Informazione
(english / italiano)
Ucraina, l'OSCE si lamenta:
"Il nostro candidato ha perso, percio' voi non siete democratici"
1. I RISULTATI QUASI DEFINITIVI DELLE ELEZIONI PRESIDENZIALI IN UCRAINA
(Mauro Gemma)
2. L'OSCE BOCCIA LE ELEZIONI UCRAINE
... Secondo L'Unita', una prova della scorrettezza delle procedure
elettorali risulterebbe dal fatto che i dati dei seggi sarebbero in
contrasto con gli exit poll forniti... dall'ambasciata USA !!!
(segnalazioni di Luca Sbano)
3. FESTIVITIES BEGINNING IN UKRAINE TO MARK 60TH
ANNIVERSARY OF LIBERATION FROM NAZI INVADERS / Ukrainian 'Velvet'
Putschists Ready For Sunday's Election /Opposition candidate's
supporters use force / Russia's Zyuganov: Western Intelligence
Services Interfere With Ukraine Vote / US and Russia Race for Ukrainian
Presidency / Ukraine to join EU, NATO within five years: Yushchenko /
Extremely tense election race comes to end in Ukraine
VEDI ANCHE / SEE ALSO:
I COMUNISTI SONO PREOCCUPATI DELLE PRESSIONI SENZA PRECEDENTI CHE GLI
USA ESERCITANO SULL’UCRAINA
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3880
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3903
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (2)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3906
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (3)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3943
=== 1 ===
I RISULTATI QUASI DEFINITIVI DELLE ELEZIONI PRESIDENZIALI IN UCRAINA
Mentre sto scrivendo, in Ucraina è stato scrutinato il 91,76% delle
schede per il primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali, svoltesi il 31
ottobre. Quasi sicuramente il presidente della repubblica verrà
proclamato al secondo turno, previsto per il 14 novembre.
L’attuale premier Viktor Janukovic, considerato molto vicino alle
posizioni dell’amministrazione russa, con il 40,39% dei voti, raccoglie
i consensi in particolare delle regioni orientali e della Crimea.
Il candidato filo-NATO Viktor Juschenko, che ha usufruito di un enorme
sostegno politico e finanziario da parte dell’amministrazione USA e che
controlla una parte consistente dei “media” nazionali, prevale
nettamente nelle regioni occidentali, dove più forte è la componente
nazionalista anti-russa, raggiungendo il 38,9%.
Il 5,75% dei consensi viene raccolto dal candidato del Partito
Socialista di Ucraina Aleksandr Moroz.
Piotr Simonenko, candidato del Partito Comunista di Ucraina,
tradizionalmente radicato nelle regioni russe e russofone (in Crimea,
alle ultime politiche, aveva ottenuto ben il 70% dei voti, e sul piano
nazionale, il 20%), subisce pesantemente la massiccia risposta popolare
all’appello al voto utile lanciato da Janukovic, che gode dell’aperto
sostegno del presidente russo Vladimir Putin.
L’1,5% andrebbe a Natalja Vitrenko, candidata della formazione di
estrema sinistra Partito Progressista Socialista di Ucraina.
Viktor Juschenko, come era prevedibile, ha già annunciato di non voler
riconoscere l’esito della consultazione, denunciando brogli e
violazioni della legge elettorale, che, per la verità, gli osservatori
indipendenti hanno attribuito proprio ai nazionalisti in alcune zone
dell’occidente del paese. Per questa ragione, nella capitale si avverte
un clima di forte tensione e non vengono esclusi violenti disordini
provocati dai seguaci di Juschenko, che contano sulla reazione della
stampa occidentale, che, in tutte le sue componenti (anche di sinistra,
come “Il Manifesto”) sembra allineata al cliché propagandistico
suggerito dall’amministrazione USA. In tal modo, il ballottaggio
potrebbe svolgersi in un’atmosfera estremamente condizionata dalle
pressioni dell’Occidente, intenzionato ad allineare la propria opinione
pubblica “a difesa della democrazia e dei diritti umani”, e ad usare il
ricatto delle sanzioni come formidabile arma a favore del suo
candidato.
Janukovic, da parte sua, in vista del secondo turno, ha rivolto un
appello a comunisti e socialisti (questi ultimi, che nutrono velleità
circa il loro inserimento tra le forze socialdemocratiche europee
“rispettabili”, potrebbero anche schierarsi con Juschenko), promettendo
il varo di una riforma costituzionale che rafforzerebbe i poteri del
parlamento.
1/11/2004
MAURO GEMMA
=== 2 ===
http://www.repubblica.it/2004/k/sezioni/esteri/eleucra/eleucra/
eleucra.html
L'Osce boccia le elezioni ucraine
"Violate le norme democratiche"
KIEV - L'Organizzazione per la sicurezza e la cooperazione in Europa
(Osce) ha "bocciato" le elezioni presidenziali svoltesi ieri in Ucraina
perchè "non sono state rispettate le norme democratiche internazionali"
Il premier filo-russo Viktor Yanukovich e l'ex premier filo-occidentale
Viktor Yushenko erano usciti sostanzialmente alla pari, con circa il
40% dei voti a testa, dal primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali e in
calendario, il 21 novembre, è previsto il ballottaggio.
Ma subito dopo lo spoglio è arrivata la scure dell'Osce, e ora è
difficile prevedere cosa accadra. "E' con cuore pesante che sulla base
dei nostri riscontri dobbiamo concludere che le elezioni presidenziali
2004 non hanno soddisfatto i criteri dell'Osce e del Consiglio
d'Europa", ha affermato durante una conferenza stampa Bruce George,
capo della missione. "In realtà le elezioni hanno rappresentato un
passo indietro rispetto alle elezioni del 2002", ha aggiunto
riferendosi al voto parlamentare di due anni fa.
(1 novembre 2004)
---
01.11.2004 - da L'Unita' online
Ucraina al voto, l'Osce denuncia brogli. Ballottaggio fra le polemiche
di red
L'Ucraina al voto non rispetta le norme democratiche internazionali. E'
questo il commento dell'Osce alle elezioni presidenziali che si sono
svolte domenica. L'esito della consultazione ha visto una sostanziale
parita' tra i due candidati. Il premier filo-russo Viktor Yanukovich e
l'ex premier filo-occidentale Viktor Yushenko sono usciti alla pari,
con circa il 40% dei voti a testa. Nessuno degli aspiranti capi di
stato ha insomma superato il 50% necessario per vincere l'elezione al
primo turno.
Si andra' allora al ballottaggio, la data e' gia' stata fissata per
il 21 novembre prossimo. L'affluenza alle urne e' stata del 75%, un
record per l'Ucraina postsovetica. Ma tutti gli osservatori sono
concordi nel denunciare brogli. Sarebbero [sarebbero] scomparsi nomi
dai registri elettorali, in una citta', addirittura il 5% degli aventi
diritto sarebbe [sarebbe] stato cancellato dalle liste.
I brogli sarebbero confermati, secondo gli osservatori dell'Unione
Europea, dai risultati diversi, rispetto a quelli ufficiali, degli exit
poll sponsorizzati dall'Ambasciata americana a Kiev [SIC] e da altre
missioni diplomatiche occidentali in Ucraina [SIC]. Secondo questi
sondaggi, Yushenko avrebbe [avrebbe] guadagnato la maggioranza dei
voti, anche senza vincere le elezioni al primo turno.
«E' con cuore pesante che sulla base dei nostri riscontri dobbiamo
concludere che le elezioni presidenziali 2004 non hanno soddisfatto i
criteri dell'Osce, del Consiglio d'Europa e di altre elezioni...», ha
affermato Bruce George, capo della missione Osce. «In realta' le
elezioni hanno rappresentato un passo indietro rispetto alle elezioni
del 2002».
L'Organizzazione per la sicurezza e la cooperazione in Europa (Osce) ha
seguito con circa 600 funzionari le elezioni. Ma il loro monitoraggio
ha evidenziato una schiacciante campagna mediatica a favore del premier
Viktor Yanukovich, gia' aiutato da un massiccio utilizzo di «risorse
governative».
Il 21 novembre sapremo chi tra i due Victor sara' il nuovo presidente
ucraino. Stesso nome per due personaggi alquanto diversi. Uno,
Yanukovich, gode del sostegno del presidente uscente Leonid Kuchma, del
presidente russo Vladimir Putin e di tutto l'establishment
economico-industriale, l'altro, il liberal-nazionalista Yushenko,
vorrebbe aprire all'Ucraina i rapporti con l'Unione Europea.
=== 3 ===
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5010459&startrow=21&date=2004-10-
26&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agencey (Novosti) - October 26, 2004
FESTIVITIES BEGINNING IN UKRAINE TO MARK 60TH
ANNIVERSARY OF LIBERATION FROM NAZI INVADERS
KIEV - Festivities are beginning in Ukraine to mark
the 60th anniversary of Ukraine's liberation from the
Nazi invaders.
The historic Victory Banner, which was hoisted over
Reichstag on April 30, 1945, will arrive in Kiev on
Tuesday.
As RIA Novosti was told in the press service of the
Defence Ministry of Ukraine, the Banner will be
brought to Kiev from Moscow in train No.1 Moscow-Kiev
by the servicemen of the Guard of Honour of the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation.
On Wednesday, October 27, president of Ukraine Leonid
Kuchma and Russia's president Vladimir Putin who is
leaving for Ukraine on Tuesday on a working visit will
lay flowers at the monument to the Unknown Soldier in
Square of Glory.
Besides that, on Wednesday the heads of state will
participate in a festive meeting to celebrate the
anniversary at the Ukraina National Palace.
On Thursday, October 28, the heads of state will be
present at the military parade and the march of
veterans in Kreshchatik, and will also visit the
museum of the Great Patriotic War.
According to the scenario, the famous combat machine
of the Great Patriotic War, the T-34 tank, will open
the veterans' march. The standards of the four
Ukrainian and of the first Belarussian Fronts whose
personnel liberated Ukraine from the German Nazi
invaders will be carried.
The festive activities will be capped by an artillery
salute and festive fireworks.
By the information of Ukraine's Foreign Ministry,
presidents of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan Nursultan
Nazarbayev and Ilkham Aliyev will arrive to attend the
celebration. President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
was also invited to participate in the festivities.
---
[To view the Web site some 'anonymous benefactor' has
bestowed on the Pora stormtroopers, see
http://www.pora.org.ua
And for all the millions of Anglophones in Ukraine:
http://www.pora.org.ua/en
The latter site contains this revealing question:
Slovak Republic 1998, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003.. and
Ukraine 2004. What is common between these countries?]
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 27, 2004
UKRAINIAN YOUTH GROUP ANNOUNCES WEEK OF PROTESTS
The youth organization Pora on 25 October announced at
its website (pora.org.ua/) a "wave of student strikes
and actions" from 25-30 October to protest what it
calls the official repression of the youth movement in
Ukraine. "The repression by the authorities has
acquired a nationwide character," Pora says.
"Explosives, military cartridges, forged money, and
stolen things are surreptitiously placed with the
youth activists whose views do not coincide with
official ones, and criminal cases are being opened
against them. This can't go on any longer!" JM
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10714824
Interfax - October 26, 2004
Opposition candidate's supporters use force -
Ukrainian PM's electoral headquarters
KYIV - Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych's
election headquarters on Tuesday issued a statement
saying a group of parliament members headed by Viktor
Yushchenko, the chief opposition candidate in the
presidential election scheduled for October 31,
abusing their parliamentary immunity, broke into the
Central Election Building and disrupted the
commission's meeting in early hours of October 24.
"The trust on the part of the electorate in that
candidate has noticeably fallen and his chances of
being elected are becoming ever more ephemeral, so
Yushchenko's retinue now bet on destabilization and
disruption of the electoral process because they have
understood that they cannot win fairly," the statement
says.
"We place the responsibility for attempts at
destabilizing the country squarely on Viktor
Yushchenko and call his attention to the fact that
using any illegal electoral techniques is
inadmissible," it says.
"Inciting his supporters to violence risks triggering
riots in Ukraine and must be regarded as designed to
undermine the country's national security," the
statement says.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10715524
Interfax - October 28, 2004
Zyuganov blames West for interfering in Ukrainian vote
MOSCOW - Russian Communist Party leader Gennady
Zyuganov believes that Western intelligence services
have crudely interfered in the situation in Ukraine in
the run-up to the October 31 presidential election.
"I have been in Kyiv for a third day and I see for
myself that the numerous actions of local opposition
bear the earmarks of those groups that at different
times tried to destabilize Prague, Budapest and
Bucharest - the earmarks of U.S. special services," he
told Interfax on Thursday.
Zyuganov said he would not forecast the election
results or interfere in the electoral race in a
neighboring Slavic country.
Russian communists support Petro Symonenko, the leader
of Ukrainian communists, who is running for the
presidency, he said.
Zyuganov would not say who Ukrainian communists will
support if the choice in the second round of elections
is between the two front runners, Viktor Yanukovych
and Victor Yushchenko.
---
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20041029&hn=13416
Zaman (Turkey) - October 29, 2004
US and Russia Race for Ukrainian Presidency
Mirza Cetinkaya
Moscow -Ukrainian presidential elections to be held in
Sunday (October 31) are the scene of a serious and
interesting rival between Russia and US-based West.
Not just Russian President Vladimir Putin but also
Russian artists are even involved in the election
process.
"Our Ukraine" block leader Victor Yushenko and Prime
Minister Victor Yanukovic are expected rivals for the
elections with 26 candidates.
On one hand, Western countries play all the trump
cards for the race while Moscow mobilized all its
sources. The Russian media and public opinion shows
great interest to Ukrainian elections more than the
latest presidential elections in Russia. Yanukovic has
inclinations towards Russia while his rival Yushenko
towards US and the European Union (EU) policies.
Public polls indicate candidates are neck-to-neck.
A political expert Alexei Makarkin evaluating the
scene to Zaman said yesterday that the real field of
contention behind the scenes between US and Russia is
Ukraine.
Makarkin pointed that Washington desires a new
administration, which will speed up the integration
process with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and the West in contrast to Moscow's insisting
on a Russian-based administration. According to the
diplomatic sources, since US President George W. Bush
is engaged in the US presidential election, NATO and
European countries are trying to affect the Ukrainian
elections.
---
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041029111255.c7lwzeq4.html
Agence France-Presse - October 29, 2004
Ukraine to join EU, NATO within five years: Yushchenko
KIEV - Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko
said Friday that he would lead his former Soviet
republic into both the European Union and NATO should
he win hotly contested weekend presidential elections.
But he cautioned that serious talk of joining both
Brussels-based blocs could only begin by the end of
his five-year term because Ukraine needed to reform
its own political and military systems first.
"Ukraine needs another three to five years before we
can seriously begin negotiations on these issue,"
Yushchenko told reporters.
"It is easy to talk about positives of membership, but
we will have to deal with the negatives first,"
Yushchenko said.
He said Ukraine needed a major overhaul in its current
legislation that included an easing of import duties
that would allow the West to recognize the republic -
now one of Europe's poorest states - as a market
economy.
He indirectly pinned blame for Ukraine's economic
malaise on the outgoing regime of President Leonid
Kuchma, who took a more cautious line on opening his
republic's markets toward the West.
"We are talking about the institution of a brand new
fiscal, budget and trade policy. We will have to adopt
many new laws that will be difficult to swallow for
some of our ministers, and that they may try to resist
at first," he said.
"Membership will require a great political will," he
said.
But Yushchenko stressed that he would be leading his
government's charge toward integration into the two
Western blocs, placing trade with Russia on the back
burner.
"After forming a new government, our first goal will
be to develop a broader political strategy,"
Yushchenko said.
"And here, we must prepare for the European option,"
said Yushchenko, who served as Ukraine's central bank
chief for seven years before serving for nearly two
years as prime minister, when he tried to break
corrupt links between government and business.
"First, I want Ukraine to be recognized as a market
economy, and then as a provisional member of the
European Union."
Sunday's election pits Yushchenko against Kuchma's
anointed successor, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich,
who instead is pushing Ukraine toward a closer
partnership with its Soviet-era master Russia [sic].
Ukraine's public opinion is evenly split between its
allegiances to Moscow and the West, with the
candidates both expected to face off in a November 21
runoff.
Earlier Friday, Yushchenko predicted victory in the
first round with 60 percent of the vote.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1404616&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 30, 2004
Extremely tense election race comes to end in Ukraine
KIEV - In slightly less than 48 hours from now,
Ukraine will know the names of two main contenders in
the second round of the presidential election,
although it has been clear for quite a time that the
two men are the incumbent Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovich and the leading oppositionist Viktor
Yuschenko.
Polls indicate both of them may get a more or less
equal percentage of votes in the first round of
voting, but none is likely to get more than a half of
all the votes so as to emerge victorious right from
the October 31 voting.
Sociologists indicate that, in most likelihood, the
president will be elected in the second round, due
November 21.
In Ukraine, the presidential term of office lasts five
years.
Yanukovich and Yuschenko issued appeals to their
supporters several days ago to refrain from mass
actions and to observe law and public order, but
people in the capital Kiev are fearful of provocations
and the situation here remains somewhat tense.
Rumors are circulating that clashes are possible in
case of vote rigging of other gross violations of the
law.
The candidates are going to spend the last day before
election differently. Yanukovich says he is going to
have a normal work schedule and to go to church, while
Yuschenko and the third closest contender, Socialist
Party leader Alexander Moroz, will stay with their
families.
Experts say the election race that ended Friday is the
dirtiest over the 13 years of Ukraine’s independence,
as some of the candidates openly joggled with national
symbols, gave out bluntly unfeasible promises, or
spread sheer lies about their opponents.
Agitation was apparently aimed at splitting Ukraine
into two parts – the mostly Ukrainian West and the
mixed Russian-Ukrainian East. Along with it, the
agitators kept stressing the difference between close
relations with Russia and European integration.
The novelty of the technology was that the two leading
candidates did not apportion blame to each other
directly, as the role was played by minor “technical”
candidates.
Ukraine’s Central Electoral Commission says the
country has 37.6 million voters, who are expected to
vote at about 33,300 polling stations inside Ukraine
and at 125 stations abroad.
As of August 1, 2004, the total population stood at
47.4 million people.
Ucraina, l'OSCE si lamenta:
"Il nostro candidato ha perso, percio' voi non siete democratici"
1. I RISULTATI QUASI DEFINITIVI DELLE ELEZIONI PRESIDENZIALI IN UCRAINA
(Mauro Gemma)
2. L'OSCE BOCCIA LE ELEZIONI UCRAINE
... Secondo L'Unita', una prova della scorrettezza delle procedure
elettorali risulterebbe dal fatto che i dati dei seggi sarebbero in
contrasto con gli exit poll forniti... dall'ambasciata USA !!!
(segnalazioni di Luca Sbano)
3. FESTIVITIES BEGINNING IN UKRAINE TO MARK 60TH
ANNIVERSARY OF LIBERATION FROM NAZI INVADERS / Ukrainian 'Velvet'
Putschists Ready For Sunday's Election /Opposition candidate's
supporters use force / Russia's Zyuganov: Western Intelligence
Services Interfere With Ukraine Vote / US and Russia Race for Ukrainian
Presidency / Ukraine to join EU, NATO within five years: Yushchenko /
Extremely tense election race comes to end in Ukraine
VEDI ANCHE / SEE ALSO:
I COMUNISTI SONO PREOCCUPATI DELLE PRESSIONI SENZA PRECEDENTI CHE GLI
USA ESERCITANO SULL’UCRAINA
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3880
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3903
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (2)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3906
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (3)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3943
=== 1 ===
I RISULTATI QUASI DEFINITIVI DELLE ELEZIONI PRESIDENZIALI IN UCRAINA
Mentre sto scrivendo, in Ucraina è stato scrutinato il 91,76% delle
schede per il primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali, svoltesi il 31
ottobre. Quasi sicuramente il presidente della repubblica verrà
proclamato al secondo turno, previsto per il 14 novembre.
L’attuale premier Viktor Janukovic, considerato molto vicino alle
posizioni dell’amministrazione russa, con il 40,39% dei voti, raccoglie
i consensi in particolare delle regioni orientali e della Crimea.
Il candidato filo-NATO Viktor Juschenko, che ha usufruito di un enorme
sostegno politico e finanziario da parte dell’amministrazione USA e che
controlla una parte consistente dei “media” nazionali, prevale
nettamente nelle regioni occidentali, dove più forte è la componente
nazionalista anti-russa, raggiungendo il 38,9%.
Il 5,75% dei consensi viene raccolto dal candidato del Partito
Socialista di Ucraina Aleksandr Moroz.
Piotr Simonenko, candidato del Partito Comunista di Ucraina,
tradizionalmente radicato nelle regioni russe e russofone (in Crimea,
alle ultime politiche, aveva ottenuto ben il 70% dei voti, e sul piano
nazionale, il 20%), subisce pesantemente la massiccia risposta popolare
all’appello al voto utile lanciato da Janukovic, che gode dell’aperto
sostegno del presidente russo Vladimir Putin.
L’1,5% andrebbe a Natalja Vitrenko, candidata della formazione di
estrema sinistra Partito Progressista Socialista di Ucraina.
Viktor Juschenko, come era prevedibile, ha già annunciato di non voler
riconoscere l’esito della consultazione, denunciando brogli e
violazioni della legge elettorale, che, per la verità, gli osservatori
indipendenti hanno attribuito proprio ai nazionalisti in alcune zone
dell’occidente del paese. Per questa ragione, nella capitale si avverte
un clima di forte tensione e non vengono esclusi violenti disordini
provocati dai seguaci di Juschenko, che contano sulla reazione della
stampa occidentale, che, in tutte le sue componenti (anche di sinistra,
come “Il Manifesto”) sembra allineata al cliché propagandistico
suggerito dall’amministrazione USA. In tal modo, il ballottaggio
potrebbe svolgersi in un’atmosfera estremamente condizionata dalle
pressioni dell’Occidente, intenzionato ad allineare la propria opinione
pubblica “a difesa della democrazia e dei diritti umani”, e ad usare il
ricatto delle sanzioni come formidabile arma a favore del suo
candidato.
Janukovic, da parte sua, in vista del secondo turno, ha rivolto un
appello a comunisti e socialisti (questi ultimi, che nutrono velleità
circa il loro inserimento tra le forze socialdemocratiche europee
“rispettabili”, potrebbero anche schierarsi con Juschenko), promettendo
il varo di una riforma costituzionale che rafforzerebbe i poteri del
parlamento.
1/11/2004
MAURO GEMMA
=== 2 ===
http://www.repubblica.it/2004/k/sezioni/esteri/eleucra/eleucra/
eleucra.html
L'Osce boccia le elezioni ucraine
"Violate le norme democratiche"
KIEV - L'Organizzazione per la sicurezza e la cooperazione in Europa
(Osce) ha "bocciato" le elezioni presidenziali svoltesi ieri in Ucraina
perchè "non sono state rispettate le norme democratiche internazionali"
Il premier filo-russo Viktor Yanukovich e l'ex premier filo-occidentale
Viktor Yushenko erano usciti sostanzialmente alla pari, con circa il
40% dei voti a testa, dal primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali e in
calendario, il 21 novembre, è previsto il ballottaggio.
Ma subito dopo lo spoglio è arrivata la scure dell'Osce, e ora è
difficile prevedere cosa accadra. "E' con cuore pesante che sulla base
dei nostri riscontri dobbiamo concludere che le elezioni presidenziali
2004 non hanno soddisfatto i criteri dell'Osce e del Consiglio
d'Europa", ha affermato durante una conferenza stampa Bruce George,
capo della missione. "In realtà le elezioni hanno rappresentato un
passo indietro rispetto alle elezioni del 2002", ha aggiunto
riferendosi al voto parlamentare di due anni fa.
(1 novembre 2004)
---
01.11.2004 - da L'Unita' online
Ucraina al voto, l'Osce denuncia brogli. Ballottaggio fra le polemiche
di red
L'Ucraina al voto non rispetta le norme democratiche internazionali. E'
questo il commento dell'Osce alle elezioni presidenziali che si sono
svolte domenica. L'esito della consultazione ha visto una sostanziale
parita' tra i due candidati. Il premier filo-russo Viktor Yanukovich e
l'ex premier filo-occidentale Viktor Yushenko sono usciti alla pari,
con circa il 40% dei voti a testa. Nessuno degli aspiranti capi di
stato ha insomma superato il 50% necessario per vincere l'elezione al
primo turno.
Si andra' allora al ballottaggio, la data e' gia' stata fissata per
il 21 novembre prossimo. L'affluenza alle urne e' stata del 75%, un
record per l'Ucraina postsovetica. Ma tutti gli osservatori sono
concordi nel denunciare brogli. Sarebbero [sarebbero] scomparsi nomi
dai registri elettorali, in una citta', addirittura il 5% degli aventi
diritto sarebbe [sarebbe] stato cancellato dalle liste.
I brogli sarebbero confermati, secondo gli osservatori dell'Unione
Europea, dai risultati diversi, rispetto a quelli ufficiali, degli exit
poll sponsorizzati dall'Ambasciata americana a Kiev [SIC] e da altre
missioni diplomatiche occidentali in Ucraina [SIC]. Secondo questi
sondaggi, Yushenko avrebbe [avrebbe] guadagnato la maggioranza dei
voti, anche senza vincere le elezioni al primo turno.
«E' con cuore pesante che sulla base dei nostri riscontri dobbiamo
concludere che le elezioni presidenziali 2004 non hanno soddisfatto i
criteri dell'Osce, del Consiglio d'Europa e di altre elezioni...», ha
affermato Bruce George, capo della missione Osce. «In realta' le
elezioni hanno rappresentato un passo indietro rispetto alle elezioni
del 2002».
L'Organizzazione per la sicurezza e la cooperazione in Europa (Osce) ha
seguito con circa 600 funzionari le elezioni. Ma il loro monitoraggio
ha evidenziato una schiacciante campagna mediatica a favore del premier
Viktor Yanukovich, gia' aiutato da un massiccio utilizzo di «risorse
governative».
Il 21 novembre sapremo chi tra i due Victor sara' il nuovo presidente
ucraino. Stesso nome per due personaggi alquanto diversi. Uno,
Yanukovich, gode del sostegno del presidente uscente Leonid Kuchma, del
presidente russo Vladimir Putin e di tutto l'establishment
economico-industriale, l'altro, il liberal-nazionalista Yushenko,
vorrebbe aprire all'Ucraina i rapporti con l'Unione Europea.
=== 3 ===
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5010459&startrow=21&date=2004-10-
26&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agencey (Novosti) - October 26, 2004
FESTIVITIES BEGINNING IN UKRAINE TO MARK 60TH
ANNIVERSARY OF LIBERATION FROM NAZI INVADERS
KIEV - Festivities are beginning in Ukraine to mark
the 60th anniversary of Ukraine's liberation from the
Nazi invaders.
The historic Victory Banner, which was hoisted over
Reichstag on April 30, 1945, will arrive in Kiev on
Tuesday.
As RIA Novosti was told in the press service of the
Defence Ministry of Ukraine, the Banner will be
brought to Kiev from Moscow in train No.1 Moscow-Kiev
by the servicemen of the Guard of Honour of the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation.
On Wednesday, October 27, president of Ukraine Leonid
Kuchma and Russia's president Vladimir Putin who is
leaving for Ukraine on Tuesday on a working visit will
lay flowers at the monument to the Unknown Soldier in
Square of Glory.
Besides that, on Wednesday the heads of state will
participate in a festive meeting to celebrate the
anniversary at the Ukraina National Palace.
On Thursday, October 28, the heads of state will be
present at the military parade and the march of
veterans in Kreshchatik, and will also visit the
museum of the Great Patriotic War.
According to the scenario, the famous combat machine
of the Great Patriotic War, the T-34 tank, will open
the veterans' march. The standards of the four
Ukrainian and of the first Belarussian Fronts whose
personnel liberated Ukraine from the German Nazi
invaders will be carried.
The festive activities will be capped by an artillery
salute and festive fireworks.
By the information of Ukraine's Foreign Ministry,
presidents of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan Nursultan
Nazarbayev and Ilkham Aliyev will arrive to attend the
celebration. President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
was also invited to participate in the festivities.
---
[To view the Web site some 'anonymous benefactor' has
bestowed on the Pora stormtroopers, see
http://www.pora.org.ua
And for all the millions of Anglophones in Ukraine:
http://www.pora.org.ua/en
The latter site contains this revealing question:
Slovak Republic 1998, Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003.. and
Ukraine 2004. What is common between these countries?]
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 27, 2004
UKRAINIAN YOUTH GROUP ANNOUNCES WEEK OF PROTESTS
The youth organization Pora on 25 October announced at
its website (pora.org.ua/) a "wave of student strikes
and actions" from 25-30 October to protest what it
calls the official repression of the youth movement in
Ukraine. "The repression by the authorities has
acquired a nationwide character," Pora says.
"Explosives, military cartridges, forged money, and
stolen things are surreptitiously placed with the
youth activists whose views do not coincide with
official ones, and criminal cases are being opened
against them. This can't go on any longer!" JM
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10714824
Interfax - October 26, 2004
Opposition candidate's supporters use force -
Ukrainian PM's electoral headquarters
KYIV - Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych's
election headquarters on Tuesday issued a statement
saying a group of parliament members headed by Viktor
Yushchenko, the chief opposition candidate in the
presidential election scheduled for October 31,
abusing their parliamentary immunity, broke into the
Central Election Building and disrupted the
commission's meeting in early hours of October 24.
"The trust on the part of the electorate in that
candidate has noticeably fallen and his chances of
being elected are becoming ever more ephemeral, so
Yushchenko's retinue now bet on destabilization and
disruption of the electoral process because they have
understood that they cannot win fairly," the statement
says.
"We place the responsibility for attempts at
destabilizing the country squarely on Viktor
Yushchenko and call his attention to the fact that
using any illegal electoral techniques is
inadmissible," it says.
"Inciting his supporters to violence risks triggering
riots in Ukraine and must be regarded as designed to
undermine the country's national security," the
statement says.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10715524
Interfax - October 28, 2004
Zyuganov blames West for interfering in Ukrainian vote
MOSCOW - Russian Communist Party leader Gennady
Zyuganov believes that Western intelligence services
have crudely interfered in the situation in Ukraine in
the run-up to the October 31 presidential election.
"I have been in Kyiv for a third day and I see for
myself that the numerous actions of local opposition
bear the earmarks of those groups that at different
times tried to destabilize Prague, Budapest and
Bucharest - the earmarks of U.S. special services," he
told Interfax on Thursday.
Zyuganov said he would not forecast the election
results or interfere in the electoral race in a
neighboring Slavic country.
Russian communists support Petro Symonenko, the leader
of Ukrainian communists, who is running for the
presidency, he said.
Zyuganov would not say who Ukrainian communists will
support if the choice in the second round of elections
is between the two front runners, Viktor Yanukovych
and Victor Yushchenko.
---
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20041029&hn=13416
Zaman (Turkey) - October 29, 2004
US and Russia Race for Ukrainian Presidency
Mirza Cetinkaya
Moscow -Ukrainian presidential elections to be held in
Sunday (October 31) are the scene of a serious and
interesting rival between Russia and US-based West.
Not just Russian President Vladimir Putin but also
Russian artists are even involved in the election
process.
"Our Ukraine" block leader Victor Yushenko and Prime
Minister Victor Yanukovic are expected rivals for the
elections with 26 candidates.
