punile protestantske bogomolje
i sve je više rastao broj onih što su pristajali uz Reformaciju i pod
prijetnjom užeta i vatre. Kad je zavladala vjerska tolerancija i pošto
je potpisan Nantski edikt, protestantska je crkva u Francuskoj izgubila
bitku.

U Italiji danas ne progone opoziciju nasiljem, već je guše
ograničavanjem i zatvaranjem za nju medijskog prostora te opijanjem
masa trivijalnopšću ponuđenih TV sadržaja i ordinarnim
glupostima.Utapnje u banalnosti i uspavljivanje kritičkog duha pokazalo
se dosad vrlo uspješnom metodom.

Kako je dvadesetih godina rekao njemački dramaturg Erwin Piscator, da
bi se fašizam doveo na političku pozornicu trebalo je prethodno cijeli
svijet pretvoriti u golemu instituciju za imbecile.

A da bi se to postiglo treba se vješto služiti mas-medijima.

Opčinjenost ekranom

Danas se stvaranje konsenzusa javnosti ne postiže propagandom nego
stvaranjem ugode TV-gledalaca.Za vrijeme tako zvanih totalitarizama
uloga radija bila je sasvim drugačija i vrlo važna.

No radio se danas smatra za "teško" sredstvo: potrebna mu je politička
propaganda i zvučni slogani, koji se neprestano ponavljaju, jer je
poruka verbalna. TV slike, i slike s ekrana uopće, kao na primjer one u
kinu, djeluju drugačije i drugačije se koriste. Njihova je moć da
potpuno zaokupe pažnju i opčine gledaoca daleko veća.

Narodni su vođe nekad govorili na dupke punim trgovima pred masama koje
su pljeskale, a radio je prenosio njihove govore. Danas je sve to
izišlo iz mode. Mase drži i opčinjava mali ekran s malo misli i to
plitkih. I ovdje caruje minimalizam. Njihova glavna zabava su reality
show i Veliki brat, koji ih odvodi od grube svakidašnjice i njezinih
problema i navodi na neprestani dijalog s ničim. Društvo je zabavljeno
površnom psihologijom ličnosti i introspekcijom, a politička analiza
postala je sasvim demodirana. Tako je direktni televizijski prijenos
dobio vrijednost grčke "agore", zajedničkog društvenog prostora. A on
je preplavljen neizmjernom glupošću psihološke iznutrice tako zvanih
"malih ljudi". Tako je javno postalo privatno. Televizija ne nudi
prozor u svijet, već pogled u privatnost kroz ključanicu. Banalno i
bezsadržajno krčmi se kao zanimljivo i važno te predstavlja jedini
ponuđeni sadržaj i duhovnu hranu masa.

Dokle će tako? Ne zna se, iako se počinje primjećivati izvjestan zamor.
Jer kad se ugase "svijetla pozornice" ostaje stvarnost, mizernija nego
ikada. I krajnje razgolićena kao i djevojke na TV ekranima.

Najgore je što zasad tome nema ozbiljne alternative: jedini postojeći
drugačiji put jeste onaj što ga je pokazala Amerika na nedavnim
izborima. Put kojim je još jednom izabran Bush. A on znači povratak na
vječne vrijednosti desnice: Bog, Domovina, Porodica, vjerski
integralizam i izvoz sopstvene civilizacije oružanom silom. U to ime
propagira se i koncept da je rat neophodan, jer je isti nezamjenjiv vid
borbe jedine istinske kulture i civilizacije protiv terorizma. Zar će
Italija, Evropa i svijet na tome ostati i opstati?

Jasna Tkalec