On one hand, Western countries play all the trump
cards for the race while Moscow mobilized all its
sources. The Russian media and public opinion shows
great interest to Ukrainian elections more than the
latest presidential elections in Russia. Yanukovic has
inclinations towards Russia while his rival Yushenko
towards US and the European Union (EU) policies.
Public polls indicate candidates are neck-to-neck.
A political expert Alexei Makarkin evaluating the
scene to Zaman said yesterday that the real field of
contention behind the scenes between US and Russia is
Ukraine.
Makarkin pointed that Washington desires a new
administration, which will speed up the integration
process with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and the West in contrast to Moscow's insisting
on a Russian-based administration. According to the
diplomatic sources, since US President George W. Bush
is engaged in the US presidential election, NATO and
European countries are trying to affect the Ukrainian
elections.
---
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041029111255.c7lwzeq4.html
Agence France-Presse - October 29, 2004
Ukraine to join EU, NATO within five years: Yushchenko
KIEV - Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko
said Friday that he would lead his former Soviet
republic into both the European Union and NATO should
he win hotly contested weekend presidential elections.
But he cautioned that serious talk of joining both
Brussels-based blocs could only begin by the end of
his five-year term because Ukraine needed to reform
its own political and military systems first.
"Ukraine needs another three to five years before we
can seriously begin negotiations on these issue,"
Yushchenko told reporters.
"It is easy to talk about positives of membership, but
we will have to deal with the negatives first,"
Yushchenko said.
He said Ukraine needed a major overhaul in its current
legislation that included an easing of import duties
that would allow the West to recognize the republic -
now one of Europe's poorest states - as a market
economy.
He indirectly pinned blame for Ukraine's economic
malaise on the outgoing regime of President Leonid
Kuchma, who took a more cautious line on opening his
republic's markets toward the West.
"We are talking about the institution of a brand new
fiscal, budget and trade policy. We will have to adopt
many new laws that will be difficult to swallow for
some of our ministers, and that they may try to resist
at first," he said.
"Membership will require a great political will," he
said.
But Yushchenko stressed that he would be leading his
government's charge toward integration into the two
Western blocs, placing trade with Russia on the back
burner.
"After forming a new government, our first goal will
be to develop a broader political strategy,"
Yushchenko said.
"And here, we must prepare for the European option,"
said Yushchenko, who served as Ukraine's central bank
chief for seven years before serving for nearly two
years as prime minister, when he tried to break
corrupt links between government and business.
"First, I want Ukraine to be recognized as a market
economy, and then as a provisional member of the
European Union."
Sunday's election pits Yushchenko against Kuchma's
anointed successor, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich,
who instead is pushing Ukraine toward a closer
partnership with its Soviet-era master Russia [sic].
Ukraine's public opinion is evenly split between its
allegiances to Moscow and the West, with the
candidates both expected to face off in a November 21
runoff.
Earlier Friday, Yushchenko predicted victory in the
first round with 60 percent of the vote.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1404616&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 30, 2004
Extremely tense election race comes to end in Ukraine
KIEV - In slightly less than 48 hours from now,
Ukraine will know the names of two main contenders in
the second round of the presidential election,
although it has been clear for quite a time that the
two men are the incumbent Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovich and the leading oppositionist Viktor
Yuschenko.
Polls indicate both of them may get a more or less
equal percentage of votes in the first round of
voting, but none is likely to get more than a half of
all the votes so as to emerge victorious right from
the October 31 voting.
Sociologists indicate that, in most likelihood, the
president will be elected in the second round, due
November 21.
In Ukraine, the presidential term of office lasts five
years.
Yanukovich and Yuschenko issued appeals to their
supporters several days ago to refrain from mass
actions and to observe law and public order, but
people in the capital Kiev are fearful of provocations
and the situation here remains somewhat tense.
Rumors are circulating that clashes are possible in
case of vote rigging of other gross violations of the
law.
The candidates are going to spend the last day before
election differently. Yanukovich says he is going to
have a normal work schedule and to go to church, while
Yuschenko and the third closest contender, Socialist
Party leader Alexander Moroz, will stay with their
families.
Experts say the election race that ended Friday is the
dirtiest over the 13 years of Ukraine’s independence,
as some of the candidates openly joggled with national
symbols, gave out bluntly unfeasible promises, or
spread sheer lies about their opponents.
Agitation was apparently aimed at splitting Ukraine
into two parts – the mostly Ukrainian West and the
mixed Russian-Ukrainian East. Along with it, the
agitators kept stressing the difference between close
relations with Russia and European integration.
The novelty of the technology was that the two leading
candidates did not apportion blame to each other
directly, as the role was played by minor “technical”
candidates.
Ukraine’s Central Electoral Commission says the
country has 37.6 million voters, who are expected to
vote at about 33,300 polling stations inside Ukraine
and at 125 stations abroad.
As of August 1, 2004, the total population stood at
47.4 million people.
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 400 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 400 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
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 400 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 400 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
[ In Germania, la Fondazione Friedrich Naumann sta collaborando
strettamente con un cosiddetto "governo tibetano in esilio", per
ristabilire l'antico rapporto cultural-geopolitico instaurato dal
nazionalsocialismo (all'epoca, in funzione essenzialmente
antibritannica) con i monaci-guerrieri. Tra i personaggi che hanno
mantenuto vivo il legame tra le due "aristocrazie spirituali", tedesca
e tibetana, annoveriamo ad esempio l'ex SS-Obersturmbannführer Bruno
Beger, che ancora negli anni Settanta era ospite d'onore del Dalai Lama.
La suddetta Fondazione, che e' vicina ai liberali (FDP), prende il nome
dal teorico della "Mitteleuropa": una Europa costituita cioè da una
Grande Germania circondata da piccoli e deboli Stati "trabant". Tra
questi ultimi Naumann non annoverava la Serbia, poichè "la Serbia, come
fortezza intralciante in quest'area deve essere cancellata dalla
cartina geografica" (citazione dal libro "Mitteleuropa", di F. Naumann).
Sulla problematica del Tibet - cioè delle attività eversive sostenute
in Occidente per squartare la Cina in "gabbie etniche" - si veda anche:
Chi è il Dalai Lama?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3153
Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama? / Il mito del Tibet /
Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama / Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe
Who Succumbed to Hitler' / Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2972
George Soros: Mago imperiale e agente doppio
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3438
Mappa della ex-Cina, nei sogni di Pannella
http://www.radicalparty.org/uighur/mappafinale.gif ]
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1099180871.php
31.10.2004
Die Tibetfrage
POTSDAM (Eigener Bericht) - Die FDP-nahe Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung
(FNSt) und die tibetische Exilregierung werden ihre Zusammenarbeit in
der ,,Tibetfrage" intensivieren. Dies ist das Ergebnis von Gesprächen,
die der ,,Ministerpräsident" der Exilregierung, Samdhong Rinpoche, am
vergangenen Dienstag mit mehreren FNSt-Vorstandsmitgliedern führte. Die
FNSt verfügt über langjährige exklusive Sonderbeziehungen zu
tibetischen Exilkreisen, die sie für Positionsgewinne Berlins im
Machtkampf mit dem künftigen Weltmachtkonkurrenten China nutzt. Tibet
war bereits während der NS-Ostexpansion Gegenstand deutscher
Zentralasien-Strategien und galt damals als möglicher Bündnispartner
gegen Großbritannien.
Wie die FNSt mitteilt, hat ,,Ministerpräsident" Rinpoche mehrere
FNSt-Vorstandsmitglieder, darunter den ehemaligen
Bundeswirtschaftsminister Otto Graf Lambsdorff und die ehemalige
Staatsministerin im Auswärtigen Amt Irmgard Schwaetzer, über den
Fortgang der Verhandlungen zwischen der tibetischen Exilregierung und
der Volksrepublik China informiert.1) Lambsdorff und Rinpoche sprachen
sich gegen eine militärische Stärkung Beijings aus und plädierten für
eine Beibehaltung des EU-Waffenembargos gegenüber China. Auch solle der
deutsche Druck auf die chinesische Regierung (,,Menschenrechte")
aufrecht erhalten werden, hieß es.2) Lambsdorff und Rinpoche
vereinbarten, ihre Zusammenarbeit ,,zur besseren politischen
Kommunikation der Tibetfrage" zu intensivieren.
Weltmachtkonkurrenten
Die Aufhebung des EU-Waffenembargos gegen China hat der Deutsche
Bundestag jetzt im Anschluss an eine Initiative der FDP von der
Erfüllung mehrerer Bedingungen abhängig gemacht. Bundeskanzler Schröder
hatte sich kürzlich bereit erklärt, das Embargo zu annullieren und
damit eine Rüstungskooperation mit Beijing in Gang zu setzen, die als
Bündnisoption gegen die USA verstanden worden war.3) Dies gilt als
riskant, zumal die Volksrepublik China selbst als künftiger
Weltmachtkonkurrent eingeschätzt wird. Vor einer Aufhebung des Embargos
müsse Beijing u.a. angebliche Autonomierechte ethnischer Minderheiten4)
anerkennen, beschloss nun der Deutsche Bundestag.
Bündnispartner
Die FDP-Initiative basiert auf langjähriger Einflussarbeit in Tibet,
die vor allem über die parteinahe FNSt abgewickelt wird.5) Die FNSt
organisierte gemeinsam mit der tibetischen Exilregierung mehrere
Internationale Tibet-Konferenzen, die als Plattform für einige hundert
Tibet Support Groups weltweit gelten. Die zweite derartige Konferenz,
die die FNSt im Juni 1996 in Bonn veranstaltete - Hauptredner waren
damals Lambsdorff und Schwaetzer -, führte zu diplomatischen
Komplikationen, in deren Folge die chinesische Regierung die Schließung
des Stiftungsbüros in Beijing verfügte. Die FNSt ,,berät" das
tibetische Exilparlament seit 1991 ,,in allen Fragen der politischen
Bildung".6) Am 10. März 2004 - dem 45. Jahrestag eines antichinesischen
Aufstands in Tibet - hisste sie vor ihrer Geschäftsstelle die
tibetische ,,Nationalflagge". Sollte es zu einer umfassenden
Autonomieregelung für Tibet kommen, erhielte Berlin über die
tibetischen Bündnispartner der FNSt neuen Einfluss in Zentralasien.
Kriegswichtig
Tibet geriet bereits Ende der 1930er und Anfang der 1940er Jahre ins
Visier deutscher Expansionsbestrebungen.7) Im Zuge der Vorbereitung der
militärischen deutschen Ostexpansion organisierte die SS 1938 eine
Tibet-Expedition, die neben völkisch-rassistischen Experimenten auch
militärstrategische Erkundungen zum Ziel hatte. Insbesondere widmete
sie sich der Suche nach zentralasiatischen Bündnispartnern gegen
Großbritannien.8) Zu den Expeditionsteilnehmern gehörte der
SS-Obersturmbannführer Bruno Beger, der in Tibet Schädelvermessungen
vornahm, während des Zweiten Weltkriegs an Plänen für ein ,,Museum der
Untermenschen" in Straßburg arbeitete und dafür sowjetische
Kriegsgefangene töten ließ. SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler erklärte
auf dem Höhepunkt der deutschen Ostexpansion die ,,Tibet- und gesamte
Asienforschung" zur ,,kriegswichtigen Zweckforschung".
Beständig
Die personellen Kontakte ehemaliger SS-Männer zu führenden
Persönlichkeiten Tibets sind auch nach 1945 nie abgerissen. Beger, der
1971 wegen während der NS-Zeit begangenen 86fachen gemeinschaftlichen
Mordes zu einer dreijährigen Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt wurde, trat
noch 1994 als offizieller Gast des tibetischen Exilpotentaten Dalai
Lama auf. Zu dessen Lehrern und Beratern gehörte in den späten 1940er
und frühen 1950er Jahren der aus britischer Gefangenschaft in Indien
geflohene frühere SS-Mann Heinrich Harrer. Harrer, dessen
autobiographischer Tibet-Bericht (,,7 Jahre in Tibet") in Deutschland
in Massenauflagen verbreitet wurde, gilt bis in die Gegenwart als enger
Freund des Dalai Lama.
1) Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit darf nicht zu einer Ignorierung der
Menschenrechte führen; www.fnst.org
2) s. auch Deutsche ,,Elite"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1063669099.php%5d
3) s. dazu Strategische Manöver
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1079742081.php%5d
und Waffenbrüder
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1079220589.php%5d
sowie Hintergrundbericht: Strategische Partnerschaft und Eindämmung
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1073257200.php%5d
4) s. dazu Deutschland unterstützt Separatismus in Westchina
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1020117600.php%5d
und ,,Internationalisierung Tschetscheniens"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1035496800.php%5d
sowie Hauptsitz
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1082240457.php%5d
5) s. auch ,,Wirksamste Instrumente der deutschen Außenpolitik"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1046732400.php%5d
6) Buchbesprechung: ,,Tibet im Exil"; www.fnst.org
7) Colin Goldner: Dalai Lama - Fall eines Gottkönigs, Aschaffenburg 1999
8) s. auch Traditionen
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1097017968.php%5d
und Traditionen (II)
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1097100886.php%5d
Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik
© www.german-foreign-policy.com
strettamente con un cosiddetto "governo tibetano in esilio", per
ristabilire l'antico rapporto cultural-geopolitico instaurato dal
nazionalsocialismo (all'epoca, in funzione essenzialmente
antibritannica) con i monaci-guerrieri. Tra i personaggi che hanno
mantenuto vivo il legame tra le due "aristocrazie spirituali", tedesca
e tibetana, annoveriamo ad esempio l'ex SS-Obersturmbannführer Bruno
Beger, che ancora negli anni Settanta era ospite d'onore del Dalai Lama.
La suddetta Fondazione, che e' vicina ai liberali (FDP), prende il nome
dal teorico della "Mitteleuropa": una Europa costituita cioè da una
Grande Germania circondata da piccoli e deboli Stati "trabant". Tra
questi ultimi Naumann non annoverava la Serbia, poichè "la Serbia, come
fortezza intralciante in quest'area deve essere cancellata dalla
cartina geografica" (citazione dal libro "Mitteleuropa", di F. Naumann).
Sulla problematica del Tibet - cioè delle attività eversive sostenute
in Occidente per squartare la Cina in "gabbie etniche" - si veda anche:
Chi è il Dalai Lama?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3153
Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama? / Il mito del Tibet /
Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama / Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe
Who Succumbed to Hitler' / Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2972
George Soros: Mago imperiale e agente doppio
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3438
Mappa della ex-Cina, nei sogni di Pannella
http://www.radicalparty.org/uighur/mappafinale.gif ]
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1099180871.php
31.10.2004
Die Tibetfrage
POTSDAM (Eigener Bericht) - Die FDP-nahe Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung
(FNSt) und die tibetische Exilregierung werden ihre Zusammenarbeit in
der ,,Tibetfrage" intensivieren. Dies ist das Ergebnis von Gesprächen,
die der ,,Ministerpräsident" der Exilregierung, Samdhong Rinpoche, am
vergangenen Dienstag mit mehreren FNSt-Vorstandsmitgliedern führte. Die
FNSt verfügt über langjährige exklusive Sonderbeziehungen zu
tibetischen Exilkreisen, die sie für Positionsgewinne Berlins im
Machtkampf mit dem künftigen Weltmachtkonkurrenten China nutzt. Tibet
war bereits während der NS-Ostexpansion Gegenstand deutscher
Zentralasien-Strategien und galt damals als möglicher Bündnispartner
gegen Großbritannien.
Wie die FNSt mitteilt, hat ,,Ministerpräsident" Rinpoche mehrere
FNSt-Vorstandsmitglieder, darunter den ehemaligen
Bundeswirtschaftsminister Otto Graf Lambsdorff und die ehemalige
Staatsministerin im Auswärtigen Amt Irmgard Schwaetzer, über den
Fortgang der Verhandlungen zwischen der tibetischen Exilregierung und
der Volksrepublik China informiert.1) Lambsdorff und Rinpoche sprachen
sich gegen eine militärische Stärkung Beijings aus und plädierten für
eine Beibehaltung des EU-Waffenembargos gegenüber China. Auch solle der
deutsche Druck auf die chinesische Regierung (,,Menschenrechte")
aufrecht erhalten werden, hieß es.2) Lambsdorff und Rinpoche
vereinbarten, ihre Zusammenarbeit ,,zur besseren politischen
Kommunikation der Tibetfrage" zu intensivieren.
Weltmachtkonkurrenten
Die Aufhebung des EU-Waffenembargos gegen China hat der Deutsche
Bundestag jetzt im Anschluss an eine Initiative der FDP von der
Erfüllung mehrerer Bedingungen abhängig gemacht. Bundeskanzler Schröder
hatte sich kürzlich bereit erklärt, das Embargo zu annullieren und
damit eine Rüstungskooperation mit Beijing in Gang zu setzen, die als
Bündnisoption gegen die USA verstanden worden war.3) Dies gilt als
riskant, zumal die Volksrepublik China selbst als künftiger
Weltmachtkonkurrent eingeschätzt wird. Vor einer Aufhebung des Embargos
müsse Beijing u.a. angebliche Autonomierechte ethnischer Minderheiten4)
anerkennen, beschloss nun der Deutsche Bundestag.
Bündnispartner
Die FDP-Initiative basiert auf langjähriger Einflussarbeit in Tibet,
die vor allem über die parteinahe FNSt abgewickelt wird.5) Die FNSt
organisierte gemeinsam mit der tibetischen Exilregierung mehrere
Internationale Tibet-Konferenzen, die als Plattform für einige hundert
Tibet Support Groups weltweit gelten. Die zweite derartige Konferenz,
die die FNSt im Juni 1996 in Bonn veranstaltete - Hauptredner waren
damals Lambsdorff und Schwaetzer -, führte zu diplomatischen
Komplikationen, in deren Folge die chinesische Regierung die Schließung
des Stiftungsbüros in Beijing verfügte. Die FNSt ,,berät" das
tibetische Exilparlament seit 1991 ,,in allen Fragen der politischen
Bildung".6) Am 10. März 2004 - dem 45. Jahrestag eines antichinesischen
Aufstands in Tibet - hisste sie vor ihrer Geschäftsstelle die
tibetische ,,Nationalflagge". Sollte es zu einer umfassenden
Autonomieregelung für Tibet kommen, erhielte Berlin über die
tibetischen Bündnispartner der FNSt neuen Einfluss in Zentralasien.
Kriegswichtig
Tibet geriet bereits Ende der 1930er und Anfang der 1940er Jahre ins
Visier deutscher Expansionsbestrebungen.7) Im Zuge der Vorbereitung der
militärischen deutschen Ostexpansion organisierte die SS 1938 eine
Tibet-Expedition, die neben völkisch-rassistischen Experimenten auch
militärstrategische Erkundungen zum Ziel hatte. Insbesondere widmete
sie sich der Suche nach zentralasiatischen Bündnispartnern gegen
Großbritannien.8) Zu den Expeditionsteilnehmern gehörte der
SS-Obersturmbannführer Bruno Beger, der in Tibet Schädelvermessungen
vornahm, während des Zweiten Weltkriegs an Plänen für ein ,,Museum der
Untermenschen" in Straßburg arbeitete und dafür sowjetische
Kriegsgefangene töten ließ. SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler erklärte
auf dem Höhepunkt der deutschen Ostexpansion die ,,Tibet- und gesamte
Asienforschung" zur ,,kriegswichtigen Zweckforschung".
Beständig
Die personellen Kontakte ehemaliger SS-Männer zu führenden
Persönlichkeiten Tibets sind auch nach 1945 nie abgerissen. Beger, der
1971 wegen während der NS-Zeit begangenen 86fachen gemeinschaftlichen
Mordes zu einer dreijährigen Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt wurde, trat
noch 1994 als offizieller Gast des tibetischen Exilpotentaten Dalai
Lama auf. Zu dessen Lehrern und Beratern gehörte in den späten 1940er
und frühen 1950er Jahren der aus britischer Gefangenschaft in Indien
geflohene frühere SS-Mann Heinrich Harrer. Harrer, dessen
autobiographischer Tibet-Bericht (,,7 Jahre in Tibet") in Deutschland
in Massenauflagen verbreitet wurde, gilt bis in die Gegenwart als enger
Freund des Dalai Lama.
1) Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit darf nicht zu einer Ignorierung der
Menschenrechte führen; www.fnst.org
2) s. auch Deutsche ,,Elite"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1063669099.php%5d
3) s. dazu Strategische Manöver
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1079742081.php%5d
und Waffenbrüder
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1079220589.php%5d
sowie Hintergrundbericht: Strategische Partnerschaft und Eindämmung
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1073257200.php%5d
4) s. dazu Deutschland unterstützt Separatismus in Westchina
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1020117600.php%5d
und ,,Internationalisierung Tschetscheniens"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1035496800.php%5d
sowie Hauptsitz
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1082240457.php%5d
5) s. auch ,,Wirksamste Instrumente der deutschen Außenpolitik"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1046732400.php%5d
6) Buchbesprechung: ,,Tibet im Exil"; www.fnst.org
7) Colin Goldner: Dalai Lama - Fall eines Gottkönigs, Aschaffenburg 1999
8) s. auch Traditionen
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1097017968.php%5d
und Traditionen (II)
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1097100886.php%5d
Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik
© www.german-foreign-policy.com
E' USCITO L'ULTIMO VIDEO DI OSAMA
Dopo molti mesi di assenza dagli schermi, e' stato finalmente lanciato
l'ultimo proclama di Osama Bin Laden. La sua casa produttrice (C.I.A.)
sottolinea la strabiliante autenticita' del documento, messo in
circolazione proprio a pochissimi giorni dalle elezioni presidenziali
USA, nell'ambito di una attenta campagna promozionale. (I. Slavo)
Dopo molti mesi di assenza dagli schermi, e' stato finalmente lanciato
l'ultimo proclama di Osama Bin Laden. La sua casa produttrice (C.I.A.)
sottolinea la strabiliante autenticita' del documento, messo in
circolazione proprio a pochissimi giorni dalle elezioni presidenziali
USA, nell'ambito di una attenta campagna promozionale. (I. Slavo)
(english)
Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement
1. Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement on Bosnian Serb President Under
Threat to Destroy Bosnian Serb State
(Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily - Volume XXII, No. 168 - Wednesday,
October 20, 2004)
2. Srebrenica case: US Official Implicated With Bosnian High
Representative Ashdown in Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on
Srebrenica
(Gregory R. Copley, International Strategic Studies Association,
September 8, 2003)
3. THE FIRST DETAILED REPORT ON SREBRENICA TO REACH THE PUBLIC
(an Introduction by R.K. Kent, Historian)
=== 1 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/dfad102004.htm
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC.ORG, Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement on Bosnian Serb President Under
Threat to Destroy Bosnian Serb State
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily - Volume XXII, No. 168 - Wednesday,
October 20, 2004
From GIS Station, Sarajevo.
Sources within the Office of the High Representative for
Bosnia-Herzegovina (OHR) have indicated that despite the fact that
President Dragan Cavic of Republic Srpska made a statement — under
duress from OHR Paddy Ashdown — on October 15, 2004, “admitting” to
alleged Serbian atrocities against Bosnian Muslims in 1995 at
Srebrenica, it was likely that Ashdown would attempt to dismiss Pres.
Cavic as soon as possible, and conceivably before the end of 2004.
Significantly, Ashdown has chosen his timing to coincide with the US
election hiatus, which sees the US Congress not sitting until early
2005, and then with a partially new membership. Ashdown has apparently
made his move in order to stop any possible outcry from US Congressmen
who have become increasingly angered at Ashdown’s arbitrary rule in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and his plans to end any place in the state for
Bosnian Serbs, who once owned two-thirds of the lands there.
Ashdown has seen it as a mission not to implement the 1995 Dayton
Accords — for which his post was created by the international community
— but rather to transform Bosnia & Herzegovina into a unitary state,
ending the Dayton-stipulated format of two substates within a
federation. Essentially, Ashdown, according to the sources, intends to
see Republica Srpska “disappear”, which would complete the handover of
Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Bosnian Muslims, effectively “ethnically
cleansing” the Bosnian Serbs from the state.
Significantly, Republica Srpska is the only part of Bosnia-Herzegovina
where the rule of law applies, and where there is productivity, ethnic
and religious tolerance.
Ashdown, however, has had a strong history of anti-Serb behavior.
A report in Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily of September 8, 2003,
entitled US Official Implicated With Bosnian High Representative
Ashdown in Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica, spelled
out explicitly how Ashdown, aided by Deputy HR Amb. Donald Hays of the
US, intended to force a fictional account a narrow section of the
Srebrenica fighting during the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war on to the
Bosnian Serb (Republica Srpska) Government, effectively then giving
Ashdown the tool to dismiss the democratically-elected Government and
President of Republica Srpska.
Under the Dayton Accords, the High Representative can dismiss any
elected or appointed official without contest, and without necessarily
stipulating a reason, or having to prove cause.
The September 8, 2003, report noted:
Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo, have told
GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a seconded US official, Amb.
Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a
fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting
at the city of Srebrenica.
Amb. Hays, presumably at the insistence of High Representative Paddy
Ashdown, the former British politician, has demanded the publication of
a so-called “final report” on an alleged mass-killing of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, during the Bosnian civil war, by the
Government of Republica Srpska, the predominantly Serbian province of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. In essence, Amb. Hays and Lord Ashdown are
attempting to force the Government of Republica Srpska (RS) to admit
that Serbs were responsible for killing thousands of Muslims at
Srebrenica.
On October 15, 2004, Republica Srpska Pres. Cavic issued a statement —
known to be totally against his personal knowledge and convictions on
the Srebrenica affair, and totally at odds with the forensic research
by several European governments and international forensic experts —
which said that Bosnian Serbs had proven their political maturity by
admitting for the first time that their forces slaughtered more than
7,000 Muslims in the 1995 “Srebrenica massacre”. Pres. Cavic told
Republica Srpska’s SRNA news agency the report was “proof” of the
Serbs’ “political maturity to face up to the bad things in the wartime
past”.
Pres. Cavic was known to have been told that he would be removed from
office by HR Ashdown if he refused to accept the “findings” of the
so-called Commission on Srebrenica which had been sponsored by Ashdown,
and dominated by his appointee, the head of the Muslim dominated
Commission on Missing Persons. The firing of almost 60 elected and
appointed Republica Srpska Government officials on June 30-July 1,
2004, while leaving Pres. Cavic in place, obviously reinforced the fact
that they would not be able to speak the truth about Srebrenica or any
other issue that clashed with the view of the OHR and still remain in
their jobs.
See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, July 1, 2004, Ashdown, as
Predicted, Launches First Stage of Move to Destroy Republica Srpska
State.
Meanwhile, an independent commission has been gathering primary
evidence on what occurred in Srebrenica, including the extensive
fighting around the city in the two years preceding the 1995 incident,
and, according to one source inside that investigations “which
painstakingly exposes the highly inflated numbers and false context of
the official Srebrenica story”.
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) intelligence officers in Bosnia
complained to Ashdown following the June-July 2004 purge that he had
summarily dismissed people within the Republica Srpska Government who
were vital to an understanding not just of any war crimes committed in
the civil war, but to the massive influx of Islamist terrorist fighters
and supporters during the 1990s and continuing until today. As a
result, Ashdown had to reverse one of the dismissals — which had been
undertaken very publicly — and offer to reinstate the official
concerned under a new job title, to avoid embarrassment to the OHR. The
official refused to be reinstated and, as a result, considerable damage
was done by Ashdown’s actions to the Western counter-terrorism
capability.
The July 1, 2004, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily report noted: “The
international High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Paddy
Ashdown, took steps on June 30, 2004, and July 1, 2004, to “punish” the
Bosnian Serb community, as exclusively predicted by GIS/Defense &
Foreign Affairs Daily. His move represents the first stage of an
anticipated attempt to totally overturn the internationally-agreed 1995
Dayton Accords by destroying the Bosnian Serb state, Republica Srpska,
placing power in the hands of the Bosnian Muslim leadership which has,
since the early 1990s worked closely with al-Qaida leader Osama bin
Laden.”
A few days before that report, on June 28, 2004, Defense & Foreign
Affairs Daily, in a report entitled Ashdown Expected to Escalate
Attacks on Bosnian Serbs, noted:
Sources within the “Office of the High Representative” — the
internationally-imposed leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina — in Sarajevo
told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs that they expected “High
Representative” Paddy Ashdown to use the Serbian historic day of June
28, 2004, which commemorates the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, as a
symbolic day to impose “more punishment” on the Bosnian Serb community.
Ashdown was reportedly extremely unhappy that NATO representatives had
essentially forced him, earlier in June 2004, to reverse the dismissal
of the Bosnian Serb official in charge of investigating war crimes, on
the basis that the investigations had already led NATO
counter-terrorism officials to major successes in their attempts to
suppress Bosnian-based Islamist terrorists. Ashdown has traditionally
maintained close ties with the Muslim community, even when he was
leader of the British Liberal Party, before he was forced from that
post. Subsequently, however, these links led him into close support for
the radical Islamists of the Bosnian SDA Party of terrorist leader
Alija Izetbegovic, who was, until his death, a major supporter and ally
of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
As a result, the success of the Bosnian Serb state created in
Bosnia-Herzegovina as a result of the 1995 Dayton Accords, and the
consistent emergence of ties between the Bosnian Muslim leadership and
Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida organization (which drew heavily on Bosnian
assets for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States), has
highlighted the failure of Ashdown’s policies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The principal instrument which Ashdown has used to constrain the
Bosnian Serbs has been his Srebrenica Commission, which has been used
to override all international assessments of the 1995 (and earlier)
fighting in and around the town of Srebrenica.
On April 20, 2004, Ashdown summarily dismissed the Republica Srpska
official, Dejan Miletic, who had been in charge of investigating war
crimes, and then ordered the Bosnian Serb leadership to make a
statement — totally dictated by Ashdown’s Office of the High
Representative — accepting the Ashdown and Islamist version of what
happened in the Srebrenica fighting, despite the fact that Ashdown’s
repeated statements consistently flew in the face of independent
forensic investigation of the affair. Indeed, as GIS has noted in the
past, Ashdown had refused even to speak with the forensic scientists
who had, independently, developed the intelligence of what really
happened in Srebrenica.
One Western European member of the OHR staff said: “Ashdown isn’t going
to let the facts get in the way of his story. It’s all about him, not
about building the stable, multi-confessional state which the Dayton
Accords specified.”
And after forcing the Bosnian Serb (Republica Srpska) leadership to
make a statement — following the removal of Mr Miletic, who would not
agree with Ashdown’s arbitrary and unsubstantiated accounts of the
Srebrenica affair, on threat of arbitrary dismissal by Ashdown of both
the President and Prime Minister of Republica Srpska — Ashdown agreed
to NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) demands that Miletic be allowed to
return to his job, albeit with a different job title.
Ashdown has become increasingly angered, as well, by increasing reports
of actual Islamist terrorist activity within Bosnia, on the basis that
such reports — despite their validity — make him appear to have failed
in his mission.
Several Serbian sources have told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs bureau
officials in Sarajevo and Belgrade that the consistent support from
some international officials for the creation of a separate Albanian
state in the Serbian area of Kosovo and Metohija should be met with a
claim that it was time to consider a sovereign and separate Bosnian
Serb state in what is now the component state of Republica Srpska in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. One Serb said: “We had an agreement at Dayton, and
yet despite that the lands and rights of Serbs are being eroded
constantly. Soon, if Ashdown, Holbrooke, Clark and their Albanian and
Bosnian Islamist friends have their way, there will be no lands left
under Serbian control, despite the fact that Serbia was the only state
in the region which has traditionally offered hospitality to all races
and religions.”
Copyright 2004 Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Posted for Fair Use only.
=== 2 ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/yu_kriza/2004-10-18.html
Srebrenica case
By Gregory R. Copley
Editor, GIS, International Strategic Studies Association
September 8, 2003
US Official Implicated With Bosnian High Representative Ashdown in
Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica
Exclusive. Analysis.
By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS, with input from sources in
Sarajevo and elsewhere.
Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo, have told
GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a seconded US official, Amb.
Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a
fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting
at the city of Srebrenica.
Amb. Hays, presumably at the insistence of High Representative Paddy
Ashdown, the former British politician, has demanded the publication of
a so-called "final report" on an alleged mass-killing of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, during the Bosnian civil war, by the
Government of Republica Srpska, the predominantly Serbian province of
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
In essence, Amb. Hays and Lord Ashdown are attempting to force the
Government of Republica Srpska (RS) to admit that Serbs were
responsible for killing thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica.
The Government of Republica Srpska's leadership - indeed any of the
elected officials of the state - can be summarily dismissed immediately
by the High Representative at any time should they refuse to obey his
orders, regardless of whether or not the officials were democratically
elected or whether the High Representative's own actions violate the
Dayton Accords, which he was put in office to sustain. This threat was
implicit in the ultimatum delivered by Amb. Hays in a series of
meetings he held with the Republica Srpska Prime Minister, Mladen
Ivanic, in late August and early September 2003 in Banja Luka, the RS
capital.
Amb. Hays presented the Prime Minister with a document - on the
letterhead of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) - which the
Government of Republica Srpska was "advised" to accept as r Sait
accompli, in which three major points were made. The content of the
two-page document was to be re-issued by the Government of Republica
Srpska, probably through the RS Office of Human Rights, as though it
represented the RS "final report" on the Srebrenica issue.
Significantly, the RS has been conducting a detailed and thorough
investigation of the issue and has already issued some material which
acknowledged Serbian responsibility for some actions but which also
contained a wide range of other information which showed the conflict
in a much more detailed light. The RS office was established
specifically to assist the International Criminal Tribunal on
Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, where prosecutions for war crimes have
been underway.
The RS investigations are, in fact, far from over.
The ICTY has also been conducting its own investigation into the
Srebrenica allegations, and its investigation is also far from over. As
a result, the ICTY, having heard about the OHR's pressure to force a
statement on the issue, essentially accepting Serb blame for war
crimes, has distanced itself from the OHR position and has refused to
go along with Amb. Hays? insistence on the statement by the RS
Government in Banja Luka.
It appeared that the OHR wanted the statement issued before the opening
of a Muslim monument - essentially a shrine which was being promoted as
a site for annual Muslim pilgrimages from around the world -
memorializing the radical Islamist allegations about events in
Srebrenica to occur on September 19, 2003. The unveiling of the
monument would be attended by former US Pres. William Clinton, and
"finalizing" the Srebrenica case would help stop the ongoing wave of
allegations of illegal Clinton Administration activity in supporting
radical Islamist activities in Bosnia during the 1990s. This is
particularly critical given the fact that a significant number of the
Islamist terrorists involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the United States had strong links into the Bosnian Muslims
whom Clinton had supported.
The US Embassy in Sarajevo donated $1-million to the construction of
the "shrine", even though all proper investigations of the Srebrenica
affair in fact showed the Islamists' claims to be unsubstantiated and,
in many respects, without foundation at all.
Recent information emerging from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and particularly
from the RS investigations into the Srebrenica affair and other aspects
of terrorism in the region, have highlighted the fact that the Clinton
Administration had, during the war, facilitated the Islamist terrorist
activities because of the Clinton Administration's need to demonize the
Serbs in order to provide a casus belli for US-led military actions in
the area to distract from domestic US political problems.
Significantly, when the Muslim representatives involved in building the
"shrine" in Srebrenica approached New York Mayor Michael Blumberg to
establish a sister-city relationship with New York, the Mayor refused,
based on intelligence showing the link between the Bosnian Islamists
and the al-Qaida attacks on... his city.
Amb. Hays' two-page document was expected to lead to a statement,
possibly as early as September 8, 2003, by RS officials, which would
not only serve to protect the Clinton Administration officials,
including the former US President, but would also serve as an admission
of guilt of Serbs for killing thousands of Muslims who, in fact, were
not known to have been killed. Several hundred bodies have been found
as a result of the fighting in and around Srebrenica, but the Islamists
and their supporters have claimed figures which grow higher with each
telling, with figures now claiming some 15,000 alleged deaths. At the
same time, there is no acknowledgement of the Muslim killing of
thousands of Serbs at Srebrenica earlier in the war, when the city was
supposed to have been a demilitarized zone.
The document which Hays has been pushing essentially forces the RS
Government to state that:
1. Nothing is unclear in the Srebrenica investigation except the number
of victims. In other words, the Islamist propaganda, supported by
Ashdown - who has long been disavowed in the UK by his former
colleagues in the Royal Marines because of his unequivocal acceptance
of Islamist propaganda - is accepted as fact by the RS Government,
thereby admitting guilt for crimes never committed;
2. The RS apologizes to the Muslims for earlier RS statements which
disputed the Islamist propaganda; and
3. A new commission would be organized which would investigate further
what happened at Srebrenica, despite the RS Government's a priori
acceptance - implicit in point one of the statement - of the alleged
crime. This "commission" would include three individuals from RS (not
necessarily selected by the RS Government), three from the
"international community" and one from an unspecified non-governmental
organization...
The Government of RS would have to pay for the work of the new
"commission".
Sources in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Washington have made it clear to GIS
that the present US Bush Administration has been totally ignoring
developments in the former Yugoslavia because of preoccupations with
Iraq and the "war on terror", while former Clinton Administration
appointees, actively supported by the George Soros Foundation - which
has been avowedly anti-Serb and anti-Bush - have been able to compound
their control of the area. Significantly, as numerous GIS reports have
shown, the Iranian and al-Qaida/bin Laden terrorist infrastructure in
Bosnia and Serbia-Montenegro has been increasingly active during 2003,
preparing for a new breakout to draw US pressure away from Iran and
al-Qaida activities elsewhere.
[See, particularly, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, June 12, 2003:
Terrorism in the Balkans and the Wider Ramifications for the Global
"War on Terror", and Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, August 29, 2003:
Osama bin Laden Focuses on the Balkans for the New Wave of Anti-Western
Terrorism.]
One moderate Muslim source in Sarajevo told GIS: "If the Bush
Administration does not act soon, terrorism against US and Western
interests will erupt soon across much of the Balkans, and from the
Balkans into the rest of the world. And all of this seems to be just to
allow the old US Administration of Clinton to cover their tracks. The
radicals not only destroyed the Serbs, they also destroyed the lives of
moderate Muslims. Now they will start another war. Why is the Bush
Administration following the policies of the Clinton Administration?
Why are Clinton people still running all the key posts in American
embassies in the region?"
According to the OHR website, the Principal Deputy High Representative,
Donald S. Hays, a US diplomat, took up his duties with the OHR in July
2001.
Between 1999 and 2001 he was the US Representative to the United
Nations for UN Management and Reform, with ambassadorial rank.
Previously he had served in the State Department as the Director of the
Office of Management Policy and Planning and as the Executive Director
of the European Affairs Bureau.
He has also been posted to US embassies in Bonn, Islamabad, Dakar,
Freetown (Sierra Leone), and Saigon. Ambassador Hays graduated in
Political Science from the University of California, Santa Barbara...
=== 3 ===
THE FIRST DETAILED
REPORT ON SREBRENICA
TO REACH THE PUBLIC
an Introduction by
R.K. Kent, Historian
“Lies have no sustainable depth” (*)
“The tripwire is always in the details” (**)
Preface
Eversince 1995, “SREBRENICA” became a red flag, egging-on the bull of
public opinion as site of “the worst massacre since WWII,” where “the
Serbs” “executed” “7,000 Muslim men and boys.” Amid the propaganda
mills in Sarajevo and abroad, amid managed scenarios, ostensibly
informed statements and persistent media repetitions, two major factors
were distinctly missing. No questioning of the “established truth” was
allowed to reach a wider public. Equally, the wider public could not
consult any detailed report or reports on what actually happened at
Srebrenica, let alone a detailed account from the Serb side.
It was in 1993 that the U.N.s Security Council established an
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). Its mandate was
to address all war crimes in all of Yugoslavia since 1991. The idea for
such an international tribunal came from Western European sources but
it was translated into practice by the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, Madeleine Albright. She obtained the initial funding of some
$6,000,000 from two Muslim States. She selected personally the first
team of 25 legal professionals to serve on the ICTY.All shared her
anti-Serb bias, openly expressed in a number of printed interviews. The
first ICTY’s Chief Investigator was a teacher of International Law. It
just so happened that he was also a Sunni Muslim.
This was a moment in time whenBosnia’s Muslim leaders (of Sunni
persuasion) took the whole of Bosnia out of the Yugoslav Federation,
with theU.S.blessing. It was done forcefully and without any
post-Lisbon attempts at a modus vivendi with Bosnia’s Christian Serbs
or about one-third of its total population. Local Serbs had been
inBosniafor centuries, before and after Bosnia came under an Ottoman
occupation. It was during this external Muslim over-rule that Bosnia’s
Slavic converts to Islam settled mainly in towns while its Christian
Slavs predominated in the countryside. At the outbreak of hostilities
in Bosnia, the rural Serbs owned legally just over 60% of the total
landscape.
The vast majority of local Muslims were not remotely connected with
militant Islam. Many, probably, several thousand, intermarriages took
place before WWII and later, between the years of 1945 and 1991. As a
part of a larger federation Bosnia and its people did provide an
example of successful co-habitation of Muslims and Christians who spoke
the same language. It was in WWII, under German occupation, that the
more extreme Muslim elements emereged in Bosnia. Their sacerdotal
leader, the Grand Mufti, was openly pro-German. There was even a new
S.S. “Handzar Division.” The term “handzar” means “knife.” Indeed, the
Division used cold weapons quite often to kill virtually defenseless
Christian Serbs, often in the most bestial ways, by the thousands over
a span of some 3-4 years.
When hostilities broke out inBosniain 1991-2, the “Balkanizing”(+)
process included first the covert and later overt interventions of
theUnited Statesand its NATO Allies. The U.S. decision to enter into
the Balkans and to side rapidly with Bosnia’s Muslims was heavily
influenced by two top National Security advisers to President Clinton
(A. Lake and S.Berger) They persuaded themselves that this would be a
masterful way of enhancing the Midddle East peace process.
Help came from two sides. As the Bosnian Serb population could not
forget what was done to them in WWII, most were gripped by fear that a
repetition was just around the corner. Some para-military ad hoc groups
fromSerbiacrossed intoBosnia. They hit some urban areas along the way
and were spotted by international media. A newly formed Bosnian Serb
Army shelledSarajevowithout any real necessity while the TV cameras
were rolling in a town which had hosted the Olympic Games and was
widely known.
On the other side, Madeleine Albright was unable to reign-in her
advocacy to punish “ the Serbs.” She was one of two key persons (the
other was U.S. Ambassador Zimmerman) who saw to it that the February
1992 peace accords between all co-belligerents in ex-Yugoslavia
(brokered by the Portuguese Foreign Minister in Lisbon for the European
Union ) would become “unacceptable” on the grounds of “moral
imperatives.” In so doing she even rejected an attempt by Richard
Holbrooke to have theLisbonAccords approved in Washington and not only
byWestern Europe. By blocking Holbrooke’s recommendation, Ambassador
Albright made the war between Bosnian Muslims and Christian Serbs
inevitable under the evolviong local circumstances.To this day, Mme
Albright is called a “Washington Heavy Weight .” It would probably take
the re-encarnation of Sigmund Freud and his time with Frau Lou to
unravel the cobwebs of someone whose Czeck family was given twice
refuge and warm reception in Belgrade. This is stated herein without
rancor as the present writer harbors no hate for a tormented human
being who was given the power she should nerver have had. By the way,
do see the “Times” article on “Madeleine’s War.”
“Balkanization” is understood as a breaking-up process both from within
and without.
The Enclosed Report
To meet external demands, after Dayton, the Repubika Srpska at Banja
Luka (considered as more moderate than Pale) developed a Documentation
Center with a special Bureau for cooperation with the Hague Tribunal.
Its perceived mission was to “present the whole truth about crimes
committed in Srebrenica region regardless (of) (the) nationality of
perpetrators of crimes (along) (with) (the) time(s)when they were
committed.”(brackets added for clarity).Its preamble stresses adherence
to the search for “universal category... of criminals, against the
whole humankind... (with) only one name - criminal.”
It also underscores the absolute necessity to look at both the trees
and the forest. There is a basic context without which the whole truth
about Srebrenica cannot be captured. This context involves crimes
committed inBosnia-Herzegovinaas well as those committed in the
Srebrenica-Bratunac region.. The point of departure is not July 1995
but the sequence of events between 1992-1995. The preamble concludes
with the following statement: “The whole truth about (the) mentioned
events has an inestimable significance for the process of
reconciliation...Reconcilliation between nationalities inBosnia and
Herzegovinais possible only with respect of justice.” The table of
contents lists 25 sub-analyses.
Unfortunately, none of this was wanted at the Hague or the UN itself.
Excluding the case of Srebrenica, which came later, a great deal of
detailed information in the present Report of 2002 was delivered to the
General Assembly of the UN and its Security Council by the end of 1993.
It never came out. The ICTY’s Chief Investigator Baissuni was also
given a batch of documens, many of prima facie quality. When asked
about them he could “not remember” any.What really gives the game away
and is apt to jolt even the hardest partisans of ICTY, by the start of
1996, with its cost going above 40 million dollars, the Tribunal had
indicted 46 Serbs and just ONE Bosnian Muslim. The ICTP’s “hunt”:was,
as intended by its creators, for Serb heads. In March,1996, to avoid a
glaring assymmetry, the ICTY added three more indicted Bosnian Musluims
of lower rank.
The detrails in this Report are devastating to the basic premise of the
ICTY and its supporters in any land. The premise is simple and it
conforms to justifications for an international military attack on the
Bosnian Serbs and, later, on Serbia proper, involving 78 days of
bombing a nation not at war with either NATO or any of its members .
The premise? “The Serbs” are the sole AGGRESSORS inBosniaand the
Bosnian Muslims are their sole VICTIMS.
The wealth of specific details and pictorial evidence in the Report
speak for themselves and need no further introduction by the present
writer. There is however a footnote he must add. There exists a
present-day and acutely Serbophobic Gauliter forBosnia, Paddy
Ashdiown(former British SAS operative). He has been giving the Serbs
lessons in “Democracy” by firing their elected officials and by
sanctioning the banning of books in Serb classrooms (including Ivo
Andric’s “Bridge on the RiverDrina” which won the Nobel Prize in
Literature). He demands “political maturity” by forcing the current
leader of Republika Srpska to “confess” that the Bosnian Serbs are
guilty for the “Srebrenica Massacre” or else there will be no Republika
Srpska in total violation of theDaytonAccord. When he was given the
present report he threw it away without reading the contents, demanded
that it be suppressed and appointed surrogates to write an entirely
different “Report” which would “re-certify” the total Serb guilt and
the entire victimization and innocence. of the Bosnian Muslims.Ashdon
thinks that he is buildinga state, under a Bosnian Muslim Government, a
state that never existed.
Ashdown is not alone in thinking that one can force foreign populations
to accept what is imposed from an outside that believes in a new form
of the “MissionCivilistrice” which dominated the Nineteenth century. To
this end any method is appropriate because the ends justify the means.
It is certain that in this endevor Ashdown has external support both in
the European Union and in theU.S.Nation-busting and then
nation-building may seem to some “strategists” as a jolly good approach
toward some sort of aNew WorldOrder. It is a pity that such people are
histiorical illiterates who confirm that the only thing learned from
History is that nothing is learned from History.
Raymond K. Kent, Emeritus
History Department,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA. 94720
(510/642-1971)
(*) Idiomatic translation of a Serb tenet (“u lazi su plitke noge”)
which applies everywhere.
(**) Another local tenet inBosnia (“vrag je u detaljima”) with
universal application.
SEE THE REPORT:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg-sreb101604.htm
SREBRENICA REPORT, September 2002 (15 Mb) PDF File
URL of the Srebrenica report is:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf
Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement
1. Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement on Bosnian Serb President Under
Threat to Destroy Bosnian Serb State
(Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily - Volume XXII, No. 168 - Wednesday,
October 20, 2004)
2. Srebrenica case: US Official Implicated With Bosnian High
Representative Ashdown in Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on
Srebrenica
(Gregory R. Copley, International Strategic Studies Association,
September 8, 2003)
3. THE FIRST DETAILED REPORT ON SREBRENICA TO REACH THE PUBLIC
(an Introduction by R.K. Kent, Historian)
=== 1 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/dfad102004.htm
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC.ORG, Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement on Bosnian Serb President Under
Threat to Destroy Bosnian Serb State
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily - Volume XXII, No. 168 - Wednesday,
October 20, 2004
From GIS Station, Sarajevo.
Sources within the Office of the High Representative for
Bosnia-Herzegovina (OHR) have indicated that despite the fact that
President Dragan Cavic of Republic Srpska made a statement — under
duress from OHR Paddy Ashdown — on October 15, 2004, “admitting” to
alleged Serbian atrocities against Bosnian Muslims in 1995 at
Srebrenica, it was likely that Ashdown would attempt to dismiss Pres.
Cavic as soon as possible, and conceivably before the end of 2004.
Significantly, Ashdown has chosen his timing to coincide with the US
election hiatus, which sees the US Congress not sitting until early
2005, and then with a partially new membership. Ashdown has apparently
made his move in order to stop any possible outcry from US Congressmen
who have become increasingly angered at Ashdown’s arbitrary rule in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and his plans to end any place in the state for
Bosnian Serbs, who once owned two-thirds of the lands there.
Ashdown has seen it as a mission not to implement the 1995 Dayton
Accords — for which his post was created by the international community
— but rather to transform Bosnia & Herzegovina into a unitary state,
ending the Dayton-stipulated format of two substates within a
federation. Essentially, Ashdown, according to the sources, intends to
see Republica Srpska “disappear”, which would complete the handover of
Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Bosnian Muslims, effectively “ethnically
cleansing” the Bosnian Serbs from the state.
Significantly, Republica Srpska is the only part of Bosnia-Herzegovina
where the rule of law applies, and where there is productivity, ethnic
and religious tolerance.
Ashdown, however, has had a strong history of anti-Serb behavior.
A report in Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily of September 8, 2003,
entitled US Official Implicated With Bosnian High Representative
Ashdown in Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica, spelled
out explicitly how Ashdown, aided by Deputy HR Amb. Donald Hays of the
US, intended to force a fictional account a narrow section of the
Srebrenica fighting during the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war on to the
Bosnian Serb (Republica Srpska) Government, effectively then giving
Ashdown the tool to dismiss the democratically-elected Government and
President of Republica Srpska.
Under the Dayton Accords, the High Representative can dismiss any
elected or appointed official without contest, and without necessarily
stipulating a reason, or having to prove cause.
The September 8, 2003, report noted:
Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo, have told
GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a seconded US official, Amb.
Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a
fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting
at the city of Srebrenica.
Amb. Hays, presumably at the insistence of High Representative Paddy
Ashdown, the former British politician, has demanded the publication of
a so-called “final report” on an alleged mass-killing of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, during the Bosnian civil war, by the
Government of Republica Srpska, the predominantly Serbian province of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. In essence, Amb. Hays and Lord Ashdown are
attempting to force the Government of Republica Srpska (RS) to admit
that Serbs were responsible for killing thousands of Muslims at
Srebrenica.
On October 15, 2004, Republica Srpska Pres. Cavic issued a statement —
known to be totally against his personal knowledge and convictions on
the Srebrenica affair, and totally at odds with the forensic research
by several European governments and international forensic experts —
which said that Bosnian Serbs had proven their political maturity by
admitting for the first time that their forces slaughtered more than
7,000 Muslims in the 1995 “Srebrenica massacre”. Pres. Cavic told
Republica Srpska’s SRNA news agency the report was “proof” of the
Serbs’ “political maturity to face up to the bad things in the wartime
past”.
Pres. Cavic was known to have been told that he would be removed from
office by HR Ashdown if he refused to accept the “findings” of the
so-called Commission on Srebrenica which had been sponsored by Ashdown,
and dominated by his appointee, the head of the Muslim dominated
Commission on Missing Persons. The firing of almost 60 elected and
appointed Republica Srpska Government officials on June 30-July 1,
2004, while leaving Pres. Cavic in place, obviously reinforced the fact
that they would not be able to speak the truth about Srebrenica or any
other issue that clashed with the view of the OHR and still remain in
their jobs.
See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, July 1, 2004, Ashdown, as
Predicted, Launches First Stage of Move to Destroy Republica Srpska
State.
Meanwhile, an independent commission has been gathering primary
evidence on what occurred in Srebrenica, including the extensive
fighting around the city in the two years preceding the 1995 incident,
and, according to one source inside that investigations “which
painstakingly exposes the highly inflated numbers and false context of
the official Srebrenica story”.
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) intelligence officers in Bosnia
complained to Ashdown following the June-July 2004 purge that he had
summarily dismissed people within the Republica Srpska Government who
were vital to an understanding not just of any war crimes committed in
the civil war, but to the massive influx of Islamist terrorist fighters
and supporters during the 1990s and continuing until today. As a
result, Ashdown had to reverse one of the dismissals — which had been
undertaken very publicly — and offer to reinstate the official
concerned under a new job title, to avoid embarrassment to the OHR. The
official refused to be reinstated and, as a result, considerable damage
was done by Ashdown’s actions to the Western counter-terrorism
capability.
The July 1, 2004, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily report noted: “The
international High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Paddy
Ashdown, took steps on June 30, 2004, and July 1, 2004, to “punish” the
Bosnian Serb community, as exclusively predicted by GIS/Defense &
Foreign Affairs Daily. His move represents the first stage of an
anticipated attempt to totally overturn the internationally-agreed 1995
Dayton Accords by destroying the Bosnian Serb state, Republica Srpska,
placing power in the hands of the Bosnian Muslim leadership which has,
since the early 1990s worked closely with al-Qaida leader Osama bin
Laden.”
A few days before that report, on June 28, 2004, Defense & Foreign
Affairs Daily, in a report entitled Ashdown Expected to Escalate
Attacks on Bosnian Serbs, noted:
Sources within the “Office of the High Representative” — the
internationally-imposed leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina — in Sarajevo
told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs that they expected “High
Representative” Paddy Ashdown to use the Serbian historic day of June
28, 2004, which commemorates the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, as a
symbolic day to impose “more punishment” on the Bosnian Serb community.
Ashdown was reportedly extremely unhappy that NATO representatives had
essentially forced him, earlier in June 2004, to reverse the dismissal
of the Bosnian Serb official in charge of investigating war crimes, on
the basis that the investigations had already led NATO
counter-terrorism officials to major successes in their attempts to
suppress Bosnian-based Islamist terrorists. Ashdown has traditionally
maintained close ties with the Muslim community, even when he was
leader of the British Liberal Party, before he was forced from that
post. Subsequently, however, these links led him into close support for
the radical Islamists of the Bosnian SDA Party of terrorist leader
Alija Izetbegovic, who was, until his death, a major supporter and ally
of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
As a result, the success of the Bosnian Serb state created in
Bosnia-Herzegovina as a result of the 1995 Dayton Accords, and the
consistent emergence of ties between the Bosnian Muslim leadership and
Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida organization (which drew heavily on Bosnian
assets for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States), has
highlighted the failure of Ashdown’s policies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The principal instrument which Ashdown has used to constrain the
Bosnian Serbs has been his Srebrenica Commission, which has been used
to override all international assessments of the 1995 (and earlier)
fighting in and around the town of Srebrenica.
On April 20, 2004, Ashdown summarily dismissed the Republica Srpska
official, Dejan Miletic, who had been in charge of investigating war
crimes, and then ordered the Bosnian Serb leadership to make a
statement — totally dictated by Ashdown’s Office of the High
Representative — accepting the Ashdown and Islamist version of what
happened in the Srebrenica fighting, despite the fact that Ashdown’s
repeated statements consistently flew in the face of independent
forensic investigation of the affair. Indeed, as GIS has noted in the
past, Ashdown had refused even to speak with the forensic scientists
who had, independently, developed the intelligence of what really
happened in Srebrenica.
One Western European member of the OHR staff said: “Ashdown isn’t going
to let the facts get in the way of his story. It’s all about him, not
about building the stable, multi-confessional state which the Dayton
Accords specified.”
And after forcing the Bosnian Serb (Republica Srpska) leadership to
make a statement — following the removal of Mr Miletic, who would not
agree with Ashdown’s arbitrary and unsubstantiated accounts of the
Srebrenica affair, on threat of arbitrary dismissal by Ashdown of both
the President and Prime Minister of Republica Srpska — Ashdown agreed
to NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) demands that Miletic be allowed to
return to his job, albeit with a different job title.
Ashdown has become increasingly angered, as well, by increasing reports
of actual Islamist terrorist activity within Bosnia, on the basis that
such reports — despite their validity — make him appear to have failed
in his mission.
Several Serbian sources have told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs bureau
officials in Sarajevo and Belgrade that the consistent support from
some international officials for the creation of a separate Albanian
state in the Serbian area of Kosovo and Metohija should be met with a
claim that it was time to consider a sovereign and separate Bosnian
Serb state in what is now the component state of Republica Srpska in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. One Serb said: “We had an agreement at Dayton, and
yet despite that the lands and rights of Serbs are being eroded
constantly. Soon, if Ashdown, Holbrooke, Clark and their Albanian and
Bosnian Islamist friends have their way, there will be no lands left
under Serbian control, despite the fact that Serbia was the only state
in the region which has traditionally offered hospitality to all races
and religions.”
Copyright 2004 Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Posted for Fair Use only.
=== 2 ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/yu_kriza/2004-10-18.html
Srebrenica case
By Gregory R. Copley
Editor, GIS, International Strategic Studies Association
September 8, 2003
US Official Implicated With Bosnian High Representative Ashdown in
Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica
Exclusive. Analysis.
By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS, with input from sources in
Sarajevo and elsewhere.
Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo, have told
GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a seconded US official, Amb.
Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a
fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting
at the city of Srebrenica.
Amb. Hays, presumably at the insistence of High Representative Paddy
Ashdown, the former British politician, has demanded the publication of
a so-called "final report" on an alleged mass-killing of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, during the Bosnian civil war, by the
Government of Republica Srpska, the predominantly Serbian province of
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
In essence, Amb. Hays and Lord Ashdown are attempting to force the
Government of Republica Srpska (RS) to admit that Serbs were
responsible for killing thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica.
The Government of Republica Srpska's leadership - indeed any of the
elected officials of the state - can be summarily dismissed immediately
by the High Representative at any time should they refuse to obey his
orders, regardless of whether or not the officials were democratically
elected or whether the High Representative's own actions violate the
Dayton Accords, which he was put in office to sustain. This threat was
implicit in the ultimatum delivered by Amb. Hays in a series of
meetings he held with the Republica Srpska Prime Minister, Mladen
Ivanic, in late August and early September 2003 in Banja Luka, the RS
capital.
Amb. Hays presented the Prime Minister with a document - on the
letterhead of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) - which the
Government of Republica Srpska was "advised" to accept as r Sait
accompli, in which three major points were made. The content of the
two-page document was to be re-issued by the Government of Republica
Srpska, probably through the RS Office of Human Rights, as though it
represented the RS "final report" on the Srebrenica issue.
Significantly, the RS has been conducting a detailed and thorough
investigation of the issue and has already issued some material which
acknowledged Serbian responsibility for some actions but which also
contained a wide range of other information which showed the conflict
in a much more detailed light. The RS office was established
specifically to assist the International Criminal Tribunal on
Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, where prosecutions for war crimes have
been underway.
The RS investigations are, in fact, far from over.
The ICTY has also been conducting its own investigation into the
Srebrenica allegations, and its investigation is also far from over. As
a result, the ICTY, having heard about the OHR's pressure to force a
statement on the issue, essentially accepting Serb blame for war
crimes, has distanced itself from the OHR position and has refused to
go along with Amb. Hays? insistence on the statement by the RS
Government in Banja Luka.
It appeared that the OHR wanted the statement issued before the opening
of a Muslim monument - essentially a shrine which was being promoted as
a site for annual Muslim pilgrimages from around the world -
memorializing the radical Islamist allegations about events in
Srebrenica to occur on September 19, 2003. The unveiling of the
monument would be attended by former US Pres. William Clinton, and
"finalizing" the Srebrenica case would help stop the ongoing wave of
allegations of illegal Clinton Administration activity in supporting
radical Islamist activities in Bosnia during the 1990s. This is
particularly critical given the fact that a significant number of the
Islamist terrorists involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the United States had strong links into the Bosnian Muslims
whom Clinton had supported.
The US Embassy in Sarajevo donated $1-million to the construction of
the "shrine", even though all proper investigations of the Srebrenica
affair in fact showed the Islamists' claims to be unsubstantiated and,
in many respects, without foundation at all.
Recent information emerging from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and particularly
from the RS investigations into the Srebrenica affair and other aspects
of terrorism in the region, have highlighted the fact that the Clinton
Administration had, during the war, facilitated the Islamist terrorist
activities because of the Clinton Administration's need to demonize the
Serbs in order to provide a casus belli for US-led military actions in
the area to distract from domestic US political problems.
Significantly, when the Muslim representatives involved in building the
"shrine" in Srebrenica approached New York Mayor Michael Blumberg to
establish a sister-city relationship with New York, the Mayor refused,
based on intelligence showing the link between the Bosnian Islamists
and the al-Qaida attacks on... his city.
Amb. Hays' two-page document was expected to lead to a statement,
possibly as early as September 8, 2003, by RS officials, which would
not only serve to protect the Clinton Administration officials,
including the former US President, but would also serve as an admission
of guilt of Serbs for killing thousands of Muslims who, in fact, were
not known to have been killed. Several hundred bodies have been found
as a result of the fighting in and around Srebrenica, but the Islamists
and their supporters have claimed figures which grow higher with each
telling, with figures now claiming some 15,000 alleged deaths. At the
same time, there is no acknowledgement of the Muslim killing of
thousands of Serbs at Srebrenica earlier in the war, when the city was
supposed to have been a demilitarized zone.
The document which Hays has been pushing essentially forces the RS
Government to state that:
1. Nothing is unclear in the Srebrenica investigation except the number
of victims. In other words, the Islamist propaganda, supported by
Ashdown - who has long been disavowed in the UK by his former
colleagues in the Royal Marines because of his unequivocal acceptance
of Islamist propaganda - is accepted as fact by the RS Government,
thereby admitting guilt for crimes never committed;
2. The RS apologizes to the Muslims for earlier RS statements which
disputed the Islamist propaganda; and
3. A new commission would be organized which would investigate further
what happened at Srebrenica, despite the RS Government's a priori
acceptance - implicit in point one of the statement - of the alleged
crime. This "commission" would include three individuals from RS (not
necessarily selected by the RS Government), three from the
"international community" and one from an unspecified non-governmental
organization...
The Government of RS would have to pay for the work of the new
"commission".
Sources in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Washington have made it clear to GIS
that the present US Bush Administration has been totally ignoring
developments in the former Yugoslavia because of preoccupations with
Iraq and the "war on terror", while former Clinton Administration
appointees, actively supported by the George Soros Foundation - which
has been avowedly anti-Serb and anti-Bush - have been able to compound
their control of the area. Significantly, as numerous GIS reports have
shown, the Iranian and al-Qaida/bin Laden terrorist infrastructure in
Bosnia and Serbia-Montenegro has been increasingly active during 2003,
preparing for a new breakout to draw US pressure away from Iran and
al-Qaida activities elsewhere.
[See, particularly, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, June 12, 2003:
Terrorism in the Balkans and the Wider Ramifications for the Global
"War on Terror", and Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, August 29, 2003:
Osama bin Laden Focuses on the Balkans for the New Wave of Anti-Western
Terrorism.]
One moderate Muslim source in Sarajevo told GIS: "If the Bush
Administration does not act soon, terrorism against US and Western
interests will erupt soon across much of the Balkans, and from the
Balkans into the rest of the world. And all of this seems to be just to
allow the old US Administration of Clinton to cover their tracks. The
radicals not only destroyed the Serbs, they also destroyed the lives of
moderate Muslims. Now they will start another war. Why is the Bush
Administration following the policies of the Clinton Administration?
Why are Clinton people still running all the key posts in American
embassies in the region?"
According to the OHR website, the Principal Deputy High Representative,
Donald S. Hays, a US diplomat, took up his duties with the OHR in July
2001.
Between 1999 and 2001 he was the US Representative to the United
Nations for UN Management and Reform, with ambassadorial rank.
Previously he had served in the State Department as the Director of the
Office of Management Policy and Planning and as the Executive Director
of the European Affairs Bureau.
He has also been posted to US embassies in Bonn, Islamabad, Dakar,
Freetown (Sierra Leone), and Saigon. Ambassador Hays graduated in
Political Science from the University of California, Santa Barbara...
=== 3 ===
THE FIRST DETAILED
REPORT ON SREBRENICA
TO REACH THE PUBLIC
an Introduction by
R.K. Kent, Historian
“Lies have no sustainable depth” (*)
“The tripwire is always in the details” (**)
Preface
Eversince 1995, “SREBRENICA” became a red flag, egging-on the bull of
public opinion as site of “the worst massacre since WWII,” where “the
Serbs” “executed” “7,000 Muslim men and boys.” Amid the propaganda
mills in Sarajevo and abroad, amid managed scenarios, ostensibly
informed statements and persistent media repetitions, two major factors
were distinctly missing. No questioning of the “established truth” was
allowed to reach a wider public. Equally, the wider public could not
consult any detailed report or reports on what actually happened at
Srebrenica, let alone a detailed account from the Serb side.
It was in 1993 that the U.N.s Security Council established an
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). Its mandate was
to address all war crimes in all of Yugoslavia since 1991. The idea for
such an international tribunal came from Western European sources but
it was translated into practice by the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, Madeleine Albright. She obtained the initial funding of some
$6,000,000 from two Muslim States. She selected personally the first
team of 25 legal professionals to serve on the ICTY.All shared her
anti-Serb bias, openly expressed in a number of printed interviews. The
first ICTY’s Chief Investigator was a teacher of International Law. It
just so happened that he was also a Sunni Muslim.
This was a moment in time whenBosnia’s Muslim leaders (of Sunni
persuasion) took the whole of Bosnia out of the Yugoslav Federation,
with theU.S.blessing. It was done forcefully and without any
post-Lisbon attempts at a modus vivendi with Bosnia’s Christian Serbs
or about one-third of its total population. Local Serbs had been
inBosniafor centuries, before and after Bosnia came under an Ottoman
occupation. It was during this external Muslim over-rule that Bosnia’s
Slavic converts to Islam settled mainly in towns while its Christian
Slavs predominated in the countryside. At the outbreak of hostilities
in Bosnia, the rural Serbs owned legally just over 60% of the total
landscape.
The vast majority of local Muslims were not remotely connected with
militant Islam. Many, probably, several thousand, intermarriages took
place before WWII and later, between the years of 1945 and 1991. As a
part of a larger federation Bosnia and its people did provide an
example of successful co-habitation of Muslims and Christians who spoke
the same language. It was in WWII, under German occupation, that the
more extreme Muslim elements emereged in Bosnia. Their sacerdotal
leader, the Grand Mufti, was openly pro-German. There was even a new
S.S. “Handzar Division.” The term “handzar” means “knife.” Indeed, the
Division used cold weapons quite often to kill virtually defenseless
Christian Serbs, often in the most bestial ways, by the thousands over
a span of some 3-4 years.
When hostilities broke out inBosniain 1991-2, the “Balkanizing”(+)
process included first the covert and later overt interventions of
theUnited Statesand its NATO Allies. The U.S. decision to enter into
the Balkans and to side rapidly with Bosnia’s Muslims was heavily
influenced by two top National Security advisers to President Clinton
(A. Lake and S.Berger) They persuaded themselves that this would be a
masterful way of enhancing the Midddle East peace process.
Help came from two sides. As the Bosnian Serb population could not
forget what was done to them in WWII, most were gripped by fear that a
repetition was just around the corner. Some para-military ad hoc groups
fromSerbiacrossed intoBosnia. They hit some urban areas along the way
and were spotted by international media. A newly formed Bosnian Serb
Army shelledSarajevowithout any real necessity while the TV cameras
were rolling in a town which had hosted the Olympic Games and was
widely known.
On the other side, Madeleine Albright was unable to reign-in her
advocacy to punish “ the Serbs.” She was one of two key persons (the
other was U.S. Ambassador Zimmerman) who saw to it that the February
1992 peace accords between all co-belligerents in ex-Yugoslavia
(brokered by the Portuguese Foreign Minister in Lisbon for the European
Union ) would become “unacceptable” on the grounds of “moral
imperatives.” In so doing she even rejected an attempt by Richard
Holbrooke to have theLisbonAccords approved in Washington and not only
byWestern Europe. By blocking Holbrooke’s recommendation, Ambassador
Albright made the war between Bosnian Muslims and Christian Serbs
inevitable under the evolviong local circumstances.To this day, Mme
Albright is called a “Washington Heavy Weight .” It would probably take
the re-encarnation of Sigmund Freud and his time with Frau Lou to
unravel the cobwebs of someone whose Czeck family was given twice
refuge and warm reception in Belgrade. This is stated herein without
rancor as the present writer harbors no hate for a tormented human
being who was given the power she should nerver have had. By the way,
do see the “Times” article on “Madeleine’s War.”
“Balkanization” is understood as a breaking-up process both from within
and without.
The Enclosed Report
To meet external demands, after Dayton, the Repubika Srpska at Banja
Luka (considered as more moderate than Pale) developed a Documentation
Center with a special Bureau for cooperation with the Hague Tribunal.
Its perceived mission was to “present the whole truth about crimes
committed in Srebrenica region regardless (of) (the) nationality of
perpetrators of crimes (along) (with) (the) time(s)when they were
committed.”(brackets added for clarity).Its preamble stresses adherence
to the search for “universal category... of criminals, against the
whole humankind... (with) only one name - criminal.”
It also underscores the absolute necessity to look at both the trees
and the forest. There is a basic context without which the whole truth
about Srebrenica cannot be captured. This context involves crimes
committed inBosnia-Herzegovinaas well as those committed in the
Srebrenica-Bratunac region.. The point of departure is not July 1995
but the sequence of events between 1992-1995. The preamble concludes
with the following statement: “The whole truth about (the) mentioned
events has an inestimable significance for the process of
reconciliation...Reconcilliation between nationalities inBosnia and
Herzegovinais possible only with respect of justice.” The table of
contents lists 25 sub-analyses.
Unfortunately, none of this was wanted at the Hague or the UN itself.
Excluding the case of Srebrenica, which came later, a great deal of
detailed information in the present Report of 2002 was delivered to the
General Assembly of the UN and its Security Council by the end of 1993.
It never came out. The ICTY’s Chief Investigator Baissuni was also
given a batch of documens, many of prima facie quality. When asked
about them he could “not remember” any.What really gives the game away
and is apt to jolt even the hardest partisans of ICTY, by the start of
1996, with its cost going above 40 million dollars, the Tribunal had
indicted 46 Serbs and just ONE Bosnian Muslim. The ICTP’s “hunt”:was,
as intended by its creators, for Serb heads. In March,1996, to avoid a
glaring assymmetry, the ICTY added three more indicted Bosnian Musluims
of lower rank.
The detrails in this Report are devastating to the basic premise of the
ICTY and its supporters in any land. The premise is simple and it
conforms to justifications for an international military attack on the
Bosnian Serbs and, later, on Serbia proper, involving 78 days of
bombing a nation not at war with either NATO or any of its members .
The premise? “The Serbs” are the sole AGGRESSORS inBosniaand the
Bosnian Muslims are their sole VICTIMS.
The wealth of specific details and pictorial evidence in the Report
speak for themselves and need no further introduction by the present
writer. There is however a footnote he must add. There exists a
present-day and acutely Serbophobic Gauliter forBosnia, Paddy
Ashdiown(former British SAS operative). He has been giving the Serbs
lessons in “Democracy” by firing their elected officials and by
sanctioning the banning of books in Serb classrooms (including Ivo
Andric’s “Bridge on the RiverDrina” which won the Nobel Prize in
Literature). He demands “political maturity” by forcing the current
leader of Republika Srpska to “confess” that the Bosnian Serbs are
guilty for the “Srebrenica Massacre” or else there will be no Republika
Srpska in total violation of theDaytonAccord. When he was given the
present report he threw it away without reading the contents, demanded
that it be suppressed and appointed surrogates to write an entirely
different “Report” which would “re-certify” the total Serb guilt and
the entire victimization and innocence. of the Bosnian Muslims.Ashdon
thinks that he is buildinga state, under a Bosnian Muslim Government, a
state that never existed.
Ashdown is not alone in thinking that one can force foreign populations
to accept what is imposed from an outside that believes in a new form
of the “MissionCivilistrice” which dominated the Nineteenth century. To
this end any method is appropriate because the ends justify the means.
It is certain that in this endevor Ashdown has external support both in
the European Union and in theU.S.Nation-busting and then
nation-building may seem to some “strategists” as a jolly good approach
toward some sort of aNew WorldOrder. It is a pity that such people are
histiorical illiterates who confirm that the only thing learned from
History is that nothing is learned from History.
Raymond K. Kent, Emeritus
History Department,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA. 94720
(510/642-1971)
(*) Idiomatic translation of a Serb tenet (“u lazi su plitke noge”)
which applies everywhere.
(**) Another local tenet inBosnia (“vrag je u detaljima”) with
universal application.
SEE THE REPORT:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg-sreb101604.htm
SREBRENICA REPORT, September 2002 (15 Mb) PDF File
URL of the Srebrenica report is:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/cu/an/cuan4l24.htm
www.resistenze.org - cultura e memoria resistenti - antifascismo -
24-10-04
Perche' tanto accanimento contro l'ANPI?
Mattia Gatti, Niccolò Volpati
La maggioranza che sostiene il Governo Berlusconi non nasconde la sua
arroganza e i suoi tentativi di colpire con ogni mezzo a sua
disposizione le basi fondanti della Repubblica a partire dalla
Costituzione e dalla Resistenza. Non può essere sottovalutata la
gravità degli episodi che di recente hanno reso ancor più evidente il
carattere estremo, quando non direttamente nostalgico, del fascismo di
questa destra che vorrebbe dipingersi come “moderata” ed “europea”.
La maggioranza alla Camera ha votato le modifiche alla Costituzione,
la presenza dei militari italiani in Iraq rappresenta una costante
violazione dell’articolo 11 della Carta Costituzionale, Alleanza
Nazionale ha proposto (e la commissione Difesa ha approvato), un
disegno di legge che riconosce come legittimi belligeranti gli
appartenenti al cosiddetto esercito della Repubblica Sociale Italiana
e, nello stesso tempo, è stato tagliato del 55% il contributo statale,
già esiguo e già precedentemente decurtato di un altro 10%, destinato
all’ANPI.
Accanto alla necessità di denunciare la gravità di atti come questo,
di sostenere concretamente le attività dell’ANPI (a questo scopo
pubblichiamo l’appello per una sottoscrizione nazionale straordinaria
in favore dell’associazione) e di intensificare il lavoro politico per
far cadere il più presto possibile questo infame Governo, crediamo sia
fondamentale riavviare una riflessione sul significato di attacchi come
questi.
La maggioranza di Governo vuole colpire ancora una volta la storia
della Resistenza, ma in questo caso viene colpita direttamente anche
un’altra storia e non vorremmo che quest’attacco fosse sottovalutato:
si cerca di cancellare il ruolo degli antifascisti nella costruzione e
nella difesa della democrazia in Italia; si vogliono colpire i
partigiani che, dopo il 25 aprile ’45, non credettero esauriti gli
scopi della loro lotta e la proseguirono, con altri mezzi, per
costruire una società che fosse veramente e non solo formalmente libera.
L’ANPI sin dalla sua fondazione a Roma nel giugno ’44 e in particolare
dall’aprile ’45 quando, dopo la Liberazione, divenne una realtà
nazionale, è stata la forza organizzata degli antifascisti, uniti, non
solo dal ricordo del passato, ma anche dalla comune lotta per
contrastare il pericolo, mai scomparso in Italia, di involuzioni
autoritarie e soprattutto per vedere realizzati quei principi e quelle
proposte politiche che derivavano direttamente dalla Resistenza.
Quasi nessuno ricorda oggi i numerosi attentati compiuti dai fascisti
dopo il 25 aprile del ’45, le stragi, i tentativi di colpi di Stato e
le trame occulte che hanno caratterizzato e influenzato la politica
italiana nel secondo dopoguerra. Gli oltre mille criminali di guerra
italiani, autori di torture e stermini di massa in particolare nei
Balcani, mai processati e anzi riciclati nelle file di Stay Behind e
Gladio. La NATO e il governo democristiano sono stati un naturale
approdo per chi aveva sostenuto la dittatura fascista.
Nei giorni successivi al 25 aprile, in particolare nel Nord Italia,
c’era la consapevolezza di poter costruire una società radicalmente
diversa da quella conosciuta fino a quel momento, da quella fascista,
ma anche da quella “liberale” che l’aveva preceduta e, come scrive
Pietro Secchia descrivendo un corteo di partigiani a Milano,
l’entusiasmo varcava ogni limite, milanesi e partigiani stavano vivendo
il sogno più bello che avessero mai immaginato.
Ben presto però, nonostante alcune importanti conquiste come la
vittoria della Repubblica il 2 giugno del ‘46 e l’approvazione di una
costituzione decisamente avanzata (non a caso non fu mai fedelmente
attuata), apparvero evidenti i segnali di continuità tra il passato
regime e il nuovo Stato.
I Comitati di Liberazione Nazionale che si erano formati a tutti i
livelli (da quello di quartiere e di azienda a quello nazionale) e i
Comitati di Gestione che nei mesi successivi al 25 aprile avevano
gestito direttamente numerose fabbriche, avrebbero potuto rappresentare
la base per un sistema democratico che includesse finalmente le masse
nella gestione del potere. Con la cacciata dei comunisti dal governo
nel 1947 furono sconfitti. Confindustria, liberali e Democrazia
Cristiana, con il sostegno determinante delle forze armate
anglo-americane, si riappropriarono del potere politico ed economico.
Nella maggior parte dei casi i fascisti mantennero le loro posizioni
di potere, nella magistratura, nella polizia, nell’esercito, nella
pubblica amministrazione. Il termine “vinti” usato da Pansa non sembra
appropriato per descrivere questa situazione. Un decreto del ’48
revocava i provvedimenti di epurazione e una legge del ’49 consentirà
agli ex epurati il recupero dei benefici di carriera.
Dal punto di vista politico i fascisti, almeno a partire dall’inizio
del ’46, si riorganizzarono in diverse formazioni armate: AIL (Armata
Italiana di Liberazione), ECA (Esercito Clandestino Anticomunista), FAI
(Fronte Antibolscevico Italiano), SAM (Squadre d’Azione Mussolini),
mentre altri militavano nell’Uomo Qualunque di Giannini. Finché nel
dicembre ’46 verrà fondato il Movimento Sociale Italiano: un partito
neofascista legale nonostante la presenza di norme costituzionali che
lo vieterebbero.
I partigiani invece in questo stesso periodo subirono numerosi
attacchi. Vennero dipinti come criminali o delinquenti da durissime
campagne di stampa, fu ostacolata in tutti i modi la loro assunzione
nelle forze di polizia, furono sostituiti i prefetti con un passato
partigiano, furono boicottate tutte le forme di assistenza che erano
inizialmente previste per loro, sino a giungere al divieto formulato da
Scelba nel ’48 di manifestare pubblicamente per festeggiare il 25
aprile, anniversario della Liberazione.
Il revisionismo, cominciato subito dopo la liberazione, non ha
conosciuto soste. Da alcuni anni fa proseliti anche tra intellettuali
ed esponenti politici del centrosinistra. Cominciò Violante con “i
ragazzi di Salò”. Ha proseguito Giampaolo Pansa con il suo libro “Il
sangue dei Vinti”. Pansa ammette candidamente che la fonte principale
di cui si è servito è Giorgio Pisanò e il risultato è significativo sin
dai titoli dei paragrafi del suo testo: “il mattatoio di Milano”, “i
gulag di Genova”, “la cartiera degli orrori”, “un triangolo pieno di
morti”. Così vengono descritti i mesi immediatamente successivi alla
Resistenza. In pochi amano ricordare il ruolo dell’Unione Sovietica
nella sconfitta del nazifascismo, tanto che alle celebrazioni ufficiali
si invita la Germania, ma ci si dimentica della Russia.
Il cancro revisionista non ha conquistato solo intellettuali e
politici della sinistra moderata. Le posizioni politiche di Bertinotti
e dei disobbedienti del Nord Est sulle foibe sono ormai del tutto
simili a quelle della destra. Come se non bastasse, il segretario di
Rifondazione ha parlato di “angelizzazione della Resistenza” e in molti
hanno ravveduto, nelle sue recenti analisi sulla nonviolenza,
un’implicita critica all’esperienza partigiana.
In questi ultimi anni il revisionismo è stato attivo non solo sul
fronte politico e culturale, ma anche su quello repressivo e
giudiziario. Non è un caso se a Milano vengono arrestati e processati
dei giovani antifascisti, militanti di alcuni centri sociali, che hanno
“osato” allontanare degli estremisti di destra dal corteo del 25 aprile
o da un treno che portava i manifestanti a una manifestazione a Genova.
E’ in questo clima che s’inserisce l’attacco che il Governo Berlusconi
porta all’ANPI. E di questo clima bisogna tener conto per evitare
pericolose sottovalutazioni. Dunque, mentre si riabilitano e si
legittimano gli aguzzini e i torturatori che si occuparono della
repressione dei partigiani e delle deportazioni nei campi di sterminio,
mentre si processano gli antifascisti, si cerca di colpire mortalmente
la vita di un’Associazione che ancora oggi mantiene viva la memoria
degli orrori di fascismo e nazismo. Tagliare il contributo statale
all’ANPI significa anche ostacolare l’attività educativa rivolta ai
giovani nelle scuole. La memoria fa ancora paura. La memoria è uno
degli ostacoli principali di un regime.
www.resistenze.org - cultura e memoria resistenti - antifascismo -
24-10-04
Perche' tanto accanimento contro l'ANPI?
Mattia Gatti, Niccolò Volpati
La maggioranza che sostiene il Governo Berlusconi non nasconde la sua
arroganza e i suoi tentativi di colpire con ogni mezzo a sua
disposizione le basi fondanti della Repubblica a partire dalla
Costituzione e dalla Resistenza. Non può essere sottovalutata la
gravità degli episodi che di recente hanno reso ancor più evidente il
carattere estremo, quando non direttamente nostalgico, del fascismo di
questa destra che vorrebbe dipingersi come “moderata” ed “europea”.
La maggioranza alla Camera ha votato le modifiche alla Costituzione,
la presenza dei militari italiani in Iraq rappresenta una costante
violazione dell’articolo 11 della Carta Costituzionale, Alleanza
Nazionale ha proposto (e la commissione Difesa ha approvato), un
disegno di legge che riconosce come legittimi belligeranti gli
appartenenti al cosiddetto esercito della Repubblica Sociale Italiana
e, nello stesso tempo, è stato tagliato del 55% il contributo statale,
già esiguo e già precedentemente decurtato di un altro 10%, destinato
all’ANPI.
Accanto alla necessità di denunciare la gravità di atti come questo,
di sostenere concretamente le attività dell’ANPI (a questo scopo
pubblichiamo l’appello per una sottoscrizione nazionale straordinaria
in favore dell’associazione) e di intensificare il lavoro politico per
far cadere il più presto possibile questo infame Governo, crediamo sia
fondamentale riavviare una riflessione sul significato di attacchi come
questi.
La maggioranza di Governo vuole colpire ancora una volta la storia
della Resistenza, ma in questo caso viene colpita direttamente anche
un’altra storia e non vorremmo che quest’attacco fosse sottovalutato:
si cerca di cancellare il ruolo degli antifascisti nella costruzione e
nella difesa della democrazia in Italia; si vogliono colpire i
partigiani che, dopo il 25 aprile ’45, non credettero esauriti gli
scopi della loro lotta e la proseguirono, con altri mezzi, per
costruire una società che fosse veramente e non solo formalmente libera.
L’ANPI sin dalla sua fondazione a Roma nel giugno ’44 e in particolare
dall’aprile ’45 quando, dopo la Liberazione, divenne una realtà
nazionale, è stata la forza organizzata degli antifascisti, uniti, non
solo dal ricordo del passato, ma anche dalla comune lotta per
contrastare il pericolo, mai scomparso in Italia, di involuzioni
autoritarie e soprattutto per vedere realizzati quei principi e quelle
proposte politiche che derivavano direttamente dalla Resistenza.
Quasi nessuno ricorda oggi i numerosi attentati compiuti dai fascisti
dopo il 25 aprile del ’45, le stragi, i tentativi di colpi di Stato e
le trame occulte che hanno caratterizzato e influenzato la politica
italiana nel secondo dopoguerra. Gli oltre mille criminali di guerra
italiani, autori di torture e stermini di massa in particolare nei
Balcani, mai processati e anzi riciclati nelle file di Stay Behind e
Gladio. La NATO e il governo democristiano sono stati un naturale
approdo per chi aveva sostenuto la dittatura fascista.
Nei giorni successivi al 25 aprile, in particolare nel Nord Italia,
c’era la consapevolezza di poter costruire una società radicalmente
diversa da quella conosciuta fino a quel momento, da quella fascista,
ma anche da quella “liberale” che l’aveva preceduta e, come scrive
Pietro Secchia descrivendo un corteo di partigiani a Milano,
l’entusiasmo varcava ogni limite, milanesi e partigiani stavano vivendo
il sogno più bello che avessero mai immaginato.
Ben presto però, nonostante alcune importanti conquiste come la
vittoria della Repubblica il 2 giugno del ‘46 e l’approvazione di una
costituzione decisamente avanzata (non a caso non fu mai fedelmente
attuata), apparvero evidenti i segnali di continuità tra il passato
regime e il nuovo Stato.
I Comitati di Liberazione Nazionale che si erano formati a tutti i
livelli (da quello di quartiere e di azienda a quello nazionale) e i
Comitati di Gestione che nei mesi successivi al 25 aprile avevano
gestito direttamente numerose fabbriche, avrebbero potuto rappresentare
la base per un sistema democratico che includesse finalmente le masse
nella gestione del potere. Con la cacciata dei comunisti dal governo
nel 1947 furono sconfitti. Confindustria, liberali e Democrazia
Cristiana, con il sostegno determinante delle forze armate
anglo-americane, si riappropriarono del potere politico ed economico.
Nella maggior parte dei casi i fascisti mantennero le loro posizioni
di potere, nella magistratura, nella polizia, nell’esercito, nella
pubblica amministrazione. Il termine “vinti” usato da Pansa non sembra
appropriato per descrivere questa situazione. Un decreto del ’48
revocava i provvedimenti di epurazione e una legge del ’49 consentirà
agli ex epurati il recupero dei benefici di carriera.
Dal punto di vista politico i fascisti, almeno a partire dall’inizio
del ’46, si riorganizzarono in diverse formazioni armate: AIL (Armata
Italiana di Liberazione), ECA (Esercito Clandestino Anticomunista), FAI
(Fronte Antibolscevico Italiano), SAM (Squadre d’Azione Mussolini),
mentre altri militavano nell’Uomo Qualunque di Giannini. Finché nel
dicembre ’46 verrà fondato il Movimento Sociale Italiano: un partito
neofascista legale nonostante la presenza di norme costituzionali che
lo vieterebbero.
I partigiani invece in questo stesso periodo subirono numerosi
attacchi. Vennero dipinti come criminali o delinquenti da durissime
campagne di stampa, fu ostacolata in tutti i modi la loro assunzione
nelle forze di polizia, furono sostituiti i prefetti con un passato
partigiano, furono boicottate tutte le forme di assistenza che erano
inizialmente previste per loro, sino a giungere al divieto formulato da
Scelba nel ’48 di manifestare pubblicamente per festeggiare il 25
aprile, anniversario della Liberazione.
Il revisionismo, cominciato subito dopo la liberazione, non ha
conosciuto soste. Da alcuni anni fa proseliti anche tra intellettuali
ed esponenti politici del centrosinistra. Cominciò Violante con “i
ragazzi di Salò”. Ha proseguito Giampaolo Pansa con il suo libro “Il
sangue dei Vinti”. Pansa ammette candidamente che la fonte principale
di cui si è servito è Giorgio Pisanò e il risultato è significativo sin
dai titoli dei paragrafi del suo testo: “il mattatoio di Milano”, “i
gulag di Genova”, “la cartiera degli orrori”, “un triangolo pieno di
morti”. Così vengono descritti i mesi immediatamente successivi alla
Resistenza. In pochi amano ricordare il ruolo dell’Unione Sovietica
nella sconfitta del nazifascismo, tanto che alle celebrazioni ufficiali
si invita la Germania, ma ci si dimentica della Russia.
Il cancro revisionista non ha conquistato solo intellettuali e
politici della sinistra moderata. Le posizioni politiche di Bertinotti
e dei disobbedienti del Nord Est sulle foibe sono ormai del tutto
simili a quelle della destra. Come se non bastasse, il segretario di
Rifondazione ha parlato di “angelizzazione della Resistenza” e in molti
hanno ravveduto, nelle sue recenti analisi sulla nonviolenza,
un’implicita critica all’esperienza partigiana.
In questi ultimi anni il revisionismo è stato attivo non solo sul
fronte politico e culturale, ma anche su quello repressivo e
giudiziario. Non è un caso se a Milano vengono arrestati e processati
dei giovani antifascisti, militanti di alcuni centri sociali, che hanno
“osato” allontanare degli estremisti di destra dal corteo del 25 aprile
o da un treno che portava i manifestanti a una manifestazione a Genova.
E’ in questo clima che s’inserisce l’attacco che il Governo Berlusconi
porta all’ANPI. E di questo clima bisogna tener conto per evitare
pericolose sottovalutazioni. Dunque, mentre si riabilitano e si
legittimano gli aguzzini e i torturatori che si occuparono della
repressione dei partigiani e delle deportazioni nei campi di sterminio,
mentre si processano gli antifascisti, si cerca di colpire mortalmente
la vita di un’Associazione che ancora oggi mantiene viva la memoria
degli orrori di fascismo e nazismo. Tagliare il contributo statale
all’ANPI significa anche ostacolare l’attività educativa rivolta ai
giovani nelle scuole. La memoria fa ancora paura. La memoria è uno
degli ostacoli principali di un regime.
[ Una lettera aperta al "Tribunale ad hoc" ed a Carla del Ponte... ]
OTVORENO PISMO TRIBUNALU I KARLI DEL PONTE
Srbofobija « slobodnog svijeta »
By Emil VLAJKI
Karla del Ponte je, u optuznici protiv Slobodana Milosevica, ispoljila
krajnje neeticko antisrpsko ponasanje. Posto, na zalost, u ove tri
godine nitko od onih koji su, navodno, stali u obranu S. M. nije nasao
za shodno da napravi politicku etno-psiholosku analizu optuznice a i
nastavljaju djelovati sa istim stupnjem mediokritetstva (ili je, mozda,
nesto drugo u pitanju), red je da se stvari srbofobijske naravi
zamumuljene u (losu) pravnicku ambalazu, konacno razotkriju.
Karli del Ponte,
Ovo sto cu reci, neumitno se odnosi na Vas, jer ste Vi ovu optuznicu
protiv S. M. potpisali. Nitko ne moze biti kivan na Vas zbog same
optuznice jer ste za njeno podizanje placeni. Necu ovdje ponovo
otvoriti raspravu ni o tome sto je S. M. bio stavljen u zatvor pod
laznom optuzbom, sto je Jugoslavija/Srbija i Crna Gora bila financijski
i politicki ucijenjena sto je dovelo, uz pomoc vasih marioneta u
Beogradu, do kidnapiranja S. M. i njegove predaje ovoj nelegalnoj i
nelegitimnoj instituciji.
Ali ono sto je nemoguce prihvatiti u optuznici, to je negacija nekih
osnovnih moralnih vrijednosti na koje se Zapad stalno poziva. Vi, u
ovoj optuznici, ne izmisljate samo stvari koje pripisujete S. M., vec
afirmirate i neprikrivenu politicko-vjersku diskriminaciju protiv
Srpskog naroda.
Izgleda da su NATO zemlje koje su osnivaci i glavni financijeri ovog
tribunala ( ako je vjerovati rijecima James Shea-a, portparola NATO),
namjerno trazili licnost koja bi prezentirala ovu optuznicu, sa toliko
lazi i sa toliko ispoljene mrznje.
Antisrpstvo je kod Vas toliko neprikriveno, da prelazi granice svakog
ukusa.
Ali podjimo redom.
A. Lazi o «srpskom bloku»
Podjimo od navodne «sitnice». U tocki 30 optuznice, Vi u vise navrata
spominjete tzv. «srpski blok», unutar Predjednistva SFRJ! Ovo je Vasa
neukusna izmisljotina, i to iz vise razloga:
1) Unutar tog «bloka», nisu bili svi srpske nacionalnosti.
2) S druge strane, unutar Predsjednistva, bilo je Srba koji se nisu
slagali sa ovim «blokom».
3) Ovaj «blok» nije zastupao interese Srbije, vec Jugoslavije. S. M.,
koji je prihvatao stavove ovog «bloka», insistirao je takodjer na
kontinuitetu Jugoslavije. I dandanas ga mnogi politicki protivnici ne
podnose zbog njegovog Jugoslavenstva i optuzuju za antisrpstvo.
Pored ovih razloga, citav svijet, osim Vas, zna da drugi «antisrpski
blok» nije, u tom trenutku, htio da razbija Srbiju vec Jugoslaviju. Ako
bismo dakle mogli govoriti o nekakvim «blokovima», onda bi se oni prije
mogli okarakterizirati kao «jugoslavenski» i «antijugoslavenski», Ali,
Vi, u Vasoj mrznji prema srpstvu kojeg demonizirate na svakom koraku i
na svaki moguci nacin, zelite S. M. prikazati kao lukavog srpskog
sovinistu, kako bi Vase, vjerovatno patoloske fantazije i projekcije,
bile zadovoljene.
B. Optuzba protiv srpskog naroda predstavljena kao «individualna
odgovornost»
Vi, u Optuznici, tvrdite, kako ovaj sud utvrdjuje individualnu, tzv.
«zlocinacku odgovornost» S. M., kao i odgovornost jos nekih lica,
navodnih «suzlocinaca», a da te optuzbe nisu ni u kakvoj vezi sa
srpskim narodom.
Ali, Vi, grubo lazete, i Optuznica koju ste sastavili Vas na svakom
koraku demantira.
Pogledajmo, taksativno, koga Vi sve u ovom nemoralnom dokumentu
optuzujete za navodne «zlocinacke poduhvate» i/ili za ucestvovanje u
njima:
- Polovicu Saveznog predsjednistva za koju Vi tvrdite da su
predstavljali tzv. «srpski blok»;
- Jugoslavensku narodnu armiju, ukljucujuci i njeno rukovodstvo, gdje
su navodno svi su bili (pro)Srbi, sto je apsolutna laz;
- Jedinice Teritorijalne obrane (srpske naravno);
- Kontraobavjestajnu sluzbu Jugoslavije, koja je «naravno» bila,
takodjer, «srpska»;
- Ministarstvo unutrasnjih poslova Srbije;
- Drzavnu bezbjednost Srbije;
- Srpske dobrovoljacke jedinice;
- Institucije srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj (Srpske autonomne oblasti);
- Vecinu gradjana Srbije koji su me legitimno birali u toku perioda
kojeg spominjete, a da legitimitet mojih izbora niste ni u kom trenutku
u Optuznici osporavali!
Po Vama, dakle, tzv. «individualna odgovornost» S. M. se, ustvari,
odnosi
a) na srpski narod u Hrvatskoj i na njegove institucije kao i
b) na gradjane Srbije i na njegove institucije!!!
Vi ste, medjutim, zaboravili, da se sa ovom optuznicom i Vi licno
legitimitirate pred javnim mnijenjem i pred medjunarodnim forumima i da
nisu svi koji ce ovu optuznicu procitati toliko glupi da sebe
zavaravaju Vasim tvrdnjama. Dozvoljavam, da Vi niste strucnjak za
jezicka pitanja, ali ovakvo falsificiranje znacenja izraza
«individualna odgovornost» spada u sheme orvelovskog «novogovora» koje
ce historija sigurno zabiljeziti dajuci i objasnjavajuci primjere
jezicke manipulacije.
Ustvari, niste Vi toliko neobrazovani kao sto se po tekstu kojeg ste
potpisali cini, ali Vas Vasa patoloska mrznja prema Srbima (jer kako
drugacije objasniti Vase «lapsuse») cini slijepom i gluhom.
C. Srpski narod u Hrvatskoj, koji se branio, optuzen je za zlocinastvo
Vase politicko sljepilo nema kraja. Da bih to pokazao, preci cu na dva
stava sadrzana u vasoj optuznici koji su od fundamentalne vaznosti za
razotkrivanje istine o vasim manipulacijama.
Citiram tacke 94 i 95:
94. "U aprilu i maju 1990. u Republici Hrvatskoj odrzani su izbori na
kojima je Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (HDZ) osvojila vecinu glasova
i osigurala vecinu mesta u Hrvatskom saboru. Novi Sabor je tada izabrao
kandidata HDZ-a Franju TUDMANA za predsednika Hrvatske ".
95. "Priie izbora odrzanih 1990. godine, u Kninu je osnovana
NACIONALISTICKA (kurziv je moj) Srpska demokratska stranka (u daljnjem
tekstu: SDS) koja je zagovarala autonomiju a kasnije i otcjepljenje
vecinskih srpskih podrucja od Hrvatske"
Vi, u navedenim stavovima, vrsite tri vrste manipulacije na stetu
srpskog naroda:
- Prva manipulacija
U dva citirana stava, vi ste suprotstavili navodno "demokratsku HDZ"
"nacionalistickoj SDS".
Dakle, oni koji su se htjeli odcjepiti od Jugoslavije na
totalitaristickim osnovama zeleci se rijesiti dijela srpskog naroda
koji je u Hrvatskoj zivio stoljecima, oni su po, po ocjeni ovog suda,
bili demokrate
* Vi pritom citirate samo naziv stranke -HDZ-, a ne i njenu
separatisticku (dakle i nacionalisticku) orijentaciju.
* S druge strane, SDS-u pausalno dodajete pridjev: «nacionalisticka».
(Srbi, dakle, kojima je bila namijenjena uloga zrtve i koji su se
politicki organizirali bojeci se kako novog genocida, oni su proglaseni
nacionalistima!)
* Da niste bili zasljepljeni mrznjom prema Srbima i da ste htjeli biti
objektivni, ili je trebalo i jednu i drugu stranku okarakterizirati
politicki, ili ni jednu;
Vasa je, prema tome, konstrukcija citiranih stavova krajnje zlonamjerna.
- Druga manipulacija
Druga manipulacija je «suptilnije» naravi. Vrsite logicnu gresku u
komparaciji stavljajuci jednu pored druge stvari koje se ne mogu
usporediti a stvarajuci utisak kao da je usporedba moguca.
Tako u stavu 94, kazete kako je HDZ na izborima osvojila vecinu glasova
u hrvatskom Saboru, dok u drugom stavu (95), govorite o osnivanju SDS-a
koji se desio prije izbora za Sabor.
Pored toga sto se ove dvije stvari ne mogu komparirati, vi
«zaboravljate» istaci prave komparacije:
1. Da su obje stranke osnovaneu samom pocetku 1990.
2. Da je SDS prilikom osnivanja, govorio o ostanku srpskog naroda u
okviru Hrvatske, trazeci, kao sto to sve etnicke skupine imaju u
Evropi, izvjesne oblike autonomije.
3. Da je HDZ, dosavsi na vlast, poceo sa otvorenim progonom Srba koji
su otpustani s posla, fizicki napadani, da im je imovina unistavana,
itd.
4. Da su hrvatski mediji dosli pod potpunu kontrolu HDZ. Cak je u ono
doba i Mazovjecki izjavio da su mediji bili daleko slobodniji u bivsem
komunizmu nego u Tudjmanovo doba.
5. Da je HDZ na svom osnivackom kongresu izjavila da je
nacisticko-fasisticka tvorevina NDH iz 1941.godine ujedno bila i izraz
teznji hrvatskog naroda za nezavisnoscu.
6. Da je HDZ, dolaskom na vlast, preuzela sve vaznije simbole NDH.
7. Da je HDZ izmjenila ustav gdje je definirala Hrvatsku kao drzavu
Hrvatskog naroda, a da su Srbi od konstitutivnog naroda postali manjina.
8. Da takva formulacija ponizavanja srpskog naroda nije zadovoljila cak
ni jednu marionetsku «ad hoc» instituciju, tzv. «Badinterovu komisiju»
koja je, u ono doba, odbila da preporuci «medjunarodnoj zajednici»
hadezeovsku Hrvatsku za internacionalno priznanje.
9. Da je, usprkos iznjetim cinjenicama poraznim za srpski narod, i u
julu 1990., kao i u septembru 1990., SDS za Hrvatsku prvenstveno
govorio o autonomiji podrucja nastanjenih vecinskim srpskim
stanovnistvom u republici Hrvatskoj.
10. Da je radikalizacija SDS nastupila u decembru 1990., kada su
separatisticke teznje Hrvatske bile javno iznesene, i kada su Srbi u
Hrvatskoj poceli shvatati da je vjerovatan cilj HDZ bio ciscenje Srba
iz Hrvatske upotrebom svih mogucih sredstava.
Vi, dakle, «previdjate» sve ove cinjenice i prakticno govorite o HDZ
kao demokratskoj stranci a o SDS kao srpskoj nacionalistickoj stranci.
- Treca manipulacija
Radi se o najsustinskijoj manipulaciji koja se kod vas provlaci u
citavoj optuznici protiv mene:
GOVORECI O NAVODNIM «SRPSKIM ZLOCINIMA» NA PODRUCJIMA HRVATSKE, BiH I
KOSMETA, VI, ILI DAJETE LAZNI KONTEKST UNUTAR KOJEG SU SE TI TRAGICNI
DOGADJAJI ODVIJALI, ILI KONTEKST UOPCE NE SPOMINJETE!
* Zahvaljujuci ovakvoj manipulacijama, vi obrcete uloge.
Tako ste i mogli izjaviti da je jedan narod -Srbi- koji je pretrpio
genocid koji mu je mogao iznova prijetiti, da taj narod i njegovu borbu
za obranu vlastitih elementarnih prava 1990. godine proglasite
«nacionalistickim» i «zlocinackim», a da HDZ pokret koji je, odmah po
dolasku na vlast u 1990. zapoceo etnicko ciscenje Srba, da taj
politicki pokret proglasite demokratskim.
Pitam Vas sada, kako je moguce da Vi kao autor Optuznice «nista ne
znate» o separatistickom i sovinistickom djelovanju HDZ, a «sve znate»
o nacionalistickom karakteru» SDS.
Vi ste se, sa ovim manipulacijama stavili u bezizlaznu situaciju. Vi,
iako, bez ikakve sumnje, sve znate o sovinistickom djelovanju HDZ, ne
dozvoljavate ni da se rijec o tome kaze.
S jedne strane, dakle, morate da sve precutite o HDZ, a s druge da
ocrnite SDS.
Jer, ako bi se o tome pocelo govoriti, a morat ce se govoriti jer Vi
ste sami na to ukazali, onda bi se vidjelo da je organiziranje srpskog
naroda 1990. godine bilo, istovremeno i samoobrambena aktivnost i
teznja za ocuvanjem Jugoslavije.
Kako se ne bi uocila istinita dimenzija HDZ-ovske aktivnosti, dolaskom
ove politicke partije na vlast («da se Vlasi ne dosjete»), Vase
optuznice protiv pojedinih Hrvata pocimaju tek od 1993!!! (optuznicom
protiv Ademija), mada aktivnosti HDZ pokreta protiv Srba pocimaju od
1990.
Pored toga, a potpuno logicno u skladu sa Vasim manipulacijama,
hrvatski se optuzenici za zlocine protiv Srba ne stavljaju ni u kakav
politicki kontekst, nego im se prvenstveno pripisuje individualn i
grupna odgovornost.
Zbog svih ovih stvari koje Vi, Karla del Ponte, navodno «ne znate», a
koje citav ostali svijet poznaje, zbog skrnavljenja spomena srpskih
zrtava kojeg Vi cinite preko Vase Optuznice, zbog diskriminatorskog
tretmana Srba kojeg iskazujete, treba izvrsiti sustinske izmjene
Optuznice:
- Da kada se govori o navodnoj «zlocinackoj aktivnosti» Milosevica i
ostalih, da se paralelno da ocjena Tudjmana i ostalih;
- Da, kada se govori o navodno «nacionalistickoj» SDS, da se istakne
ekstremno-nacionalisticki karakter HDZ;
- Da kada se govori o djelovanju srpskih «Belih orlova», «cetnika»,
itd., da se jednako opise djelovanje hrvatskih «zengovaca»,
«mercepovaca» i ostalih.
- Da, kada se govori o «nelegalnom» i «agresorskom» karakteru JNA i
srpskih teritorijalnih obrana u Hrvatskoj, da se ujedno i objasni
«legalnost» hadezeovskih vojnih formacija i teritorijalnih obrana.
- Da kada se govori o navodnom ili stvarnom istjerivanju Hrvata sa
srpskih podrucja u Hrvatskoj, da se opisu prethodna etnicka ciscenja
Srba u Hrvatskoj od strane hadezeovskih vojnih i drugih formacija.
- Da se Vi,Karla del Ponte, koji ste sastavila ovkvu diskriminatorsku
etno-rasisticku optuznicu prema Srbima, neizostavno smijenite i
dovedete na optuzenicku klupu.
Jedino sastavljena na taj nacin, Optuznica moze pretendirati na
demokraticnost i fer odnos prema S. M. i srpskom narodu.
Emil VLAJKI
vemil @ wanadoo.fr
SOURCE: Srpska Informativna Mreza - http://www.antic.org/
OTVORENO PISMO TRIBUNALU I KARLI DEL PONTE
Srbofobija « slobodnog svijeta »
By Emil VLAJKI
Karla del Ponte je, u optuznici protiv Slobodana Milosevica, ispoljila
krajnje neeticko antisrpsko ponasanje. Posto, na zalost, u ove tri
godine nitko od onih koji su, navodno, stali u obranu S. M. nije nasao
za shodno da napravi politicku etno-psiholosku analizu optuznice a i
nastavljaju djelovati sa istim stupnjem mediokritetstva (ili je, mozda,
nesto drugo u pitanju), red je da se stvari srbofobijske naravi
zamumuljene u (losu) pravnicku ambalazu, konacno razotkriju.
Karli del Ponte,
Ovo sto cu reci, neumitno se odnosi na Vas, jer ste Vi ovu optuznicu
protiv S. M. potpisali. Nitko ne moze biti kivan na Vas zbog same
optuznice jer ste za njeno podizanje placeni. Necu ovdje ponovo
otvoriti raspravu ni o tome sto je S. M. bio stavljen u zatvor pod
laznom optuzbom, sto je Jugoslavija/Srbija i Crna Gora bila financijski
i politicki ucijenjena sto je dovelo, uz pomoc vasih marioneta u
Beogradu, do kidnapiranja S. M. i njegove predaje ovoj nelegalnoj i
nelegitimnoj instituciji.
Ali ono sto je nemoguce prihvatiti u optuznici, to je negacija nekih
osnovnih moralnih vrijednosti na koje se Zapad stalno poziva. Vi, u
ovoj optuznici, ne izmisljate samo stvari koje pripisujete S. M., vec
afirmirate i neprikrivenu politicko-vjersku diskriminaciju protiv
Srpskog naroda.
Izgleda da su NATO zemlje koje su osnivaci i glavni financijeri ovog
tribunala ( ako je vjerovati rijecima James Shea-a, portparola NATO),
namjerno trazili licnost koja bi prezentirala ovu optuznicu, sa toliko
lazi i sa toliko ispoljene mrznje.
Antisrpstvo je kod Vas toliko neprikriveno, da prelazi granice svakog
ukusa.
Ali podjimo redom.
A. Lazi o «srpskom bloku»
Podjimo od navodne «sitnice». U tocki 30 optuznice, Vi u vise navrata
spominjete tzv. «srpski blok», unutar Predjednistva SFRJ! Ovo je Vasa
neukusna izmisljotina, i to iz vise razloga:
1) Unutar tog «bloka», nisu bili svi srpske nacionalnosti.
2) S druge strane, unutar Predsjednistva, bilo je Srba koji se nisu
slagali sa ovim «blokom».
3) Ovaj «blok» nije zastupao interese Srbije, vec Jugoslavije. S. M.,
koji je prihvatao stavove ovog «bloka», insistirao je takodjer na
kontinuitetu Jugoslavije. I dandanas ga mnogi politicki protivnici ne
podnose zbog njegovog Jugoslavenstva i optuzuju za antisrpstvo.
Pored ovih razloga, citav svijet, osim Vas, zna da drugi «antisrpski
blok» nije, u tom trenutku, htio da razbija Srbiju vec Jugoslaviju. Ako
bismo dakle mogli govoriti o nekakvim «blokovima», onda bi se oni prije
mogli okarakterizirati kao «jugoslavenski» i «antijugoslavenski», Ali,
Vi, u Vasoj mrznji prema srpstvu kojeg demonizirate na svakom koraku i
na svaki moguci nacin, zelite S. M. prikazati kao lukavog srpskog
sovinistu, kako bi Vase, vjerovatno patoloske fantazije i projekcije,
bile zadovoljene.
B. Optuzba protiv srpskog naroda predstavljena kao «individualna
odgovornost»
Vi, u Optuznici, tvrdite, kako ovaj sud utvrdjuje individualnu, tzv.
«zlocinacku odgovornost» S. M., kao i odgovornost jos nekih lica,
navodnih «suzlocinaca», a da te optuzbe nisu ni u kakvoj vezi sa
srpskim narodom.
Ali, Vi, grubo lazete, i Optuznica koju ste sastavili Vas na svakom
koraku demantira.
Pogledajmo, taksativno, koga Vi sve u ovom nemoralnom dokumentu
optuzujete za navodne «zlocinacke poduhvate» i/ili za ucestvovanje u
njima:
- Polovicu Saveznog predsjednistva za koju Vi tvrdite da su
predstavljali tzv. «srpski blok»;
- Jugoslavensku narodnu armiju, ukljucujuci i njeno rukovodstvo, gdje
su navodno svi su bili (pro)Srbi, sto je apsolutna laz;
- Jedinice Teritorijalne obrane (srpske naravno);
- Kontraobavjestajnu sluzbu Jugoslavije, koja je «naravno» bila,
takodjer, «srpska»;
- Ministarstvo unutrasnjih poslova Srbije;
- Drzavnu bezbjednost Srbije;
- Srpske dobrovoljacke jedinice;
- Institucije srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj (Srpske autonomne oblasti);
- Vecinu gradjana Srbije koji su me legitimno birali u toku perioda
kojeg spominjete, a da legitimitet mojih izbora niste ni u kom trenutku
u Optuznici osporavali!
Po Vama, dakle, tzv. «individualna odgovornost» S. M. se, ustvari,
odnosi
a) na srpski narod u Hrvatskoj i na njegove institucije kao i
b) na gradjane Srbije i na njegove institucije!!!
Vi ste, medjutim, zaboravili, da se sa ovom optuznicom i Vi licno
legitimitirate pred javnim mnijenjem i pred medjunarodnim forumima i da
nisu svi koji ce ovu optuznicu procitati toliko glupi da sebe
zavaravaju Vasim tvrdnjama. Dozvoljavam, da Vi niste strucnjak za
jezicka pitanja, ali ovakvo falsificiranje znacenja izraza
«individualna odgovornost» spada u sheme orvelovskog «novogovora» koje
ce historija sigurno zabiljeziti dajuci i objasnjavajuci primjere
jezicke manipulacije.
Ustvari, niste Vi toliko neobrazovani kao sto se po tekstu kojeg ste
potpisali cini, ali Vas Vasa patoloska mrznja prema Srbima (jer kako
drugacije objasniti Vase «lapsuse») cini slijepom i gluhom.
C. Srpski narod u Hrvatskoj, koji se branio, optuzen je za zlocinastvo
Vase politicko sljepilo nema kraja. Da bih to pokazao, preci cu na dva
stava sadrzana u vasoj optuznici koji su od fundamentalne vaznosti za
razotkrivanje istine o vasim manipulacijama.
Citiram tacke 94 i 95:
94. "U aprilu i maju 1990. u Republici Hrvatskoj odrzani su izbori na
kojima je Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (HDZ) osvojila vecinu glasova
i osigurala vecinu mesta u Hrvatskom saboru. Novi Sabor je tada izabrao
kandidata HDZ-a Franju TUDMANA za predsednika Hrvatske ".
95. "Priie izbora odrzanih 1990. godine, u Kninu je osnovana
NACIONALISTICKA (kurziv je moj) Srpska demokratska stranka (u daljnjem
tekstu: SDS) koja je zagovarala autonomiju a kasnije i otcjepljenje
vecinskih srpskih podrucja od Hrvatske"
Vi, u navedenim stavovima, vrsite tri vrste manipulacije na stetu
srpskog naroda:
- Prva manipulacija
U dva citirana stava, vi ste suprotstavili navodno "demokratsku HDZ"
"nacionalistickoj SDS".
Dakle, oni koji su se htjeli odcjepiti od Jugoslavije na
totalitaristickim osnovama zeleci se rijesiti dijela srpskog naroda
koji je u Hrvatskoj zivio stoljecima, oni su po, po ocjeni ovog suda,
bili demokrate
* Vi pritom citirate samo naziv stranke -HDZ-, a ne i njenu
separatisticku (dakle i nacionalisticku) orijentaciju.
* S druge strane, SDS-u pausalno dodajete pridjev: «nacionalisticka».
(Srbi, dakle, kojima je bila namijenjena uloga zrtve i koji su se
politicki organizirali bojeci se kako novog genocida, oni su proglaseni
nacionalistima!)
* Da niste bili zasljepljeni mrznjom prema Srbima i da ste htjeli biti
objektivni, ili je trebalo i jednu i drugu stranku okarakterizirati
politicki, ili ni jednu;
Vasa je, prema tome, konstrukcija citiranih stavova krajnje zlonamjerna.
- Druga manipulacija
Druga manipulacija je «suptilnije» naravi. Vrsite logicnu gresku u
komparaciji stavljajuci jednu pored druge stvari koje se ne mogu
usporediti a stvarajuci utisak kao da je usporedba moguca.
Tako u stavu 94, kazete kako je HDZ na izborima osvojila vecinu glasova
u hrvatskom Saboru, dok u drugom stavu (95), govorite o osnivanju SDS-a
koji se desio prije izbora za Sabor.
Pored toga sto se ove dvije stvari ne mogu komparirati, vi
«zaboravljate» istaci prave komparacije:
1. Da su obje stranke osnovaneu samom pocetku 1990.
2. Da je SDS prilikom osnivanja, govorio o ostanku srpskog naroda u
okviru Hrvatske, trazeci, kao sto to sve etnicke skupine imaju u
Evropi, izvjesne oblike autonomije.
3. Da je HDZ, dosavsi na vlast, poceo sa otvorenim progonom Srba koji
su otpustani s posla, fizicki napadani, da im je imovina unistavana,
itd.
4. Da su hrvatski mediji dosli pod potpunu kontrolu HDZ. Cak je u ono
doba i Mazovjecki izjavio da su mediji bili daleko slobodniji u bivsem
komunizmu nego u Tudjmanovo doba.
5. Da je HDZ na svom osnivackom kongresu izjavila da je
nacisticko-fasisticka tvorevina NDH iz 1941.godine ujedno bila i izraz
teznji hrvatskog naroda za nezavisnoscu.
6. Da je HDZ, dolaskom na vlast, preuzela sve vaznije simbole NDH.
7. Da je HDZ izmjenila ustav gdje je definirala Hrvatsku kao drzavu
Hrvatskog naroda, a da su Srbi od konstitutivnog naroda postali manjina.
8. Da takva formulacija ponizavanja srpskog naroda nije zadovoljila cak
ni jednu marionetsku «ad hoc» instituciju, tzv. «Badinterovu komisiju»
koja je, u ono doba, odbila da preporuci «medjunarodnoj zajednici»
hadezeovsku Hrvatsku za internacionalno priznanje.
9. Da je, usprkos iznjetim cinjenicama poraznim za srpski narod, i u
julu 1990., kao i u septembru 1990., SDS za Hrvatsku prvenstveno
govorio o autonomiji podrucja nastanjenih vecinskim srpskim
stanovnistvom u republici Hrvatskoj.
10. Da je radikalizacija SDS nastupila u decembru 1990., kada su
separatisticke teznje Hrvatske bile javno iznesene, i kada su Srbi u
Hrvatskoj poceli shvatati da je vjerovatan cilj HDZ bio ciscenje Srba
iz Hrvatske upotrebom svih mogucih sredstava.
Vi, dakle, «previdjate» sve ove cinjenice i prakticno govorite o HDZ
kao demokratskoj stranci a o SDS kao srpskoj nacionalistickoj stranci.
- Treca manipulacija
Radi se o najsustinskijoj manipulaciji koja se kod vas provlaci u
citavoj optuznici protiv mene:
GOVORECI O NAVODNIM «SRPSKIM ZLOCINIMA» NA PODRUCJIMA HRVATSKE, BiH I
KOSMETA, VI, ILI DAJETE LAZNI KONTEKST UNUTAR KOJEG SU SE TI TRAGICNI
DOGADJAJI ODVIJALI, ILI KONTEKST UOPCE NE SPOMINJETE!
* Zahvaljujuci ovakvoj manipulacijama, vi obrcete uloge.
Tako ste i mogli izjaviti da je jedan narod -Srbi- koji je pretrpio
genocid koji mu je mogao iznova prijetiti, da taj narod i njegovu borbu
za obranu vlastitih elementarnih prava 1990. godine proglasite
«nacionalistickim» i «zlocinackim», a da HDZ pokret koji je, odmah po
dolasku na vlast u 1990. zapoceo etnicko ciscenje Srba, da taj
politicki pokret proglasite demokratskim.
Pitam Vas sada, kako je moguce da Vi kao autor Optuznice «nista ne
znate» o separatistickom i sovinistickom djelovanju HDZ, a «sve znate»
o nacionalistickom karakteru» SDS.
Vi ste se, sa ovim manipulacijama stavili u bezizlaznu situaciju. Vi,
iako, bez ikakve sumnje, sve znate o sovinistickom djelovanju HDZ, ne
dozvoljavate ni da se rijec o tome kaze.
S jedne strane, dakle, morate da sve precutite o HDZ, a s druge da
ocrnite SDS.
Jer, ako bi se o tome pocelo govoriti, a morat ce se govoriti jer Vi
ste sami na to ukazali, onda bi se vidjelo da je organiziranje srpskog
naroda 1990. godine bilo, istovremeno i samoobrambena aktivnost i
teznja za ocuvanjem Jugoslavije.
Kako se ne bi uocila istinita dimenzija HDZ-ovske aktivnosti, dolaskom
ove politicke partije na vlast («da se Vlasi ne dosjete»), Vase
optuznice protiv pojedinih Hrvata pocimaju tek od 1993!!! (optuznicom
protiv Ademija), mada aktivnosti HDZ pokreta protiv Srba pocimaju od
1990.
Pored toga, a potpuno logicno u skladu sa Vasim manipulacijama,
hrvatski se optuzenici za zlocine protiv Srba ne stavljaju ni u kakav
politicki kontekst, nego im se prvenstveno pripisuje individualn i
grupna odgovornost.
Zbog svih ovih stvari koje Vi, Karla del Ponte, navodno «ne znate», a
koje citav ostali svijet poznaje, zbog skrnavljenja spomena srpskih
zrtava kojeg Vi cinite preko Vase Optuznice, zbog diskriminatorskog
tretmana Srba kojeg iskazujete, treba izvrsiti sustinske izmjene
Optuznice:
- Da kada se govori o navodnoj «zlocinackoj aktivnosti» Milosevica i
ostalih, da se paralelno da ocjena Tudjmana i ostalih;
- Da, kada se govori o navodno «nacionalistickoj» SDS, da se istakne
ekstremno-nacionalisticki karakter HDZ;
- Da kada se govori o djelovanju srpskih «Belih orlova», «cetnika»,
itd., da se jednako opise djelovanje hrvatskih «zengovaca»,
«mercepovaca» i ostalih.
- Da, kada se govori o «nelegalnom» i «agresorskom» karakteru JNA i
srpskih teritorijalnih obrana u Hrvatskoj, da se ujedno i objasni
«legalnost» hadezeovskih vojnih formacija i teritorijalnih obrana.
- Da kada se govori o navodnom ili stvarnom istjerivanju Hrvata sa
srpskih podrucja u Hrvatskoj, da se opisu prethodna etnicka ciscenja
Srba u Hrvatskoj od strane hadezeovskih vojnih i drugih formacija.
- Da se Vi,Karla del Ponte, koji ste sastavila ovkvu diskriminatorsku
etno-rasisticku optuznicu prema Srbima, neizostavno smijenite i
dovedete na optuzenicku klupu.
Jedino sastavljena na taj nacin, Optuznica moze pretendirati na
demokraticnost i fer odnos prema S. M. i srpskom narodu.
Emil VLAJKI
vemil @ wanadoo.fr
SOURCE: Srpska Informativna Mreza - http://www.antic.org/
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Sab 30 Ott 2004 18:07:20 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @ yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Sulla testimonianza di Liana Kanelli, ed altri
documenti
Sulla testimonianza di Liana Kanelli, ed altri documenti
Traduzioni di Curzio Bettio di Soccorso Popolare di Padova
Altri dispacci ANSA, insieme alle versioni originali, in lingua
inglese, dei testi seguenti, sono da noi gia' stati fatti circolare -
vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/126
SEE THE ABOVE URL FOR THE ORIGINAL TEXTS, IN ENGLISH
1. Liana Kanelli, Deputata Comunista al Parlamento Greco, testimonia
(20/10/04)
2. Il Presidente dell’Associazione dei "desaparecidos" Serbi Kosovari,
testimone a difesa di Milosevic, si rifiuta di comparire per non
legittimare la Corte.
3. Scambio di lettere tra l'"avvocato d'ufficio", Steven Kay, e Sara
Flounders, convocata come testimone a difesa
---( 1 )---
Macedonian Press Agency (Grecia)
20 Ottobre 2004
http://www.mpa.gr/article.html?doc_id=487986
Liana Kanelli, Deputata del Partito Comunista Greco, testimonia al
Processo Milosevic
L’Aia – Ieri, Liana Kanelli, Deputata Comunista al Parlamento Greco, ha
testimoniato al processo dell’ex Presidente della Yugoslavia Slobodan
Milosevic che si tiene presso il Tribunale Internazionale per i Crimini
di Guerra nella ex Yugoslavia, all’Aia.
La Signora Kanelli riferiva all’Agenzia di Stampa della Macedonia
(MPA), durante una comunicazione telefonica che, per la prima volta
dall’inizio del processo, l’attenzione della corte si era rivolta ai
bombardamenti della NATO sulla ex Yugoslavia, tramite le dichiarazioni
ufficiali di un testimone.
La Deputata al Parlamento Greco e membro del Comitato Internazionale
per la Difesa di Milosevic (ICDSM) ha testimoniato sul bombardamento
NATO della città di Alexinac, 30 Km a nord di Nis, avvenuto il 6 aprile
1999, che aveva prodotto molte morti di civili, sottolineando che nella
città non vi erano obiettivi militari, contrariamente a quello che
asserivano le forze degli Alleati per giustificare la loro azione.
A quel punto, ha riferito la Signora Kanelli, i giudici le hanno
mostrato una carta geografica e le hanno chiesto di indicar loro la
posizione di Alexinac. Allora la Kanelli ha fatto pervenire la carta a
Slobodan Milosevic, che ha reagito affermando che quella era una carta
incompleta della regione e ha richiesto alle autorità della corte di
procurare un’altra mappa della NATO sulla quale l’ex Presidente della
Yugoslavia ha indicato la città dove è stata scritta con i
bombardamenti NATO una delle pagine più nere della guerra contro la ex
Yugoslavia.
La Kanelli ha dichiarato che nell’udienza di ieri era stato presentato
alla corte per la prima volta un documento NATO, datato 14 aprile 1999,
dove veniva fatto chiaro riferimento alle vittime civili di Alexinac.
La NATO in buona sostanza ammetteva che erano stati colpiti obiettivi
civili.
Il Pubblico Accusatore, Jeffrey Nice, ammetteva che la NATO aveva
riferito sullo specifico incidente, che l’obiettivo del bombardamento
era una unità di artiglieria dell’esercito Serbo posizionata nella
città e puntualizzava che l’Alleanza aveva ammesso che alcuni edifici
erano stati colpiti per errore durante il raid.
La Kanelli mostrava tutto il suo stupore per come gli errori e il
genocidio della NATO venissero perdonati e aggiungeva che se Milosevic
avesse cooperato maggiormente con i leaders occidentali, ora non si
troverebbe dalla parte degli “sconfitti”, ma con i “vincitori”.
Rispondendo alla domanda su quale fosse la sua opinione nei riguardi
del Tribunale Internazionale per i Crimini di Guerra, la deputata al
Parlamento Greco si rivolgeva ai giudici definendoli “inquisitori del
21.esimo secolo a caccia di streghe”.
Secondo le agenzie di informazioni internazionali, quando le è stato
richiesto un giudizio sulla politica della NATO e degli Stati Uniti, la
Kanelli ha messo in rilievo che queste loro politiche sono neo-naziste
e tutti coloro che le contrastano difendono i diritti dei popoli, una
risposta che ha causato la reazione del Presidente, Giudice Patrick
Robinson.
Per la cronaca, la Signora Liana Kanelli è uno dei pochi testimoni che
ha accettato di testimoniare al processo Milosevic, dopo la nomina
dell’avvocato Inglese Stephen Kay come difensore d’ufficio dell’ex
Presidente Yugoslavo. La maggior parte dei testimoni a difesa si sono
rifiutati di deporre, affermando che la loro disponibilità a rispondere
alle domande era affidata solo a Milosevic, che ripetutamente esigeva
di avere la possibilità di difendersi da solo.
Associated Press – 19 ottobre 2004
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30224&style=headlines
Deputata Greca testimonia in favore di Milosevic
L’Aia – Oggi, un membro del Parlamento Greco ha ribadito al Tribunale
dell’Aia che le accuse di crimini di guerra nei confronti di Slobodan
Milosevic erano giustificate dall’ONU solo per ragioni politiche. Liana
Kaneli è membro del “Comitato Internazionale di Difesa di Slobodan
Milosevic," e aderisce come indipendente al Partito Comunista Greco; è
uno dei pochi testimoni che volontariamente vogliono deporre in favore
di Milosevic, dal momento che il Tribunale dell’ONU gli ha assegnato un
avvocato difensore contro la sua volontà espressa il mese scorso.
La maggior parte di coloro che sono stati messi in lista per deporre
durante la fase di difesa del processo hanno mandato disdetta, in modo
da esercitare pressioni sulla corte, che ritiri la sua decisione, o per
creare intoppi al procedimento.
Kaneli ha affermato che se Milosevic avesse cooperato maggiormente con
i leaders Occidentali “egli non si troverebbe qui con i vinti, egli
sarebbe con i vincitori, e nessuno avrebbe mai congegnato un tribunale
politico di tal fatta.”
Il Presidente Giudice Patrick Robinson definiva questa dichiarazione
“completamente fuori da ogni regola”.
L’avvocato difensore d’ufficio Steven Kay interrogava la Kaneli sulla
sua visita in Yugoslavia durante i bombardamenti della NATO del 1999,
che avevano costretto Milosevic a ritirare le sue truppe pronte ad un
giro di vite sull’etnia Albanese del Kosovo, provincia meridionale
della Serbia.
Milosevic aveva descritto la guerra del Kosovo come un’azione difensiva
contro il terrorismo.
Kaneli testimoniava che il bombardamento del 6 aprile 1999 guidato
dagli Stati Uniti sulla città di Aleksinac aveva ammazzato solo civili
Serbi e distrutto edifici pubblici:
"Nella città non vi era nulla che potesse essere individuato come
obiettivo militare.”
Il Rappresentante dell’Accusa Geoffrey Nice puntualizzava che invece
dislocato nella città vi era un reggimento di artiglieria, e che la
NATO era a conoscenza che due bombe uscite dal controllo avevano
colpito edifici civili durante l’attacco aereo.
"Perchè si devono sempre scusare gli errori della NATO, il genocidio
della NATO, e non quelli degli altri?" Kaneli replicava.
Milosevic aveva interrotto molte volte per fare commenti, e alla fine
raccomandava a Kay di non presentare le domande che voleva fare alla
Kaneli, declinando anche l’offerta che gli veniva fatta dai giudici di
proseguire lui stesso con le domande:
"Io non voglio entrare nel cuore della questione. Finché non verrà
ripristinato il mio diritto all’autodifesa, tutto questo resta una pura
e semplice farsa."
---( 2 )---
Beta (Serbia e Montenegro) – 19 ottobre 2004
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30220&style=headlines
Testimone a favore di Milosevic chiede protezione
Belgrado – Il Presidente dell’Associazione dei Famigliari dei Rapiti e
Scomparsi in Kosovo ha chiesto di essere protetto dal governo Serbo e
dalla polizia, dopo essere stato convocato dal Tribunale dell’Aia.
Simo Spasic, che è nella lista dei testimoni a difesa nel processo a
Slobodan Milosevic, ha affermato oggi di non avere alcuna intenzione a
deporre, anche se fosse trascinato a forza all’Aia: “In Tribunale me ne
starei muto, in quanto non voglio legittimare il difensore d’ufficio
Steven Kay e il Tribunale stesso, che non vuole sentire la verità sugli
eventi successi in Kosovo dall’arrivo della KFOR ad ora.”
L’avvocato Aleksandar Lazarevic ha riferito a B92 che, senza la
cooperazione completa di testimoni, era impossibile predisporre una
qualsiasi linea di difesa di qualità:
“Preparare i testimoni è uno dei più importanti aspetti di una linea di
difesa davanti al Tribunale dell’Aia. Se non si ha l’opportunità di
parlare direttamente con i testimoni, non è possibile essere pronti per
quello che si pensa possa o non possa accadere, e ci si trova in una
situazione veramente difficile.”
---( 3 )---
ICTY – Risposta di Sara Flounders alla lettera di Steven Kay: rifiuto a
testimoniare
http://www.iacenter.org/
20 Ottobre 2004
Steven Kay, QC
goodnightvienna@ btopenworld. com
Egregio Steven Kay,
La ringrazio per la sua risposta alla mia lettera di rifiuto a
testimoniare al processo del Presidente Milosevic, nelle attuali
condizioni poste dal Tribunale ICTY.
Io mi rendo conto, come lei mi ha spiegato, che l’udienza di appello
contro la decisione della Corte del Tribunale di assegnare un avvocato
di appoggio al Signor Milosevic è all’ordine del giorno per domani,
giovedì.
Nella sua lettera, lei passa in rassegna tutto quello che lei ha messo
in atto per ricorrere tecnicamente contro l’ordinanza che nega al
Presidente Milosevic il diritto all’autodifesa. Comunque, lei non può
omettere le proprie responsabilità nel continuare a rappresentare
qualcuno contro la sua volontà, avendo inoltre un ovvio conflitto di
interessi. Inoltre, lei sta trascurando la sua stessa capacità di
mettersi in azione per bloccare questa farsa legale.
Così affermavo nella mia lettera: “Lei non può essere costretto ad
accettare l’incarico come avvocato della difesa di Milosevic e contro
la volontà di questo. Oltre ad andare contro la volontà espressa dal
Presidente Milosevic, il suo patrocinio è in diretto conflitto di
interesse, visto che in precedenza lei ha svolto un ruolo di amico
della Corte - amicus curiae... lei è parte in causa del problema!
I diritti del Presidente Milosevic possono essergli restituiti del
tutto semplicemente e con immediatezza, se lei si rifiutasse di
continuare nel suo incarico. Rimanendo nella posizione come suo
difensore illegale, lei permette a questo processo di continuare. Più
tempo lei rimane, più la difesa non può avvenire. Se lei avesse un
qualche senso di decenza e di onore dovrebbe fermarsi immediatamente.”
Io la esorto di prendere la sola decisione etica e onorevole – rifiuti
di continuare nel suo incarico. La scelta è solo sua.
Sinceramente,
Sara Flounders
---
Gentila Signora Flounders,
Penso che lei sia interessata a conoscere che l’udienza di appello
contro la decisione della Camera Penale di assegnare di ufficio un
difensore al Signor Milosevic sia all’ordine del giorno di domani,
giovedì, 21 ottobre 2004, alle ore 9 del mattino.
Questo appello è stato voluto dal sottoscritto e dalla Signora Higgins
per ribaltare la decisione della Corte.
Se noi non avessimo fatto questi passi, non sarebbe stata possibile
alcuna discussione in favore di Milosevic. Se non ci si appella, non si
ha alcuna possibilità di cambiare la procedura. Fin dall’inizio del
processo, io ho sostenuto con coerenza il diritto di Milosevic ad
autodifendersi. Lei può avere riscontro di questo nelle trascrizioni
contenenti nello specifico i passaggi e i documenti, che sono pubblici
e oggetto di registrazione. Lei avrebbe dovuto prestare attenzione a
molte delle conferenze nelle quali, nel corso degli ultimi tre anni, mi
sono espresso in favore di questo diritto. In più, ugualmente lei
dovrebbe sapere che tutti gli argomenti sollevati da lei e da altri in
effetti sono un riciclaggio degli argomenti e dei termini da me usati
in prima battuta. Infatti io penso di avere messo in campo più di una
ragione! Certamente, lei dovrebbe sapere che il Signor Milosevic e i
suoi avvocati hanno apprezzato profondamente questo lavoro.
Allora, la prego, non mi offenda!
Inoltre, sono stato presso la Commissione sull’Etica Professionale del
Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Londra, che mi ha informato che
io non sono in contrasto con il Codice di comportamento professionale.
Siceramente, Steven Kay QC
---
19 Ottobre 2004
Egregio Signor Kay,
Ho ricevuto la sua lettera in data 5 ottobre 2004.
La mia decisione rispetto alla testimonianza che io avevo in progetto
di produrre davanti all’ICTY in favore dell’imputato Slobodan Milosevic
è invariata. Non mi è possibile partecipare al processo nelle
circostanze in cui il processo sta ora procedendo. E questo è vero
anche per la maggioranza dei testimoni che avevano acconsentito a
deporre in difesa del Presidente Milosevic. La decisione dell’ICTY
viola le norme fondamentali della legge e dell’etica. L’ICTY ha violato
le sue stesse regole. All’Articolo 21, paragrafo 4, dello Statuto
dell’ICTY, ad un imputato vengono assegnate “un minimo di garanzie”,
incluso il diritto “a difendersi da solo, di persona o assistito
legalmente secondo la sua scelta”.
Se tutte le testimonianze che il Presidente Milosevic aveva programmato
di produrre si fossero liberamente espresse, allora non ci sarebbero
stati dubbi sul suo proscioglimento e i veri colpevoli di quello che è
avvenuto con così tragica violenza sarebbero venuti alla luce in modo
palese.
I diritti del Presidente Milosevic sono stati usurpati, non solo dal
Tribunale, ma anche da lei stesso. Lei non era stato obbligato ad
accettare il ‘compito’ come suo difensore d’ufficio e contro la sua
volontà. Oltre a violare la volontà espressa dal Presidente Milosevic,
il suo patrocinio è in diretto conflitto di interesse, visto che in
precedenza lei ha svolto un ruolo di amico della Corte - amicus curiae.
Soprattutto questo è un conflitto di interesse, constatata l’ostilità
manifesta della Corte contro i diritti del Presidente Milosevic. La
sua condotta è in contrasto con il Codice di comportamento
professionale, come pure con lo Statuto del Tribunale, che prevede che
non è consentito patrocinare uno che non desidera essere patrocinato.
Lei è parte in causa del problema!
I diritti del Presidente Milosevic possono essergli restituiti del
tutto semplicemente e con immediatezza, se lei si rifiutasse di
continuare nel suo incarico. Rimanendo nella posizione come suo
difensore illegale, lei permette a questo processo di continuare. Più
tempo lei rimane, più la difesa non può avvenire. Se lei avesse un
qualche senso di decenza e di onore dovrebbe fermarsi immediatamente.
Sicuramente alcune parti della mia deposizione, se io avessi
un’opportunità di produrla, verrebbero considerate testimonianze di una
competente, alla luce delle informazioni di prima mano che ho acquisito
e analizzato durante le mie precedenti visite in Yugoslavia, e per i
miei libri e articoli che ho scritto. Quindi io sono una teste di
fatto. Mi trovavo in Serbia durante i bombardamenti USA/NATO e sono una
testimone diretta e personale. Inoltre è anche vero che mi sono
incontrata con il Presidente Milosevic nel giugno 2004, alla di lui
richiesta di discutere insieme l’importante testimonianza che io volevo
produrre. Io ho riesaminato la mia documentazione e le prove e sono del
tutto pronta a testimoniare a favore della difesa.
La prego di cercare nella sua documentazione la conferma di avere
ricevuto una mia lettera del 12 settembre 2004. Questa lettera, che io
ho scritto e firmato congiuntamente ad altri tre eventuali testimoni,
era inviata al Presidente Slobodan Milosevic e una copia all’Ufficio
Registro del Tribunale. In quella lettera affermavo la mia decisione di
non presentarmi come teste in questa evenienza, e fino a quando i
diritti del Presidente Milosevic di scegliersi e di condurre la sua
difesa venivano usurpati dalla Corte.
Non ho mutato la mia opinione a questo riguardo. Per le medesime
ragioni, allo stesso tempo rifiuto la sua offerta di discutere assieme
le modalità e i contenuti della mia testimonianza.
Io mi farò trovare pronta con una relazione da testimone con precisa
conoscenza dei fatti, assieme alla documentazione, sia scritta che su
video, che presenterò come parte della mia deposizione, nel caso in cui
al Signor Milosevic siano completamente restituiti i suoi diritti
all’autodifesa e l’azione difensiva possa riprendere in condizioni di
legalità.
Io reputo che la mia decisione serva meglio l’interesse della giustizia
e sia sostenuta dai principi delle norme democratiche. Come ho
affermato in precedenza, sono del tutto convinta che le accuse contro
il Presidente Milosevic siano false e che rappresentino la
continuazione della guerra degli USA e dei loro alleati NATO scatenata
contro la Yugoslavia e il popolo Serbo.
Io rimango sempre a disposizione e fortemente intenzionata a
presentarmi come teste nel caso in cui il Signor Milosevic veda
ripristinato il suo diritto a difendersi da solo e la sua volontà a
riguardo non sia abrogata da una qualsiasi arbitraria decisione della
Corte.
Procedere in altra maniera sarebbe immorale ed illegittimo.
Allego a questa lettera copia della mia precedente del 12 settembre
2004.
Sinceramente,
Sara Flounders
Copia conforme a: Evelyn Anoya, Pro Se Legal Liaison Officer, Officer
of the
Registry of ICTY, Fax #: 31 (0) 70 512 8637; Tel. #: 31 (0) 70 512
5661, e-mail: anoya.icty@ un.org
(fonte: International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@ action-mail.org
En Espanol: iac-cai@ action-mail.org
web: http://www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
To make a tax-deductible donation,
go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.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)
==========================
Data: Sab 30 Ott 2004 18:07:20 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @ yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Sulla testimonianza di Liana Kanelli, ed altri
documenti
Sulla testimonianza di Liana Kanelli, ed altri documenti
Traduzioni di Curzio Bettio di Soccorso Popolare di Padova
Altri dispacci ANSA, insieme alle versioni originali, in lingua
inglese, dei testi seguenti, sono da noi gia' stati fatti circolare -
vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/126
SEE THE ABOVE URL FOR THE ORIGINAL TEXTS, IN ENGLISH
1. Liana Kanelli, Deputata Comunista al Parlamento Greco, testimonia
(20/10/04)
2. Il Presidente dell’Associazione dei "desaparecidos" Serbi Kosovari,
testimone a difesa di Milosevic, si rifiuta di comparire per non
legittimare la Corte.
3. Scambio di lettere tra l'"avvocato d'ufficio", Steven Kay, e Sara
Flounders, convocata come testimone a difesa
---( 1 )---
Macedonian Press Agency (Grecia)
20 Ottobre 2004
http://www.mpa.gr/article.html?doc_id=487986
Liana Kanelli, Deputata del Partito Comunista Greco, testimonia al
Processo Milosevic
L’Aia – Ieri, Liana Kanelli, Deputata Comunista al Parlamento Greco, ha
testimoniato al processo dell’ex Presidente della Yugoslavia Slobodan
Milosevic che si tiene presso il Tribunale Internazionale per i Crimini
di Guerra nella ex Yugoslavia, all’Aia.
La Signora Kanelli riferiva all’Agenzia di Stampa della Macedonia
(MPA), durante una comunicazione telefonica che, per la prima volta
dall’inizio del processo, l’attenzione della corte si era rivolta ai
bombardamenti della NATO sulla ex Yugoslavia, tramite le dichiarazioni
ufficiali di un testimone.
La Deputata al Parlamento Greco e membro del Comitato Internazionale
per la Difesa di Milosevic (ICDSM) ha testimoniato sul bombardamento
NATO della città di Alexinac, 30 Km a nord di Nis, avvenuto il 6 aprile
1999, che aveva prodotto molte morti di civili, sottolineando che nella
città non vi erano obiettivi militari, contrariamente a quello che
asserivano le forze degli Alleati per giustificare la loro azione.
A quel punto, ha riferito la Signora Kanelli, i giudici le hanno
mostrato una carta geografica e le hanno chiesto di indicar loro la
posizione di Alexinac. Allora la Kanelli ha fatto pervenire la carta a
Slobodan Milosevic, che ha reagito affermando che quella era una carta
incompleta della regione e ha richiesto alle autorità della corte di
procurare un’altra mappa della NATO sulla quale l’ex Presidente della
Yugoslavia ha indicato la città dove è stata scritta con i
bombardamenti NATO una delle pagine più nere della guerra contro la ex
Yugoslavia.
La Kanelli ha dichiarato che nell’udienza di ieri era stato presentato
alla corte per la prima volta un documento NATO, datato 14 aprile 1999,
dove veniva fatto chiaro riferimento alle vittime civili di Alexinac.
La NATO in buona sostanza ammetteva che erano stati colpiti obiettivi
civili.
Il Pubblico Accusatore, Jeffrey Nice, ammetteva che la NATO aveva
riferito sullo specifico incidente, che l’obiettivo del bombardamento
era una unità di artiglieria dell’esercito Serbo posizionata nella
città e puntualizzava che l’Alleanza aveva ammesso che alcuni edifici
erano stati colpiti per errore durante il raid.
La Kanelli mostrava tutto il suo stupore per come gli errori e il
genocidio della NATO venissero perdonati e aggiungeva che se Milosevic
avesse cooperato maggiormente con i leaders occidentali, ora non si
troverebbe dalla parte degli “sconfitti”, ma con i “vincitori”.
Rispondendo alla domanda su quale fosse la sua opinione nei riguardi
del Tribunale Internazionale per i Crimini di Guerra, la deputata al
Parlamento Greco si rivolgeva ai giudici definendoli “inquisitori del
21.esimo secolo a caccia di streghe”.
Secondo le agenzie di informazioni internazionali, quando le è stato
richiesto un giudizio sulla politica della NATO e degli Stati Uniti, la
Kanelli ha messo in rilievo che queste loro politiche sono neo-naziste
e tutti coloro che le contrastano difendono i diritti dei popoli, una
risposta che ha causato la reazione del Presidente, Giudice Patrick
Robinson.
Per la cronaca, la Signora Liana Kanelli è uno dei pochi testimoni che
ha accettato di testimoniare al processo Milosevic, dopo la nomina
dell’avvocato Inglese Stephen Kay come difensore d’ufficio dell’ex
Presidente Yugoslavo. La maggior parte dei testimoni a difesa si sono
rifiutati di deporre, affermando che la loro disponibilità a rispondere
alle domande era affidata solo a Milosevic, che ripetutamente esigeva
di avere la possibilità di difendersi da solo.
Associated Press – 19 ottobre 2004
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30224&style=headlines
Deputata Greca testimonia in favore di Milosevic
L’Aia – Oggi, un membro del Parlamento Greco ha ribadito al Tribunale
dell’Aia che le accuse di crimini di guerra nei confronti di Slobodan
Milosevic erano giustificate dall’ONU solo per ragioni politiche. Liana
Kaneli è membro del “Comitato Internazionale di Difesa di Slobodan
Milosevic," e aderisce come indipendente al Partito Comunista Greco; è
uno dei pochi testimoni che volontariamente vogliono deporre in favore
di Milosevic, dal momento che il Tribunale dell’ONU gli ha assegnato un
avvocato difensore contro la sua volontà espressa il mese scorso.
La maggior parte di coloro che sono stati messi in lista per deporre
durante la fase di difesa del processo hanno mandato disdetta, in modo
da esercitare pressioni sulla corte, che ritiri la sua decisione, o per
creare intoppi al procedimento.
Kaneli ha affermato che se Milosevic avesse cooperato maggiormente con
i leaders Occidentali “egli non si troverebbe qui con i vinti, egli
sarebbe con i vincitori, e nessuno avrebbe mai congegnato un tribunale
politico di tal fatta.”
Il Presidente Giudice Patrick Robinson definiva questa dichiarazione
“completamente fuori da ogni regola”.
L’avvocato difensore d’ufficio Steven Kay interrogava la Kaneli sulla
sua visita in Yugoslavia durante i bombardamenti della NATO del 1999,
che avevano costretto Milosevic a ritirare le sue truppe pronte ad un
giro di vite sull’etnia Albanese del Kosovo, provincia meridionale
della Serbia.
Milosevic aveva descritto la guerra del Kosovo come un’azione difensiva
contro il terrorismo.
Kaneli testimoniava che il bombardamento del 6 aprile 1999 guidato
dagli Stati Uniti sulla città di Aleksinac aveva ammazzato solo civili
Serbi e distrutto edifici pubblici:
"Nella città non vi era nulla che potesse essere individuato come
obiettivo militare.”
Il Rappresentante dell’Accusa Geoffrey Nice puntualizzava che invece
dislocato nella città vi era un reggimento di artiglieria, e che la
NATO era a conoscenza che due bombe uscite dal controllo avevano
colpito edifici civili durante l’attacco aereo.
"Perchè si devono sempre scusare gli errori della NATO, il genocidio
della NATO, e non quelli degli altri?" Kaneli replicava.
Milosevic aveva interrotto molte volte per fare commenti, e alla fine
raccomandava a Kay di non presentare le domande che voleva fare alla
Kaneli, declinando anche l’offerta che gli veniva fatta dai giudici di
proseguire lui stesso con le domande:
"Io non voglio entrare nel cuore della questione. Finché non verrà
ripristinato il mio diritto all’autodifesa, tutto questo resta una pura
e semplice farsa."
---( 2 )---
Beta (Serbia e Montenegro) – 19 ottobre 2004
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30220&style=headlines
Testimone a favore di Milosevic chiede protezione
Belgrado – Il Presidente dell’Associazione dei Famigliari dei Rapiti e
Scomparsi in Kosovo ha chiesto di essere protetto dal governo Serbo e
dalla polizia, dopo essere stato convocato dal Tribunale dell’Aia.
Simo Spasic, che è nella lista dei testimoni a difesa nel processo a
Slobodan Milosevic, ha affermato oggi di non avere alcuna intenzione a
deporre, anche se fosse trascinato a forza all’Aia: “In Tribunale me ne
starei muto, in quanto non voglio legittimare il difensore d’ufficio
Steven Kay e il Tribunale stesso, che non vuole sentire la verità sugli
eventi successi in Kosovo dall’arrivo della KFOR ad ora.”
L’avvocato Aleksandar Lazarevic ha riferito a B92 che, senza la
cooperazione completa di testimoni, era impossibile predisporre una
qualsiasi linea di difesa di qualità:
“Preparare i testimoni è uno dei più importanti aspetti di una linea di
difesa davanti al Tribunale dell’Aia. Se non si ha l’opportunità di
parlare direttamente con i testimoni, non è possibile essere pronti per
quello che si pensa possa o non possa accadere, e ci si trova in una
situazione veramente difficile.”
---( 3 )---
ICTY – Risposta di Sara Flounders alla lettera di Steven Kay: rifiuto a
testimoniare
http://www.iacenter.org/
20 Ottobre 2004
Steven Kay, QC
goodnightvienna@ btopenworld. com
Egregio Steven Kay,
La ringrazio per la sua risposta alla mia lettera di rifiuto a
testimoniare al processo del Presidente Milosevic, nelle attuali
condizioni poste dal Tribunale ICTY.
Io mi rendo conto, come lei mi ha spiegato, che l’udienza di appello
contro la decisione della Corte del Tribunale di assegnare un avvocato
di appoggio al Signor Milosevic è all’ordine del giorno per domani,
giovedì.
Nella sua lettera, lei passa in rassegna tutto quello che lei ha messo
in atto per ricorrere tecnicamente contro l’ordinanza che nega al
Presidente Milosevic il diritto all’autodifesa. Comunque, lei non può
omettere le proprie responsabilità nel continuare a rappresentare
qualcuno contro la sua volontà, avendo inoltre un ovvio conflitto di
interessi. Inoltre, lei sta trascurando la sua stessa capacità di
mettersi in azione per bloccare questa farsa legale.
Così affermavo nella mia lettera: “Lei non può essere costretto ad
accettare l’incarico come avvocato della difesa di Milosevic e contro
la volontà di questo. Oltre ad andare contro la volontà espressa dal
Presidente Milosevic, il suo patrocinio è in diretto conflitto di
interesse, visto che in precedenza lei ha svolto un ruolo di amico
della Corte - amicus curiae... lei è parte in causa del problema!
I diritti del Presidente Milosevic possono essergli restituiti del
tutto semplicemente e con immediatezza, se lei si rifiutasse di
continuare nel suo incarico. Rimanendo nella posizione come suo
difensore illegale, lei permette a questo processo di continuare. Più
tempo lei rimane, più la difesa non può avvenire. Se lei avesse un
qualche senso di decenza e di onore dovrebbe fermarsi immediatamente.”
Io la esorto di prendere la sola decisione etica e onorevole – rifiuti
di continuare nel suo incarico. La scelta è solo sua.
Sinceramente,
Sara Flounders
---
Gentila Signora Flounders,
Penso che lei sia interessata a conoscere che l’udienza di appello
contro la decisione della Camera Penale di assegnare di ufficio un
difensore al Signor Milosevic sia all’ordine del giorno di domani,
giovedì, 21 ottobre 2004, alle ore 9 del mattino.
Questo appello è stato voluto dal sottoscritto e dalla Signora Higgins
per ribaltare la decisione della Corte.
Se noi non avessimo fatto questi passi, non sarebbe stata possibile
alcuna discussione in favore di Milosevic. Se non ci si appella, non si
ha alcuna possibilità di cambiare la procedura. Fin dall’inizio del
processo, io ho sostenuto con coerenza il diritto di Milosevic ad
autodifendersi. Lei può avere riscontro di questo nelle trascrizioni
contenenti nello specifico i passaggi e i documenti, che sono pubblici
e oggetto di registrazione. Lei avrebbe dovuto prestare attenzione a
molte delle conferenze nelle quali, nel corso degli ultimi tre anni, mi
sono espresso in favore di questo diritto. In più, ugualmente lei
dovrebbe sapere che tutti gli argomenti sollevati da lei e da altri in
effetti sono un riciclaggio degli argomenti e dei termini da me usati
in prima battuta. Infatti io penso di avere messo in campo più di una
ragione! Certamente, lei dovrebbe sapere che il Signor Milosevic e i
suoi avvocati hanno apprezzato profondamente questo lavoro.
Allora, la prego, non mi offenda!
Inoltre, sono stato presso la Commissione sull’Etica Professionale del
Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Londra, che mi ha informato che
io non sono in contrasto con il Codice di comportamento professionale.
Siceramente, Steven Kay QC
---
19 Ottobre 2004
Egregio Signor Kay,
Ho ricevuto la sua lettera in data 5 ottobre 2004.
La mia decisione rispetto alla testimonianza che io avevo in progetto
di produrre davanti all’ICTY in favore dell’imputato Slobodan Milosevic
è invariata. Non mi è possibile partecipare al processo nelle
circostanze in cui il processo sta ora procedendo. E questo è vero
anche per la maggioranza dei testimoni che avevano acconsentito a
deporre in difesa del Presidente Milosevic. La decisione dell’ICTY
viola le norme fondamentali della legge e dell’etica. L’ICTY ha violato
le sue stesse regole. All’Articolo 21, paragrafo 4, dello Statuto
dell’ICTY, ad un imputato vengono assegnate “un minimo di garanzie”,
incluso il diritto “a difendersi da solo, di persona o assistito
legalmente secondo la sua scelta”.
Se tutte le testimonianze che il Presidente Milosevic aveva programmato
di produrre si fossero liberamente espresse, allora non ci sarebbero
stati dubbi sul suo proscioglimento e i veri colpevoli di quello che è
avvenuto con così tragica violenza sarebbero venuti alla luce in modo
palese.
I diritti del Presidente Milosevic sono stati usurpati, non solo dal
Tribunale, ma anche da lei stesso. Lei non era stato obbligato ad
accettare il ‘compito’ come suo difensore d’ufficio e contro la sua
volontà. Oltre a violare la volontà espressa dal Presidente Milosevic,
il suo patrocinio è in diretto conflitto di interesse, visto che in
precedenza lei ha svolto un ruolo di amico della Corte - amicus curiae.
Soprattutto questo è un conflitto di interesse, constatata l’ostilità
manifesta della Corte contro i diritti del Presidente Milosevic. La
sua condotta è in contrasto con il Codice di comportamento
professionale, come pure con lo Statuto del Tribunale, che prevede che
non è consentito patrocinare uno che non desidera essere patrocinato.
Lei è parte in causa del problema!
I diritti del Presidente Milosevic possono essergli restituiti del
tutto semplicemente e con immediatezza, se lei si rifiutasse di
continuare nel suo incarico. Rimanendo nella posizione come suo
difensore illegale, lei permette a questo processo di continuare. Più
tempo lei rimane, più la difesa non può avvenire. Se lei avesse un
qualche senso di decenza e di onore dovrebbe fermarsi immediatamente.
Sicuramente alcune parti della mia deposizione, se io avessi
un’opportunità di produrla, verrebbero considerate testimonianze di una
competente, alla luce delle informazioni di prima mano che ho acquisito
e analizzato durante le mie precedenti visite in Yugoslavia, e per i
miei libri e articoli che ho scritto. Quindi io sono una teste di
fatto. Mi trovavo in Serbia durante i bombardamenti USA/NATO e sono una
testimone diretta e personale. Inoltre è anche vero che mi sono
incontrata con il Presidente Milosevic nel giugno 2004, alla di lui
richiesta di discutere insieme l’importante testimonianza che io volevo
produrre. Io ho riesaminato la mia documentazione e le prove e sono del
tutto pronta a testimoniare a favore della difesa.
La prego di cercare nella sua documentazione la conferma di avere
ricevuto una mia lettera del 12 settembre 2004. Questa lettera, che io
ho scritto e firmato congiuntamente ad altri tre eventuali testimoni,
era inviata al Presidente Slobodan Milosevic e una copia all’Ufficio
Registro del Tribunale. In quella lettera affermavo la mia decisione di
non presentarmi come teste in questa evenienza, e fino a quando i
diritti del Presidente Milosevic di scegliersi e di condurre la sua
difesa venivano usurpati dalla Corte.
Non ho mutato la mia opinione a questo riguardo. Per le medesime
ragioni, allo stesso tempo rifiuto la sua offerta di discutere assieme
le modalità e i contenuti della mia testimonianza.
Io mi farò trovare pronta con una relazione da testimone con precisa
conoscenza dei fatti, assieme alla documentazione, sia scritta che su
video, che presenterò come parte della mia deposizione, nel caso in cui
al Signor Milosevic siano completamente restituiti i suoi diritti
all’autodifesa e l’azione difensiva possa riprendere in condizioni di
legalità.
Io reputo che la mia decisione serva meglio l’interesse della giustizia
e sia sostenuta dai principi delle norme democratiche. Come ho
affermato in precedenza, sono del tutto convinta che le accuse contro
il Presidente Milosevic siano false e che rappresentino la
continuazione della guerra degli USA e dei loro alleati NATO scatenata
contro la Yugoslavia e il popolo Serbo.
Io rimango sempre a disposizione e fortemente intenzionata a
presentarmi come teste nel caso in cui il Signor Milosevic veda
ripristinato il suo diritto a difendersi da solo e la sua volontà a
riguardo non sia abrogata da una qualsiasi arbitraria decisione della
Corte.
Procedere in altra maniera sarebbe immorale ed illegittimo.
Allego a questa lettera copia della mia precedente del 12 settembre
2004.
Sinceramente,
Sara Flounders
Copia conforme a: Evelyn Anoya, Pro Se Legal Liaison Officer, Officer
of the
Registry of ICTY, Fax #: 31 (0) 70 512 8637; Tel. #: 31 (0) 70 512
5661, e-mail: anoya.icty@ un.org
(fonte: International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@ action-mail.org
En Espanol: iac-cai@ action-mail.org
web: http://www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
To make a tax-deductible donation,
go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.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)
==========================
LA AGGRESSIONE ALLA JUGOSLAVIA PERO' ANCORA CE LA DEVONO SPIEGARE
"... A sostenere che la guerra è stata fatta per portare in Iraq la
democrazia sono rimasti solo quelli che stanno sul libro paga della Cia
o del Mossad... Quando la guerra scoppiò (...) spiegavano che il
petrolio non c'entrava per niente, che gli Stati Uniti del petrolio
mediorientale non sapevano che farsene, che avevano riserve più
convenienti in Alaska, in Venezuela, in Niger, in Libia. Ora è
abbastanza chiaro che le cose non stanno esattamente così ..."
Giorgio Bocca sull'ultimo numero del "Venerdi" (inserto settimanale de
La Repubblica)
"... A sostenere che la guerra è stata fatta per portare in Iraq la
democrazia sono rimasti solo quelli che stanno sul libro paga della Cia
o del Mossad... Quando la guerra scoppiò (...) spiegavano che il
petrolio non c'entrava per niente, che gli Stati Uniti del petrolio
mediorientale non sapevano che farsene, che avevano riserve più
convenienti in Alaska, in Venezuela, in Niger, in Libia. Ora è
abbastanza chiaro che le cose non stanno esattamente così ..."
Giorgio Bocca sull'ultimo numero del "Venerdi" (inserto settimanale de
La Repubblica)
[ BELGRADO, NELL' OTTOBRE 1944, FU LIBERATA DAI COMUNISTI: e'
importante ricordarlo, vista l'ondata di revisionismo che insozza la
Serbia da qualche anno, e per contrastare gli ignobili tentativi di
equiparazione tra comunismo e nazifascismo ai quali sono usi anche gli
"intellettuali" italiani... ]
http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/okt2004/oktobar.html
Arhiva : : Oktobar 2004.
Beograd su oslobodili komunisti
Veliki jubilej, šezdesetogodišnjica oslobođenja Beograda od fašizma,
obeležena je veoma skromno i gotovo formalno od strane buržoaskih
struktura vlasti u našoj prestonici.
Kao što je poznato buržoaske strukture vlasti su ukinule 20.oktobar kao
Dan Beograda i ovaj datum se sada obeležava samo kao Dan oslobođenja
grada. Građanske partije i buržoaski glasnogovornici na ovim prostorima
su se podelili u dva tabora, kada je u pitanju ovaj značajan istorijski
datum koji će uvek zlatnim slovima biti zapisan u analima slobodarskih
težnji i oslobodilačke borbe naših naroda. Prvi, oni najreakcionarniji
ili ignorišu 20. oktobar ili otovreno propagiraju da je tog dana
Beograd, ne oslobođen, već okupiran od strane komunista. To je
najobičnija laž i propaganda i svaki antifašistički i patriotski
orijentisan Beograđanin zna da su tog dana partizanske jedinice i trupe
Crvene Armije oslobodile grad od okupatora. Ovakva nakaradna
razmišljanja, uglavnom šire pristalice poražene četničke i
monarhističke ideologije u Drugom svetskom ratu, koji na taj način
pokušavaju da prikriju činjenicu da je takozvana "Jugoslovenska vojska
u otadžbini" predvođena Dražom Mihajlovićem umesto da vodi
oslobodilačku borbe protiv okupatora, sarađivala sa nacistima u borbi
protiv partizanskog pokreta koji se bespoštedno borio protiv
zavojevača. Istu propagandu pokušavaju da sprovedu i pristalice
ljotićevsko-nedićevskog rezonovanja, a svima nam je dobro poznato da se
radi o strujama koje su bile otvoreno kvislinške i fašističke i koje su
besramno služile interesima nacističkih okupatora i radile protiv
interesa srpskog naroda čime su počinile neoprostivi čin izdaje.
Druga buržoaska struja podržava 20. oktobar kao dan oslobođenja od
fašizma ali pokušava da prikrije najvažniju činjenicu, a to je da su
Beograd oslobodili partizanski odredi i Crvena Armija i da je na čelu
Narodnooslobodilačkog pokreta stajala slavna Komunistička partija
Jugoslavije.
Zašto jedan deo buržoazije razmišlja na ovakav način, na koji je
delimično razmišljala i vlast do 5.oktobra? Pod brojem jedan, zbog toga
što treba sakriti činjenicu da su oslobodilačku borbu kako u Srbiji,
tako i u čitavoj okupiranoj Kraljevini Jugoslaviji poveli partizani
predvođeni komunistima. Pokušava se prikriti istorijska činjenica da su
jedini pravi patrioti, u toku Drugog svetskog rata, na ovim prostorima
bili komunisti koji su se stavili na čelo oslobodilačkog pokreta i
naroda koji nije želeo da se preda drskom i surovom nacističkom
okupatoru. Ovaj deo srpske buržoazije boli i činjenica da je u gotovo
svim zemljama Evrope postojao, pored komunističkog, i buržoaski pokret
otpora fašizmu, dok na našim prostorima to nije bio slučaj pošto su
oslobodilačku borbu predvodili komunisti a oko njih su bili okupljeni
svi iskreni i časni rodoljubi. Sa druge strane predstavnici buržoaskog
"pokreta otpora" su sarađivali sa okupatorom, čak sprovodili zajedničke
akcije sa nacistima, fašistima i ostalim đubretom protiv partizana i
pri tome su terorisali narod a neretko činili i stravične zločine.
Svojatanjem 20. oktobra i njegovim više nego formalnim obeležavanjem,
ovaj deo srpske buržoazije pokušava da sakrije takođe ono što je
opštepoznato, a to je da 20. oktobar nije bio samo oslobođenje Beograda
već i socijalistička revolucija posle koje je započela izgradnja boljeg
i pravednijeg socijalističkog društva u kome više nije bilo
eksploatacije radničke klase koja se bespoštedno sprovodila u
Kraljevini Jugoslaviji a sprovodi se i danas u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori, kao
i u svim državama nastalim posle raspada SFRJ. Srpska buržoazija,
svesno ili nesvesno, sasvim svejedno, zaboravlja činjenicu da su u
oslobođenju Beograda učestvovali pripadnici svih jugoslovenskih naroda
i nacionalnih manjina, koji su se drugarski, rame uz rame, borili za
bolju budućnost i ravnopravnu zajednicu jugoslovenskih naroda koja je i
stvorena 1945. godine a koju su na žalost, iskreno verujemo samo
privremeno, uništili zapadni imperijalisti i njihovi domaći pomagači.
Deo buržoazije koji obeležava 20. oktobar pokušava na taj način da
stekne i političke poene kod boraca-veterana iz NOR i njihovih
potomaka, ne bi li ih privukla na stranu kapitalističke ideologije.
Bilo kako bilo, iskreni antifašisti nikada neće zaboraviti istorijsku
činjenicu da su Beograd i našu zemlju oslobodili partizani predvođeni
komunistima uz nesebičnu bratsku pomoć Crvene Armije, vojske Prve
zemlje socijalizma, slavnog Saveza Sovjetskih Socijalističkih
Republika. Nikada neće, svi iskreni antifašisti i rodoljubi, zaboraviti
i to da je oslobobodilačka borba bila istovremeno i socijalistička
revolucija koja je uspešno trijumfovala i nakon koje je izgrađeno
pravednije drušvo i bolja budućnost.
Nikada ne smemo zaboraviti pale borce za oslobođenje Beograda i moramo
slediti njihov herojski primer kako se treba boriti protiv okupatora i
tiranije. Razlog više je taj što se fašizam u raznim svojim oblicima
povampirio i danas i pokušava da zatre sve što je progesivno i humano.
Međutim, fašizam je već jednom poražen, najviše zahvaljujući
komunistima i SSSR,a porazićemo ga opet na isti način na koji su to
uradili naši očevi i dedovi.
SLAVA PALIM OSLOBODIOCIMA BEOGRADA! VAŠ HEROJSKI ČIN NIKADA NEĆE BITI
ZABORAVLJEN!
Spartak
importante ricordarlo, vista l'ondata di revisionismo che insozza la
Serbia da qualche anno, e per contrastare gli ignobili tentativi di
equiparazione tra comunismo e nazifascismo ai quali sono usi anche gli
"intellettuali" italiani... ]
http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/okt2004/oktobar.html
Arhiva : : Oktobar 2004.
Beograd su oslobodili komunisti
Veliki jubilej, šezdesetogodišnjica oslobođenja Beograda od fašizma,
obeležena je veoma skromno i gotovo formalno od strane buržoaskih
struktura vlasti u našoj prestonici.
Kao što je poznato buržoaske strukture vlasti su ukinule 20.oktobar kao
Dan Beograda i ovaj datum se sada obeležava samo kao Dan oslobođenja
grada. Građanske partije i buržoaski glasnogovornici na ovim prostorima
su se podelili u dva tabora, kada je u pitanju ovaj značajan istorijski
datum koji će uvek zlatnim slovima biti zapisan u analima slobodarskih
težnji i oslobodilačke borbe naših naroda. Prvi, oni najreakcionarniji
ili ignorišu 20. oktobar ili otovreno propagiraju da je tog dana
Beograd, ne oslobođen, već okupiran od strane komunista. To je
najobičnija laž i propaganda i svaki antifašistički i patriotski
orijentisan Beograđanin zna da su tog dana partizanske jedinice i trupe
Crvene Armije oslobodile grad od okupatora. Ovakva nakaradna
razmišljanja, uglavnom šire pristalice poražene četničke i
monarhističke ideologije u Drugom svetskom ratu, koji na taj način
pokušavaju da prikriju činjenicu da je takozvana "Jugoslovenska vojska
u otadžbini" predvođena Dražom Mihajlovićem umesto da vodi
oslobodilačku borbe protiv okupatora, sarađivala sa nacistima u borbi
protiv partizanskog pokreta koji se bespoštedno borio protiv
zavojevača. Istu propagandu pokušavaju da sprovedu i pristalice
ljotićevsko-nedićevskog rezonovanja, a svima nam je dobro poznato da se
radi o strujama koje su bile otvoreno kvislinške i fašističke i koje su
besramno služile interesima nacističkih okupatora i radile protiv
interesa srpskog naroda čime su počinile neoprostivi čin izdaje.
Druga buržoaska struja podržava 20. oktobar kao dan oslobođenja od
fašizma ali pokušava da prikrije najvažniju činjenicu, a to je da su
Beograd oslobodili partizanski odredi i Crvena Armija i da je na čelu
Narodnooslobodilačkog pokreta stajala slavna Komunistička partija
Jugoslavije.
Zašto jedan deo buržoazije razmišlja na ovakav način, na koji je
delimično razmišljala i vlast do 5.oktobra? Pod brojem jedan, zbog toga
što treba sakriti činjenicu da su oslobodilačku borbu kako u Srbiji,
tako i u čitavoj okupiranoj Kraljevini Jugoslaviji poveli partizani
predvođeni komunistima. Pokušava se prikriti istorijska činjenica da su
jedini pravi patrioti, u toku Drugog svetskog rata, na ovim prostorima
bili komunisti koji su se stavili na čelo oslobodilačkog pokreta i
naroda koji nije želeo da se preda drskom i surovom nacističkom
okupatoru. Ovaj deo srpske buržoazije boli i činjenica da je u gotovo
svim zemljama Evrope postojao, pored komunističkog, i buržoaski pokret
otpora fašizmu, dok na našim prostorima to nije bio slučaj pošto su
oslobodilačku borbu predvodili komunisti a oko njih su bili okupljeni
svi iskreni i časni rodoljubi. Sa druge strane predstavnici buržoaskog
"pokreta otpora" su sarađivali sa okupatorom, čak sprovodili zajedničke
akcije sa nacistima, fašistima i ostalim đubretom protiv partizana i
pri tome su terorisali narod a neretko činili i stravične zločine.
Svojatanjem 20. oktobra i njegovim više nego formalnim obeležavanjem,
ovaj deo srpske buržoazije pokušava da sakrije takođe ono što je
opštepoznato, a to je da 20. oktobar nije bio samo oslobođenje Beograda
već i socijalistička revolucija posle koje je započela izgradnja boljeg
i pravednijeg socijalističkog društva u kome više nije bilo
eksploatacije radničke klase koja se bespoštedno sprovodila u
Kraljevini Jugoslaviji a sprovodi se i danas u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori, kao
i u svim državama nastalim posle raspada SFRJ. Srpska buržoazija,
svesno ili nesvesno, sasvim svejedno, zaboravlja činjenicu da su u
oslobođenju Beograda učestvovali pripadnici svih jugoslovenskih naroda
i nacionalnih manjina, koji su se drugarski, rame uz rame, borili za
bolju budućnost i ravnopravnu zajednicu jugoslovenskih naroda koja je i
stvorena 1945. godine a koju su na žalost, iskreno verujemo samo
privremeno, uništili zapadni imperijalisti i njihovi domaći pomagači.
Deo buržoazije koji obeležava 20. oktobar pokušava na taj način da
stekne i političke poene kod boraca-veterana iz NOR i njihovih
potomaka, ne bi li ih privukla na stranu kapitalističke ideologije.
Bilo kako bilo, iskreni antifašisti nikada neće zaboraviti istorijsku
činjenicu da su Beograd i našu zemlju oslobodili partizani predvođeni
komunistima uz nesebičnu bratsku pomoć Crvene Armije, vojske Prve
zemlje socijalizma, slavnog Saveza Sovjetskih Socijalističkih
Republika. Nikada neće, svi iskreni antifašisti i rodoljubi, zaboraviti
i to da je oslobobodilačka borba bila istovremeno i socijalistička
revolucija koja je uspešno trijumfovala i nakon koje je izgrađeno
pravednije drušvo i bolja budućnost.
Nikada ne smemo zaboraviti pale borce za oslobođenje Beograda i moramo
slediti njihov herojski primer kako se treba boriti protiv okupatora i
tiranije. Razlog više je taj što se fašizam u raznim svojim oblicima
povampirio i danas i pokušava da zatre sve što je progesivno i humano.
Međutim, fašizam je već jednom poražen, najviše zahvaljujući
komunistima i SSSR,a porazićemo ga opet na isti način na koji su to
uradili naši očevi i dedovi.
SLAVA PALIM OSLOBODIOCIMA BEOGRADA! VAŠ HEROJSKI ČIN NIKADA NEĆE BITI
ZABORAVLJEN!
Spartak
(english)
Kosovo and the Balkans as a US Presidential Election Issue (3)
1. DEFEATING "TERRORISM?" - Commentaries by R.K.Kent
2. Documentary reveals Albanian arms dealer donated cash to the Kerry
campaign (Scotland on Sunday, 24 Oct 2004)
See also:
Kosovo and the Balkans as a US Presidential Election Issue (1)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3917
Kosovo and the Balkans as a US Presidential Election Issue (2) -
INCLUDING MANY USEFUL HYPERLINKS
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3926
=== 1 ===
DEFEATING "TERRORISM?”
The Real Questions
R.K.Kent, Historian
(24-09-2004)
Throughout the debate on terrorism and how to prevent and arrest it,
two key questions have NOT been addressed adequately, if at all. .
First, “terrorism” has to be defined. In the second place, in order to
be convincing, it has to be clear that the American People oppose and
ARE prepared to oppose concretely terrorism everywhere , including the
U.S.’s .own, and not only against itself and its citizens abroad. This
is absolutely essential if the U.S. can develop and count on external
support it lacks at the present time.Without this external support,
even a Fortress America will not be able to defeat terrorism against
Americans at home and abroad.
Is there only one kind of terrorism? Decidedly not. There are, first,
individual acts,
carried out on ideological grounds, hate against ANY authority or
demands for ransom. There are,also, what one could call “private” acts
of terrorism. Usually, these involve a grouplet not connected with a
state or religion or etrhnicity. They are often directed at a specific
target -a corporation, research involving defensless animals, an
abortion clinic and so on. The next level involves what can be called
“stateless” terrorism. The most obvious _expression of this type is in
present-day Iraq. Here, we have an intersection of local nationalism
with pan-Arab and pan-Islamic dimensions. Finally, there is state
terrorism. It does not much matter if the comes from 35,000 feet above
the ground, or the ground itself or, yet, to shore-up some “moral”
principle, from naval off-shore craft.
Here comes the first question. Are we opposed to and willing to fight
against terrorism directed at all lawful governments and the citizens
of their particular states? Our own record here is far from being very
“clean.” Different U.S. Administrations have we trained the Contras in
Latin America , the Albanian UCK at Kosovo, the Afghans against the
Soviets, the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, the
Kurds against Iraq and Turkey, only to dump them afterwards. Why is it
that “humanitatrian” interventions abroad gratify the egos of so many
influential people at home but turn the local populations --even the
once openly pro-American-- into real and or alleged “ennemies.?” If the
pattern of supporting terrorists that fit our foreign policy
predilections does not visibly and clearly suffer defeat at home, we
simply cannot win the war against terrorism directed at American
targets.
The basic, very first step, is to forbid by law (with built-in heavy
penalties, including expulsion from Congress)) that our Solons may not
engage in support of this or that ethnicity abroad as a result of funds
donated to them by American-ethnic PACs. The harm abroad, generated by
one or more influential representatives in the Congress can be locally
catastrophic, setting the stage for endless future bloodshed. Perhaps
the most pointed example is the support of Robert Dole for Greater
Albania when he was one of the most powerful members of Congress as
well as Presidential Candidate.This kind of support has served to
destabilize Macedonia and threaten Greece, Serbia and Montenegro. Bob
Dole could not care less. The Macedonians, the Greeks, the Serbs and
the Montenegrins could not care more. The all-powerful Albanian clans
cannot stop demanding “minority rights” outside Kosovo and “majority
rights” at Kosovo. They have been astute in securing repeatedly the
support of the current world power, as they did in the case of Nazi
Germany and Fascist Italy in the 1940’s. The antecedent of the KLA
(Kosovo Liberation Army or UCK) is the S.S. Skenderbeg Division which
“cleansed” Kosovo ethnically through massive killings and generalized
terror against the once-dominant Serb majority at Kosovo. This has
continued since Kosovo went under U.N. and occupation by NATO troops.
While Americans of Serb origins won eight Congressional Medals of Honor
in two World Wars, they were no match for the Americans of Albanian
provenance in securing any Congressional support. The Albanian-American
PACs have donated large amounts of money to carefully selected Solons
in Washington. The steady support for Greater Albania came into force
and it is still extant. It is not a great secret where the money came
from. Albanian-Americans once dominated the drug-traffic in New York
and New Jersey, until the Mafia struck back. This is an example which
illustrates the volatile consequences of “purchasing” our Solons by the
PACs of a single ethnic group at home. This example can be multiplied
easily. but it serves to make the point.There was a chance of arriving
at an Albanian-Serb modus vivendi at Kosovo. The vast majority of
ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs cannot be defned by their own extreme
elements. Bob Dole killed that chance before it was born. He did
receive a handful of ducats.
The next step involves the willingness to admit to ourselves that
bombing foreign civilians from 35,000 feet above the ground, for
whatever reason or reasons, is an act of State terrorism. In recent
times, the driving intent, stripped of all the cosmetics, has been to
force local populations to replace, by any means, their own governments
in power. It has been given the deflecting term of “collateral damage.”
“We bombed their military but ‘collateral damage’ is “inevitable.” “War
is Hell.” End of debate. Not long ago, in a CBS interview with Dan
Rather, General Wesley Clark intimated that the Serbs should actually
be grateful for being bombed by NATO (under U.S. command and control).
This kind of “teflonism,” to coin a term, is powerfully responsible for
gradual, increasing and more intense dislike abroad of the United
States and, by extension, “the Americans” in general. It will not allow
us to “win the war” against terrorism. To take another page from Balkan
History, during the four centuries of Ottoman occupation the Slav
resistance fighters were called “Hajduks.” They could neither exist nor
fight the Mighty Porte at Istambul without the “jataci” This is the
name given to supporters of “Hajduks” within virtually the entire
occupied population. The anti-American “jataci” will forever harbor and
sustain their “hajduks” against the Mighty Power at Washington unless
we can grasp that our own violence abroad cannot win us the “jataci.”
It does not much matter locally on what “moral” grounds (or in the name
of not very visible “self-defense”) the populations in situ are bombed
from the air or through direct or surrogate ground “interventions.”
The U.S. must not be the sole selector of terrorists who need to be
renderend impotent in one way or another. It should not, equally,
transform “approved” terrorists into “freedom fighters.” There are no
“Virtous Wars.” There has to be an International Anti-Terrorist
Tribunal which takes into account the vaieties of terrorism with the
main focus on state and stateless varieties. Our objections to such a
Tribunal could easily be accomodated by allowing the Tribunal to bring
charges against U.S. citizens into courts within the U.S. It should
follow the same formula for citizens of all other states. The Trbunal
would be mainly an investigative and advisory body not the judge and
the jury serving an ideology or a contemporary super-power.
Last but perhaps the hardest to grasp “at the end of the day,”
indigenous “strong men” are preferable to foreign occupations no matter
under what name they are implemented. Democracy does not come in a
single form. It is not attained in a couiple of years. It has many
variants which allow local populations to “get” to their leaders
without internal anti-government violence.Democracy (rule by demos or
people, in Greek) is, to parphrase Winston Churchill, “the worst form
of government but we have been unable to find anything better.” There
has to come a time when lecturing other countries and populations on
how they should manage their own households will stop in our media and
Government. We do not have a mandate from God to remake the globe in
our particular image. It is also high time to avoid making ennemies
where there are none. It is even more pressing to avoid the
glorification of war itself. At best, it is an obvious necesity for
self-defense. Nothing more.
With the will to address the key questions and problems all of the
foregoing constitutes merely the beginning of the end of stateless and
state terrorism. To beat the anti-American terrorists it will be a
basic necessity to win the hearts and minds of their“jataci.” Military
actions, economic sancations that actually punish a people and not
their elites and “superior” lectures will just not do. We need to
rediscover ourselves through introspection in order to be credible. It
is a huge task against all sorts of special interests out to preserve
and perpatuate the Imperium. Yet, no other nation has had a greater
capacity for change.
The ability to change is, in fact, a defining trait of our American
Culture
Raymond K. Kent, Emeritus
History Department,
University of California at Berkeley
---
TO BE OR NOT TO BE,
THEN AND NOW AND
TOMORROW.
R. K. Kent, Historian
“Let not the waves of the sea separate us now...love
knows not its own depth until the hour of
separation.’ (Khalil Gibran in ‘The Prophet,’ p.9,
1946 Ed., Knopf, N.Y.)
Someone who declaired that this writer was not specifically targeted
despite ample proof to the contrary, forwarded a text to him. It is
entitled “Countdown to Election Day - Muslim Group Endorses Kerry.
Cites civil-liberties restrictions, harsh foreign policies.” It
appeared in WorldNetDaily, 5 October 2004. The intent behind the
targeting was to perform a sort of political lobotomy. Its surgical
mission was to implant a microchip into the recipient’s brain with the
following program based on reasoning by analogy. Any Presidential
Candidate for election who is favored by the voting American citizens
of Muslim faith does not deserve to be elected. The cerebral clincher
was rooted in a simple concept, already in wide dissemination, namely
that our fellow-Americans of Muslim faith cannot be at all trusted
because they are “in reality” against “us.” Perhaps an individual
example of this mentaity in action drives home the point in a poignant
way.
A Muslim scholar who is a Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Tariq
Ramadan, had been invited by Notre Dame University to take up residence
as a Chair-Endowed, distinguished Professor of Religion. Two months
later, on his way to the U.S. our Consul in Switzerland informed
Professor Ramadan that his visa had been revoked “by Washington.” So
far, no one has been able to find out exactly why. Professor Ramadan
happens to be Europe’s “best known Muslim intellectual” as is pointed
out in a leading New York Times article (Deborah Sontag, NYT, 6
Octobwer 2004). More than that he has been urging Europe’s Muslims to
take part in the denmocratic process through self-empowrement. He has
been listened to as many European Muslims of some standing have
repudiated terrorism and its hijacked links with Islam. Moreover,
before his scheduled departure to the U.S. a “security review” had
given him clearance to assume the appointment. The pluses of this ban
are hard to imagine and the minuses are numerous.
It is an absolute necessity to inform the readers of the present text
that “reasoning by analogy” died with the European Renaissance,
centuries ago. It was replaced by science. Yet, it is still popular
with the current Administration (“Sadam did it before he will do it
again”) as it was with Mr. Clinton’s own, “the enemy of my enemy is my
friend,” invented ennemies and invented friends not withstanding , all
neatly wrapped -up in moral imperatives leading to war, to the killing
of civilians, destroying their economy and pushing a specific people
back into the Nineteenth Century. Why? Because their leaders,
once deemed useful, had the nerve to disobey the White House. Now. back
to the subject at hand.
Where exactly are we, the people, being led by those who are repeatedly
fanning fires against Muslims? Without a perpetual war against an
amorphous ennemy, defined mainly by religion, what Dwight Eisenhower
called the “Military-Industrial Complex” would suffer a drastic
reduction in all sorts of finances and power to influence decisively
both domestic and foreign policies. Seventy-eight days of a bombing
mission in the Balkans in 1999 depleted severely all the hardware
dropped down from the skies. The re-ordering profits must have been
huge (no exact figure is available) for certain corporations and their
shareholders. A victory was proclaimed and it is repeated constantly.
Yet, it is precisely our intervention in the Balkans that started the
radical transformation which is hardly of any advantage to the American
People. To put it succinctly, we replaced the imploded Soviet Union as
the “Evil Empire” through an unambigous message that our “Might” is
“always Right.” Not Islam, but our own arrogant and pontificating
behavior abroad, has been our most fundamentalist ennemy.
“Fundamentalist” because there has been no fundamental change.. In the
immortal words of Lee Hamilton, after the 911 Report, “we (just) did
not get it.”
Our war-time governments seem to invariably relish the practice of
performing political lobotomies on the home public’s crania. They are
at it again today with a new war on hand. But, there are two
differences. Our two oceans offer no further protection. They may even
be the duct for future clamities at home. In the previous war “against
the Serbs,” it was “explained” repeatedly as a moral imperative to
protect “human rights.”Yet, a host of contradictions revealed a
different agenda. At the time, our media became both frenzied and
ecstatic in waves of a hate-mongering campaign , focusing its venom on
a specific people, a relentless target. Hundreds of letters and dozens
of scientific, well-documented refutations of the viscious propaganda
were simply tossed into the garbage cans of the Editorial Office. The
media today, however, is not “homogenous” and some of its important
segments are not willing to be the tools of Government.
This was not the situation when the first attack on the World Trade
Center took place in 1993, from the ground up. Immediately, the
satanized Balkan ethnicity came to be blamed without any proof. There
were several dozens of reports about mistreatment by fellow-Americans
of this particular European ethnicity. Some individuals were isolated
by co-workers. Some were fired. Some could not get a job. Some were
verbally abused. Some received telephone threats. Some began to be
shadowed. The bill of particulars hardly ends with the highlights.Some
rather fast work by the FBI, which had as yet not been politicized,
discovered that foreigners of Muslim faith carried out the attack on
the WTC. It took, however, many years to remove this particular stigma,
attached to the citizens of the “wrong” ethnicity. There was even a
movie in which a“co-ethnic” from abroad carried a minitaure atom bomb
into New York City and was thwarted in the last minute by two FBI
agents.
Yet, the mistreastment of fellow-Americans merely under suspicion of
wishing (or potentially) working for some external ennemy is not just
an aberration, without precedent in modern history. . By now, it is
widely known what was done to the Japanese-Americans (both native-born
here and naturalized) after Pearl Harbor, a galvanizing event just like
the second attack on the WTC and the first on Pentagon. It has taken
half a century to admit the wrong and openly regret the detention camps
and the dispossesion of private properties. During the same period, as
we went to war in Asia and in Europe, similar suspicion came into view
involving some Italian-Americans and German-Americans but without
equallty harsh consequences. Then, in the 1990’s, came the turn for
“the Serbs,” a manufactured new “enemy.” As a by-product of modern
communication technology Western media in general satanized this
invented “enemy” to a degree that surpasses by far earlier examples of
this type. The “virtuous war” against “the Serbs” is over. It has cost
them heavily, the stigma still lingers but “Amerika” replaced America
with most of its respect and its credibility on the downslide.
Thereafter, came “the Arabs” and now it is all “Muslims.” As Phillip
Roth has more than sugested in his political novel, “The Plot Against
America,” tomorrow it could well be “the Jews.” But why stop there? One
can go further, with Chinese-Americans “working for China,” American
Latinos working to “annex “ Texas and/or Califiornia to Mexico, the
road into self-Balkanization is almost endless.The irony of the term
resides in the fact that the standard definition of “Balknization”
involves interference by foreign powers with the aim of promoting and
exacerbatiing local “tribal” conflicts in order to split a nation such
as Yugoslavia once was, having emerged after centuries under two
foreign Empires, Austrian and Ottoman. We are doing it to ourselves
just as the American People are increasingly incorporting new and
rapily growing ethnicities from abroad. Most of the new arrivals --and
that includes Americans of Muslim faith-- came here to improve their
lives, not to blow-up American cities.
None can deny that the main terrorism today against us at home and
abroad has its roots in the Middle East, involving many complex local
and international factors which have been and are widely discussed,
from almost any angle. Proportionally, the French have a greater Muslim
population than we do. Most are naturalized or born citizens of France.
Some of the French do resent them but find little real support among
the French People as a whole. They are tolerant of their Muslims.
France has impressed this human capital into the service of moderation
at home, despite attempts by the so-called “jihadists” to radicalize
the French Muslims. The only acts of serious and violent terrorism in
France involves some Basque separatists who have nothing to do with
Islam. They arer seeking independence for the Basques (rom both France
and Spain) but, again, the vast majority of French Basques do not
support them.
Is it not possible to envisage the beginning of deconstruction of
terrorism against us beyond only the clandestine and/or open military
and para-military actions abroad, above and beyond imposing an
unpleasant, fearful existance on our Muslims? The movie “Siege” makes a
powerful statement in respect to the mistreatment .Tariq Ramadan has
managed to create a link between Democracy and Islam through
participation in the political process. More than that, he has grasped
what our mentality has not. In order to defeat terrorism connected with
Islam it is necessary to convince the vast Muslim majorities to deny
any acceptance of the “jihadists,” anywhere. We will not even give a
chance to this difficult task by turning against our Muslims and by
continuing our arrogance abroad, military or otherwise. There has to be
a will to alter the mentality itself and no one can do it for us.
Badly advised at home, President Clinton took the Muslim side in a
Yugoslavia that he had helped to “Balkanize” in the hope that this
would have a beneficial influence on the Middle Eastern peace process.
He even imposed in Bosnia a Muslim-controlled state that never existed.
Yet, this did not at all affect the developments in the Middle East. It
created a problem precisely where three religions and
religiously-defined ethnic groups managed to live together and
intermarry. He allowd the introduction of Iranian arms and externl but
very militant Muslim elements. Just recently and by chance it has been
discovered that Bin Laden had been there and still has connections. The
time has long past when major decisions can be made on th bassis of
reasoning-by -analogy. We need to know what we are doing at the
grass-roots level because foreign policy is now crucial to our own
survival Defining American Muslims by a few extreme elements among them
is the worst mistake we could make. An option is clearly at hand.
Our Muslims can sustain a dialogue and can have an influnce on the
separation of Islam from terrorism, thus delegitimizing it gradually at
the source. Senator Kerry seems to understand that the threat to their
civil liberties must be deconstructed before they too can defend all of
us and our foreign policy must indeed be less solipsistic and“:harsh”
in a sustained, convincing fashion. Otherwise, it will be next to
impossible to replace a perceived need for terrorism with votes. When
it comes to civil liberties, which define America and which make the
nation strong in an inner sense, the incumbent President seems unable
to find any serious attacks on them. Yet, larger and smaller instances
to the contrary are multiplying. We are losing, by inches, the greatest
co-habitational and still free space on Planet Earth. The phenomenon
(and noumenon) called the “American Innocence”had closed our minds to a
striking reality. While the rest of the World started to dislike us and
some of it mutated into hate, we could not arrest the
self-congratulations for being so involved in our marvelous behavior
abroad in defense of “Human Rights.” We just “did not get it.” Will we?
Can we?
Raymond K.Kent (Emeritus)
History Department, U. of California at Berkeley
(510/642-1971)
8 October 2004
---
FOURTH OPEN LETTER
TO SENATOR KERRY
R.K.Kent, Historian
Dear Senator Kerry,
A few minutes ago I heard you ask us, the American People, to trust
you. This trust is to encompass both domestic and foreign policies.
On the domestic side I have few bones to grind. The middle class is
squeezed in favor of the waelthy.Out-sourcing is severely taxing the
lives of our workers and their families.Health protections are
extremely uneven and hence un-American in texture.Education and
“re-tooling” is the key to American prosperity in the Twenty-first
Century. You made no substantive reference to our civil libarties and
rights, however. Our FBI, once a protector of our civil liberties,
became a political police during the Clinton Administration. It is
increasingly expanding in this direction for an ostensibly higher goal,
namely to prevent terrorist attacks against us at home. This can be
“fixed,” as you like to say, by such measures as a directive not to go
around checking what kind of books we take out of libraries, a
disgusting prelude to worse. The problem you will encounter and cave
under is in the area of foreign policy.
No matter what you SAY you are surrounded by the same foreign-policy
truth-benders and manipulators that prevailed in the Administration of
Bill Clinton. I know them minutely and well through their words and
deeds in the Balkans. It is precisely our entry into the Balkans, as a
result of their would-be “Moral Imperatives” to get involved and their
glaring arrogance, that we began to be disliked and, increasingly,
hated around the globe. All of them have spread around the same
message” “our Might makes us invariably Right.” Remember Nazi Germany?
Yet, they are wrapping themselves around you like a boa constrictor and
you seem to WELCOME them.
The more prominent among the ilk, hell-bent on demanding unquestioned
obedience to our power abroad, are Richard H., Madeleine A., Wesley C.,
Madeleine’s Rubin but there are a number of others less well known to
our public at large that belong to the same opinionated, arrogant lot
that we simply MUST eliminate from foreign policy altogether if we ever
can hope to torpedo terrorism coming from abroad. The time has past
when the old “pommade” of morality and “human” rights used to befuddle
through bafflegab, engineered mayhem , would-be “mass graves” and the
viscious, venomous media destructions of individuals and groups deemed
basically “disobedient” vis-a-vis the center of Universe, Washington,
D.C.
In short, if you really hope to be able to change our current image
abroad, you MUST not give foreign-policy positions to any one with the
previous “Balkan” record, to mention only the area I am familiar with.
We must not yield to calls for being “:smart.” We can only be stupid by
thinking that we are smart enough to outsmart everyone abroad (and at
home). This is the main reason why we have lost credibility abroad and
why so many of our own people question increasingly the foreign
policies which make us the target of hate and vengeance. If we are to
get more of the same I hope that you will not win. It is better to have
a President who apears to be “underdevloped” abroad than to have a
President who is so “smart” as to secretly assume that the universal
truth, stated by Abraham Lincoln about fooling people, is bunk.
Respectfully.
Raymond K. Kent
(Emeritus)
History Department,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA. 94720
(510/642-1971)
14.10.2004
=== 2 ===
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1244732004
Scotland on Sunday - International
Documentary reveals Albanian arms
dealer donated cash to the Kerry campaign
Sun 24 Oct 2004
FRASER NELSON
IN NEW YORK
JOHN Kerry has acquired a financial backer likely to provide him with
more problems than support in his battle for the White House: the
Kosovo Liberation Army.
A documentary produced by a Dutch television crew alleges Florin
Krasniqi, an Albanian arms dealer, is buying weapons in the US and
sending them to Kosovo - while perfecting contacts with the Democratic
Party in the United States.
Mr Krasniqi is filmed at a Kerry fundraising event handing over a
cheque, then chatting and joking with senior Democrats including Wesley
Clark, the former NATO commander and Richard Holbrooke, Mr Kerry's
senior foreign policy adviser.
The documentary, broadcast last month in The Netherlands and seen by
The Scotsman, follows Mr Krasniqi from his home in Brooklyn in New York
to his Albanian base where he distributes arms to mercenaries on the
Kosovo border.
Showing remarkable candour, Mr Krasniqi says the KLA has "unfinished
business" with the Serbs and predicts that war will break out again in
"about a year and a half" if the UN does grant Kosovo independence from
Serbia and Montenegro.
The Kerry fundraising event is shown making a direct pitch for Albanian
money. Mr Holbrooke warns in a speech that Mr Bush is planning to pull
troops out of Kosovo - the implication being the Serbs would be
unconstrained.
John Belushi, the Albanian-American actor, then appears in a video
soliciting donations. "If you care about the fate of Albanians in the
Balkans, I hope you'll do anything to can to make sure John Kerry is
elected as our next President," he says.
The documentary goes on to show Mr Krasniqi buying guns from a dealer
in St Mary's, Pennsylvania.
With frankness bordering on the brazen, he explains to the film crew
how easy it is to smuggle arms. "We had set up a hunting club in
Albania," he says - and simply tell anyone who asks they are planning
an excursion to Tasmania.
He admits being "caught twice" - by Italian and Swiss authorities - but
allowed to proceed after saying the Albanian hunting club was preparing
for an expedition to hunt elephants in Tasmania. Other arms are
smuggled under humanitarian aid, he says.
While there is no suggestion that Mr Kerry had knowledge about the
funds being donated by Mr Krasniqi, the video will be deeply
embarrassing for the Massachusetts senator as he combats accusations of
being soft on terror.
Mr Krasniqi is named in the Federal Election Commission returns as a
registered donor to the Kerry campaign at his Brooklyn address. The sum
is dollars 1,000. The Kerry-Edwards campaign was asked to comment, but
did not return calls to The Scotsman yesterday.
Kosovo and the Balkans as a US Presidential Election Issue (3)
1. DEFEATING "TERRORISM?" - Commentaries by R.K.Kent
2. Documentary reveals Albanian arms dealer donated cash to the Kerry
campaign (Scotland on Sunday, 24 Oct 2004)
See also:
Kosovo and the Balkans as a US Presidential Election Issue (1)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3917
Kosovo and the Balkans as a US Presidential Election Issue (2) -
INCLUDING MANY USEFUL HYPERLINKS
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3926
=== 1 ===
DEFEATING "TERRORISM?”
The Real Questions
R.K.Kent, Historian
(24-09-2004)
Throughout the debate on terrorism and how to prevent and arrest it,
two key questions have NOT been addressed adequately, if at all. .
First, “terrorism” has to be defined. In the second place, in order to
be convincing, it has to be clear that the American People oppose and
ARE prepared to oppose concretely terrorism everywhere , including the
U.S.’s .own, and not only against itself and its citizens abroad. This
is absolutely essential if the U.S. can develop and count on external
support it lacks at the present time.Without this external support,
even a Fortress America will not be able to defeat terrorism against
Americans at home and abroad.
Is there only one kind of terrorism? Decidedly not. There are, first,
individual acts,
carried out on ideological grounds, hate against ANY authority or
demands for ransom. There are,also, what one could call “private” acts
of terrorism. Usually, these involve a grouplet not connected with a
state or religion or etrhnicity. They are often directed at a specific
target -a corporation, research involving defensless animals, an
abortion clinic and so on. The next level involves what can be called
“stateless” terrorism. The most obvious _expression of this type is in
present-day Iraq. Here, we have an intersection of local nationalism
with pan-Arab and pan-Islamic dimensions. Finally, there is state
terrorism. It does not much matter if the comes from 35,000 feet above
the ground, or the ground itself or, yet, to shore-up some “moral”
principle, from naval off-shore craft.
Here comes the first question. Are we opposed to and willing to fight
against terrorism directed at all lawful governments and the citizens
of their particular states? Our own record here is far from being very
“clean.” Different U.S. Administrations have we trained the Contras in
Latin America , the Albanian UCK at Kosovo, the Afghans against the
Soviets, the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, the
Kurds against Iraq and Turkey, only to dump them afterwards. Why is it
that “humanitatrian” interventions abroad gratify the egos of so many
influential people at home but turn the local populations --even the
once openly pro-American-- into real and or alleged “ennemies.?” If the
pattern of supporting terrorists that fit our foreign policy
predilections does not visibly and clearly suffer defeat at home, we
simply cannot win the war against terrorism directed at American
targets.
The basic, very first step, is to forbid by law (with built-in heavy
penalties, including expulsion from Congress)) that our Solons may not
engage in support of this or that ethnicity abroad as a result of funds
donated to them by American-ethnic PACs. The harm abroad, generated by
one or more influential representatives in the Congress can be locally
catastrophic, setting the stage for endless future bloodshed. Perhaps
the most pointed example is the support of Robert Dole for Greater
Albania when he was one of the most powerful members of Congress as
well as Presidential Candidate.This kind of support has served to
destabilize Macedonia and threaten Greece, Serbia and Montenegro. Bob
Dole could not care less. The Macedonians, the Greeks, the Serbs and
the Montenegrins could not care more. The all-powerful Albanian clans
cannot stop demanding “minority rights” outside Kosovo and “majority
rights” at Kosovo. They have been astute in securing repeatedly the
support of the current world power, as they did in the case of Nazi
Germany and Fascist Italy in the 1940’s. The antecedent of the KLA
(Kosovo Liberation Army or UCK) is the S.S. Skenderbeg Division which
“cleansed” Kosovo ethnically through massive killings and generalized
terror against the once-dominant Serb majority at Kosovo. This has
continued since Kosovo went under U.N. and occupation by NATO troops.
While Americans of Serb origins won eight Congressional Medals of Honor
in two World Wars, they were no match for the Americans of Albanian
provenance in securing any Congressional support. The Albanian-American
PACs have donated large amounts of money to carefully selected Solons
in Washington. The steady support for Greater Albania came into force
and it is still extant. It is not a great secret where the money came
from. Albanian-Americans once dominated the drug-traffic in New York
and New Jersey, until the Mafia struck back. This is an example which
illustrates the volatile consequences of “purchasing” our Solons by the
PACs of a single ethnic group at home. This example can be multiplied
easily. but it serves to make the point.There was a chance of arriving
at an Albanian-Serb modus vivendi at Kosovo. The vast majority of
ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs cannot be defned by their own extreme
elements. Bob Dole killed that chance before it was born. He did
receive a handful of ducats.
The next step involves the willingness to admit to ourselves that
bombing foreign civilians from 35,000 feet above the ground, for
whatever reason or reasons, is an act of State terrorism. In recent
times, the driving intent, stripped of all the cosmetics, has been to
force local populations to replace, by any means, their own governments
in power. It has been given the deflecting term of “collateral damage.”
“We bombed their military but ‘collateral damage’ is “inevitable.” “War
is Hell.” End of debate. Not long ago, in a CBS interview with Dan
Rather, General Wesley Clark intimated that the Serbs should actually
be grateful for being bombed by NATO (under U.S. command and control).
This kind of “teflonism,” to coin a term, is powerfully responsible for
gradual, increasing and more intense dislike abroad of the United
States and, by extension, “the Americans” in general. It will not allow
us to “win the war” against terrorism. To take another page from Balkan
History, during the four centuries of Ottoman occupation the Slav
resistance fighters were called “Hajduks.” They could neither exist nor
fight the Mighty Porte at Istambul without the “jataci” This is the
name given to supporters of “Hajduks” within virtually the entire
occupied population. The anti-American “jataci” will forever harbor and
sustain their “hajduks” against the Mighty Power at Washington unless
we can grasp that our own violence abroad cannot win us the “jataci.”
It does not much matter locally on what “moral” grounds (or in the name
of not very visible “self-defense”) the populations in situ are bombed
from the air or through direct or surrogate ground “interventions.”
The U.S. must not be the sole selector of terrorists who need to be
renderend impotent in one way or another. It should not, equally,
transform “approved” terrorists into “freedom fighters.” There are no
“Virtous Wars.” There has to be an International Anti-Terrorist
Tribunal which takes into account the vaieties of terrorism with the
main focus on state and stateless varieties. Our objections to such a
Tribunal could easily be accomodated by allowing the Tribunal to bring
charges against U.S. citizens into courts within the U.S. It should
follow the same formula for citizens of all other states. The Trbunal
would be mainly an investigative and advisory body not the judge and
the jury serving an ideology or a contemporary super-power.
Last but perhaps the hardest to grasp “at the end of the day,”
indigenous “strong men” are preferable to foreign occupations no matter
under what name they are implemented. Democracy does not come in a
single form. It is not attained in a couiple of years. It has many
variants which allow local populations to “get” to their leaders
without internal anti-government violence.Democracy (rule by demos or
people, in Greek) is, to parphrase Winston Churchill, “the worst form
of government but we have been unable to find anything better.” There
has to come a time when lecturing other countries and populations on
how they should manage their own households will stop in our media and
Government. We do not have a mandate from God to remake the globe in
our particular image. It is also high time to avoid making ennemies
where there are none. It is even more pressing to avoid the
glorification of war itself. At best, it is an obvious necesity for
self-defense. Nothing more.
With the will to address the key questions and problems all of the
foregoing constitutes merely the beginning of the end of stateless and
state terrorism. To beat the anti-American terrorists it will be a
basic necessity to win the hearts and minds of their“jataci.” Military
actions, economic sancations that actually punish a people and not
their elites and “superior” lectures will just not do. We need to
rediscover ourselves through introspection in order to be credible. It
is a huge task against all sorts of special interests out to preserve
and perpatuate the Imperium. Yet, no other nation has had a greater
capacity for change.
The ability to change is, in fact, a defining trait of our American
Culture
Raymond K. Kent, Emeritus
History Department,
University of California at Berkeley
---
TO BE OR NOT TO BE,
THEN AND NOW AND
TOMORROW.
R. K. Kent, Historian
“Let not the waves of the sea separate us now...love
knows not its own depth until the hour of
separation.’ (Khalil Gibran in ‘The Prophet,’ p.9,
1946 Ed., Knopf, N.Y.)
Someone who declaired that this writer was not specifically targeted
despite ample proof to the contrary, forwarded a text to him. It is
entitled “Countdown to Election Day - Muslim Group Endorses Kerry.
Cites civil-liberties restrictions, harsh foreign policies.” It
appeared in WorldNetDaily, 5 October 2004. The intent behind the
targeting was to perform a sort of political lobotomy. Its surgical
mission was to implant a microchip into the recipient’s brain with the
following program based on reasoning by analogy. Any Presidential
Candidate for election who is favored by the voting American citizens
of Muslim faith does not deserve to be elected. The cerebral clincher
was rooted in a simple concept, already in wide dissemination, namely
that our fellow-Americans of Muslim faith cannot be at all trusted
because they are “in reality” against “us.” Perhaps an individual
example of this mentaity in action drives home the point in a poignant
way.
A Muslim scholar who is a Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Tariq
Ramadan, had been invited by Notre Dame University to take up residence
as a Chair-Endowed, distinguished Professor of Religion. Two months
later, on his way to the U.S. our Consul in Switzerland informed
Professor Ramadan that his visa had been revoked “by Washington.” So
far, no one has been able to find out exactly why. Professor Ramadan
happens to be Europe’s “best known Muslim intellectual” as is pointed
out in a leading New York Times article (Deborah Sontag, NYT, 6
Octobwer 2004). More than that he has been urging Europe’s Muslims to
take part in the denmocratic process through self-empowrement. He has
been listened to as many European Muslims of some standing have
repudiated terrorism and its hijacked links with Islam. Moreover,
before his scheduled departure to the U.S. a “security review” had
given him clearance to assume the appointment. The pluses of this ban
are hard to imagine and the minuses are numerous.
It is an absolute necessity to inform the readers of the present text
that “reasoning by analogy” died with the European Renaissance,
centuries ago. It was replaced by science. Yet, it is still popular
with the current Administration (“Sadam did it before he will do it
again”) as it was with Mr. Clinton’s own, “the enemy of my enemy is my
friend,” invented ennemies and invented friends not withstanding , all
neatly wrapped -up in moral imperatives leading to war, to the killing
of civilians, destroying their economy and pushing a specific people
back into the Nineteenth Century. Why? Because their leaders,
once deemed useful, had the nerve to disobey the White House. Now. back
to the subject at hand.
Where exactly are we, the people, being led by those who are repeatedly
fanning fires against Muslims? Without a perpetual war against an
amorphous ennemy, defined mainly by religion, what Dwight Eisenhower
called the “Military-Industrial Complex” would suffer a drastic
reduction in all sorts of finances and power to influence decisively
both domestic and foreign policies. Seventy-eight days of a bombing
mission in the Balkans in 1999 depleted severely all the hardware
dropped down from the skies. The re-ordering profits must have been
huge (no exact figure is available) for certain corporations and their
shareholders. A victory was proclaimed and it is repeated constantly.
Yet, it is precisely our intervention in the Balkans that started the
radical transformation which is hardly of any advantage to the American
People. To put it succinctly, we replaced the imploded Soviet Union as
the “Evil Empire” through an unambigous message that our “Might” is
“always Right.” Not Islam, but our own arrogant and pontificating
behavior abroad, has been our most fundamentalist ennemy.
“Fundamentalist” because there has been no fundamental change.. In the
immortal words of Lee Hamilton, after the 911 Report, “we (just) did
not get it.”
Our war-time governments seem to invariably relish the practice of
performing political lobotomies on the home public’s crania. They are
at it again today with a new war on hand. But, there are two
differences. Our two oceans offer no further protection. They may even
be the duct for future clamities at home. In the previous war “against
the Serbs,” it was “explained” repeatedly as a moral imperative to
protect “human rights.”Yet, a host of contradictions revealed a
different agenda. At the time, our media became both frenzied and
ecstatic in waves of a hate-mongering campaign , focusing its venom on
a specific people, a relentless target. Hundreds of letters and dozens
of scientific, well-documented refutations of the viscious propaganda
were simply tossed into the garbage cans of the Editorial Office. The
media today, however, is not “homogenous” and some of its important
segments are not willing to be the tools of Government.
This was not the situation when the first attack on the World Trade
Center took place in 1993, from the ground up. Immediately, the
satanized Balkan ethnicity came to be blamed without any proof. There
were several dozens of reports about mistreatment by fellow-Americans
of this particular European ethnicity. Some individuals were isolated
by co-workers. Some were fired. Some could not get a job. Some were
verbally abused. Some received telephone threats. Some began to be
shadowed. The bill of particulars hardly ends with the highlights.Some
rather fast work by the FBI, which had as yet not been politicized,
discovered that foreigners of Muslim faith carried out the attack on
the WTC. It took, however, many years to remove this particular stigma,
attached to the citizens of the “wrong” ethnicity. There was even a
movie in which a“co-ethnic” from abroad carried a minitaure atom bomb
into New York City and was thwarted in the last minute by two FBI
agents.
Yet, the mistreastment of fellow-Americans merely under suspicion of
wishing (or potentially) working for some external ennemy is not just
an aberration, without precedent in modern history. . By now, it is
widely known what was done to the Japanese-Americans (both native-born
here and naturalized) after Pearl Harbor, a galvanizing event just like
the second attack on the WTC and the first on Pentagon. It has taken
half a century to admit the wrong and openly regret the detention camps
and the dispossesion of private properties. During the same period, as
we went to war in Asia and in Europe, similar suspicion came into view
involving some Italian-Americans and German-Americans but without
equallty harsh consequences. Then, in the 1990’s, came the turn for
“the Serbs,” a manufactured new “enemy.” As a by-product of modern
communication technology Western media in general satanized this
invented “enemy” to a degree that surpasses by far earlier examples of
this type. The “virtuous war” against “the Serbs” is over. It has cost
them heavily, the stigma still lingers but “Amerika” replaced America
with most of its respect and its credibility on the downslide.
Thereafter, came “the Arabs” and now it is all “Muslims.” As Phillip
Roth has more than sugested in his political novel, “The Plot Against
America,” tomorrow it could well be “the Jews.” But why stop there? One
can go further, with Chinese-Americans “working for China,” American
Latinos working to “annex “ Texas and/or Califiornia to Mexico, the
road into self-Balkanization is almost endless.The irony of the term
resides in the fact that the standard definition of “Balknization”
involves interference by foreign powers with the aim of promoting and
exacerbatiing local “tribal” conflicts in order to split a nation such
as Yugoslavia once was, having emerged after centuries under two
foreign Empires, Austrian and Ottoman. We are doing it to ourselves
just as the American People are increasingly incorporting new and
rapily growing ethnicities from abroad. Most of the new arrivals --and
that includes Americans of Muslim faith-- came here to improve their
lives, not to blow-up American cities.
None can deny that the main terrorism today against us at home and
abroad has its roots in the Middle East, involving many complex local
and international factors which have been and are widely discussed,
from almost any angle. Proportionally, the French have a greater Muslim
population than we do. Most are naturalized or born citizens of France.
Some of the French do resent them but find little real support among
the French People as a whole. They are tolerant of their Muslims.
France has impressed this human capital into the service of moderation
at home, despite attempts by the so-called “jihadists” to radicalize
the French Muslims. The only acts of serious and violent terrorism in
France involves some Basque separatists who have nothing to do with
Islam. They arer seeking independence for the Basques (rom both France
and Spain) but, again, the vast majority of French Basques do not
support them.
Is it not possible to envisage the beginning of deconstruction of
terrorism against us beyond only the clandestine and/or open military
and para-military actions abroad, above and beyond imposing an
unpleasant, fearful existance on our Muslims? The movie “Siege” makes a
powerful statement in respect to the mistreatment .Tariq Ramadan has
managed to create a link between Democracy and Islam through
participation in the political process. More than that, he has grasped
what our mentality has not. In order to defeat terrorism connected with
Islam it is necessary to convince the vast Muslim majorities to deny
any acceptance of the “jihadists,” anywhere. We will not even give a
chance to this difficult task by turning against our Muslims and by
continuing our arrogance abroad, military or otherwise. There has to be
a will to alter the mentality itself and no one can do it for us.
Badly advised at home, President Clinton took the Muslim side in a
Yugoslavia that he had helped to “Balkanize” in the hope that this
would have a beneficial influence on the Middle Eastern peace process.
He even imposed in Bosnia a Muslim-controlled state that never existed.
Yet, this did not at all affect the developments in the Middle East. It
created a problem precisely where three religions and
religiously-defined ethnic groups managed to live together and
intermarry. He allowd the introduction of Iranian arms and externl but
very militant Muslim elements. Just recently and by chance it has been
discovered that Bin Laden had been there and still has connections. The
time has long past when major decisions can be made on th bassis of
reasoning-by -analogy. We need to know what we are doing at the
grass-roots level because foreign policy is now crucial to our own
survival Defining American Muslims by a few extreme elements among them
is the worst mistake we could make. An option is clearly at hand.
Our Muslims can sustain a dialogue and can have an influnce on the
separation of Islam from terrorism, thus delegitimizing it gradually at
the source. Senator Kerry seems to understand that the threat to their
civil liberties must be deconstructed before they too can defend all of
us and our foreign policy must indeed be less solipsistic and“:harsh”
in a sustained, convincing fashion. Otherwise, it will be next to
impossible to replace a perceived need for terrorism with votes. When
it comes to civil liberties, which define America and which make the
nation strong in an inner sense, the incumbent President seems unable
to find any serious attacks on them. Yet, larger and smaller instances
to the contrary are multiplying. We are losing, by inches, the greatest
co-habitational and still free space on Planet Earth. The phenomenon
(and noumenon) called the “American Innocence”had closed our minds to a
striking reality. While the rest of the World started to dislike us and
some of it mutated into hate, we could not arrest the
self-congratulations for being so involved in our marvelous behavior
abroad in defense of “Human Rights.” We just “did not get it.” Will we?
Can we?
Raymond K.Kent (Emeritus)
History Department, U. of California at Berkeley
(510/642-1971)
8 October 2004
---
FOURTH OPEN LETTER
TO SENATOR KERRY
R.K.Kent, Historian
Dear Senator Kerry,
A few minutes ago I heard you ask us, the American People, to trust
you. This trust is to encompass both domestic and foreign policies.
On the domestic side I have few bones to grind. The middle class is
squeezed in favor of the waelthy.Out-sourcing is severely taxing the
lives of our workers and their families.Health protections are
extremely uneven and hence un-American in texture.Education and
“re-tooling” is the key to American prosperity in the Twenty-first
Century. You made no substantive reference to our civil libarties and
rights, however. Our FBI, once a protector of our civil liberties,
became a political police during the Clinton Administration. It is
increasingly expanding in this direction for an ostensibly higher goal,
namely to prevent terrorist attacks against us at home. This can be
“fixed,” as you like to say, by such measures as a directive not to go
around checking what kind of books we take out of libraries, a
disgusting prelude to worse. The problem you will encounter and cave
under is in the area of foreign policy.
No matter what you SAY you are surrounded by the same foreign-policy
truth-benders and manipulators that prevailed in the Administration of
Bill Clinton. I know them minutely and well through their words and
deeds in the Balkans. It is precisely our entry into the Balkans, as a
result of their would-be “Moral Imperatives” to get involved and their
glaring arrogance, that we began to be disliked and, increasingly,
hated around the globe. All of them have spread around the same
message” “our Might makes us invariably Right.” Remember Nazi Germany?
Yet, they are wrapping themselves around you like a boa constrictor and
you seem to WELCOME them.
The more prominent among the ilk, hell-bent on demanding unquestioned
obedience to our power abroad, are Richard H., Madeleine A., Wesley C.,
Madeleine’s Rubin but there are a number of others less well known to
our public at large that belong to the same opinionated, arrogant lot
that we simply MUST eliminate from foreign policy altogether if we ever
can hope to torpedo terrorism coming from abroad. The time has past
when the old “pommade” of morality and “human” rights used to befuddle
through bafflegab, engineered mayhem , would-be “mass graves” and the
viscious, venomous media destructions of individuals and groups deemed
basically “disobedient” vis-a-vis the center of Universe, Washington,
D.C.
In short, if you really hope to be able to change our current image
abroad, you MUST not give foreign-policy positions to any one with the
previous “Balkan” record, to mention only the area I am familiar with.
We must not yield to calls for being “:smart.” We can only be stupid by
thinking that we are smart enough to outsmart everyone abroad (and at
home). This is the main reason why we have lost credibility abroad and
why so many of our own people question increasingly the foreign
policies which make us the target of hate and vengeance. If we are to
get more of the same I hope that you will not win. It is better to have
a President who apears to be “underdevloped” abroad than to have a
President who is so “smart” as to secretly assume that the universal
truth, stated by Abraham Lincoln about fooling people, is bunk.
Respectfully.
Raymond K. Kent
(Emeritus)
History Department,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA. 94720
(510/642-1971)
14.10.2004
=== 2 ===
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1244732004
Scotland on Sunday - International
Documentary reveals Albanian arms
dealer donated cash to the Kerry campaign
Sun 24 Oct 2004
FRASER NELSON
IN NEW YORK
JOHN Kerry has acquired a financial backer likely to provide him with
more problems than support in his battle for the White House: the
Kosovo Liberation Army.
A documentary produced by a Dutch television crew alleges Florin
Krasniqi, an Albanian arms dealer, is buying weapons in the US and
sending them to Kosovo - while perfecting contacts with the Democratic
Party in the United States.
Mr Krasniqi is filmed at a Kerry fundraising event handing over a
cheque, then chatting and joking with senior Democrats including Wesley
Clark, the former NATO commander and Richard Holbrooke, Mr Kerry's
senior foreign policy adviser.
The documentary, broadcast last month in The Netherlands and seen by
The Scotsman, follows Mr Krasniqi from his home in Brooklyn in New York
to his Albanian base where he distributes arms to mercenaries on the
Kosovo border.
Showing remarkable candour, Mr Krasniqi says the KLA has "unfinished
business" with the Serbs and predicts that war will break out again in
"about a year and a half" if the UN does grant Kosovo independence from
Serbia and Montenegro.
The Kerry fundraising event is shown making a direct pitch for Albanian
money. Mr Holbrooke warns in a speech that Mr Bush is planning to pull
troops out of Kosovo - the implication being the Serbs would be
unconstrained.
John Belushi, the Albanian-American actor, then appears in a video
soliciting donations. "If you care about the fate of Albanians in the
Balkans, I hope you'll do anything to can to make sure John Kerry is
elected as our next President," he says.
The documentary goes on to show Mr Krasniqi buying guns from a dealer
in St Mary's, Pennsylvania.
With frankness bordering on the brazen, he explains to the film crew
how easy it is to smuggle arms. "We had set up a hunting club in
Albania," he says - and simply tell anyone who asks they are planning
an excursion to Tasmania.
He admits being "caught twice" - by Italian and Swiss authorities - but
allowed to proceed after saying the Albanian hunting club was preparing
for an expedition to hunt elephants in Tasmania. Other arms are
smuggled under humanitarian aid, he says.
While there is no suggestion that Mr Kerry had knowledge about the
funds being donated by Mr Krasniqi, the video will be deeply
embarrassing for the Massachusetts senator as he combats accusations of
being soft on terror.
Mr Krasniqi is named in the Federal Election Commission returns as a
registered donor to the Kerry campaign at his Brooklyn address. The sum
is dollars 1,000. The Kerry-Edwards campaign was asked to comment, but
did not return calls to The Scotsman yesterday.
Alcuni iscritti a JUGOINFO ci ricordano che
"visnjica" in serbocroato corrisponde piu' precisamente a "maraschina"
(oppure "amarena", "visciola")
mentre "ciliegina" letteralmente andrebbe tradotto "tresnjica".
Consapevoli del significato esatto dei termini nelle due lingue,
continuiamo a ritenere piu' opportuno il termine "visnjica" per le
nostre "ciliegine". Mentre infatti "visnjica" rafforza il significato
amaro dei nostri messaggi brevi, "ciliegina" e' il termine piu'
opportuno in lingua italiana per indicare colmi e paradossi ("la
ciliegina sulla torta").
"visnjica" in serbocroato corrisponde piu' precisamente a "maraschina"
(oppure "amarena", "visciola")
mentre "ciliegina" letteralmente andrebbe tradotto "tresnjica".
Consapevoli del significato esatto dei termini nelle due lingue,
continuiamo a ritenere piu' opportuno il termine "visnjica" per le
nostre "ciliegine". Mentre infatti "visnjica" rafforza il significato
amaro dei nostri messaggi brevi, "ciliegina" e' il termine piu'
opportuno in lingua italiana per indicare colmi e paradossi ("la
ciliegina sulla torta").
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook