Informazione
ANOTHER CASE OF MASS DECEPTION
1. WEAK CASE AGAINST MILOSEVIC HAS HAGUE IN 'A PANIC' Massacres in
Kosovo never happened, say Canadians who investigated mass graves
(Bruce Garvey)
2. ANOTHER CASE OF MASS DECEPTION? In Iraq, it's the missing mass
weapons of destruction. In Kosovo, it's the missing mass graves
(Lawrence Martin)
=== 1 ===
The Ottawa Citizen
August 29, 2004
WEAK CASE AGAINST MILOSEVIC HAS HAGUE IN 'A PANIC'
Massacres in Kosovo never happened, say Canadians who investigated mass
graves
Bruce Garvey
The war crimes tribunal in The Hague is "beginning to panic" over its
case against former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic according to a
Vancouver detective sent to unearth mass graves in Kosovo and a
Canadian filmmaker who documented the exhumations.
"I would think they'll have a tough time with the charge of genocide
with only 5,000 bodies," said retired Vancouver detective sergeant
Brian Honeybourn. "It seems as though The Hague is beginning to panic."
Mr. Milosevic's trial is to resume next week with the former Serbian
dictator defending himself against charges of genocide and crimes
against humanity. Former Canadian Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour
made history when she laid the charges -- the first against a head of
state -- as the tribunal's special prosecutor.
Calgary filmmaker Garth Pritchard and Sgt. Honeybourn are critical of
Ms. Arbour, now UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and her claims
that the Serbs, directed by Mr. Milosevic, murdered as many as 200,000
civilians during its ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
The alleged massacres were used by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright and Western leaders as justification for their bombing
campaign and intervention in Kosovo, and were regularly and routinely
reported as fact on television networks such as the CBC and CNN, as the
West backed the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) against the Serbs.
"This was a massacre that never happened," Mr. Pritchard maintains.
"I was standing there when the forensic teams were telling Louise
Arbour there were no 200,000 bodies and she didn't want to know."
Mr. Pritchard, who has produced more than a dozen documentaries on the
Balkan and Afghan wars, said yesterday he has been approached by Hague
prosecutors to testify in their case against Mr. Milosevic after
turning down a request to appear as a defence witness for the former
president.
"I was telephoned by an RCMP officer seconded to the Hague tribunal's
investigative unit, a corporal named Tom Steenvoorden, who told me the
total number of bodies they have recovered amounts to 5,080, which is a
far cry from 200,000," he told the Citizen.
"I want someone like Peter Mansbridge or Ms. Arbour to tell me where
the other 195,000 bodies are. This is a massacre that never happened."
Mr. Pritchard said he refused to co-operate with the Hague prosecutors,
just as he had with representatives of Mr. Milosevic.
Other Canadians who have been named as potential defence witnesses
include Citizen reporter David Pugliese and retired Maj.-Gen Lewis
MacKenzie, who have both said they will refuse, and war correspondent
and magazine publisher Scott Taylor, who has agreed to defend articles
he wrote for the Citizen from Kosovo.
Sgt. Honeybourn and forensic team leader Brian Strongman echoed Mr.
Pritchard's doubts that the genocidal massacre by the Serbs ever took
place.
"I can't say that there weren't 200,000 bodies because I wasn't
covering the entire country," said Sgt. Honeybourn.
"But I never saw any sign of anything like 200,000. If there were that
many, then why did they have us exhuming single graves? The biggest
mass grave we examined contained about 20 and there was another one of
11. But mostly our nine-member team worked on single graves."
Mr. Strongman said he recalls that exhumations by the Canadian group
and 11 other international teams never matched the "rumours" of mass
graves holding the bodies of many thousands.
"We only spent 45 days there," he said, "but I believe the largest mass
grave we investigated held 20 bodies. I was in Bosnia and remember one
mass grave that held 200 -- certainly we never saw anything like that
in Kosovo. Of course, Louise Arbour and people had to talk about
figures like 200,000 to justify bringing in NATO."
Sgt. Honeybourn, a veteran of more than 30 years of police work, was a
member of the first Canadian forensic specialist team that joined units
from several western countries in the search for the alleged 200,000
buried victims.
Now he maintains that the Hague staff under Ms. Arbour was confused and
incompetent.
"Our resources were not maximized, simple as that," he said. "There
seemed to be a pronounced lack of co-ordination, which was extremely
frustrating. I don't think we were deployed properly."
In the six weeks Sgt. Honeybourn spent digging up fetid graves in
Kosovo during the sweltering summer of 1999, the Canadian team exhumed
86 bodies.
Outside of being able to give information to family members of bodies
they exhumed and identified, he regarded the mission, which cost Canada
more than $1.2 million, as an investigative failure and "a waste of
time."
=== 2 ===
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-02.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/
20040902/COMA
RTIN02/TPComment/TopStories
Globe&Mail
TODAY'S PAPER
Another case of mass deception?
By LAWRENCE MARTIN
Thursday, September 2, 2004 - Page A17
Where are the bodies? Was the other big war of the last decade, Kosovo
in 1999, triggered by bogus allegations as well? Another case of mass
deception?
In Iraq, it's the missing mass weapons of destruction. In Kosovo, it's
the missing mass graves.
In alleged ethnic cleansing exercises by Serbian leader Slobodan
Milosevic, as many as 100,000 to 200,000 civilians were said to have
gone missing or been killed in Kosovo, many of them buried in mass
graves. Members of a Canadian forensic team to the Serbian province
have come forward to label the numbers nonsense. No mass graves, they
say, and, on both the Albanian and Serb sides, only a few thousand
dead. A mockery of the numbers used to justify the war.
In The Hague this week, the war-crimes tribunal reopened with Mr.
Milosevic's calling the genocide charges against him a lie and a
treacherous distortion of history. He may well be the treacherous
distorter. If his Serb armies weren't guilty as charged in Kosovo,
there was his past record of bloodshed to consider. As someone wrote,
Kosovo for Mr. Milosevic was like tax evasion for Al Capone: something
they could nail him on.
But that doesn't excuse going to war on the basis of flim-flam. The
Kosovo story has etchings of Iraq all over it. The United States (the
Democrats this time) and Britain (Tony Blair again) demonize an enemy
with fraudulent accusations. They play the gullible media, Canada's
included, like a violin.
The latest person to debunk the genocide numbers is retired Vancouver
homicide detective Brian Honeybourn, a member of the forensic team. He
told The Ottawa Citizen this week that his nine-member group found
mainly single graves, with a couple of exceptions being one of 20
bodies and another 11. He wonders how genocide charges against Mr.
Milosevic can stand up. "It seems as though The Hague is beginning to
panic."
Garth Pritchard, a Canadian filmmaker, accompanied the forensic team to
Kosovo. "This was a massacre that never happened." He joined mission
leader Brian Strongman in lambasting Canadian Louise Arbour, the
special prosecutor for the tribunal that brought the charges against
Mr. Milosevic. Ms. Arbour, now the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, was used as a pawn by war-hungry Washington and London,
they said. "I was standing there when the forensic teams were telling
Louise Arbour there were no 200,000 bodies and she didn't want to
know," Mr. Pritchard told the Citizen.
Ms. Arbour's career path lit up after her war-crimes work. She was
appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, then to her UN post.
The findings, or non-findings, of the Canadian forensic team are
consistent with those of other teams of experts sent over since the war
ended. At the time of the conflict, James Bissett, a former Canadian
ambassador to Yugoslavia, and Lewis MacKenzie, a major-general with a
wealth of experience in the Balkan theatre, took issue with the tales
being spun. But they, as well as some voices in the media, were drowned
out by the drumbeat of war.
U.S. defence secretary William Cohen was alleging that as many as
100,000 Albanian Kosovars had gone missing. Mr. Blair, in a preview of
his comportment on Iraq, was crying horror upon horror. President Bill
Clinton wanted to shift the focus off his domestic problems -- Monica
Lewinsky etc. -- and was gung-ho for a NATO invasion.
Looking back a couple of years after the conflict, defence minister Art
Eggleton acknowledged that the propaganda coming out of the Pentagon
was extraordinary. But the Chrétien Liberals, on close terms with the
Clinton Democrats, weren't about to buck the White House on Kosovo, as
they would on Iraq. The allies were all on board for an attack, making
it extremely unlikely that Canada would be the odd one out.
But having everybody in the wagon doesn't excuse what happened. If the
forensic teams' stories are correct, the missing dead in Kosovo is
indeed a scandal comparable to the absence of WMD in Iraq. In a
five-year period, political leaders twice duped their populations into
going to war.
1. WEAK CASE AGAINST MILOSEVIC HAS HAGUE IN 'A PANIC' Massacres in
Kosovo never happened, say Canadians who investigated mass graves
(Bruce Garvey)
2. ANOTHER CASE OF MASS DECEPTION? In Iraq, it's the missing mass
weapons of destruction. In Kosovo, it's the missing mass graves
(Lawrence Martin)
=== 1 ===
The Ottawa Citizen
August 29, 2004
WEAK CASE AGAINST MILOSEVIC HAS HAGUE IN 'A PANIC'
Massacres in Kosovo never happened, say Canadians who investigated mass
graves
Bruce Garvey
The war crimes tribunal in The Hague is "beginning to panic" over its
case against former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic according to a
Vancouver detective sent to unearth mass graves in Kosovo and a
Canadian filmmaker who documented the exhumations.
"I would think they'll have a tough time with the charge of genocide
with only 5,000 bodies," said retired Vancouver detective sergeant
Brian Honeybourn. "It seems as though The Hague is beginning to panic."
Mr. Milosevic's trial is to resume next week with the former Serbian
dictator defending himself against charges of genocide and crimes
against humanity. Former Canadian Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour
made history when she laid the charges -- the first against a head of
state -- as the tribunal's special prosecutor.
Calgary filmmaker Garth Pritchard and Sgt. Honeybourn are critical of
Ms. Arbour, now UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and her claims
that the Serbs, directed by Mr. Milosevic, murdered as many as 200,000
civilians during its ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
The alleged massacres were used by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright and Western leaders as justification for their bombing
campaign and intervention in Kosovo, and were regularly and routinely
reported as fact on television networks such as the CBC and CNN, as the
West backed the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) against the Serbs.
"This was a massacre that never happened," Mr. Pritchard maintains.
"I was standing there when the forensic teams were telling Louise
Arbour there were no 200,000 bodies and she didn't want to know."
Mr. Pritchard, who has produced more than a dozen documentaries on the
Balkan and Afghan wars, said yesterday he has been approached by Hague
prosecutors to testify in their case against Mr. Milosevic after
turning down a request to appear as a defence witness for the former
president.
"I was telephoned by an RCMP officer seconded to the Hague tribunal's
investigative unit, a corporal named Tom Steenvoorden, who told me the
total number of bodies they have recovered amounts to 5,080, which is a
far cry from 200,000," he told the Citizen.
"I want someone like Peter Mansbridge or Ms. Arbour to tell me where
the other 195,000 bodies are. This is a massacre that never happened."
Mr. Pritchard said he refused to co-operate with the Hague prosecutors,
just as he had with representatives of Mr. Milosevic.
Other Canadians who have been named as potential defence witnesses
include Citizen reporter David Pugliese and retired Maj.-Gen Lewis
MacKenzie, who have both said they will refuse, and war correspondent
and magazine publisher Scott Taylor, who has agreed to defend articles
he wrote for the Citizen from Kosovo.
Sgt. Honeybourn and forensic team leader Brian Strongman echoed Mr.
Pritchard's doubts that the genocidal massacre by the Serbs ever took
place.
"I can't say that there weren't 200,000 bodies because I wasn't
covering the entire country," said Sgt. Honeybourn.
"But I never saw any sign of anything like 200,000. If there were that
many, then why did they have us exhuming single graves? The biggest
mass grave we examined contained about 20 and there was another one of
11. But mostly our nine-member team worked on single graves."
Mr. Strongman said he recalls that exhumations by the Canadian group
and 11 other international teams never matched the "rumours" of mass
graves holding the bodies of many thousands.
"We only spent 45 days there," he said, "but I believe the largest mass
grave we investigated held 20 bodies. I was in Bosnia and remember one
mass grave that held 200 -- certainly we never saw anything like that
in Kosovo. Of course, Louise Arbour and people had to talk about
figures like 200,000 to justify bringing in NATO."
Sgt. Honeybourn, a veteran of more than 30 years of police work, was a
member of the first Canadian forensic specialist team that joined units
from several western countries in the search for the alleged 200,000
buried victims.
Now he maintains that the Hague staff under Ms. Arbour was confused and
incompetent.
"Our resources were not maximized, simple as that," he said. "There
seemed to be a pronounced lack of co-ordination, which was extremely
frustrating. I don't think we were deployed properly."
In the six weeks Sgt. Honeybourn spent digging up fetid graves in
Kosovo during the sweltering summer of 1999, the Canadian team exhumed
86 bodies.
Outside of being able to give information to family members of bodies
they exhumed and identified, he regarded the mission, which cost Canada
more than $1.2 million, as an investigative failure and "a waste of
time."
=== 2 ===
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-02.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/
20040902/COMA
RTIN02/TPComment/TopStories
Globe&Mail
TODAY'S PAPER
Another case of mass deception?
By LAWRENCE MARTIN
Thursday, September 2, 2004 - Page A17
Where are the bodies? Was the other big war of the last decade, Kosovo
in 1999, triggered by bogus allegations as well? Another case of mass
deception?
In Iraq, it's the missing mass weapons of destruction. In Kosovo, it's
the missing mass graves.
In alleged ethnic cleansing exercises by Serbian leader Slobodan
Milosevic, as many as 100,000 to 200,000 civilians were said to have
gone missing or been killed in Kosovo, many of them buried in mass
graves. Members of a Canadian forensic team to the Serbian province
have come forward to label the numbers nonsense. No mass graves, they
say, and, on both the Albanian and Serb sides, only a few thousand
dead. A mockery of the numbers used to justify the war.
In The Hague this week, the war-crimes tribunal reopened with Mr.
Milosevic's calling the genocide charges against him a lie and a
treacherous distortion of history. He may well be the treacherous
distorter. If his Serb armies weren't guilty as charged in Kosovo,
there was his past record of bloodshed to consider. As someone wrote,
Kosovo for Mr. Milosevic was like tax evasion for Al Capone: something
they could nail him on.
But that doesn't excuse going to war on the basis of flim-flam. The
Kosovo story has etchings of Iraq all over it. The United States (the
Democrats this time) and Britain (Tony Blair again) demonize an enemy
with fraudulent accusations. They play the gullible media, Canada's
included, like a violin.
The latest person to debunk the genocide numbers is retired Vancouver
homicide detective Brian Honeybourn, a member of the forensic team. He
told The Ottawa Citizen this week that his nine-member group found
mainly single graves, with a couple of exceptions being one of 20
bodies and another 11. He wonders how genocide charges against Mr.
Milosevic can stand up. "It seems as though The Hague is beginning to
panic."
Garth Pritchard, a Canadian filmmaker, accompanied the forensic team to
Kosovo. "This was a massacre that never happened." He joined mission
leader Brian Strongman in lambasting Canadian Louise Arbour, the
special prosecutor for the tribunal that brought the charges against
Mr. Milosevic. Ms. Arbour, now the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, was used as a pawn by war-hungry Washington and London,
they said. "I was standing there when the forensic teams were telling
Louise Arbour there were no 200,000 bodies and she didn't want to
know," Mr. Pritchard told the Citizen.
Ms. Arbour's career path lit up after her war-crimes work. She was
appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, then to her UN post.
The findings, or non-findings, of the Canadian forensic team are
consistent with those of other teams of experts sent over since the war
ended. At the time of the conflict, James Bissett, a former Canadian
ambassador to Yugoslavia, and Lewis MacKenzie, a major-general with a
wealth of experience in the Balkan theatre, took issue with the tales
being spun. But they, as well as some voices in the media, were drowned
out by the drumbeat of war.
U.S. defence secretary William Cohen was alleging that as many as
100,000 Albanian Kosovars had gone missing. Mr. Blair, in a preview of
his comportment on Iraq, was crying horror upon horror. President Bill
Clinton wanted to shift the focus off his domestic problems -- Monica
Lewinsky etc. -- and was gung-ho for a NATO invasion.
Looking back a couple of years after the conflict, defence minister Art
Eggleton acknowledged that the propaganda coming out of the Pentagon
was extraordinary. But the Chrétien Liberals, on close terms with the
Clinton Democrats, weren't about to buck the White House on Kosovo, as
they would on Iraq. The allies were all on board for an attack, making
it extremely unlikely that Canada would be the odd one out.
But having everybody in the wagon doesn't excuse what happened. If the
forensic teams' stories are correct, the missing dead in Kosovo is
indeed a scandal comparable to the absence of WMD in Iraq. In a
five-year period, political leaders twice duped their populations into
going to war.
NATO - Kriegsopfer klagen gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Fall
Varvarin)
[ L'avvocato Ulrich Dost, che cura gli interessi dei familiari delle
vittime del bombardamento della NATO sul ponte di Varvarin, ci ha
trasmesso la memoria d'appello redatta il 30 agosto 2004 ed indirizzata
alla Corte Suprema di Colonia.
La causa - lo ricordiamo - contrappone 35 parenti delle vittime e
feriti sopravvissuti al raid, al governo federale tedesco. Essi
richiedono in totale 3,5 milioni di euro di risarcimento. Nel
bombardamento di un ponte a Varvarin, il 30 maggio 1999, dieci persone
rimasero uccise, 17 riportarono ferite gravi e altre 30 rimasero ferite
lievemente. Il ponte non era un obiettivo militare - furono centinaia
gli obiettivi civili colpiti, e 1.500 le vittime civili.
Gli aerei Nato colpirono il ponte di Varvarin in due attacchi
consecutivi: la maggior parte delle vittime erano abitanti accorsi per
soccorrere i feriti del primo raid.
E' noto che tutte le altre denunce, presentate a numerose istanze, di
vari paesi e sovranazionali, sui crimini di guerra della Nato in
Jugoslavia sono state insabbiate, tranne (per ora) quella presentata
dalla Jugoslavia alla Corte Internazionale dell'Aia (da non confondere
con il "Tribunale ad hoc", che pure ha sede all'Aia ma che si rifiuta
di procedere contro la Nato): ma e' noto che la stessa Nato ha chiesto
alla nuova leadership filoatlantica di Belgrado che, se vuole
diventare partner, deve ritirare anche quella.
Sulla causa intentata in Germania per il bombardamento di Varvarin vedi
anche, ad esempio:
Primo processo per i raid del 1999 (16 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2867
Varvarin 30/5/1999 (30 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2910
Varvarin-Bürger gegen Deutschland (9 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3000
Varvarin/Germania: sancito il diritto di ammazzare i civili ?
(11 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
(19 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3037
Projekt "NATO-Kriegsopfer klagen auf Schadenersatz"
(13 Feb 2004)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3192
nonche' larga parte del libro di Jürgen Elsässer
Kriegslügen ("Menzogne di guerra"),
specialmente nell'edizione aggiornata tedesca (2004):
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/sanja.htm
L’ultimo giorno di Sanja - Cosa racconterebbe della guerra una ragazza
serba perita nel bombardamento di Varvarin ]
> Da: Ulrich Dost
> Data: Gio 2 Set 2004 19:43:35 Europe/Rome
> A: "'Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia'"
> Oggetto: NATO - Kriegsopfer klagen gegen die Bundesrepublik
> Deutschland (Fall Varvarin)
>
> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
> gerne übersende ich Ihnen den Berufungsbegründungsschriftsatz vom 30.
> August 2004 an das OLG Köln in dem Schadenersatzprozeß jugoslawischer
> Staatsbürger aus der Kleinstadt Varvarin gegen die Bundesrepublik
> Deutschland. Sie wurden Opfer eines völkerrechtswidrigen Luftangriffs
> der NATO am 30. Mai 1999.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Ulrich Dost
> Rechtsanwalt
---
An das
Oberlandesgericht Köln
Vorab zwecks Fristwahrung per Fax unter der Faxnummer:...
In dem Rechtsstreit
Radmila Ristic u.a. ./. Bundesrepublik Deutschland
AZ I. Instanz: I O 361/02
AZ II. Instanz: 7 U 8/04
wird nachfolgend die mit Schriftsatz vom 5. Februar 2004 eingelegte
Berufung der Klägerin und Berufungsklägerin zu 11) (im weiteren als
Berufungsklägerin bezeichnet), Frau Radmila Ristic, innerhalb der bis
einschließlich zum 30. August 2004 gewährten Berufungsbegründungsfrist
nachfolgend begründet.
In der mündlichen Verhandlung wird beantragt werden, wie folgt für
Recht zu erkennen:
Unter Aufhebung des am 12. Dezember 2003 verkündeten Urteils des
Landgerichts Bonn - AZ: I O 361/02 - wird die Beklagte verurteilt, an
die Klägerin eine angemessene Geldentschädigung, deren Höhe in das
Ermessen des Gerichts gestellt wird, aber 102.258,38 € (= 200.000 DM)
nicht unterschreitet, zuzüglich 5% Zinsen über dem Basiszinssatz nach §
1DÜG seit Rechtshängigkeit zu zahlen.
B e g r ü n d u ng
Das Landgericht Bonn (im weiteren als Vorinstanz bezeichnet) hat zu
Unrecht den Klageantrag abgewiesen, den die Berufungsklägerin mit ihrer
Berufung vollumfänglich weiterverfolgt. Das Urteil wird daher in vollem
Umfang zur Überprüfung durch das Berufungsgericht gestellt.
I. Einführung
Das angegriffene Urteil wird von durchgreifenden Rechtsfehlern
getragen, die sich im Kern wie folgt zusammenfassen lassen:
1. Das Urteil verletzt in gravierender Weise geltendes
Verfassungsrecht. Es beruht auf der Nichtbeachtung von geltenden
Grundrechten der Berufungskläger. Insgesamt wird das Urteil durch eine
unrichtige Anschauung von der Bedeutung des Grundrechts auf
Menschenwürde und des Rechts auf Leben (Art. 1 Abs. 1 und Art. 2 Abs. 2
Grundgesetz) getragen und mißachtet den Umfang und die Reichweite des
den Grundrechtsträgern zu gewährenden Schutzes.
So ist in dem Urteil zwar zunächst richtig davon ausgegangen worden,
daß die Berufungskläger Grundrechtsträger der vorgenannten Grundrechte
sind. Jedoch kam die Vorinstanz rechtsirrig zu der Auffassung, die
Berufungskläger könnten ihre Schadenersatzansprüche nicht auf die
Verletzung der Grundrechte stützen, weil sie keinen
Schadenersatzanspruch als Rechtsfolge vorsehen würden.
Diese Beurteilung ist mit der heutigen Bedeutung und Tragweite der
vorgenannten Grundrechte schlicht unvereinbar.
2. Die Vorinstanz verkannte den sich unmittelbar aus den vorgenannten
Grundrechten ableitenden umfassenden Schutzauftrag der
Berufungsbeklagten gegenüber den Berufungsklägern und ignorierte
letztlich die schadenersatzbegründenden Rechtsfolgen bei Verletzung der
Schutzpflichten. .
3. Sie hat ebenfalls nicht zu erkennen vermocht, daß die
Berufungsbeklagte die sich aus ihrem Schutzauftrag ergebenden
Schutzpflichten gröblichst verletzt hat, die Berufungskläger deshalb
ursächlich zu Schaden kamen und sie ihnen gegenüber letztlich
schadenersatzpflichtig ist.
4. Das angegriffene Urteil verkennt weiter, daß ausweislich der
Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs sehr wohl Schadenersatzansprüche
unmittelbar aus der Verletzung der Art. 1 und 2 des Grundgesetzes
hergeleitet werden.
5. Die Vorinstanz ist rechtsirrig und unter Ignorierung der
Weiterentwicklung des Völkerrechts nach dem II. Weltkrieg von einer
Exklusivität für völkerrechtliche Ansprüche ausgegangen.
5.1 Sie hat insbesondere verkannt, daß der Krieg nach der universellen
Anerkennung des Gewaltverbots nicht mehr als ein Ausnahmezustand
betrachtet und deshalb das im Frieden geltende Völkerrecht und das
Amtshaftungsrecht auch nicht »suspendiert« wird.
5.2 Sie stellt sich gegen die vom BVerfG in seiner Entscheidung vom
13.05.1996 nachdrücklich vertretene Auffassung, wonach bei
Völkerrechtsdelikten neben die völkerrechtlichen Ansprüche des
(geschädigten) Staates nationale, zivilrechtliche Ansprüche des
geschädigten Individuums treten und durchsetzbar sein können.
5.3. Die in diesem Zusammenhang vom BVerfG vertretene Auffassung,
wonach es einen Grundsatz der Exklusivität für völkerrechtliche
Ansprüche definitiv nicht gibt, ignorierte die Vorinstanz und ging ohne
jede Begründung vom Gegenteil aus.
6. Die Vorinstanz entzog sich einer erforderlichen Bewertung der
Entwicklung des Völkerrechts nach dem II. Weltkrieg und erkannte somit
weder die völkerrechtliche Pflichtenlage noch die Pflichtverletzungen
der Berufungsbeklagten, die sich insbesondere auch aus der Allgemeinen
Erklärung der Menschenrechte und des Internationalen Pakts über
bürgerliche und politische Rechte im Hinblick auf das Recht auf Leben
und körperliche Unversehrtheit i. V. m. den Schutzregeln für die
Zivilbevölkerung in einem bewaffneten Konflikt (Zusatzprotokoll I zu
den Genfer Abkommen) gegenüber den Berufungsklägern ergeben.
7. Insgesamt hat die Vorinstanz nicht erkannt, daß die aus Zeiten vor
dem II. Weltkrieg stammende althergebrachte Rechtsauffassung, eine
darauf beruhende und auch von ihr angewandte Rechtsprechung, mit der
die individuelle Geltendmachung und Durchsetzung der durch
rechtswidrige staatliche Kriegshandlungen verursachten Schäden selbst
bei schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen ausgeschlossen wird und so
Kriegsverbrechen geschützt werden, heute schon deshalb keine Anwendung
mehr finden kann, weil sie gegen elementare Gebote der Gerechtigkeit
und gegen völkerrechtlich geschützte Menschenrechte verstößt.
Eine Rechtsprechung, die denjenigen schützt, der sich gegen das Recht
auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit vergeht und die Opfer
schutzlos stellt, ist nicht mehr hinzunehmen.
Ein solcher Verstoß wiegt - wie hier - so schwer, daß er die allen
Völkern gemeinsamen, auf Wert und Würde des Menschen bezogenen
Rechtsüberzeugungen verletzt. Der Vorinstanz blieb verborgen, daß in
einem solchen Fall das positive Recht der Gerechtigkeit weichen muß.
II. Fehlerhafte Rechtsanwendung
II. 1 Bedeutung und Tragweite des Grundrechts auf Menschenwürde u. des
Grundrechts auf Leben gem. Art. 1 Abs. 1 und Art. 2 Abs. 2 GG – ihre
Ignorierung durch das angegriffene Urteil
1. Die ausdrückliche Aufnahme des an sich selbstverständlichen Rechts
auf Leben in das Grundgesetz - anders als etwa in der Weimarer
Verfassung - erklärt sich hauptsächlich als Reaktion auf die
"Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens", auf "Endlösung" und
"Liquidierung", die vom nationalsozialistischen Regime als staatliche
Maßnahmen durchgeführt wurden. Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG enthält ebenso
wie die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe durch Art. 102 GG
"ein Bekenntnis zum grundsätzlichen Wert des Menschenlebens und zu
einer Staatsauffassung, die sich in betonten Gegensatz zu den
Anschauungen eines politischen Regimes stellt, dem das einzelne Leben
wenig bedeutete und das deshalb mit dem angemaßten Recht über Leben und
Tod des Bürgers schrankenlosen Mißbrauch trieb" (BVerfGE 18, 112 [117]).
2. Bei der Auslegung des Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG ist von seinem
tatsächlichen Wortlaut auszugehen:
"Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben ... ".
»Jeder« im Sinne des Rechts auf Leben ist heute jedes menschliche
Individuum, unabhängig seiner Herkunft und Nationalität. Das Recht auf
Leben wird deshalb auch als »Jedermannsrecht« bezeichnet. In seinen
Schutzbereich fallen somit auch die Berufungskläger. Sie sind
Grundrechtsträger i. S. der Art. 1 und 2 des Grundgesetzes.
3. Bei den vorgenannten Grundrechten handelt es sich zweifellos um
subjektive Rechte der Berufungskläger.
4. Außer Frage steht auch, daß das Grundgesetz als solches und somit
auch die Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2 Abs. 2 GG jederzeit zur Anwendung kommen.
Demnach sind diese Grundrechte insbesondere auch während der Dauer
eines bewaffneten Konflikts durchgängig und vorbehaltlos zu
gewährleisten.
Soweit die Vorinstanz - schon rechtsfehlerhaft, weil von der Rechtslage
des Jahres 1944 (!) ausgehend - im Urteil die von ihr nicht näher
begründete Behauptung aufstellt, es käme das deutsche
Staatshaftungsrecht in Fällen bewaffneter Konflikte auch heute nicht
zur Anwendung, weil es durch die Regelungen des internationalen
Kriegsrechts »überlagert« werde, ist das unter keinem nur denkbaren
Gesichtspunkt mehr zutreffend.
4.1 Diese Auffassung ist schon deshalb unzutreffend, weil die Frage, ob
jemand eine bestimmte Rechtsposition hat und ihm ein bestimmter
Rechtsanspruch zusteht, nur im Blick auf eine konkrete, nämlich die zum
relevanten Zeitpunkt geltende Rechtsordnung zu beantworten ist. Auf die
Rechtslage im Jahre 1944 kommt es demzufolge nicht an. Zu diesem
Zeitpunkt war an das Grundgesetz noch nicht einmal zu denken. Es
existierte nicht.
Der im vorliegenden Fall relevante Zeitpunkt ist der 30. Mai 1999.
Demzufolge hätte die Vorinstanz die Prüfung der Ansprüche und
Rechtsposition der Berufungsklägerin unter Berücksichtigung der Geltung
des Grundgesetzes und der übrigen zu diesem Zeitpunkt geltenden
Rechtsordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, einschließlich unter
Berücksichtigung der völkerrechtlichen Pflichtenlage vornehmen müssen.
Das aber ist ausweislich des angegriffenen Urteils unterblieben.
4.2. Die vorgenannte Rechtsauffassung der Vorinstanz steht auch im
krassen Widerspruch zu den Art. 2 und 34 des Grundgesetzes, die das
Recht auf Leben und den ordentlichen Rechtsweg für einen
Schadenersatzanspruch im Falle seiner Verletzung durch Amtsträger als
geltendes Recht garantieren.
4.3 Die nicht näher begründete Behauptung in dem angegriffenen Urteil,
wonach bewaffnete Auseinandersetzungen auch nach Beendigung des II.
Weltkrieges »als völkerrechtlicher Ausnahmezustand anzusehen (seien),
der die im Frieden geltende Rechtsordnung weitgehend suspendiere« (vgl.
Urteilsbegründung, Seite 27), verkennt gröblichst den heutigen
Entwicklungsstand des Völkerrechts und - darüberhinaus - die
Verfassungslage.
4.3.1 Das in Art. 1 Abs. 3 GG enthaltene Bekenntnis zu unverletzlichen
und unveräußerlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage der menschlichen
Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit erlangt in diesem
Zusammenhang Relevanz. In Verbindung mit der in Art. 1 Abs. 3 GG
enthaltenen Verweisung auf die nachfolgenden Grundrechte sind deren
Verbürgungen insoweit einer Einschränkung grundsätzlich entzogen, als
sie zur Aufrechterhaltung einer dem Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2 GG
entsprechenden Ordnung unverzichtbar sind. Ebenso wie der originäre
Verfassungsgeber (vgl. BVerfGE 3, 225 (232) = NJW 1954, 65; BVerfGE 23,
98 (106)) darf auch der verfassungsändernde Gesetzgeber danach
grundlegende Gerechtigkeitspostulate nicht außer acht lassen. Nichts
anderes gilt selbstverständlich für die Staatsgewalt.
Dazu gehören der Grundsatz der Rechtsgleichheit und das Willkürverbot
(vgl. BVerfGE 1, 208 (233); 23, 98 (106 f.) = NJW 1968, 1036). Ebenso
sind grundlegende Elemente des Rechts- und des Sozialstaatsprinzips,
die in Art. 20 Abs. 1 und 3 GG zum Ausdruck kommen, zu achten.
4.3.2 Bei alledem gebietet Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG, daß die genannten
Grundsätze nicht berührt werden.
Die Regelung stünde einer vollständigen oder teilweisen, einer
zeitlichen und etwa auf einen bewaffneten Konflikt begrenzten
»Suspendierung« oder »Überlagerung« des Grundgesetzes entgegen. Mit
dieser Regelung werden bestimmte Wesenszüge des Grundgesetzes für alle
Zeiten vor einer »Berührung« geschützt. Demnach ist das Antasten eines
der in Absatz 3 genannten Schutzgüter untersagt. Zu diesen
unantastbaren Schutzgütern gehören auch die in Art. 1 des Grundgesetzes
niedergelegten Grundsätze. Was den Inhalt des Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 1
angeht, so legt bereits Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 die »Verpflichtung aller
staatlichen Gewalt« fest, die Menschenwürde »zu achten (und zu
schützen)«. Daraus folgt zugleich, daß der Verfassungsgesetzgeber - sei
es Kraft des Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 oder sei es aufgrund des Art. 79 Abs.
3 - gehalten ist, die Menschenwürde jederzeit und insoweit zu
respektieren, als sie an sonstiger Stelle des Grundgesetzes zum
Vorschein kommt. Sogenannte Menschenwürdegehalte finden sich
insbesondere in den Grundrechten. Somit besteht ein absolutes Verbot,
das Grundrecht der Menschenwürde überhaupt und die sonstigen
Grundrechte in irgendeiner Weise zu beeinträchtigen.
4.3.2 Ungeachtet der vorgenannten Rechtslage gab es auch keine
tatsächlichen Gründe, die es notwendig gemacht haben könnten oder
hätten machen können, zur Aufrechterhaltung einer Ordnung gem. Art. 1
und 2 GG die Grundrechte während der Luftoperationen der NATO-Staaten
gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien einzuschränken.
4.4 Damit steht fest, daß weder das Grundgesetz noch die übrige
Rechtsordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland während der
Luftoperationen der NATO unter Beteiligung von Streitkräften der
Berufungsbeklagten in der ehemaligen Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien im
Jahre 1999 in irgendeiner Weise »überlagert« oder sonstwie von seiner
Wirkung »suspendiert« war.
Schon mangels gegenteiliger Anhaltspunkte tatsächlicher und rechtlicher
Art kann keineswegs von der Suspendierung deutschen Rechts während der
Zeit der Luftangriffe der NATO-Staaten auf die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien zwischen 24. März und 10. Juni 1999 ausgegangen werden.
Folgerichtig konnte, schon allein wegen der uneingeschränkten Bindung
staatlichen Handelns an das Grundgesetz, entgegen der Auffassung der
Vorinstanz auch das deutsche Staatshaftungsrecht während der
Luftangriffe gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien nicht
suspendiert sein (werden).
4.5 Aber auch aufgrund der veränderten Rechtslage durch die Entwicklung
im Völkerrecht nach dem II. Weltkrieg wird - nach der universellen
Anerkennung des Gewaltverbots - der Krieg nicht mehr als ein
Ausnahmezustand betrachtet, der das im Frieden geltende Völkerrecht und
das Amtshaftungsrecht suspendiert. Insbesondere wird die universelle
Geltung der Menschenrechte nicht aufgehoben. Das Recht auf Leben ist
heute ein allgemein anerkanntes Menschenrecht, ein „ Jedermannsrecht “
(vgl. dazu weitergehende Ausführungen unter Ziff. II. 2.1).
Der Staat haftet, ist schadenersatzpflichtig, wenn das Recht auf Leben
und körperliche Unversehrtheit durch seine Organe verletzt wird, auch
dann, wenn dies im Ausland geschieht und ausländische Staatsbürger wie
die Berufungsklägerin geschädigt werden. Opfer und Hinterbliebene
solcher Schädigungshandlungen können solche Ansprüche vor deutschen
Gerichten geltend machen.
In der althergebrachten Rechtsprechung wurde bisher verneint, daß das
auch dann Geltung habe, wenn die Schädigungshandlung im Rahmen eines
bewaffneten Konflikts durch eine am Konflikt beteiligte Partei begangen
wurde und selbige unter das Kriegsrecht fiel.
Es wurde zu Unrecht behauptet, daß Art. 3 des IV. Haager Abkommens,
später Art. 91 des Zusatzprotokolls I, keine Schadenersatzansprüche von
Einzelpersonen zuließen.
Diese Konzeption kann heute, angesichts der Tatsache, daß
Menschenrechte wie das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit
universell geltende Rechte sind, nicht mehr aufrechterhalten werden.
Ausdrücklich wird in den Menschenrechtskonventionen ausgeschlossen, daß
der Staat das Recht auf Leben in Notstandssituationen einschränken oder
aufheben kann. Kriegsbedingte Tötungen werden auch nach der
europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention nur dann hingenommen, wenn die
"Todesfälle auf rechtmäßige Kriegshandlungen zurückzuführen sind."
Das bedeutet, daß eine Tötung im Kriegsfall, die unter Verletzung des
Kriegsrechts, z. B. der Haager Landkriegsordnung, der Genfer
Konventionen oder des Zusatzprotokolls I geschieht, nicht unter
Berufung auf den Krieg als Ausnahmezustand gerechtfertigt werden kann.
Der BGH hat ganz offensichtlich gerade deshalb in seiner sogenannten
»Distomo-Entscheidung« vom 26. Juni 2003 - AZ: III ZR 245/98 –
(Urteilsbegründung, Seite 24) so nachdrücklich immer wieder auf den
Zeitpunkt des Kriegsverbrechens (1944!) verwiesen, weil nach heutiger
Rechtslage die Position nicht mehr aufrechterhalten werden kann, daß
nicht dem geschädigten Individuum, sondern nur der betroffenen
Kriegspartei ein subjektives Klagerecht auf Schadenersatz zustehe und
infolge des Krieges " eine innerstaatliche Verantwortlichkeit des
Staates " nach dem "Amtshaftungstatbestand des § 839 BGB...ausgenommen
" war.
Nach heutiger Völkerrechtslage kann eine unter Verletzung des geltenden
Kriegsrechts begangene rechtswidrige Tötung nicht mehr unter Berufung
darauf, daß durch den Krieg ein Ausnahmerecht oder ein Staatsnotstand
eingetreten sei, gerechtfertigt oder von der Amtshaftung ausgeschlossen
werden. Sie bleibt schlicht eine Menschenrechtsverletzung für die der
Staat, wenn sie ihm zuzurechnen ist, einzustehen hat und auf Grund
dieser die Opfer bzw. Hinterbliebenen mit einem eigenen Klagerecht auf
dem ordentlichen Rechtsweg vorgehen und Schadenersatz- sowie
Schmerzensgeldansprüche geltend machen können. Die Staaten sind durch
die Menschenrechtskonventionen verpflichtet, ihnen dafür einen
Rechtsweg zur Verfügung zu stellen.
Die Vorinstanz hat die Entwicklung der Menschenrechte im Völkerrecht
seit 1945 schlichtweg ignoriert, indem sie es unterlassen hat, sie in
die rechtliche Bewertung einzubeziehen und schon dadurch die
dargelegten Veränderungen der Rechtslage, insbesondere der heutigen
Rechtsposition des Individuums, nicht erkannte.
Soweit in dem angegriffenen Urteil ein subjektives Klagerecht der
geschädigten Individuen nur dann angenommen wird, wenn sie in einzelnen
Menschenrechtskonventionen als spezielle vertragliche »Schutzsysteme«
extra geregelt sind, so ist das eine nicht haltbare Rechtsauffassung.
Die Vorinstanz übersah dabei nämlich, daß diese speziellen
Rechtsschutzmechanismen der Menschenrechtskonventionen kein Ersatz für
nationale Rechtsmittel und nicht die einzige Möglichkeit der
Betroffenen sind, ihre Ansprüche geltend zu machen. Tatsächlich sind
sie und können sie nur ein Korrektiv zu den innerstaatlichen
Rechtsmittelmöglichkeiten sein. Nationale Rechtsmittel zur
Geltendmachung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen werden nicht nur
vorausgesetzt, die Mitgliedstaaten der Konventionen werden
ausdrücklich verpflichtet, sie bereitzustellen, was im deutschen Recht
durch die Artikel 19 Abs. 4 und 34 des Grundgesetzes gewährleistet
wird.
Der Angriff auf die Brücke von Varvarin verletzte eindeutig die
Bestimmungen der Art. 48, 51, 52, und 57 des Zusatzprotokolls I zu den
Genfer Konventionen, die dem Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung dienen. Er
stellt deshalb keine rechtmäßige Kriegshandlung dar, die die
Berufungsbeklagte in Übereinstimmung mit Art. 15, Abs. 2 der
europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention als Ausnahme bei
Menschenrechtsverletzungen geltend machen könnte. Damit ist die
Rechtswidrigkeit der Tötungshandlung gegeben und die geschädigten
Berufungskläger können ihre Schadenersatzansprüche unmittelbar auf
deutsches Recht, nämlich die Verletzung ihrer Grundrechte aus den Art.
1 und 2 Grundgesetz, stützen.
Ihre Anspruchsgrundlage ist also nicht allein das Völkerrecht, sondern
parallel dazu das nationale Recht. Da sie eine Menschenrechtsverletzung
nach deutschem Recht geltend machen, sind alle Erörterungen über die
Völkerrechtssubjektivität von Individuen und darüber, daß das
humanitäre Völkerrecht angeblich keine Schadenersatzansprüche für
Individuen vorsieht, unbeachtlich.
II. 2. Die Ignorierung der sich aus den Grundrechten ergebenden
Schutzpflicht des Staates durch die Vorinstanz
Die Pflicht des Staates, jedes menschliche Leben zu schützen, läßt sich
aus den vorgenannten Gründen bereits unmittelbar aus Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz
1 GG ableiten. Sie ergibt sich darüber hinaus auch aus der
ausdrücklichen Vorschrift des Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG. Denn das Recht
auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit nimmt selbstredend auch an dem
Schutz teil, den Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG der Menschenwürde gewährt. Wo
menschliches Leben existiert, kommt ihm Menschenwürde zu. Die Tatsache
menschlicher Existenz (= menschlichen Lebens) genügt, um die
Menschenwürde zu begründen.
Unter anderem auch in seiner Entscheidung vom 13.05.1996 hat das
BVerfG die herausragende Stellung der hier entscheidungserheblich zur
Debatte stehenden Rechtsgüter nach Art. 1 und Art. 2 des Grundgesetzes
wie folgt hervorgehoben. Danach habe das Grundgesetz
»... eine wertgebundene Ordnung aufgerichtet, die den einzelnen
Menschen und seine Würde in den Mittelpunkt aller seiner Regelungen
stellt. Dem liegt, wie das Bundesverfassungsgericht bereits früh
ausgesprochen hat (BVerfGE 2, 1 [12]), die Vorstellung zugrunde, daß
der Mensch in der Schöpfungsordnung einen eigenen selbständigen Wert
besitzt, der die unbedingte Achtung vor dem Leben jedes einzelnen
Menschen, auch dem scheinbar sozial "wertlosen", unabdingbar fordert
und der es deshalb ausschließt, solches Leben ohne rechtfertigenden
Grund zu vernichten. Diese Grundentscheidung der Verfassung bestimmt
Gestaltung und Auslegung der gesamten Rechtsordnung.« (Vgl. Urteil vom
25. Februar 1975, BVerfGE 39, 1 - Schwangerschaftsabbruch I, dort unter
Ziff. II)
Das Grundgesetz verpflichtet den Staat, menschliches Leben zu schützen.
Auch ihm gebührt der Schutz des Staates. Die Verfassung untersagt nicht
nur unmittelbare staatliche Eingriffe in das Leben, sie gebietet dem
Staat auch, sich schützend und fördernd vor dieses Leben zu stellen, d.
h. vor allem, es auch vor rechtswidrigen Eingriffen von seiten Dritter
zu bewahren (vgl. BVerfGE 39, 1 (42) = NJW 1975, 573 (575)). Ihren
Grund hat diese Schutzpflicht in Art. 1 I GG, der den Staat
ausdrücklich zur Achtung und zum Schutz der Menschenwürde verpflichtet.
Ihr Gegenstand und - von ihm her - ihr Maß werden durch Art. 2 II GG
näher bestimmt.
Die Vorinstanz hat in diesem Zusammenhang schon gar nicht erkannt, daß
die Berufungsbeklagte gegenüber den Berufungsklägern schon einen
solchen grundgesetzlichen Schutzauftrag gerade auch durch den von ihr
im NATO-Rat mitbeschlossenen Militäreinsatz, an dem sie sich auch mit
eigenen Truppenverbänden beteiligte, hatte. Ebenso hat die Vorinstanz
die weitere konkrete Pflichtenlage, die sich für die Berufungsbeklagte
aus völkerrechtlichen Verträgen und nationalem Recht zur Gewährleistung
einer pflichtgemäßen bzw. völkerrechtskonformen Beteiligung an einem
bewaffneten Konflikt im Rahmen eines NATO-Militäreinsatzes ergibt,
nicht erkannt.
Aufgrund der Verkennung der Pflichtenlage der Berufungsbeklagten kann
es letztlich nicht verwundern (und ist fast " folgerichtig"), daß die
Vorinstanz zu dem schlußendlich rechtsfehlerhaften Ergebnis gekommen
ist, wonach es für die Berufungsklägerin weder im Völkerrecht noch im
nationalen (deutschen) Recht eine Anspruchsgrundlage für die geltend
gemachten Forderungen gäbe.
II. 2.1 Pflichten der Berufungsbeklagten im Zusammenhang mit der
Teilnahme an dem NATO-Einsatz gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien
Die Berufungsbeklagte war in ihrer Eigenschaft als eine an einem
bewaffneten Konflikt teilnehmende Partei zum Schutz von Leben und
körperlicher Unversehrtheit gegenüber der jugoslawischen
Zivilbevölkerung verpflichtet.
Das ergibt sich wie bereits dargelegt schon aus den Art. 1 und 2 des
Grundgesetzes und ergänzend aus Art. 6 I und Art. 12 I und II des
Internationalen Pakts über bürgerliche und politische Rechte von 1966
und der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte von 1948. Danach ist
der Schutz des Lebens und der körperlichen Unversehrtheit garantiert.
Der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte vom 19.
12. 1966 (BGBl II 1973, 1534; DDR-GBl II, 1974, 57 - IPBPR -), bietet
konkrete Anhaltspunkte dafür, wann der Staat nach der Überzeugung der
weltweiten Rechtsgemeinschaft Menschenrechte verletzt. Hierbei ist Art.
6 IPBPR relevant, wonach niemand seines angeborenen Rechts auf Leben
willkürlich beraubt werden darf (BGHSt 39, 1 (20 ff.) = NJW 1993, 141).
Der Pakt ist für die Berufungsbeklagte am 23. 3. 1976 in Kraft getreten
(BGBl II, 1068).
Der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, der
seit 1966 zur Unterzeichnung auflag (Art. 48), hat seine Grundlage in
der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte (Resolution der
Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen vom 10. 12. 1948; deutsche
Übersetzung u. a. bei Sartorius II Nr. 19). Nach Art. 3 der Allgemeinen
Erklärung der Menschenrechte hat jeder Mensch das Recht auf Leben.
Nach Art. 29 Nr. 2 der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte ist der
Mensch
„in Ausübung seiner Rechte und Freiheiten nur Beschränkungen
unterworfen, die das Gesetz ausschließlich zu dem Zweck vorsieht, um
die Anerkennung und Achtung der Rechte und Freiheiten anderer zu
gewährleisten und den gerechten Anforderungen der Moral, der
öffentlichen Ordnung und der allgemeinen Wohlfahrt in einer
demokratischen Gesellschaft zu genügen“.
Hiernach stimmen die Gewährleistungstatbestände der Allgemeinen
Erklärung der Menschenrechte und des Internationalen Pakts über
bürgerliche und politische Rechte im Hinblick auf das Recht auf Leben
überein.
Die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte dient dazu, die Bezugnahme
der Charta der Vereinten Nationen vom 26. 6. 1945 (BGBl II 1973, 431;
II 1974, 770) auf die Menschenrechte zu konkretisieren (Buergenthal/
Doehring/Kokott/Maier, Grundzüge des VölkerR, 1988, S. 111). Hinweise
auf die Menschenrechte finden sich in Art. 1 Nr. 3, Art. 13 Abs. 1 lit.
b, Art. 55, 62, 68 der Charta.
Nach Art. 56 der Charta sind alle Mitgliedstaaten verpflichtet, in
Zusammenarbeit mit den Vereinten Nationen die in Art. 55 der Charta
genannten Ziele, zu denen die Verwirklichung der Menschenrechte (Art.
55 lit. c) gehört, anzustreben. In der Beschlußpraxis der
Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen und ihrer Untergliederungen
ist demgemäß seit Verabschiedung der Allgemeinen Erklärung der
Menschenrechte wiederholt und in vielfältiger Form auf diese Erklärung
hingewiesen worden.
Zwar ist die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte vom 10. 12. 1948
kein Vertragsrecht. In diesem Sinne hieß es 1973 in der Denkschrift der
Bundesregierung zum Internationalen Pakt über bürgerliche und
politische Rechte (BT-Drs. 7/660, S. 27), daß die Allgemeine Erklärung
der Menschenrechte zwar grundsätzlich bedeutend, jedoch nicht formell
rechtsverbindlich sei (vgl. auch BVerfGE 41, 88 (106) = NJW 1976, 952).
Ob die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte als bloß programmatische
Grundersatzerklärung aufgefaßt werden darf (BVerwGE 3, 171 (175); 5,
153 (160); K. Ipsen, VölkerR 3. Aufl. (1990), § 7 Rdnr. 11), mag
dahinstehen. Jedenfalls ist ihr von vornherein der Zweck beigemessen
worden, die Praxis der Vereinten Nationen sowie die Rechtsentwicklung
in den Mitgliedstaaten und darüber hinaus in allen Staaten der Welt zu
beeinflussen und zwar in dem Sinne, daß sie überall als Maßstab für die
Anerkennung und Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte verstanden werden soll
(vgl. Partsch, in: Simma, Charta der Vereinten Nationen, 1991 Art. 55
Rdnr. 23 ff.; Verdross/Simma, Universelles VölkerR, 3. Aufl. (1984), S.
822 f.; Henkin, in: Henkin (Hrsg.), The Interantional Bill of Rights,
1981, S. 1 (8 f.); T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as
Customary Law, 1989, S. 82 ff. m. w. Nachw.).
Zum hier relevanten Tatzeitraum (30. Mai 1999) lag bereits lange die
Entscheidung des IGH aus dem Jahre 1970 in der Sache Barcelona Traction
Light and Power vor, in der die „basic rights of the human person" als
Rechtsgüter bezeichnet wurden, die mit Wirkung gegen jedermann, auch
gegen jeden Staat, zu schützen seien (ICJ Reports 1970, 3 (32 f.). Der
IGH hat in einer späteren Entscheidung aus dem Jahre 1980 (Teheraner
Botschaftsfall) ausdrücklich auf die Rechte und Freiheiten Bezug
genommen, wie sie in der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte
niedergelegt sind (ICP Reports, 1980, 3 (42); vgl. hierzu auch Frowein,
in: Festschr. f. Hermann Mosler, 1983, S. 241 ff.; Dinstein, ArchVölkR
30 (1992) 16 ff. und Hobe/Tietje, ArchVölkR 32 (1994) 130, 139).
In der Literatur mehren sich die Stimmen, die der Erklärung eine
Bindungswirkung für alle Mitgliedstaaten oder überhaupt für alle
Staaten beimessen (Verdross/Simma, S. 882 f.; Meron, S. 81 ff. m. w.
Nachw.; Lillich, in: T. Meron (Hrsg.), Human Rights in International
Law, 1984, S. 115 f.).
Fundamentale Menschenrechte im Sinne der UN-Charta werden zum Teil als
ius cogens i. S. des Art. 53 des Wiener Übereinkommens über das Recht
der Verträge vom 23. 5. 1969 (BGBl II 1985, 925) verstanden (Frowein,
EPIL, Lieferung 7 (1984), S. 327, 329; Hobe/Tietje, aaO; vgl. auch
Kadelbach, Zwingendes VölkerR, 1992, S. 284 ff.; abw. Klenner,
Marxismus und Menschenrechte, 1982, S. 191 (193)). Andere Autoren
sprechen von Völkergewohnheitsrecht (Pechota, in: Henkin (Hrsg.), S. 32
(38, 408); T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary
Law, 1989, S. 79 ff. (246 ff.) m. w. Nachw.). Die Zuordnung ist im
vorliegenden Fall jedoch nicht relevant.
Denn auch wenn die Bindungswirkung der Allgemeinen Erklärung der
Menschenrechte im allgemeinen wie auch im Hinblick auf die einzelnen
Menschenrechte nicht voll erklärt sein mag, so kommt doch der
Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte jedenfalls insofern ein hohes
Maß an rechtlicher Bedeutung zu, als sie den Willen der
Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft, Menschenrechte zu verwirklichen und den
ungefähren Inhalt dieser Menschenrechte zum Ausdruck bringt. In diesem
Sinne hat auch das BVerfG auf die Allgemeine Erklärung Bezug genommen
(BVerfGE 31, 58 (68) = NJW 1971, 1509).
Angesichts der Exaktheit, mit der die Allgemeine Erklärung der
Menschenrechte das fundamentale Recht auf Leben definiert hat, kann die
Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte, nicht anders als der
Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, als eine
Konkretisierung dessen aufgefaßt werden, was als die allen Völkern
gemeinsame, auf Wert und Würde des Menschen bezogene Rechtsüberzeugung
verstanden wird (BGHSt 39, 1 (15 f.) = NJW 1993, 141).
II. 2.2 Pflichtverletzungen der Berufungsbeklagten im Zusammenhang mit
der Teilnahme an dem NATO-Einsatz gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien
Die Berufungsbeklagte war verpflichtet, ihr gesamtes Verhalten während
der Planung, Beschlußfassung und insbesondere in der Durchführungsphase
des Militäreinsatzes der NATO in der ehemaligen Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien strengstens den Anforderungen zu unterwerfen, die ihr durch
die Pflicht zum Schutz von Leben und körperlicher Unversehrtheit
entsprechend den Schutzregeln für die Zivilbevölkerung in bewaffneten
Konflikten nach dem Zusatzprotokoll I konkret auferlegt sind.
Danach war sie verpflichtet als vollwertiger Mitgliedstaat der NATO,
beginnend im NATO-Rat über alle weiteren Strukturebenen hinaus, in
denen sie auch sämtlichst mit deutschem Personal vertreten war, darauf
hinzuwirken, daß bei allen militärischen Luftoperationen im
Einsatzgebiet das Leben und die körperliche Unversehrtheit der
Zivilbevölkerung gewahrt und die konkreten und strengen Regeln des
Zusatzprotokoll I eingehalten werden.
Schon nach ihrem eigenen erstinstanzlichen Vortrag steht fest, daß sie
dieser Verpflichtung nicht entsprochen hat. Denn danach habe sie selbst
angeblich keinen Einfluß auf die Zielplanung gehabt und auch nicht
genommen. Selbige sei allein der NATO überlassen worden.
Ganz unabhängig davon, daß die Berufungsbeklagte schon wegen der
gesamtschuldnerischen Haftung für das rechtswidrige Handeln der NATO
für die Schäden der Berufungsklägerin einzustehen hat, ergibt sich ihre
Verantwortung zusätzlich aber auch aus einem pflichtwidrigen
Unterlassen der ständigen Kontrolle der NATO-Einsätze auf die
Einhaltung der Schutzregeln des Zusatzprotokolls I.
Es liegt auf der Hand, daß die Schutzpflicht hinsichtlich der Wahrung
des Rechts auf Leben und der körperlichen Unversehrtheit der
Zivilbevölkerung bei militärischen Angriffen untrennbar mit einer
Kontrollpflicht bzw. Überwachungspflicht der NATO durch die
Berufungsbeklagte einherging. Die Schutzpflicht gegenüber der
Zivilbevölkerung kann ohne Ausübung dieser Überwachungspflicht nicht
wahrgenommen werden.
Nach den materiellen Kriterien für die Bestimmung einer
Garantenstellung war die Berufungsbeklagte unter zweierlei
Gesichtspunkten garantenpflichtig:
Es wird unterschieden zwischen solchen Garantenpflichten einerseits,
die daraus resultieren, daß der Garant eine Schutzpflicht für bestimmte
Rechtsgüter hat, und andererseits solchen Garantenpflichten, die sich
aus der Pflicht zur Überwachung bestimmter Gefahrenquellen ergeben
(Jescheck, in: LK-StGB, § 13 Rdnrn. 19ff.; Stree, in: Schönke/Schröder,
§ 13 Rdnrn. 9ff.; Tröndle/Fischer, § 13 Rdnrn. 5b, 5c;
Maurach/Gössel/Zipf, StrafR, AT, Teilbd. 2, S. 197ff.; ähnlich Jakobs,
StrafR, AT, 2. Aufl., S. 800ff.).
Beide Aspekte kommen hier zum Tragen. Die Berufungsbeklagte war sowohl
„Überwachungsgarant“ als auch „Beschützergarant“. Als Mitgliedstaat der
NATO war sie verpflichtet, insbesondere die Vorbereitung und
Durchführung der konkreten Luftoperationen, von denen schon naturgemäß
akute Lebensgefahr für die Zivilbevölkerung ausging, in der Weise zu
überwachen, zu kontrollieren und zu steuern, daß eine rechtswidrige
Tötung unterblieb und die körperliche Unversehrtheit der
Zivilbevölkerung gewahrt wird.
Zum anderen war die Berufungsbeklagte verpflichtet, das Leben und die
körperliche Unversehrtheit der Zivilbevölkerung zu schützen und das
gegebenenfalls auch, indem sie innerhalb der NATO gegen nicht durch das
Zusatzprotokoll I gedeckte Luftoperationen intervenierte,
gegebenenfalls den Entzug ihrer generellen Zustimmung zu weiteren
Kampfhandlungen androhte oder sie - in letzter Konsequenz - tatsächlich
entzogen hätte, wenn die Einhaltung der Regeln des Zusatzprotokoll I
nicht zu gewährleisten war.
Es kommt unter den dargelegten Aspekten für die Verantwortlichkeit der
Berufungsbeklagten hinsichtlich rechtswidriger Tötungshandlungen
deshalb auch nicht darauf an, ob und wenn in welcher Weise sie selbst
unmittelbar an der Vorbereitung, Planung und Durchführung des
rechtswidrigen Angriffs auf die Stadt Varvarin am 30. Mai 1999
beteiligt war. Entscheidend für ihre Verantwortlichkeit und die
Kausalität ist, daß sie durch ihr Verhalten den rechtswidrigen Angriff
tatsächlich ermöglicht oder zumindest erleichtert hat.
Beide Alternativen sind im vorliegenden Fall erfüllt:
a) den Angriff hat sie unbestreitbar schon deshalb ermöglicht, weil sie
im NATO-Rat dem Militäreinsatz gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien zugestimmt und ihn aufgrund des Einstimmigkeitsprinzips
somit möglich gemacht hat;
b) den rechtswidrigen Angriff auf die Berufungsklägerin hat die
Berufungsbeklagte schon dadurch mindestens erleichtert, daß sie der
oben dargelegten Überwachungspflicht – und zwar während des gesamten
Zeitraums der Luftangriffe - nicht nachgekommen ist.
II. 3 Die Herleitung des Ersatzes des immateriellen Schadens nicht aus
§ 847 BGB analog, sondern unmittelbar aus Art. 2 Abs. 1,
Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG
Die in dem angegriffenen Urteil enthaltene Auffassung, wonach die
Berufungskläger Schadenersatzansprüche auf die Grundrechte des
Grundgesetzes deshalb nicht stützen könnten, weil diese Garantien
keinen Schadenersatzanspruch als Rechtsfolge vorsehen (vgl.
Urteilsbegründung, dort Seite 27,3. Abs.), wird durch die
Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs widerlegt.
So stellt der Bundesgerichtshof (vgl. BGHZ 128,1 ff.) zunächst einmal
fest, daß es sich bei einer Entschädigung wegen einer Verletzung des
allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts im eigentlichen Sinn nicht um ein
Schmerzensgeld nach § 847 BGB handelt, sondern um einen Rechtsbehelf,
der auf den Schutzauftrag aus Art. 1 und 2 Abs. 1 Grundgesetz
zurückgeht (vgl. BVerfGE 34,2 169,2 182/292 = NJW 1973, 1221,
1223/1226).
Die Zubilligung einer Geldentschädigung beruhe - so der
Bundesgerichtshof weiter - auf dem Gedanken, daß ohne einen solchen
Anspruch Verletzungen der Würde und Ehre des Menschen häufig ohne
Sanktion blieben mit der Folge, daß der Rechtsschutz der Persönlichkeit
verkümmern würde. Anders als beim Schmerzensgeldanspruch steht bei dem
Anspruch auf eine Geldentschädigung wegen einer Verletzung des
allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts der Gesichtspunkt der Genugtuung des
Opfers im Vordergrund (Senat BGHZ 35,3 163,3 169; 39,1 124,133).
Außerdem solle nach Auffassung des Bundesgerichtshofs der unmittelbar
aus den Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2 Abs. 1 Grundgesetz folgende Rechtsbehelf
der Prävention dienen (vgl. Senatsurteil vom 92. Januar 1995 - AZ: VI
ZR 28/83; vgl. auch NJW 1980,1 1724, 1727;Erman/Ehmann,BGB, 9. Aufl.
Anh. zu § 12 Rdnr. 482;), weil sonst kein zureichender Schutz der
Grundrechte und der Grundrechtsträger zu erreichen sei.
Der BGH geht hier sogar noch einen Schritt weiter: er leitet den
Geldentschädigungsanspruch nicht nur dem Grunde, sondern auch der Höhe
nach unmittelbar aus den vorgenannten Grundrechten her, indem er
wesentlich höhere Geldentschädigungsbeträge als sonst bei üblichen
Schmerzensgeldforderungen nach § 847 BGB für erforderlich hält und
begründet das überzeugend damit, daß sonst dem geforderten
Präventionszweck nicht entsprochen werden könne.
Nebenbei weist der Unterzeichner in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hin, daß
sich daraus auch die Höhe des Geldentschädigungsanspruchs der von ihm
vertretenen Berufungsklägerin begründet, der sich nach der hier
vertretenen Auffassung schon am untersten Rand bewegt. Auf die
diesbezüglichen umfangreichen Ausführungen in der Klageschrift wird
Bezug genommen.
II. 4 Die Ignorierung der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts
durch die Vorinstanz
Selbst wenn es für die Berufungskläger nicht möglich wäre, einen
Schadenersatzanspruch unmittelbar aus der Verletzung des humanitären
Völkerrechts geltend zu machen, so schlösse jedenfalls das Völkerrecht
nicht das Bestehen und die Geltendmachung eines parallelen
Schadenersatzanspruchs aus nationalem (deutschen) Recht aus. Darauf hat
das BVerfG in seinem Beschluß vom 13.05.1996 ausdrücklich hingewiesen
(vgl. NJW 1996, 2717,2718).
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seinem Beschluß sehr nachdrücklich
auf die Veränderung der Rechtslage nach 1945 und die Bedeutung der
Parallelität von Ansprüchen aus dem Völkerrecht und dem nationalen
Recht insbesondere bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen aufmerksam gemacht.
In der entscheidenden Passage führt das BVerfG aus:
"aa) Die traditionelle Konzeption des Völkerrechts als eines
zwischenstaatlichen Rechts versteht den Einzelnen nicht als
Völkerrechtssubjekt, sondern gewährt ihm nur mittelbaren
internationalen Schutz: Bei völkerrechtlichen Delikten durch Handlungen
gegenüber fremden Staatsbürgern steht ein Anspruch nicht dem
Betroffenen selbst, sondern nur seinem Heimatstaat zu....
Dieses Prinzip einer ausschließlichen Staatenberechtigung galt in den
Jahren 1943 bis 1945 auch für die Verletzung von Menschenrechten. Der
Einzelne konnte grundsätzlich weder die Feststellung des Unrechts noch
einen Unrechtsausgleich verlangen....Erst in der neueren Entwicklung
eines erweiterten Schutzes der Menschenrechte gewährt das Völkerrecht
dem Einzelnen ein eigenes Recht, berechtigt andere Völkerrechtssubjekte
auf der Grundlage von Resolutionen des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten
Nationen zur Intervention bei gravierenden Verstößen und entwickelt
vertragliche Schutzsysteme, in denen der Einzelne seinen Anspruch auch
selbst verfolgen kann...
bb) Das Grundprinzip des diplomatischen Schutzes schließt aber einen
Anspruch nicht aus, den das nationale Recht des verletzenden Staates
dem Verletzten außerhalb völkerrechtlicher Verpflichtungen gewährt und
der neben die völkerrechtlichen Ansprüche des Heimatstaates tritt. Dies
zeigt sich bereits an dem Grundsatz, daß der Staat den diplomatischen
Schutz erst ausüben darf, wenn der betroffene Staatsangehörige den
innerstaatlichen Rechtsweg erschöpft hat....Damit wird die Möglichkeit
eines eigenen Anspruchs des betroffenen Individuums auch nach
nationalem Recht vorausgesetzt....Das gilt insbesondere dann, wenn in
der staatlichen Verletzungshandlung sowohl ein Bruch des Völkerrechts
als auch des nationalen Rechts liegt....
Im übrigen besteht auch eine solche Regel des Völkergewohnheitsrechts
über die "Exklusivität" nicht, nach der Entschädigungsregelungen im
Zusammenhang mit Kriegsfolgen nur im Rahmen von völkerrechtlichen
Verträgen, insbesondere von Friedensverträgen getroffen werden könnten
oder bestehende Verträge über solche Entschädigungen abschließend
wären." (fette Hervorhebg. d. d. Unterz.)
Die Vorinstanz hätte es nicht unterlassen dürfen, diese
Rechtsauffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in ihre
Entscheidungsfindung einzubeziehen, sondern hätte sie statt dessen zum
Gegenstand der Prüfung der Ansprüche der Berufungsklägerin machen
müssen.
II. 5 Ergebnis
1. Würde man der Rechtsauffassung der Vorinstanz folgen, würde das
bedeuten, daß trotz aller nationalen und internationalen
Menschenrechtsbestimmungen alles so geblieben ist, wie es vor dem II.
Weltkrieg war.
Im Falle eines bewaffneten Konfliktes stünde auch heute den Opfern
einer Verletzung des Kriegsrechts mangels (beschränkter)
Völkerrechtssubjektivität und insbesondere fehlender Klagebefugnis kein
individuell durchsetzbarer Schadenersatzanspruch zu. Eine furchtbare
Bilanz, ein entlarvendes Ergebnis: Für den Einzelnen hört das Recht
auf Leben auf, wenn der (ein) Staat rechtswidrige Luftangriffe gegen
die Zivilbevölkerung in einem bewaffneten Konflikt anordnet, billigt
oder nicht verhindert. Das ganze Gebäude der Menschenrechte,
einschließlich des grundlegenden Rechts auf Leben, würde sich in einem
solchen Fall in Schall und Rauch auflösen.
Das jedoch widerspricht ganz offensichtlich nicht nur dem geltenden
Völkerrecht, sondern steht im krassen Widerspruch zur Werteordnung des
Grundgesetzes. Der Luftangriff am 30. Mai 1999 auf die Stadt Varvarin,
bei der die Berufungskläger bzw. ihre Angehörigen getötet und
schwerverletzt worden sind, ist als derart menschenverachtend
einzustufen, daß er nur als rechtswidrig zu werten ist. Es bedarf auch
deshalb nicht einmal der Vertiefung, daß der Gesamteinsatz der
NATO-Streitkräfte gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien hinsichtlich
seiner Rechtmäßigkeit grundlegend in Frage zu stellen ist.
2. Würde Opfern, die unter Umständen wie die Berufungskläger, Leben und
Gesundheit verloren bzw. schwerste Verletzungen erlitten haben, eine
unmittelbar aus den Artikeln 1 und 2 Grundgesetz hergeleitete
Geldentschädigung verwehrt werden, bliebe die Zivilbevölkerung in
künftigen bewaffneten Konflikten rücksichtslosen, staatlich zu
verantwortenden Tötungs- und Verletzungshandlungen weitestgehend
schutzlos ausgeliefert. Daher ist auch unter dem Gesichtspunkt der
Prävention ein Anspruch auf Geldentschädigung geboten.
3. Der entscheidende Rechtsgedanke, der im vorliegenden Fall zwingend
zur Bejahung der Schadenersatzforderungen führen muß, ist - wie bereits
in der Einführung (Ziff.I.7) dargelegt und hier wegen seiner Bedeutung
nochmals wiederholt - in folgendem zu sehen:
Eine althergebrachte Rechtsauffassung und eine darauf beruhende
Rechtsprechung, die bei rechtswidrigen staatlichen Kriegshandlungen
selbst bei schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen die individuelle
Geltendmachung und Durchsetzung von Schäden ausschloß und so
Kriegsverbrechen schützte, kann heute schon deshalb keine Anwendung
mehr finden, weil sie gegen elementare Gebote der Gerechtigkeit und
gegen völkerrechtlich geschützte Menschenrechte verstößt.
Eine solche Rechtsprechung, die diejenigen schützt, die sich gegen das
Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit vergehen und die Opfer
schutzlos stellt, ist nicht mehr hinzunehmen. Solche Verstöße - wie
auch der vorliegende Fall - wiegen so schwer, daß sie die allen Völkern
gemeinsamen, auf Wert und Würde des Menschen bezogenen
Rechtsüberzeugungen verletzt. In einem solchen Falle muß das positive
Recht zwingend der Gerechtigkeit weichen.
3.1 Die gegen jeden menschlichen Sinn und Verstand erfolgte Tötung und
Verwundung unbewaffneter Zivilpersonen durch Jagdflugzeuge in 2
Angriffswellen unter Abschuß von 4 Raketen, die zudem wegen ihrer
gewaltigen Sprengkraft den Opfern keine reale Chance des Entkommens
ließ, ein Beschuß außerhalb von Kampfgebieten, innerhalb einer
unverteidigten Stadt und ohne jede Vorwarnung auf Menschen, die nichts
anderes wollten als einen friedlichen Sonntag verleben, stellt ein
derart heimtückisches, schreckliches, menschenverachtendes und jeder
Rechtfertigung entzogenes Tun dar, daß der so verübte Verstoß gegen das
elementare Tötungsverbot keinem Gericht die Möglichkeit zur Abweisung
von Schadenersatzforderungen läßt.
4. Auf den vorliegenden Rechtsstreit angewendet, kommt der
Unterzeichner zwangsläufig zu dem Ergebnis, daß die Versagung einer
Geldentschädigung für die am 30. Mai 1999 verübten Kriegsverbrechen –
somit die gerichtliche Entscheidung selbst - die Menschenwürde der
Berufungsklägerin verletzen würde. Eine solche Versagung wäre unter den
konkreten Umständen mit den Grundwerten des Grundgesetzes und der
Gerechtigkeit unvereinbar.
III. Bezugnahme auf den erstinstanzlichen Vortrag
Auf das gesamte erstinstanzliche Vorbringen der Berufungsklägerin,
insbesondere in den Schriftsätzen vom 24. Dezember 2001 und vom 07.
Oktober 2003 einschließlich der dortigen Beweisantritte, wird ergänzend
Bezug genommen.
Sollte das Berufungsgericht in der einen oder anderen Frage Ergänzungen
für erforderlich halten, wird um einen richterlichen Hinweis gemäß den
§§ 139, 278 Abs. 2 ZPO gebeten.
Ich stelle direkt zu.
Ulrich Dost
Rechtsanwalt
Varvarin)
[ L'avvocato Ulrich Dost, che cura gli interessi dei familiari delle
vittime del bombardamento della NATO sul ponte di Varvarin, ci ha
trasmesso la memoria d'appello redatta il 30 agosto 2004 ed indirizzata
alla Corte Suprema di Colonia.
La causa - lo ricordiamo - contrappone 35 parenti delle vittime e
feriti sopravvissuti al raid, al governo federale tedesco. Essi
richiedono in totale 3,5 milioni di euro di risarcimento. Nel
bombardamento di un ponte a Varvarin, il 30 maggio 1999, dieci persone
rimasero uccise, 17 riportarono ferite gravi e altre 30 rimasero ferite
lievemente. Il ponte non era un obiettivo militare - furono centinaia
gli obiettivi civili colpiti, e 1.500 le vittime civili.
Gli aerei Nato colpirono il ponte di Varvarin in due attacchi
consecutivi: la maggior parte delle vittime erano abitanti accorsi per
soccorrere i feriti del primo raid.
E' noto che tutte le altre denunce, presentate a numerose istanze, di
vari paesi e sovranazionali, sui crimini di guerra della Nato in
Jugoslavia sono state insabbiate, tranne (per ora) quella presentata
dalla Jugoslavia alla Corte Internazionale dell'Aia (da non confondere
con il "Tribunale ad hoc", che pure ha sede all'Aia ma che si rifiuta
di procedere contro la Nato): ma e' noto che la stessa Nato ha chiesto
alla nuova leadership filoatlantica di Belgrado che, se vuole
diventare partner, deve ritirare anche quella.
Sulla causa intentata in Germania per il bombardamento di Varvarin vedi
anche, ad esempio:
Primo processo per i raid del 1999 (16 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2867
Varvarin 30/5/1999 (30 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2910
Varvarin-Bürger gegen Deutschland (9 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3000
Varvarin/Germania: sancito il diritto di ammazzare i civili ?
(11 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
(19 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3037
Projekt "NATO-Kriegsopfer klagen auf Schadenersatz"
(13 Feb 2004)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3192
nonche' larga parte del libro di Jürgen Elsässer
Kriegslügen ("Menzogne di guerra"),
specialmente nell'edizione aggiornata tedesca (2004):
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/sanja.htm
L’ultimo giorno di Sanja - Cosa racconterebbe della guerra una ragazza
serba perita nel bombardamento di Varvarin ]
> Da: Ulrich Dost
> Data: Gio 2 Set 2004 19:43:35 Europe/Rome
> A: "'Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia'"
> Oggetto: NATO - Kriegsopfer klagen gegen die Bundesrepublik
> Deutschland (Fall Varvarin)
>
> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
> gerne übersende ich Ihnen den Berufungsbegründungsschriftsatz vom 30.
> August 2004 an das OLG Köln in dem Schadenersatzprozeß jugoslawischer
> Staatsbürger aus der Kleinstadt Varvarin gegen die Bundesrepublik
> Deutschland. Sie wurden Opfer eines völkerrechtswidrigen Luftangriffs
> der NATO am 30. Mai 1999.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Ulrich Dost
> Rechtsanwalt
---
An das
Oberlandesgericht Köln
Vorab zwecks Fristwahrung per Fax unter der Faxnummer:...
In dem Rechtsstreit
Radmila Ristic u.a. ./. Bundesrepublik Deutschland
AZ I. Instanz: I O 361/02
AZ II. Instanz: 7 U 8/04
wird nachfolgend die mit Schriftsatz vom 5. Februar 2004 eingelegte
Berufung der Klägerin und Berufungsklägerin zu 11) (im weiteren als
Berufungsklägerin bezeichnet), Frau Radmila Ristic, innerhalb der bis
einschließlich zum 30. August 2004 gewährten Berufungsbegründungsfrist
nachfolgend begründet.
In der mündlichen Verhandlung wird beantragt werden, wie folgt für
Recht zu erkennen:
Unter Aufhebung des am 12. Dezember 2003 verkündeten Urteils des
Landgerichts Bonn - AZ: I O 361/02 - wird die Beklagte verurteilt, an
die Klägerin eine angemessene Geldentschädigung, deren Höhe in das
Ermessen des Gerichts gestellt wird, aber 102.258,38 € (= 200.000 DM)
nicht unterschreitet, zuzüglich 5% Zinsen über dem Basiszinssatz nach §
1DÜG seit Rechtshängigkeit zu zahlen.
B e g r ü n d u ng
Das Landgericht Bonn (im weiteren als Vorinstanz bezeichnet) hat zu
Unrecht den Klageantrag abgewiesen, den die Berufungsklägerin mit ihrer
Berufung vollumfänglich weiterverfolgt. Das Urteil wird daher in vollem
Umfang zur Überprüfung durch das Berufungsgericht gestellt.
I. Einführung
Das angegriffene Urteil wird von durchgreifenden Rechtsfehlern
getragen, die sich im Kern wie folgt zusammenfassen lassen:
1. Das Urteil verletzt in gravierender Weise geltendes
Verfassungsrecht. Es beruht auf der Nichtbeachtung von geltenden
Grundrechten der Berufungskläger. Insgesamt wird das Urteil durch eine
unrichtige Anschauung von der Bedeutung des Grundrechts auf
Menschenwürde und des Rechts auf Leben (Art. 1 Abs. 1 und Art. 2 Abs. 2
Grundgesetz) getragen und mißachtet den Umfang und die Reichweite des
den Grundrechtsträgern zu gewährenden Schutzes.
So ist in dem Urteil zwar zunächst richtig davon ausgegangen worden,
daß die Berufungskläger Grundrechtsträger der vorgenannten Grundrechte
sind. Jedoch kam die Vorinstanz rechtsirrig zu der Auffassung, die
Berufungskläger könnten ihre Schadenersatzansprüche nicht auf die
Verletzung der Grundrechte stützen, weil sie keinen
Schadenersatzanspruch als Rechtsfolge vorsehen würden.
Diese Beurteilung ist mit der heutigen Bedeutung und Tragweite der
vorgenannten Grundrechte schlicht unvereinbar.
2. Die Vorinstanz verkannte den sich unmittelbar aus den vorgenannten
Grundrechten ableitenden umfassenden Schutzauftrag der
Berufungsbeklagten gegenüber den Berufungsklägern und ignorierte
letztlich die schadenersatzbegründenden Rechtsfolgen bei Verletzung der
Schutzpflichten. .
3. Sie hat ebenfalls nicht zu erkennen vermocht, daß die
Berufungsbeklagte die sich aus ihrem Schutzauftrag ergebenden
Schutzpflichten gröblichst verletzt hat, die Berufungskläger deshalb
ursächlich zu Schaden kamen und sie ihnen gegenüber letztlich
schadenersatzpflichtig ist.
4. Das angegriffene Urteil verkennt weiter, daß ausweislich der
Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs sehr wohl Schadenersatzansprüche
unmittelbar aus der Verletzung der Art. 1 und 2 des Grundgesetzes
hergeleitet werden.
5. Die Vorinstanz ist rechtsirrig und unter Ignorierung der
Weiterentwicklung des Völkerrechts nach dem II. Weltkrieg von einer
Exklusivität für völkerrechtliche Ansprüche ausgegangen.
5.1 Sie hat insbesondere verkannt, daß der Krieg nach der universellen
Anerkennung des Gewaltverbots nicht mehr als ein Ausnahmezustand
betrachtet und deshalb das im Frieden geltende Völkerrecht und das
Amtshaftungsrecht auch nicht »suspendiert« wird.
5.2 Sie stellt sich gegen die vom BVerfG in seiner Entscheidung vom
13.05.1996 nachdrücklich vertretene Auffassung, wonach bei
Völkerrechtsdelikten neben die völkerrechtlichen Ansprüche des
(geschädigten) Staates nationale, zivilrechtliche Ansprüche des
geschädigten Individuums treten und durchsetzbar sein können.
5.3. Die in diesem Zusammenhang vom BVerfG vertretene Auffassung,
wonach es einen Grundsatz der Exklusivität für völkerrechtliche
Ansprüche definitiv nicht gibt, ignorierte die Vorinstanz und ging ohne
jede Begründung vom Gegenteil aus.
6. Die Vorinstanz entzog sich einer erforderlichen Bewertung der
Entwicklung des Völkerrechts nach dem II. Weltkrieg und erkannte somit
weder die völkerrechtliche Pflichtenlage noch die Pflichtverletzungen
der Berufungsbeklagten, die sich insbesondere auch aus der Allgemeinen
Erklärung der Menschenrechte und des Internationalen Pakts über
bürgerliche und politische Rechte im Hinblick auf das Recht auf Leben
und körperliche Unversehrtheit i. V. m. den Schutzregeln für die
Zivilbevölkerung in einem bewaffneten Konflikt (Zusatzprotokoll I zu
den Genfer Abkommen) gegenüber den Berufungsklägern ergeben.
7. Insgesamt hat die Vorinstanz nicht erkannt, daß die aus Zeiten vor
dem II. Weltkrieg stammende althergebrachte Rechtsauffassung, eine
darauf beruhende und auch von ihr angewandte Rechtsprechung, mit der
die individuelle Geltendmachung und Durchsetzung der durch
rechtswidrige staatliche Kriegshandlungen verursachten Schäden selbst
bei schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen ausgeschlossen wird und so
Kriegsverbrechen geschützt werden, heute schon deshalb keine Anwendung
mehr finden kann, weil sie gegen elementare Gebote der Gerechtigkeit
und gegen völkerrechtlich geschützte Menschenrechte verstößt.
Eine Rechtsprechung, die denjenigen schützt, der sich gegen das Recht
auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit vergeht und die Opfer
schutzlos stellt, ist nicht mehr hinzunehmen.
Ein solcher Verstoß wiegt - wie hier - so schwer, daß er die allen
Völkern gemeinsamen, auf Wert und Würde des Menschen bezogenen
Rechtsüberzeugungen verletzt. Der Vorinstanz blieb verborgen, daß in
einem solchen Fall das positive Recht der Gerechtigkeit weichen muß.
II. Fehlerhafte Rechtsanwendung
II. 1 Bedeutung und Tragweite des Grundrechts auf Menschenwürde u. des
Grundrechts auf Leben gem. Art. 1 Abs. 1 und Art. 2 Abs. 2 GG – ihre
Ignorierung durch das angegriffene Urteil
1. Die ausdrückliche Aufnahme des an sich selbstverständlichen Rechts
auf Leben in das Grundgesetz - anders als etwa in der Weimarer
Verfassung - erklärt sich hauptsächlich als Reaktion auf die
"Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens", auf "Endlösung" und
"Liquidierung", die vom nationalsozialistischen Regime als staatliche
Maßnahmen durchgeführt wurden. Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG enthält ebenso
wie die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe durch Art. 102 GG
"ein Bekenntnis zum grundsätzlichen Wert des Menschenlebens und zu
einer Staatsauffassung, die sich in betonten Gegensatz zu den
Anschauungen eines politischen Regimes stellt, dem das einzelne Leben
wenig bedeutete und das deshalb mit dem angemaßten Recht über Leben und
Tod des Bürgers schrankenlosen Mißbrauch trieb" (BVerfGE 18, 112 [117]).
2. Bei der Auslegung des Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG ist von seinem
tatsächlichen Wortlaut auszugehen:
"Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben ... ".
»Jeder« im Sinne des Rechts auf Leben ist heute jedes menschliche
Individuum, unabhängig seiner Herkunft und Nationalität. Das Recht auf
Leben wird deshalb auch als »Jedermannsrecht« bezeichnet. In seinen
Schutzbereich fallen somit auch die Berufungskläger. Sie sind
Grundrechtsträger i. S. der Art. 1 und 2 des Grundgesetzes.
3. Bei den vorgenannten Grundrechten handelt es sich zweifellos um
subjektive Rechte der Berufungskläger.
4. Außer Frage steht auch, daß das Grundgesetz als solches und somit
auch die Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2 Abs. 2 GG jederzeit zur Anwendung kommen.
Demnach sind diese Grundrechte insbesondere auch während der Dauer
eines bewaffneten Konflikts durchgängig und vorbehaltlos zu
gewährleisten.
Soweit die Vorinstanz - schon rechtsfehlerhaft, weil von der Rechtslage
des Jahres 1944 (!) ausgehend - im Urteil die von ihr nicht näher
begründete Behauptung aufstellt, es käme das deutsche
Staatshaftungsrecht in Fällen bewaffneter Konflikte auch heute nicht
zur Anwendung, weil es durch die Regelungen des internationalen
Kriegsrechts »überlagert« werde, ist das unter keinem nur denkbaren
Gesichtspunkt mehr zutreffend.
4.1 Diese Auffassung ist schon deshalb unzutreffend, weil die Frage, ob
jemand eine bestimmte Rechtsposition hat und ihm ein bestimmter
Rechtsanspruch zusteht, nur im Blick auf eine konkrete, nämlich die zum
relevanten Zeitpunkt geltende Rechtsordnung zu beantworten ist. Auf die
Rechtslage im Jahre 1944 kommt es demzufolge nicht an. Zu diesem
Zeitpunkt war an das Grundgesetz noch nicht einmal zu denken. Es
existierte nicht.
Der im vorliegenden Fall relevante Zeitpunkt ist der 30. Mai 1999.
Demzufolge hätte die Vorinstanz die Prüfung der Ansprüche und
Rechtsposition der Berufungsklägerin unter Berücksichtigung der Geltung
des Grundgesetzes und der übrigen zu diesem Zeitpunkt geltenden
Rechtsordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, einschließlich unter
Berücksichtigung der völkerrechtlichen Pflichtenlage vornehmen müssen.
Das aber ist ausweislich des angegriffenen Urteils unterblieben.
4.2. Die vorgenannte Rechtsauffassung der Vorinstanz steht auch im
krassen Widerspruch zu den Art. 2 und 34 des Grundgesetzes, die das
Recht auf Leben und den ordentlichen Rechtsweg für einen
Schadenersatzanspruch im Falle seiner Verletzung durch Amtsträger als
geltendes Recht garantieren.
4.3 Die nicht näher begründete Behauptung in dem angegriffenen Urteil,
wonach bewaffnete Auseinandersetzungen auch nach Beendigung des II.
Weltkrieges »als völkerrechtlicher Ausnahmezustand anzusehen (seien),
der die im Frieden geltende Rechtsordnung weitgehend suspendiere« (vgl.
Urteilsbegründung, Seite 27), verkennt gröblichst den heutigen
Entwicklungsstand des Völkerrechts und - darüberhinaus - die
Verfassungslage.
4.3.1 Das in Art. 1 Abs. 3 GG enthaltene Bekenntnis zu unverletzlichen
und unveräußerlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage der menschlichen
Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit erlangt in diesem
Zusammenhang Relevanz. In Verbindung mit der in Art. 1 Abs. 3 GG
enthaltenen Verweisung auf die nachfolgenden Grundrechte sind deren
Verbürgungen insoweit einer Einschränkung grundsätzlich entzogen, als
sie zur Aufrechterhaltung einer dem Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2 GG
entsprechenden Ordnung unverzichtbar sind. Ebenso wie der originäre
Verfassungsgeber (vgl. BVerfGE 3, 225 (232) = NJW 1954, 65; BVerfGE 23,
98 (106)) darf auch der verfassungsändernde Gesetzgeber danach
grundlegende Gerechtigkeitspostulate nicht außer acht lassen. Nichts
anderes gilt selbstverständlich für die Staatsgewalt.
Dazu gehören der Grundsatz der Rechtsgleichheit und das Willkürverbot
(vgl. BVerfGE 1, 208 (233); 23, 98 (106 f.) = NJW 1968, 1036). Ebenso
sind grundlegende Elemente des Rechts- und des Sozialstaatsprinzips,
die in Art. 20 Abs. 1 und 3 GG zum Ausdruck kommen, zu achten.
4.3.2 Bei alledem gebietet Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG, daß die genannten
Grundsätze nicht berührt werden.
Die Regelung stünde einer vollständigen oder teilweisen, einer
zeitlichen und etwa auf einen bewaffneten Konflikt begrenzten
»Suspendierung« oder »Überlagerung« des Grundgesetzes entgegen. Mit
dieser Regelung werden bestimmte Wesenszüge des Grundgesetzes für alle
Zeiten vor einer »Berührung« geschützt. Demnach ist das Antasten eines
der in Absatz 3 genannten Schutzgüter untersagt. Zu diesen
unantastbaren Schutzgütern gehören auch die in Art. 1 des Grundgesetzes
niedergelegten Grundsätze. Was den Inhalt des Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 1
angeht, so legt bereits Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 die »Verpflichtung aller
staatlichen Gewalt« fest, die Menschenwürde »zu achten (und zu
schützen)«. Daraus folgt zugleich, daß der Verfassungsgesetzgeber - sei
es Kraft des Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 oder sei es aufgrund des Art. 79 Abs.
3 - gehalten ist, die Menschenwürde jederzeit und insoweit zu
respektieren, als sie an sonstiger Stelle des Grundgesetzes zum
Vorschein kommt. Sogenannte Menschenwürdegehalte finden sich
insbesondere in den Grundrechten. Somit besteht ein absolutes Verbot,
das Grundrecht der Menschenwürde überhaupt und die sonstigen
Grundrechte in irgendeiner Weise zu beeinträchtigen.
4.3.2 Ungeachtet der vorgenannten Rechtslage gab es auch keine
tatsächlichen Gründe, die es notwendig gemacht haben könnten oder
hätten machen können, zur Aufrechterhaltung einer Ordnung gem. Art. 1
und 2 GG die Grundrechte während der Luftoperationen der NATO-Staaten
gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien einzuschränken.
4.4 Damit steht fest, daß weder das Grundgesetz noch die übrige
Rechtsordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland während der
Luftoperationen der NATO unter Beteiligung von Streitkräften der
Berufungsbeklagten in der ehemaligen Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien im
Jahre 1999 in irgendeiner Weise »überlagert« oder sonstwie von seiner
Wirkung »suspendiert« war.
Schon mangels gegenteiliger Anhaltspunkte tatsächlicher und rechtlicher
Art kann keineswegs von der Suspendierung deutschen Rechts während der
Zeit der Luftangriffe der NATO-Staaten auf die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien zwischen 24. März und 10. Juni 1999 ausgegangen werden.
Folgerichtig konnte, schon allein wegen der uneingeschränkten Bindung
staatlichen Handelns an das Grundgesetz, entgegen der Auffassung der
Vorinstanz auch das deutsche Staatshaftungsrecht während der
Luftangriffe gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien nicht
suspendiert sein (werden).
4.5 Aber auch aufgrund der veränderten Rechtslage durch die Entwicklung
im Völkerrecht nach dem II. Weltkrieg wird - nach der universellen
Anerkennung des Gewaltverbots - der Krieg nicht mehr als ein
Ausnahmezustand betrachtet, der das im Frieden geltende Völkerrecht und
das Amtshaftungsrecht suspendiert. Insbesondere wird die universelle
Geltung der Menschenrechte nicht aufgehoben. Das Recht auf Leben ist
heute ein allgemein anerkanntes Menschenrecht, ein „ Jedermannsrecht “
(vgl. dazu weitergehende Ausführungen unter Ziff. II. 2.1).
Der Staat haftet, ist schadenersatzpflichtig, wenn das Recht auf Leben
und körperliche Unversehrtheit durch seine Organe verletzt wird, auch
dann, wenn dies im Ausland geschieht und ausländische Staatsbürger wie
die Berufungsklägerin geschädigt werden. Opfer und Hinterbliebene
solcher Schädigungshandlungen können solche Ansprüche vor deutschen
Gerichten geltend machen.
In der althergebrachten Rechtsprechung wurde bisher verneint, daß das
auch dann Geltung habe, wenn die Schädigungshandlung im Rahmen eines
bewaffneten Konflikts durch eine am Konflikt beteiligte Partei begangen
wurde und selbige unter das Kriegsrecht fiel.
Es wurde zu Unrecht behauptet, daß Art. 3 des IV. Haager Abkommens,
später Art. 91 des Zusatzprotokolls I, keine Schadenersatzansprüche von
Einzelpersonen zuließen.
Diese Konzeption kann heute, angesichts der Tatsache, daß
Menschenrechte wie das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit
universell geltende Rechte sind, nicht mehr aufrechterhalten werden.
Ausdrücklich wird in den Menschenrechtskonventionen ausgeschlossen, daß
der Staat das Recht auf Leben in Notstandssituationen einschränken oder
aufheben kann. Kriegsbedingte Tötungen werden auch nach der
europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention nur dann hingenommen, wenn die
"Todesfälle auf rechtmäßige Kriegshandlungen zurückzuführen sind."
Das bedeutet, daß eine Tötung im Kriegsfall, die unter Verletzung des
Kriegsrechts, z. B. der Haager Landkriegsordnung, der Genfer
Konventionen oder des Zusatzprotokolls I geschieht, nicht unter
Berufung auf den Krieg als Ausnahmezustand gerechtfertigt werden kann.
Der BGH hat ganz offensichtlich gerade deshalb in seiner sogenannten
»Distomo-Entscheidung« vom 26. Juni 2003 - AZ: III ZR 245/98 –
(Urteilsbegründung, Seite 24) so nachdrücklich immer wieder auf den
Zeitpunkt des Kriegsverbrechens (1944!) verwiesen, weil nach heutiger
Rechtslage die Position nicht mehr aufrechterhalten werden kann, daß
nicht dem geschädigten Individuum, sondern nur der betroffenen
Kriegspartei ein subjektives Klagerecht auf Schadenersatz zustehe und
infolge des Krieges " eine innerstaatliche Verantwortlichkeit des
Staates " nach dem "Amtshaftungstatbestand des § 839 BGB...ausgenommen
" war.
Nach heutiger Völkerrechtslage kann eine unter Verletzung des geltenden
Kriegsrechts begangene rechtswidrige Tötung nicht mehr unter Berufung
darauf, daß durch den Krieg ein Ausnahmerecht oder ein Staatsnotstand
eingetreten sei, gerechtfertigt oder von der Amtshaftung ausgeschlossen
werden. Sie bleibt schlicht eine Menschenrechtsverletzung für die der
Staat, wenn sie ihm zuzurechnen ist, einzustehen hat und auf Grund
dieser die Opfer bzw. Hinterbliebenen mit einem eigenen Klagerecht auf
dem ordentlichen Rechtsweg vorgehen und Schadenersatz- sowie
Schmerzensgeldansprüche geltend machen können. Die Staaten sind durch
die Menschenrechtskonventionen verpflichtet, ihnen dafür einen
Rechtsweg zur Verfügung zu stellen.
Die Vorinstanz hat die Entwicklung der Menschenrechte im Völkerrecht
seit 1945 schlichtweg ignoriert, indem sie es unterlassen hat, sie in
die rechtliche Bewertung einzubeziehen und schon dadurch die
dargelegten Veränderungen der Rechtslage, insbesondere der heutigen
Rechtsposition des Individuums, nicht erkannte.
Soweit in dem angegriffenen Urteil ein subjektives Klagerecht der
geschädigten Individuen nur dann angenommen wird, wenn sie in einzelnen
Menschenrechtskonventionen als spezielle vertragliche »Schutzsysteme«
extra geregelt sind, so ist das eine nicht haltbare Rechtsauffassung.
Die Vorinstanz übersah dabei nämlich, daß diese speziellen
Rechtsschutzmechanismen der Menschenrechtskonventionen kein Ersatz für
nationale Rechtsmittel und nicht die einzige Möglichkeit der
Betroffenen sind, ihre Ansprüche geltend zu machen. Tatsächlich sind
sie und können sie nur ein Korrektiv zu den innerstaatlichen
Rechtsmittelmöglichkeiten sein. Nationale Rechtsmittel zur
Geltendmachung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen werden nicht nur
vorausgesetzt, die Mitgliedstaaten der Konventionen werden
ausdrücklich verpflichtet, sie bereitzustellen, was im deutschen Recht
durch die Artikel 19 Abs. 4 und 34 des Grundgesetzes gewährleistet
wird.
Der Angriff auf die Brücke von Varvarin verletzte eindeutig die
Bestimmungen der Art. 48, 51, 52, und 57 des Zusatzprotokolls I zu den
Genfer Konventionen, die dem Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung dienen. Er
stellt deshalb keine rechtmäßige Kriegshandlung dar, die die
Berufungsbeklagte in Übereinstimmung mit Art. 15, Abs. 2 der
europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention als Ausnahme bei
Menschenrechtsverletzungen geltend machen könnte. Damit ist die
Rechtswidrigkeit der Tötungshandlung gegeben und die geschädigten
Berufungskläger können ihre Schadenersatzansprüche unmittelbar auf
deutsches Recht, nämlich die Verletzung ihrer Grundrechte aus den Art.
1 und 2 Grundgesetz, stützen.
Ihre Anspruchsgrundlage ist also nicht allein das Völkerrecht, sondern
parallel dazu das nationale Recht. Da sie eine Menschenrechtsverletzung
nach deutschem Recht geltend machen, sind alle Erörterungen über die
Völkerrechtssubjektivität von Individuen und darüber, daß das
humanitäre Völkerrecht angeblich keine Schadenersatzansprüche für
Individuen vorsieht, unbeachtlich.
II. 2. Die Ignorierung der sich aus den Grundrechten ergebenden
Schutzpflicht des Staates durch die Vorinstanz
Die Pflicht des Staates, jedes menschliche Leben zu schützen, läßt sich
aus den vorgenannten Gründen bereits unmittelbar aus Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz
1 GG ableiten. Sie ergibt sich darüber hinaus auch aus der
ausdrücklichen Vorschrift des Art. 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG. Denn das Recht
auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit nimmt selbstredend auch an dem
Schutz teil, den Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG der Menschenwürde gewährt. Wo
menschliches Leben existiert, kommt ihm Menschenwürde zu. Die Tatsache
menschlicher Existenz (= menschlichen Lebens) genügt, um die
Menschenwürde zu begründen.
Unter anderem auch in seiner Entscheidung vom 13.05.1996 hat das
BVerfG die herausragende Stellung der hier entscheidungserheblich zur
Debatte stehenden Rechtsgüter nach Art. 1 und Art. 2 des Grundgesetzes
wie folgt hervorgehoben. Danach habe das Grundgesetz
»... eine wertgebundene Ordnung aufgerichtet, die den einzelnen
Menschen und seine Würde in den Mittelpunkt aller seiner Regelungen
stellt. Dem liegt, wie das Bundesverfassungsgericht bereits früh
ausgesprochen hat (BVerfGE 2, 1 [12]), die Vorstellung zugrunde, daß
der Mensch in der Schöpfungsordnung einen eigenen selbständigen Wert
besitzt, der die unbedingte Achtung vor dem Leben jedes einzelnen
Menschen, auch dem scheinbar sozial "wertlosen", unabdingbar fordert
und der es deshalb ausschließt, solches Leben ohne rechtfertigenden
Grund zu vernichten. Diese Grundentscheidung der Verfassung bestimmt
Gestaltung und Auslegung der gesamten Rechtsordnung.« (Vgl. Urteil vom
25. Februar 1975, BVerfGE 39, 1 - Schwangerschaftsabbruch I, dort unter
Ziff. II)
Das Grundgesetz verpflichtet den Staat, menschliches Leben zu schützen.
Auch ihm gebührt der Schutz des Staates. Die Verfassung untersagt nicht
nur unmittelbare staatliche Eingriffe in das Leben, sie gebietet dem
Staat auch, sich schützend und fördernd vor dieses Leben zu stellen, d.
h. vor allem, es auch vor rechtswidrigen Eingriffen von seiten Dritter
zu bewahren (vgl. BVerfGE 39, 1 (42) = NJW 1975, 573 (575)). Ihren
Grund hat diese Schutzpflicht in Art. 1 I GG, der den Staat
ausdrücklich zur Achtung und zum Schutz der Menschenwürde verpflichtet.
Ihr Gegenstand und - von ihm her - ihr Maß werden durch Art. 2 II GG
näher bestimmt.
Die Vorinstanz hat in diesem Zusammenhang schon gar nicht erkannt, daß
die Berufungsbeklagte gegenüber den Berufungsklägern schon einen
solchen grundgesetzlichen Schutzauftrag gerade auch durch den von ihr
im NATO-Rat mitbeschlossenen Militäreinsatz, an dem sie sich auch mit
eigenen Truppenverbänden beteiligte, hatte. Ebenso hat die Vorinstanz
die weitere konkrete Pflichtenlage, die sich für die Berufungsbeklagte
aus völkerrechtlichen Verträgen und nationalem Recht zur Gewährleistung
einer pflichtgemäßen bzw. völkerrechtskonformen Beteiligung an einem
bewaffneten Konflikt im Rahmen eines NATO-Militäreinsatzes ergibt,
nicht erkannt.
Aufgrund der Verkennung der Pflichtenlage der Berufungsbeklagten kann
es letztlich nicht verwundern (und ist fast " folgerichtig"), daß die
Vorinstanz zu dem schlußendlich rechtsfehlerhaften Ergebnis gekommen
ist, wonach es für die Berufungsklägerin weder im Völkerrecht noch im
nationalen (deutschen) Recht eine Anspruchsgrundlage für die geltend
gemachten Forderungen gäbe.
II. 2.1 Pflichten der Berufungsbeklagten im Zusammenhang mit der
Teilnahme an dem NATO-Einsatz gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien
Die Berufungsbeklagte war in ihrer Eigenschaft als eine an einem
bewaffneten Konflikt teilnehmende Partei zum Schutz von Leben und
körperlicher Unversehrtheit gegenüber der jugoslawischen
Zivilbevölkerung verpflichtet.
Das ergibt sich wie bereits dargelegt schon aus den Art. 1 und 2 des
Grundgesetzes und ergänzend aus Art. 6 I und Art. 12 I und II des
Internationalen Pakts über bürgerliche und politische Rechte von 1966
und der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte von 1948. Danach ist
der Schutz des Lebens und der körperlichen Unversehrtheit garantiert.
Der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte vom 19.
12. 1966 (BGBl II 1973, 1534; DDR-GBl II, 1974, 57 - IPBPR -), bietet
konkrete Anhaltspunkte dafür, wann der Staat nach der Überzeugung der
weltweiten Rechtsgemeinschaft Menschenrechte verletzt. Hierbei ist Art.
6 IPBPR relevant, wonach niemand seines angeborenen Rechts auf Leben
willkürlich beraubt werden darf (BGHSt 39, 1 (20 ff.) = NJW 1993, 141).
Der Pakt ist für die Berufungsbeklagte am 23. 3. 1976 in Kraft getreten
(BGBl II, 1068).
Der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, der
seit 1966 zur Unterzeichnung auflag (Art. 48), hat seine Grundlage in
der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte (Resolution der
Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen vom 10. 12. 1948; deutsche
Übersetzung u. a. bei Sartorius II Nr. 19). Nach Art. 3 der Allgemeinen
Erklärung der Menschenrechte hat jeder Mensch das Recht auf Leben.
Nach Art. 29 Nr. 2 der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte ist der
Mensch
„in Ausübung seiner Rechte und Freiheiten nur Beschränkungen
unterworfen, die das Gesetz ausschließlich zu dem Zweck vorsieht, um
die Anerkennung und Achtung der Rechte und Freiheiten anderer zu
gewährleisten und den gerechten Anforderungen der Moral, der
öffentlichen Ordnung und der allgemeinen Wohlfahrt in einer
demokratischen Gesellschaft zu genügen“.
Hiernach stimmen die Gewährleistungstatbestände der Allgemeinen
Erklärung der Menschenrechte und des Internationalen Pakts über
bürgerliche und politische Rechte im Hinblick auf das Recht auf Leben
überein.
Die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte dient dazu, die Bezugnahme
der Charta der Vereinten Nationen vom 26. 6. 1945 (BGBl II 1973, 431;
II 1974, 770) auf die Menschenrechte zu konkretisieren (Buergenthal/
Doehring/Kokott/Maier, Grundzüge des VölkerR, 1988, S. 111). Hinweise
auf die Menschenrechte finden sich in Art. 1 Nr. 3, Art. 13 Abs. 1 lit.
b, Art. 55, 62, 68 der Charta.
Nach Art. 56 der Charta sind alle Mitgliedstaaten verpflichtet, in
Zusammenarbeit mit den Vereinten Nationen die in Art. 55 der Charta
genannten Ziele, zu denen die Verwirklichung der Menschenrechte (Art.
55 lit. c) gehört, anzustreben. In der Beschlußpraxis der
Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen und ihrer Untergliederungen
ist demgemäß seit Verabschiedung der Allgemeinen Erklärung der
Menschenrechte wiederholt und in vielfältiger Form auf diese Erklärung
hingewiesen worden.
Zwar ist die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte vom 10. 12. 1948
kein Vertragsrecht. In diesem Sinne hieß es 1973 in der Denkschrift der
Bundesregierung zum Internationalen Pakt über bürgerliche und
politische Rechte (BT-Drs. 7/660, S. 27), daß die Allgemeine Erklärung
der Menschenrechte zwar grundsätzlich bedeutend, jedoch nicht formell
rechtsverbindlich sei (vgl. auch BVerfGE 41, 88 (106) = NJW 1976, 952).
Ob die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte als bloß programmatische
Grundersatzerklärung aufgefaßt werden darf (BVerwGE 3, 171 (175); 5,
153 (160); K. Ipsen, VölkerR 3. Aufl. (1990), § 7 Rdnr. 11), mag
dahinstehen. Jedenfalls ist ihr von vornherein der Zweck beigemessen
worden, die Praxis der Vereinten Nationen sowie die Rechtsentwicklung
in den Mitgliedstaaten und darüber hinaus in allen Staaten der Welt zu
beeinflussen und zwar in dem Sinne, daß sie überall als Maßstab für die
Anerkennung und Durchsetzung der Menschenrechte verstanden werden soll
(vgl. Partsch, in: Simma, Charta der Vereinten Nationen, 1991 Art. 55
Rdnr. 23 ff.; Verdross/Simma, Universelles VölkerR, 3. Aufl. (1984), S.
822 f.; Henkin, in: Henkin (Hrsg.), The Interantional Bill of Rights,
1981, S. 1 (8 f.); T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as
Customary Law, 1989, S. 82 ff. m. w. Nachw.).
Zum hier relevanten Tatzeitraum (30. Mai 1999) lag bereits lange die
Entscheidung des IGH aus dem Jahre 1970 in der Sache Barcelona Traction
Light and Power vor, in der die „basic rights of the human person" als
Rechtsgüter bezeichnet wurden, die mit Wirkung gegen jedermann, auch
gegen jeden Staat, zu schützen seien (ICJ Reports 1970, 3 (32 f.). Der
IGH hat in einer späteren Entscheidung aus dem Jahre 1980 (Teheraner
Botschaftsfall) ausdrücklich auf die Rechte und Freiheiten Bezug
genommen, wie sie in der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte
niedergelegt sind (ICP Reports, 1980, 3 (42); vgl. hierzu auch Frowein,
in: Festschr. f. Hermann Mosler, 1983, S. 241 ff.; Dinstein, ArchVölkR
30 (1992) 16 ff. und Hobe/Tietje, ArchVölkR 32 (1994) 130, 139).
In der Literatur mehren sich die Stimmen, die der Erklärung eine
Bindungswirkung für alle Mitgliedstaaten oder überhaupt für alle
Staaten beimessen (Verdross/Simma, S. 882 f.; Meron, S. 81 ff. m. w.
Nachw.; Lillich, in: T. Meron (Hrsg.), Human Rights in International
Law, 1984, S. 115 f.).
Fundamentale Menschenrechte im Sinne der UN-Charta werden zum Teil als
ius cogens i. S. des Art. 53 des Wiener Übereinkommens über das Recht
der Verträge vom 23. 5. 1969 (BGBl II 1985, 925) verstanden (Frowein,
EPIL, Lieferung 7 (1984), S. 327, 329; Hobe/Tietje, aaO; vgl. auch
Kadelbach, Zwingendes VölkerR, 1992, S. 284 ff.; abw. Klenner,
Marxismus und Menschenrechte, 1982, S. 191 (193)). Andere Autoren
sprechen von Völkergewohnheitsrecht (Pechota, in: Henkin (Hrsg.), S. 32
(38, 408); T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary
Law, 1989, S. 79 ff. (246 ff.) m. w. Nachw.). Die Zuordnung ist im
vorliegenden Fall jedoch nicht relevant.
Denn auch wenn die Bindungswirkung der Allgemeinen Erklärung der
Menschenrechte im allgemeinen wie auch im Hinblick auf die einzelnen
Menschenrechte nicht voll erklärt sein mag, so kommt doch der
Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte jedenfalls insofern ein hohes
Maß an rechtlicher Bedeutung zu, als sie den Willen der
Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft, Menschenrechte zu verwirklichen und den
ungefähren Inhalt dieser Menschenrechte zum Ausdruck bringt. In diesem
Sinne hat auch das BVerfG auf die Allgemeine Erklärung Bezug genommen
(BVerfGE 31, 58 (68) = NJW 1971, 1509).
Angesichts der Exaktheit, mit der die Allgemeine Erklärung der
Menschenrechte das fundamentale Recht auf Leben definiert hat, kann die
Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte, nicht anders als der
Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, als eine
Konkretisierung dessen aufgefaßt werden, was als die allen Völkern
gemeinsame, auf Wert und Würde des Menschen bezogene Rechtsüberzeugung
verstanden wird (BGHSt 39, 1 (15 f.) = NJW 1993, 141).
II. 2.2 Pflichtverletzungen der Berufungsbeklagten im Zusammenhang mit
der Teilnahme an dem NATO-Einsatz gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien
Die Berufungsbeklagte war verpflichtet, ihr gesamtes Verhalten während
der Planung, Beschlußfassung und insbesondere in der Durchführungsphase
des Militäreinsatzes der NATO in der ehemaligen Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien strengstens den Anforderungen zu unterwerfen, die ihr durch
die Pflicht zum Schutz von Leben und körperlicher Unversehrtheit
entsprechend den Schutzregeln für die Zivilbevölkerung in bewaffneten
Konflikten nach dem Zusatzprotokoll I konkret auferlegt sind.
Danach war sie verpflichtet als vollwertiger Mitgliedstaat der NATO,
beginnend im NATO-Rat über alle weiteren Strukturebenen hinaus, in
denen sie auch sämtlichst mit deutschem Personal vertreten war, darauf
hinzuwirken, daß bei allen militärischen Luftoperationen im
Einsatzgebiet das Leben und die körperliche Unversehrtheit der
Zivilbevölkerung gewahrt und die konkreten und strengen Regeln des
Zusatzprotokoll I eingehalten werden.
Schon nach ihrem eigenen erstinstanzlichen Vortrag steht fest, daß sie
dieser Verpflichtung nicht entsprochen hat. Denn danach habe sie selbst
angeblich keinen Einfluß auf die Zielplanung gehabt und auch nicht
genommen. Selbige sei allein der NATO überlassen worden.
Ganz unabhängig davon, daß die Berufungsbeklagte schon wegen der
gesamtschuldnerischen Haftung für das rechtswidrige Handeln der NATO
für die Schäden der Berufungsklägerin einzustehen hat, ergibt sich ihre
Verantwortung zusätzlich aber auch aus einem pflichtwidrigen
Unterlassen der ständigen Kontrolle der NATO-Einsätze auf die
Einhaltung der Schutzregeln des Zusatzprotokolls I.
Es liegt auf der Hand, daß die Schutzpflicht hinsichtlich der Wahrung
des Rechts auf Leben und der körperlichen Unversehrtheit der
Zivilbevölkerung bei militärischen Angriffen untrennbar mit einer
Kontrollpflicht bzw. Überwachungspflicht der NATO durch die
Berufungsbeklagte einherging. Die Schutzpflicht gegenüber der
Zivilbevölkerung kann ohne Ausübung dieser Überwachungspflicht nicht
wahrgenommen werden.
Nach den materiellen Kriterien für die Bestimmung einer
Garantenstellung war die Berufungsbeklagte unter zweierlei
Gesichtspunkten garantenpflichtig:
Es wird unterschieden zwischen solchen Garantenpflichten einerseits,
die daraus resultieren, daß der Garant eine Schutzpflicht für bestimmte
Rechtsgüter hat, und andererseits solchen Garantenpflichten, die sich
aus der Pflicht zur Überwachung bestimmter Gefahrenquellen ergeben
(Jescheck, in: LK-StGB, § 13 Rdnrn. 19ff.; Stree, in: Schönke/Schröder,
§ 13 Rdnrn. 9ff.; Tröndle/Fischer, § 13 Rdnrn. 5b, 5c;
Maurach/Gössel/Zipf, StrafR, AT, Teilbd. 2, S. 197ff.; ähnlich Jakobs,
StrafR, AT, 2. Aufl., S. 800ff.).
Beide Aspekte kommen hier zum Tragen. Die Berufungsbeklagte war sowohl
„Überwachungsgarant“ als auch „Beschützergarant“. Als Mitgliedstaat der
NATO war sie verpflichtet, insbesondere die Vorbereitung und
Durchführung der konkreten Luftoperationen, von denen schon naturgemäß
akute Lebensgefahr für die Zivilbevölkerung ausging, in der Weise zu
überwachen, zu kontrollieren und zu steuern, daß eine rechtswidrige
Tötung unterblieb und die körperliche Unversehrtheit der
Zivilbevölkerung gewahrt wird.
Zum anderen war die Berufungsbeklagte verpflichtet, das Leben und die
körperliche Unversehrtheit der Zivilbevölkerung zu schützen und das
gegebenenfalls auch, indem sie innerhalb der NATO gegen nicht durch das
Zusatzprotokoll I gedeckte Luftoperationen intervenierte,
gegebenenfalls den Entzug ihrer generellen Zustimmung zu weiteren
Kampfhandlungen androhte oder sie - in letzter Konsequenz - tatsächlich
entzogen hätte, wenn die Einhaltung der Regeln des Zusatzprotokoll I
nicht zu gewährleisten war.
Es kommt unter den dargelegten Aspekten für die Verantwortlichkeit der
Berufungsbeklagten hinsichtlich rechtswidriger Tötungshandlungen
deshalb auch nicht darauf an, ob und wenn in welcher Weise sie selbst
unmittelbar an der Vorbereitung, Planung und Durchführung des
rechtswidrigen Angriffs auf die Stadt Varvarin am 30. Mai 1999
beteiligt war. Entscheidend für ihre Verantwortlichkeit und die
Kausalität ist, daß sie durch ihr Verhalten den rechtswidrigen Angriff
tatsächlich ermöglicht oder zumindest erleichtert hat.
Beide Alternativen sind im vorliegenden Fall erfüllt:
a) den Angriff hat sie unbestreitbar schon deshalb ermöglicht, weil sie
im NATO-Rat dem Militäreinsatz gegen die ehemalige Bundesrepublik
Jugoslawien zugestimmt und ihn aufgrund des Einstimmigkeitsprinzips
somit möglich gemacht hat;
b) den rechtswidrigen Angriff auf die Berufungsklägerin hat die
Berufungsbeklagte schon dadurch mindestens erleichtert, daß sie der
oben dargelegten Überwachungspflicht – und zwar während des gesamten
Zeitraums der Luftangriffe - nicht nachgekommen ist.
II. 3 Die Herleitung des Ersatzes des immateriellen Schadens nicht aus
§ 847 BGB analog, sondern unmittelbar aus Art. 2 Abs. 1,
Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG
Die in dem angegriffenen Urteil enthaltene Auffassung, wonach die
Berufungskläger Schadenersatzansprüche auf die Grundrechte des
Grundgesetzes deshalb nicht stützen könnten, weil diese Garantien
keinen Schadenersatzanspruch als Rechtsfolge vorsehen (vgl.
Urteilsbegründung, dort Seite 27,3. Abs.), wird durch die
Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs widerlegt.
So stellt der Bundesgerichtshof (vgl. BGHZ 128,1 ff.) zunächst einmal
fest, daß es sich bei einer Entschädigung wegen einer Verletzung des
allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts im eigentlichen Sinn nicht um ein
Schmerzensgeld nach § 847 BGB handelt, sondern um einen Rechtsbehelf,
der auf den Schutzauftrag aus Art. 1 und 2 Abs. 1 Grundgesetz
zurückgeht (vgl. BVerfGE 34,2 169,2 182/292 = NJW 1973, 1221,
1223/1226).
Die Zubilligung einer Geldentschädigung beruhe - so der
Bundesgerichtshof weiter - auf dem Gedanken, daß ohne einen solchen
Anspruch Verletzungen der Würde und Ehre des Menschen häufig ohne
Sanktion blieben mit der Folge, daß der Rechtsschutz der Persönlichkeit
verkümmern würde. Anders als beim Schmerzensgeldanspruch steht bei dem
Anspruch auf eine Geldentschädigung wegen einer Verletzung des
allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts der Gesichtspunkt der Genugtuung des
Opfers im Vordergrund (Senat BGHZ 35,3 163,3 169; 39,1 124,133).
Außerdem solle nach Auffassung des Bundesgerichtshofs der unmittelbar
aus den Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2 Abs. 1 Grundgesetz folgende Rechtsbehelf
der Prävention dienen (vgl. Senatsurteil vom 92. Januar 1995 - AZ: VI
ZR 28/83; vgl. auch NJW 1980,1 1724, 1727;Erman/Ehmann,BGB, 9. Aufl.
Anh. zu § 12 Rdnr. 482;), weil sonst kein zureichender Schutz der
Grundrechte und der Grundrechtsträger zu erreichen sei.
Der BGH geht hier sogar noch einen Schritt weiter: er leitet den
Geldentschädigungsanspruch nicht nur dem Grunde, sondern auch der Höhe
nach unmittelbar aus den vorgenannten Grundrechten her, indem er
wesentlich höhere Geldentschädigungsbeträge als sonst bei üblichen
Schmerzensgeldforderungen nach § 847 BGB für erforderlich hält und
begründet das überzeugend damit, daß sonst dem geforderten
Präventionszweck nicht entsprochen werden könne.
Nebenbei weist der Unterzeichner in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hin, daß
sich daraus auch die Höhe des Geldentschädigungsanspruchs der von ihm
vertretenen Berufungsklägerin begründet, der sich nach der hier
vertretenen Auffassung schon am untersten Rand bewegt. Auf die
diesbezüglichen umfangreichen Ausführungen in der Klageschrift wird
Bezug genommen.
II. 4 Die Ignorierung der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts
durch die Vorinstanz
Selbst wenn es für die Berufungskläger nicht möglich wäre, einen
Schadenersatzanspruch unmittelbar aus der Verletzung des humanitären
Völkerrechts geltend zu machen, so schlösse jedenfalls das Völkerrecht
nicht das Bestehen und die Geltendmachung eines parallelen
Schadenersatzanspruchs aus nationalem (deutschen) Recht aus. Darauf hat
das BVerfG in seinem Beschluß vom 13.05.1996 ausdrücklich hingewiesen
(vgl. NJW 1996, 2717,2718).
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seinem Beschluß sehr nachdrücklich
auf die Veränderung der Rechtslage nach 1945 und die Bedeutung der
Parallelität von Ansprüchen aus dem Völkerrecht und dem nationalen
Recht insbesondere bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen aufmerksam gemacht.
In der entscheidenden Passage führt das BVerfG aus:
"aa) Die traditionelle Konzeption des Völkerrechts als eines
zwischenstaatlichen Rechts versteht den Einzelnen nicht als
Völkerrechtssubjekt, sondern gewährt ihm nur mittelbaren
internationalen Schutz: Bei völkerrechtlichen Delikten durch Handlungen
gegenüber fremden Staatsbürgern steht ein Anspruch nicht dem
Betroffenen selbst, sondern nur seinem Heimatstaat zu....
Dieses Prinzip einer ausschließlichen Staatenberechtigung galt in den
Jahren 1943 bis 1945 auch für die Verletzung von Menschenrechten. Der
Einzelne konnte grundsätzlich weder die Feststellung des Unrechts noch
einen Unrechtsausgleich verlangen....Erst in der neueren Entwicklung
eines erweiterten Schutzes der Menschenrechte gewährt das Völkerrecht
dem Einzelnen ein eigenes Recht, berechtigt andere Völkerrechtssubjekte
auf der Grundlage von Resolutionen des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten
Nationen zur Intervention bei gravierenden Verstößen und entwickelt
vertragliche Schutzsysteme, in denen der Einzelne seinen Anspruch auch
selbst verfolgen kann...
bb) Das Grundprinzip des diplomatischen Schutzes schließt aber einen
Anspruch nicht aus, den das nationale Recht des verletzenden Staates
dem Verletzten außerhalb völkerrechtlicher Verpflichtungen gewährt und
der neben die völkerrechtlichen Ansprüche des Heimatstaates tritt. Dies
zeigt sich bereits an dem Grundsatz, daß der Staat den diplomatischen
Schutz erst ausüben darf, wenn der betroffene Staatsangehörige den
innerstaatlichen Rechtsweg erschöpft hat....Damit wird die Möglichkeit
eines eigenen Anspruchs des betroffenen Individuums auch nach
nationalem Recht vorausgesetzt....Das gilt insbesondere dann, wenn in
der staatlichen Verletzungshandlung sowohl ein Bruch des Völkerrechts
als auch des nationalen Rechts liegt....
Im übrigen besteht auch eine solche Regel des Völkergewohnheitsrechts
über die "Exklusivität" nicht, nach der Entschädigungsregelungen im
Zusammenhang mit Kriegsfolgen nur im Rahmen von völkerrechtlichen
Verträgen, insbesondere von Friedensverträgen getroffen werden könnten
oder bestehende Verträge über solche Entschädigungen abschließend
wären." (fette Hervorhebg. d. d. Unterz.)
Die Vorinstanz hätte es nicht unterlassen dürfen, diese
Rechtsauffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in ihre
Entscheidungsfindung einzubeziehen, sondern hätte sie statt dessen zum
Gegenstand der Prüfung der Ansprüche der Berufungsklägerin machen
müssen.
II. 5 Ergebnis
1. Würde man der Rechtsauffassung der Vorinstanz folgen, würde das
bedeuten, daß trotz aller nationalen und internationalen
Menschenrechtsbestimmungen alles so geblieben ist, wie es vor dem II.
Weltkrieg war.
Im Falle eines bewaffneten Konfliktes stünde auch heute den Opfern
einer Verletzung des Kriegsrechts mangels (beschränkter)
Völkerrechtssubjektivität und insbesondere fehlender Klagebefugnis kein
individuell durchsetzbarer Schadenersatzanspruch zu. Eine furchtbare
Bilanz, ein entlarvendes Ergebnis: Für den Einzelnen hört das Recht
auf Leben auf, wenn der (ein) Staat rechtswidrige Luftangriffe gegen
die Zivilbevölkerung in einem bewaffneten Konflikt anordnet, billigt
oder nicht verhindert. Das ganze Gebäude der Menschenrechte,
einschließlich des grundlegenden Rechts auf Leben, würde sich in einem
solchen Fall in Schall und Rauch auflösen.
Das jedoch widerspricht ganz offensichtlich nicht nur dem geltenden
Völkerrecht, sondern steht im krassen Widerspruch zur Werteordnung des
Grundgesetzes. Der Luftangriff am 30. Mai 1999 auf die Stadt Varvarin,
bei der die Berufungskläger bzw. ihre Angehörigen getötet und
schwerverletzt worden sind, ist als derart menschenverachtend
einzustufen, daß er nur als rechtswidrig zu werten ist. Es bedarf auch
deshalb nicht einmal der Vertiefung, daß der Gesamteinsatz der
NATO-Streitkräfte gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien hinsichtlich
seiner Rechtmäßigkeit grundlegend in Frage zu stellen ist.
2. Würde Opfern, die unter Umständen wie die Berufungskläger, Leben und
Gesundheit verloren bzw. schwerste Verletzungen erlitten haben, eine
unmittelbar aus den Artikeln 1 und 2 Grundgesetz hergeleitete
Geldentschädigung verwehrt werden, bliebe die Zivilbevölkerung in
künftigen bewaffneten Konflikten rücksichtslosen, staatlich zu
verantwortenden Tötungs- und Verletzungshandlungen weitestgehend
schutzlos ausgeliefert. Daher ist auch unter dem Gesichtspunkt der
Prävention ein Anspruch auf Geldentschädigung geboten.
3. Der entscheidende Rechtsgedanke, der im vorliegenden Fall zwingend
zur Bejahung der Schadenersatzforderungen führen muß, ist - wie bereits
in der Einführung (Ziff.I.7) dargelegt und hier wegen seiner Bedeutung
nochmals wiederholt - in folgendem zu sehen:
Eine althergebrachte Rechtsauffassung und eine darauf beruhende
Rechtsprechung, die bei rechtswidrigen staatlichen Kriegshandlungen
selbst bei schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen die individuelle
Geltendmachung und Durchsetzung von Schäden ausschloß und so
Kriegsverbrechen schützte, kann heute schon deshalb keine Anwendung
mehr finden, weil sie gegen elementare Gebote der Gerechtigkeit und
gegen völkerrechtlich geschützte Menschenrechte verstößt.
Eine solche Rechtsprechung, die diejenigen schützt, die sich gegen das
Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit vergehen und die Opfer
schutzlos stellt, ist nicht mehr hinzunehmen. Solche Verstöße - wie
auch der vorliegende Fall - wiegen so schwer, daß sie die allen Völkern
gemeinsamen, auf Wert und Würde des Menschen bezogenen
Rechtsüberzeugungen verletzt. In einem solchen Falle muß das positive
Recht zwingend der Gerechtigkeit weichen.
3.1 Die gegen jeden menschlichen Sinn und Verstand erfolgte Tötung und
Verwundung unbewaffneter Zivilpersonen durch Jagdflugzeuge in 2
Angriffswellen unter Abschuß von 4 Raketen, die zudem wegen ihrer
gewaltigen Sprengkraft den Opfern keine reale Chance des Entkommens
ließ, ein Beschuß außerhalb von Kampfgebieten, innerhalb einer
unverteidigten Stadt und ohne jede Vorwarnung auf Menschen, die nichts
anderes wollten als einen friedlichen Sonntag verleben, stellt ein
derart heimtückisches, schreckliches, menschenverachtendes und jeder
Rechtfertigung entzogenes Tun dar, daß der so verübte Verstoß gegen das
elementare Tötungsverbot keinem Gericht die Möglichkeit zur Abweisung
von Schadenersatzforderungen läßt.
4. Auf den vorliegenden Rechtsstreit angewendet, kommt der
Unterzeichner zwangsläufig zu dem Ergebnis, daß die Versagung einer
Geldentschädigung für die am 30. Mai 1999 verübten Kriegsverbrechen –
somit die gerichtliche Entscheidung selbst - die Menschenwürde der
Berufungsklägerin verletzen würde. Eine solche Versagung wäre unter den
konkreten Umständen mit den Grundwerten des Grundgesetzes und der
Gerechtigkeit unvereinbar.
III. Bezugnahme auf den erstinstanzlichen Vortrag
Auf das gesamte erstinstanzliche Vorbringen der Berufungsklägerin,
insbesondere in den Schriftsätzen vom 24. Dezember 2001 und vom 07.
Oktober 2003 einschließlich der dortigen Beweisantritte, wird ergänzend
Bezug genommen.
Sollte das Berufungsgericht in der einen oder anderen Frage Ergänzungen
für erforderlich halten, wird um einen richterlichen Hinweis gemäß den
§§ 139, 278 Abs. 2 ZPO gebeten.
Ich stelle direkt zu.
Ulrich Dost
Rechtsanwalt
Le 'Tribunal' impose le silence à Milosevic
1. Nous sous-signés, juristes, professeurs de droit, et pénalistes...
2. Milosevic commence sa défense
3. Conclusion de la farce : Le 'Tribunal' impose le silence à Milosevic
=== 1 ===
L'imposition d'un conseil juridique à Slobodan Milosevic menace
l'avenir du droit international et l'existence même de l'accusé
A Son Excellence Monsieur Kofi Annan, Secrétaire Général des Nations
unies,
A Son Excellence Monsieur Julian Robert Hunte, Président de la 58e
Session de la Présidence roumaine (russe) du Conseil de sécurité de
l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies,
A tous les membres du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies,
A tous les membres de la Cour criminelle internationale (sous l'égide
des Nations unies) pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie :
Nous les signataires de la présente, juristes, professeurs de droit et
avocats criminels internationaux, affirmons par la même occasion nos
soucis et inquiétudes du fait que la Cour criminelle internationale
pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie (ICTY) prépare l'imposition d'un conseil
juridique à un accusé qui n'en veut pas, Slobodan Milosevic.
Cette mesure apparemment punitive est contraire à la législation
internationale, incompatible avec le système à deux parties opposées de
justice criminelle adopté par le Conseil de sécurité dans la Résolution
808 et elle ignore l'obligation de la Cour de fournir des soins
médicaux adéquats et la remise en liberté provisoire de l'accusé. Au
lieu de prendre les mesures appropriées destinées à alléger les
problèmes médicaux de Slobodan Milosevic, problèmes qui se manifestent
depuis très longtemps déjà, l'ICTY a ignoré les requêtes répétées de
remise en liberté provisoire, à laquelle toute personne présumée
innocente a droit, elle a imposé à la défense des périodes de
préparation d'une brièveté totalement irréaliste et elle a permis
l'introduction d'une quantité anormale de preuves destinées à étayer
l'accusation, preuves dont la plupart étaient dénuées de la moindre
valeur en tant que telles, augmentant de la sorte le degré de stress de
Monsieur Milosevic, stress qui constitue le principal déclencheur de sa
maladie. La 3e Chambre a été informée de ce dernier problème par les
cardiologues qu'elle a elle-même choisis. L'accusé s'est vu refuser un
examen par son propre médecin, ce qui constitue une autre violation de
ses droits.
Aujourd'hui, après avoir occasionné l'extrême dégradation de l'état de
santé du président Milosevic, dont elle avait néanmoins été prévenue,
l'ICTY cherche à lui imposer un conseil juridique malgré ses
objections, plutôt que de lui accorder la liberté provisoire afin qu'il
reçoive les soins médicaux décents requis par son état, une mesure
raisonnable d'ailleurs reprise dans les lois et jurisprudences
domestiques et internationales. L'imposition envisagée d'un conseil
juridique constitue une violation flagrante des droits judiciaires
reconnus internationalement et elle ne servira qu'à aggraver la maladie
de Monsieur Milosevic, susceptible de lui coûter la vie, et à
discréditer encore plus ces méthodes.
La droit de se défendre contre des accusations criminelles se trouve au
centre à la fois des législations internationales et de la structure
même du système à deux parties opposées. Les droits minimaux et
fondamentaux accordés à un accusé conformément aux Statuts de Rome de
la Cour criminelle internationale et conformément aux Statuts des
Tribunaux criminels internationaux pour le Rwanda et la Yougoslavie,
comprennent le droit à se défendre soi-même. L'usage général de ces
provisions envisage chaque fois la réalité selon laquelle des droits
sont accordés à un accusé, non à un avocat. Le droit accordé est de se
représenter soi-même contre les accusations formulées par le procureur
et, subsidiairement à ce qui précède, de recevoir l'assistance d'un
conseil juridique, si un accusé exprime le vou de recevoir une telle
aide. Toutefois, si, comme dans le cas de Slobodan Milosevic, un accusé
exprime sans équivoque son objection à se faire représenter par un
conseil juridique, son droit à se représenter soi-même prévaut sur la
préférence du tribunal ou du procureur pour la désignation d'un conseil
de défense, comme l'a d'ailleurs stipulé la Cour suprême des
Etats-Unis, en ce qui concerne le Sixième Amendement de la Charte des
Droits, laquelle présente une similitude frappante avec l'Article 21
des Statuts de l'ICTY :
« Il parle de l''assistance' d'un conseil juridique, et un assistant a
beau être un expert, il demeure un assistant. Le langage et l'esprit du
Sixième Amendement envisage que ce conseil juridique, à l'instar de
tous les autres outils de la défense garantis par l'Amendement,
constituera une aide à un accusé qui en exprime le désir - et non un
organe de l'Etat interposé entre un accusé qui n'en veut pas et son
droit à se défendre personnellement. Imposer un conseil juridique à
l'accusé, contre sa volonté considérée, viole donc la logique de
l'Amendement. Dans une telle situation, le conseil juridique n'est
nullement un assistant, mais un maître, et le droit de préparer une
défense est privé de son caractère personnel sur lequel insiste
l'Amendement. » (Faretta v.California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).)
De la même façon, les Statuts de l'ICTY (de même que ceux de l'ICTR et
de l'ICC) accordent « des outils de défense », tel le droit de se faire
représenter par un conseil juridique, ou le droit à ce que le conseil
juridique soit fourni sans le moindre frais au cas où l'accusé est
indigent. Le fondement du droit à se représenter soi-même est rendu
caduc quand le droit à un conseil juridique se mue en obligation. Comme
il est dit dans Faretta, déjà mentionné plus haut :
« Un conseil juridique non désiré ne 'représente' l'accusé qu'à travers
une fiction légale ténue et inacceptable. A moins que l'accusé ait
donné son consentement à se faire représenter de la sorte, la défense
présentée dans ce cas n'est pas la défense que lui garantit la
Constitution car, dans une acception on ne peut plus réaliste, il ne
s'agit tout simplement pas de sa propre défense. » (Id.)
Pareillement, la défense de Slobodan Milosevic ne serait pas la défense
que lui garantit la législation internationale s'il devait être flanqué
d'un conseil juridique qu'on lui imposerait contre son gré.
La structure générale de l'ICTY est celle d'un système de justice
criminelle à deux parties adverses. D'autres influences légales ont été
intégrées aux Réglementations en matière de procédure et de preuves,
mais la nature des procédures, qui implique un procureur et un accusé
en tant que parties présentant des preuves devant tout un panel dont la
fonction est d'arbitrer, est indubitablement d'une nature à deux
parties adverses. Dans ce système à deux parties adverses, l'histoire a
illustré avec éloquence que l'imposition d'un conseil juridique à un
accusé qui n'en veut pas constitue une pratique habituelle dans les
tribunaux politiques et qu'elle n'a pas sa place dans un système
démocratique de justice, et encore moins devant une institution qui va
engendrer un précédent pour une juridiction criminelle internationale
vraiment légitime, dont l'instauration aura été le fruit d'un
demi-siècle de lutte :
« Au cours de la longue histoire de la jurisprudence criminelle
britannique, il n'y a eu qu'un seul tribunal à avoir jamais adopté la
pratique du conseil juridique imposé contre son gré à un accusé dans
une procédure criminelle. Ce tribunal n'était autre que la Chambre
Etoilée. Cette curieuse institution, qui eut beaucoup de succès à la
fin du 16e et au début du 17e siècles, présentait un caractère mixte,
à la fois exécutif et judiciaire, et s'écartait de façon
caractéristique des traditions du droit commun. Pour ces raisons, et du
fait qu'elle s'était spécialisée dans le jugement des délits
'politiques', la Chambre Etoilée a, des siècles durant, symbolisé le
mépris envers les droits fondamentaux de l'individu. » (Faretta, id.)
Récemment, l'ICTY a commandé au procureur, et à lui seulement, de
fournir un avis à propos de l'imposition d'un conseil juridique dans
l'absence d'instructions ou de coopération de la part de Monsieur
Milosevic. La Chambre a fait référence à plusieurs reprises à son
obligation de mener un procès loyal et a prétendu, lorsqu'elle a
reconnu le droit à l'auto-représentation, en avril 2003, qu'elle « a
naturellement l'obligation de s'assurer qu'un procès soit loyal et
expéditif; qui plus est, lorsque la santé de l'accusé pose problème,
cette obligation revêt une signification particulière ». L'article 21
des Statuts de l'ICTY stipule que la Chambre doit exercer cette
obligation « avec le respect entier des droits de l'accusé ».
Toutefois, le caractère expéditif du procès est devenu apparemment un
souci incontournable pour la Chambre, puisque l'accusé est bien décidé
à présenter des preuves essentielles et potentiellement embarrassantes.
L'imposition d'un conseil juridique, même un conseil juridique « de
réserve », comme il appert que l'ICTY envisage la question
actuellement, n'allègera aucune des difficultés auxquelles est
confrontée le procès : elle ne traitera, et encore moins soignera,
l'hypertension maligne de Slobodan Milosevic, elle ne procurera à
l'accusé ni le temps ni les conditions pour préparer sa défense, elle
ne redressera pas le grossier déséquilibre dans les ressources
accordées au procureur et à la défense, un rééquilibrage requis par le
principe de l'égalité des armes, que la Cour admet volontiers
reconnaître. Si un conseil juridique est imposé, le droit fondamental
de Slobodan Milosevic de se représenter lui-même sera bafoué et il
n'aura disposera plus que de 150 jours pour présenter sa défense,
c'est-à-dire la moitié seulement du temps qu'on a accordé à
l'accusation.
Il est absolument difficile de préciser quel rôle pourrait jouer un
conseil juridique imposé. Quel que ce rôle puisse être, il est certain
qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice à tirer à aller de l'avant avec cette mesure
sans précédent. Les Statuts de l'ICTY assurent un droit minime à être
présent à son procès. Si l'état médical de Slobodan Milosevic ne lui
permet pas d'assister aux procédures et s'il ne renonce pas à son droit
à être présent, l'ICTY n'a pas la juridiction de tenir des audiences en
son absence. Les ajournements continueront aussi longtemps que des
mesures ne seront pas prises pour traiter l'hypertension maligne de
Monsieur Milosevic, une situation qui ne peut être traitée en
continuant à violer ses droits, en menaçant de l'éloigner du procès ou
en transférant sa défense à quelqu'un qui lui est complètement étranger.
L'ICTY a assigné trois conseils juridiques pour qu'ils agissent en tant
qu'amici curiae et dont le rôle déclaré est d'assurer, entre autres, un
procès équitable. Il est douteux qu'un conseil juridique imposé, même
s'il s'agit d'un conseil « de réserve » puisse fournir une aide
supplémentaire sans faire un enfant dans le dos de la défense de
Monsieur Milosevic ou sans simplement lui imposer le silence. En outre,
toute référence à un précédent en ce qui concerne l'imposition d'un
conseil juridique de réserve est inappropriée ici. Dans le cas du Dr
Seselj, un conseil juridique « de réserve » a été imposé, avant le
début du procès et de façon à empêcher les « trop fréquentes
interruptions » de la procédure.
Le président Slobodan Milosevic ne reconnaît pas l'ICTY. Il affirme son
innocence et critique en long et en large l'ICTY et l'Otan. Il est
innocent jusqu'à preuve du contraire et il a tous les droits de
s'opposer à la légitimité de cette institution. En imposant un conseil
juridique, l'ICTY violerait non seulement son droit à
l'auto-représentation, mais également son droit à présenter des preuves
pertinentes démontrant les violations répétées de la souveraineté
yougoslave durant une décennie entière. Ces violations ont débouché sur
la guerre d'agression illégale de l'Otan et les bombardements en
Yougoslavie - alors qu'au plus fort de cette guerre, des accusations
contre Slobodan Milosevic ont été confirmées par l'ICTY - dans une
tentative transparente de priver le peuple yougoslave d'une voix en vue
de négocier la paix et afin de justifier la continuation de cette
guerre d'agression.
Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic devant l'ICTY a été ajourné jusqu'au 31
août 2004. Le procureur a présenté 295 témoins en autant de jours, tous
ont été contre-interrogés par l'accusé en personne, puisqu'il ne
reconnaît pas l'ICTY en tant que corps juridique et qu'il signale cette
non-reconnaissance en refusant de désigner un conseil juridique.
Slobodan Milosevic est diplômé d'une école de droit, il a été élu trois
fois au poste le plus élevé de la Serbie et du Monténégro et il a, à
tous points de vue, contesté avec une grande compétence l'affaire
intentée contre lui par le procureur. Il est hors de question de mettre
en doute ses compétences mentales et son droit à refuser le droit à un
conseil juridique. L'ICTY peut ne pas apprécier l'attitude critique du
président Milosevic. Néanmoins, les bénéfices publics émanant du
respect de son droit à l'auto-représentation dépassent de loin tout
embarras qui pourrait frapper l'ICTY. La justice exige que Slobodan
Milosevic se voie accorder le droit de prouver que l'institution du
Conseil de sécurité qui le tient emprisonné constitue une arme
politique contre la souveraineté et l'autodétermination du peuple de
Serbie et de tous les peuples de la Yougoslavie.
Nelson Mandela s'était représenté lui-même durant ses infâmes procès de
Rivonia durant les années 60. Mandela construisit une défense politique
contre l'apartheid, et pourtant, le système judiciaire sud-africain
n'alla même pas jusqu'à lui imposer un conseil juridique en vue de le
faire taire. L'ICTY est tout à fait disposé à menacer l'avenir des lois
internationales en faisant ce que même les juges de l'époque de
l'apartheid n'avaient pas osé faire : bâillonner un accusé et réduire
sa capacité à répondre à un procès. Un procès, convient-il de noter,
rendu improductif, inintelligible et inexplicablement long par le
procureur, avec le consentement de la Chambre, et non par Slobodan
Milosevic. En effet, la plupart des observateurs du procès ont noté que
le procureur n'est pas parvenu à présenter des preuves irréfutables en
vue de soutenir la moindre des accusations; plutôt que de mettre un
terme aux procédures, l'ICTY a permis au procureur de présenter des
témoins additionnels, tout en désespérant apparemment d'arriver à
prouver quoi que ce soit.
Le droit de se défendre personnellement figure au cour même de la
Charte internationale des droits civiques et politiques. Les Nations
unies ne devraient pas tolérer ces violations incessantes des lois
internationales au nom de la rapidité des procédures. Se servir de la
maladie improprement traitée d'une personne détenue comme d'une excuse
pour enfreindre ses droits et la réduire au silence, puis s'embarquer
dans une « réforme radicale » des procédures - comme la Chambre
envisage désormais de la faire, en changeant les règles au beau milieu
du procès et au détriment de l'accusé - voilà bien une perversion à la
fois de la lettre et de l'esprit des lois internationales.
En tant que juristes, nous sommes profondément inquiets de ce que
l'imposition prévue d'un conseil juridique constitue un précédent
irrévocable et qu'elle prive potentiellement toute personne accusée du
droit de présenter une défense sensée à l'avenir. Dans le cas de
Slobodan Milosevic, cette mesure ne fera qu'accroître son hypertension
et mettra sa vie en danger.
L'ICTY et le Conseil de sécurité seront tenus pour responsables des
conséquences tragiquement prévisibles de leurs actes.
(Traduction Jean-Marie Flémal.
Voir le signataires à: http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm )
=== 2 ===
Source: http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
Date : Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:53:28 +0200
De : "Roland Marounek"
Objet : Le 'Tribunal' de la Haye : Milosevic commence sa défense
En attendant un éventuelle retranscription complètes de ses propos, on
doit se contenter de dépêches et d'articles éberlués, dans le ton
'Milosevic réécrit l'histoire', puisqu'il a l'outrecuidance de ne pas
accepter les fables qui nous ont été assénées pendant une décénie.
R.M.
AFP
AP
Reuters
Revue de presse du Courrier International
Figaro
LA HAYE, 1er sept (AFP)
Milosevic nie les crimes dont l'accuse le TPI
L'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic, combatif, a terminé
mercredi la présentation de sa défense devant le Tribunal pénal
international (TPI) pour l'ex-Yougoslavie en niant les crimes dont il
est accusé.
"Vous parlez de crimes que nous (les Serbes et lui-même, ndlr) n'avons
pas commis, vous les expliquez par des projets que nous n'avons pas
eu", a déclaré M. Milosevic en terminant la déclaration liminaire de
sa défense.
"Cet acte d'accusation est une addition de mensonge sans scrupules et
de manipulations", a-t-il encore lancé.
Parlant sans notes et s'adressant directement à la cour, il a estimé
que l'accusation avait "collationné mécaniquement une série d'actes,
dont certains sont bien entendus criminels, sans la moindre preuve".
"Cette prétendue accusation a fabriqué ce concept unique en son genre
d'+entreprise criminelle conjointe+ parce qu'elle n'arrive pas à
prouver la culpabilité. C'est une construction nébuleuse", a-t-il lancé.
"Ceci fut conçu pour pouvoir mettre en accusation des innocents sans
prouver leur culpabilité", a-t-il ajouté.
Le principe du "plaidé coupable" est selon lui "un exemple de
fabrication de faux témoins".
"Messieurs, vous ne pouvez pas imaginer le privilège, même avec les
conditions que vous m'imposez, d'avoir la vérité et la justice de mon
côté", a-t-il dit aux juges en conclusion de sa présentation. Devant
ses demandes pressantes, la cour lui avait accordé 90 minutes
supplémentaires, mais il lui a tout de même reproché mercredi d'être
"chiche avec le temps". [pour rappel, l'accusation avait eu droit à 3
jours pour présenter les charges]
M. Milosevic avait entamé la présentation de sa défense mardi après
des mois de retard dû à sa mauvaise santé, brossant en quatre heures
une vaste fresque historique sur les Balkans victimes selon lui d'un
complot animé principalement par l'Allemagne et le Vatican.
Il va maintenant disposer de 150 jours pour présenter ses témoins .
Comme la veille, il a assuré que "le plus cher désir (des Serbes) est
la paix".
Sans rentrer dans le détail des charges qui pèsent contre lui, il a
assuré à propos du massacre de Srebrenica que la lumière sera faite,
plutôt que "le mythe", et a promis des documents qui "jetteront des
doutes sérieux sur votre construction des événements".
La cour examinait en milieu de journée la question de sa santé et
l'éventuelle imposition d'un avocat, ce que M. Milosevic a toujours
refusé. Le procureur Carla Del Ponte a à nouveau demandé une telle
mesure si M. Milosevic refusait d'autoriser ses conseillers juridiques
à le rejoindre dans le prétoire pour présenter sa défense.
"Ce procès a besoin d'un avocat commis d'office comme garde-fou",
a-t-elle souligné. "L'évolution de ce procès dans les douze derniers
mois a rendu ce besoin encore plus évident".
Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic a été interrompu 14 fois en raison des
problèmes de santé de l'accusé, notamment son hypertension artérielle.
Les juges ont indiqué en juillet qu'ils estimaient nécessaire "une
révision radicale" du procès.
L'ancien chef d'Etat, 63 ans, est accusé d'être un des principaux
responsables des trois conflits qui ont fait plus de 200.000 morts
dans les Balkans: la Croatie (1991-1995), la Bosnie-Herzégovine
(1992-1995) et le Kosovo (1998-1999).
Il doit répondre de 66 chefs d'accusation de génocide, crimes contre
l'humanité et crimes de guerre et risque la prison à vie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Milosevic rejette en bloc les accusations du TPIY
AP
LA HAYE (AP) - L'ancien président serbe Slobodan Milosevic a rejeté
mercredi la théorie de l'accusation selon laquelle son projet
politique consistait en la création d'une "grande Serbie" ethniquement
pure.
Deux ans et demi après l'ouverture de son procès devant le tribunal
pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY), l'ancien maître de
Belgrade a terminé son argumentaire entamé mardi, dans lequel il a
exposé une série de conspirations contre le peuple serbe, impliquant
en vrac et de manière non exhaustive l'Armée de libération du Kosovo,
le Vatican, les "oustachis" (néo-nazis croates), Oussama ben Laden ou
la CIA.
L'accusé, qui est âgé de 63 ans, a qualifié son procès de "farce pure
et simple". Les procureurs n'ayant, selon lui, apporté aucune preuve
de leurs accusations, il a estimé que les charges étaient "une pure
mutilation de la justice.
Après sa conclusion, le tribunal a précisé qu'il annoncerait jeudi
s'il lui imposait un avocat pour sa défense. L'ancien président a en
effet refusé de renoncer au droit d'assurer sa défense seul malgré des
périodes répétées d'interruption du procès du fait d'une santé
déficiente.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Milosevic se dit victime d'une "déformation de l'histoire"
Reuters
Tue August 31, 2004 12:30 PM CEST
par Paul Gallagher et Emma Thomasson
LA HAYE (Reuters) - Au premier jour de sa défense, l'ancien président
yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic s'est présenté devant le Tribunal pénal
international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY) de La Haye comme victime
d'une "déformation de l'histoire".
Le début de la défense de Milosevic a été reporté de plusieurs mois du
fait de ses problèmes de santé. L'ancien président yougoslave, accusé
de génocide, crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité en Croatie,
en Bosnie et au Kosovo dans les années 1990, assure lui-même sa
défense depuis le début de son procès en février 2002.
Milosevic, vêtu d'un costume et portant une cravate et un cartable en
cuir, s'est présenté mardi matin devant le tribunal comme un
pacificateur et s'est montré tout de suite très offensif envers ses
juges.
"Les accusations portées contre moi sont un mensonge sans scrupule et
une déformation sans fin de l'histoire", a-t-il dit devant la cour.
"Tout a été présenté de manière partiale afin de protéger les
véritables responsables."
Visiblement à l'aise devant son auditoire, l'ancien homme fort de
Belgrade, qui est âgé de 63 ans, a ouvert sa défense par un rappel
chronologique de la "violente destruction" de la Yougoslavie.
"Un Etat multiethnique et multiconfessionnel a été détruit (...) cela
constitue le pire crime contre l'humanité", a-t-il affirmé.
"Des centaines de milliers de personnes ont été blessées et mutilées.
Des centaines de personnes, pour la plupart des Serbes, ont fui leurs
maisons."
COMPLOT ANTI-SERBE
Milosevic a accusé les pays occidentaux mais aussi l'Otan, la pègre
albanaise au Kosovo, les fondamentalistes musulmans et le Vatican
d'avoir avivé les tensions séparatistes en Yougoslavie après la fin de
la guerre froide.
S'estimant victime d'un complot anti-serbe, il a mis en cause le
tribunal de la Haye qui, selon lui, couvre les agissements de l'Otan,
soutenue par les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne, au Kosovo.
Avant d'entamer sa défense, Milosevic a demandé au président du
tribunal, Patrick Robinson, qu'une journée supplémentaire lui soit
accordée pour sa déclaration préliminaire, faisant valoir que
l'accusation avait bénéficié de trois jours.
Mais le président du tribunal lui a alors demandé de poursuivre son
exposé.
Milosevic a d'ores et déjà annoncé qu'il comptait appeler plus d'un
millier de témoins à la barre, dont le Premier ministre britannique
Tony Blair et l'ancien président américain Bill Clinton. Il dispose de
150 jours pour sa défense.
Echaudé par de nombreux reports d'audience, le tribunal examinera à la
fin de la déclaration préliminaire de Milosevic la possibilité de lui
adjoindre un ou plusieurs avocats en raison de ses problèmes de santé.
Les juges espèrent que le procès pourra s'achever d'ici octobre 2005.
L'accusation a bouclé son travail en février. En deux ans, elle a fait
témoigner 290 témoins.
Milosevic devrait appeler son premier témoin à la barre la semaine
prochaine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
JUSTICE INTERNATIONALE - Place à la défense pour Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.courrierinternational.com/
article.asp?obj_id=26214&provenance=europe&bloc=06
"L'ancien président serbe Slobodan Milosevic est devenu, mardi 31
août, le premier chef d'Etat accusé de crimes de guerre à présenter
lui-même sa défense devant un tribunal pénal international", signale
le quotidien canadien The Globe and Mail. Après vingt-quatre mois
d'instruction, M. Milosevic doit désormais répondre de 66 chefs
d'accusation, dont génocide, crimes contre l'humanité et crimes de
guerre. Il dispose en tout de cent cinquante jours pour présenter ses
témoins.
L'ex-dirigeant politique a entamé sa défense par un discours de plus
de quatre heures. Retraçant cent ans d'histoire serbe, il a développé
la thèse que la guerre dans l'ex-Yougoslavie avait été conduite par
une coalition des puissances occidentales, avec en tête l'Allemagne,
les Etats-Unis et le Vatican. Comme le souligne The New York Times,
tout son plaidoyer a consisté à nier son implication dans les faits
qui lui sont reprochés. "Les accusations retenues contre moi sont un
pur mensonge et une déformation de l'Histoire. Tout a été présenté de
manière partiale pour protéger les véritables coupables."
Slobodan Milosevic a décidé d'assurer seul sa défense dans le
prétoire. Son procès a déjà a été interrompu quatorze fois en raison
de ses problèmes de santé, notamment de son hypertension artérielle.
La cour devrait examiner mercredi 1er septembre les limites que
représente l'état de santé de Slobodan Milosevic, pour décider ensuite
de l'éventualité de lui imposer un avocat, ce que M. Milosevic a
toujours refusé. Selon le procureur Geoffrey Nice, "l'opinion unanime
des experts est que l'accusé ne peut pas conduire le procès lui-même",
faisant référence à plusieurs rapports médicaux remis aux juges dans
le courant du mois d'août.
L'accusation soupçonne toutefois l'ancien président yougoslave de ne
pas suivre correctement le traitement médical qui lui a été prescrit
et de tenter ainsi de faire obstruction à la bonne marche de son procès.
-----
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20040901.FIG0040.html
TPI L'ancien président yougoslave a entamé hier sa défense à La Haye
Slobodan Milosevic accuse les puissances occidentales
Isabelle Lasserre
[01 septembre 2004]
Vêtu de son éternel costume bleu marine, celui des grands jours, d'une
chemise bleu pâle et de sa cravate aux couleurs de la Yougoslavie,
Milosevic a entamé hier sa défense en accusant l'Occident d'être à
l'origine de la désintégration de la Yougoslavie. Comme s'il vivait
encore dans les années 90, comme si personne n'avait témoigné contre
lui pendant la première partie de son procès, comme s'il n'avait pas
perdu la guerre, et le pouvoir en Serbie.
Principal responsable des guerres qui ont ensanglanté les Balkans au
début des années 90, l'ancien président yougoslave est inculpé pour
génocide, crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité dans les
conflits de Croatie, de Bosnie et du Kosovo (plus de 200 000 morts).
Il est le premier chef d'Etat à être jugé par la justice
internationale. Son procès est le plus important en Europe depuis le
jugement des dirigeants nazis à Nuremberg, après la Seconde Guerre
mondiale.
Milosevic, qui assure sa défense seul, juge pourtant que les
accusations portées contre lui par le TPI sont «des mensonges éhontés»
ainsi qu'une «distorsion permanente de l'histoire». La communauté
internationale, qui se dépense pourtant sans compter depuis plus de
dix ans pour préserver le caractère multiethnique des Balkans, a selon
Milosevic «agi comme la principale force précipitant la destruction
d'un Etat multiculturel, multiconfessionnel et multiethnique». Avant
d'ajouter : «Le projet de faire éclater la Yougoslavie existait grâce
à l'alliance entre l'Allemagne, le Vatican, le reste de la communauté
européenne et les Etats-Unis.»
Jugée pour avoir la première reconnu l'indépendance de la Croatie,
l'Allemagne fait figure de principale accusée. «Durant des années, les
Allemands ont travaillé à la destruction de la Yougoslavie»,
affirme-t-il. Quant aux Etats-Unis, ils sont montrés du doigt pour
avoir soutenu l'Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK), créée en réaction
à l'oppression de Belgrade par d'anciens marxistes qui n'ont sans
doute jamais mis les pieds dans une mosquée mais que Milosevic
s'acharne à présenter comme des «terroristes islamistes».
L'ancien président yougoslave, qui a exacerbé le nationalisme pour
accéder au pouvoir à la fin des années 80 et qui est considéré comme
le principal responsable de l'épuration ethnique menée par les forces
serbes dans les Balkans, a défendu la lutte du peuple serbe et
justifié ce qu'il considère toujours comme une «guerre juste».
Silencieux sur son projet de Grande Serbie, il s'est attaché à décrire
les Serbes comme des victimes et non des agresseurs.
Très combatif, comme toujours lorsqu'il tient le rôle principal,
Slobodan Milosevic, qui ne reconnaît pas la légalité du Tribunal pénal
international, a aussi longuement refait l'histoire du XXe siècle,
citant Hitler, Gorbatchev et Bill Clinton. Comme les Russes en
Tchétchénie, l'ancien président yougoslave n'a pas omis de s'emparer
de l'épouvantail islamiste, sujet sensible s'il en est depuis le 11
septembre 2001, afin de justifier le combat des forces serbes, une
«légitime défense» contre les attaques de combattants étrangers. A
l'en croire, la désintégration de la Yougoslavie n'aurait d'ailleurs
été qu'un complot financé par l'Arabie saoudite pour créer un Etat
islamique dans les Balkans...
=== 3 ===
Source: http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
Date : Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:22:17 +0200
De : "Roland Marounek"
Objet : Conclusion de la farce : Le 'Tribunal' impose le silence à
Milosevic
jeudi 2 septembre 2004, 10h36
Milosevic se voit imposer un avocat
LA HAYE (AP) - Le tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie
(TPIY) a décidé jeudi qu'il allait imposer un avocat à l'ancien
président serbe Slobodan Milosevic dont les médecins estiment qu'il est
trop malade pour assurer lui-même sa défense. [Il ne s'agit pas des
"médecins de Milosevic", et on précise après que les "juges" refusent
curieusement qu'il soit examiné par des médecins indépendants.]
Le TPIY n'a pas donné le nom de l'avocat qui va assurer la défense de
Milosevic ni quand il serait désigné.
"Il est clair au vu des rapports médicaux que l'accusé n'est pas
suffisamment en bonne santé pour assurer lui-même sa défense", A dit le
président du TPIY Patrick Robinson.
Le tribunal a également rejeté la demande de Milosevic, qui souffre
d'hypertension, de subir de nouveaux examens médicaux réalisés par des
médecins indépendants.
L'accusation a également cité des rapports médicaux selon lesquels
Slobodan Milosevic a refusé de prendre le traitement qui lui a été
prescrit pour sa tension, ce qui a poussé les médecins à le déclarer
inapte à assurer sa défense. Ce à quoi il a rétorqué que les
médicaments l'assommaient trop pour travailler et qu'il prenait un
autre traitement prescrit par son médecin.
Milosevic, 63 ans, qui a largement utilisé les deux ans et demie de
procès comme plateforme pour diffuser ses vues politiques, a refusé
d'accepter le concours d'un avocat qui le remplacerait pour interroger
les témoins.
Deux ans et demi après l'ouverture de son procès devant le tribunal
pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY), l'ancien maître de
Belgrade a terminé son argumentaire entamé mardi, dans lequel il a
exposé une série de conspirations contre le peuple serbe, impliquant en
vrac et de manière non exhaustive l'Armée de libération du Kosovo, le
Vatican, les "oustachis" (néo-nazis croates), Oussama ben Laden ou la
CIA.
L'ancien chef d'Etat est jugé pour 66 chefs d'accusation de crimes de
guerre pour son rôle dans les guerres des Balkans dans les années 1990,
qui ont fait plus de 200.000 morts. AP
TPI: un avocat commis d'office pour assister Slobodan Milosevic
LA HAYE (AFP) - Les juges du Tribunal pénal international (TPI) pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie ont décidé jeudi qu'un avocat commis d'office
assisterait l'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic dans sa
défense, à la suite de rapports médicaux démontrant qu'il n'est pas en
état de se défendre lui-même.
"Les rapports médicaux montrent que l'accusé n'est pas en état de se
représenter lui-même (...). La Cour estime que le droit d'un accusé de
se représenter n'est pas absolu et qu'il est fondé en droit et légitime
de lui commettre un conseil, c'est pourquoi nous avons décidé de le
faire", a déclaré le juge Patrick Robinson, qui préside la Chambre,
lors de l'audience.
Slobodan Milosevic, 63 ans, comparaît devant le TPI pour répondre de
plus de 60 charges de génocide, crimes contre l'humanité et crimes de
guerre pour les trois conflits majeurs qui ont déchiré les Balkans dans
les années 1990: la Croatie, la Bosnie et le Kosovo. Il avait décidé de
présenter lui-même sa défense dans le prétoire, refusant de prendre un
avocat devant une cour qu'il juge ilégale.
Les juges ont cependant souligné que les "problèmes de santé de
l'accusé ont constitué un problème majeur" pour le procès. M. Milosevic
souffre "d'hypertension grave" et les débats ont été interrompus à plus
de dix reprises en raison de ses problèmes de santé. "Il existe un
danger réel que le procès se proroge dans des délais qui ne seraient
pas raisonnables ou même ce qui est pire ne se conclue pas" si un
avocat n'est pas commis d'office, a souligné la Chambre.
Selon les rapports médicaux remis récemment à la Chambre, une des
raisons à l'origine des problèmes de santé de l'ancien président est
"qu'il ne suit pas les traitements prescrits", a déclaré le juge
Robinson. M. Milosevic avait contesté les conclusions de ces rapports
mais les juges ont rejeté à deux voix contre une, celle de Patrick
Robinson, la demande d'expertise médicale supplémentaire formulée par
l'accusé.
1. Nous sous-signés, juristes, professeurs de droit, et pénalistes...
2. Milosevic commence sa défense
3. Conclusion de la farce : Le 'Tribunal' impose le silence à Milosevic
=== 1 ===
L'imposition d'un conseil juridique à Slobodan Milosevic menace
l'avenir du droit international et l'existence même de l'accusé
A Son Excellence Monsieur Kofi Annan, Secrétaire Général des Nations
unies,
A Son Excellence Monsieur Julian Robert Hunte, Président de la 58e
Session de la Présidence roumaine (russe) du Conseil de sécurité de
l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies,
A tous les membres du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies,
A tous les membres de la Cour criminelle internationale (sous l'égide
des Nations unies) pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie :
Nous les signataires de la présente, juristes, professeurs de droit et
avocats criminels internationaux, affirmons par la même occasion nos
soucis et inquiétudes du fait que la Cour criminelle internationale
pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie (ICTY) prépare l'imposition d'un conseil
juridique à un accusé qui n'en veut pas, Slobodan Milosevic.
Cette mesure apparemment punitive est contraire à la législation
internationale, incompatible avec le système à deux parties opposées de
justice criminelle adopté par le Conseil de sécurité dans la Résolution
808 et elle ignore l'obligation de la Cour de fournir des soins
médicaux adéquats et la remise en liberté provisoire de l'accusé. Au
lieu de prendre les mesures appropriées destinées à alléger les
problèmes médicaux de Slobodan Milosevic, problèmes qui se manifestent
depuis très longtemps déjà, l'ICTY a ignoré les requêtes répétées de
remise en liberté provisoire, à laquelle toute personne présumée
innocente a droit, elle a imposé à la défense des périodes de
préparation d'une brièveté totalement irréaliste et elle a permis
l'introduction d'une quantité anormale de preuves destinées à étayer
l'accusation, preuves dont la plupart étaient dénuées de la moindre
valeur en tant que telles, augmentant de la sorte le degré de stress de
Monsieur Milosevic, stress qui constitue le principal déclencheur de sa
maladie. La 3e Chambre a été informée de ce dernier problème par les
cardiologues qu'elle a elle-même choisis. L'accusé s'est vu refuser un
examen par son propre médecin, ce qui constitue une autre violation de
ses droits.
Aujourd'hui, après avoir occasionné l'extrême dégradation de l'état de
santé du président Milosevic, dont elle avait néanmoins été prévenue,
l'ICTY cherche à lui imposer un conseil juridique malgré ses
objections, plutôt que de lui accorder la liberté provisoire afin qu'il
reçoive les soins médicaux décents requis par son état, une mesure
raisonnable d'ailleurs reprise dans les lois et jurisprudences
domestiques et internationales. L'imposition envisagée d'un conseil
juridique constitue une violation flagrante des droits judiciaires
reconnus internationalement et elle ne servira qu'à aggraver la maladie
de Monsieur Milosevic, susceptible de lui coûter la vie, et à
discréditer encore plus ces méthodes.
La droit de se défendre contre des accusations criminelles se trouve au
centre à la fois des législations internationales et de la structure
même du système à deux parties opposées. Les droits minimaux et
fondamentaux accordés à un accusé conformément aux Statuts de Rome de
la Cour criminelle internationale et conformément aux Statuts des
Tribunaux criminels internationaux pour le Rwanda et la Yougoslavie,
comprennent le droit à se défendre soi-même. L'usage général de ces
provisions envisage chaque fois la réalité selon laquelle des droits
sont accordés à un accusé, non à un avocat. Le droit accordé est de se
représenter soi-même contre les accusations formulées par le procureur
et, subsidiairement à ce qui précède, de recevoir l'assistance d'un
conseil juridique, si un accusé exprime le vou de recevoir une telle
aide. Toutefois, si, comme dans le cas de Slobodan Milosevic, un accusé
exprime sans équivoque son objection à se faire représenter par un
conseil juridique, son droit à se représenter soi-même prévaut sur la
préférence du tribunal ou du procureur pour la désignation d'un conseil
de défense, comme l'a d'ailleurs stipulé la Cour suprême des
Etats-Unis, en ce qui concerne le Sixième Amendement de la Charte des
Droits, laquelle présente une similitude frappante avec l'Article 21
des Statuts de l'ICTY :
« Il parle de l''assistance' d'un conseil juridique, et un assistant a
beau être un expert, il demeure un assistant. Le langage et l'esprit du
Sixième Amendement envisage que ce conseil juridique, à l'instar de
tous les autres outils de la défense garantis par l'Amendement,
constituera une aide à un accusé qui en exprime le désir - et non un
organe de l'Etat interposé entre un accusé qui n'en veut pas et son
droit à se défendre personnellement. Imposer un conseil juridique à
l'accusé, contre sa volonté considérée, viole donc la logique de
l'Amendement. Dans une telle situation, le conseil juridique n'est
nullement un assistant, mais un maître, et le droit de préparer une
défense est privé de son caractère personnel sur lequel insiste
l'Amendement. » (Faretta v.California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).)
De la même façon, les Statuts de l'ICTY (de même que ceux de l'ICTR et
de l'ICC) accordent « des outils de défense », tel le droit de se faire
représenter par un conseil juridique, ou le droit à ce que le conseil
juridique soit fourni sans le moindre frais au cas où l'accusé est
indigent. Le fondement du droit à se représenter soi-même est rendu
caduc quand le droit à un conseil juridique se mue en obligation. Comme
il est dit dans Faretta, déjà mentionné plus haut :
« Un conseil juridique non désiré ne 'représente' l'accusé qu'à travers
une fiction légale ténue et inacceptable. A moins que l'accusé ait
donné son consentement à se faire représenter de la sorte, la défense
présentée dans ce cas n'est pas la défense que lui garantit la
Constitution car, dans une acception on ne peut plus réaliste, il ne
s'agit tout simplement pas de sa propre défense. » (Id.)
Pareillement, la défense de Slobodan Milosevic ne serait pas la défense
que lui garantit la législation internationale s'il devait être flanqué
d'un conseil juridique qu'on lui imposerait contre son gré.
La structure générale de l'ICTY est celle d'un système de justice
criminelle à deux parties adverses. D'autres influences légales ont été
intégrées aux Réglementations en matière de procédure et de preuves,
mais la nature des procédures, qui implique un procureur et un accusé
en tant que parties présentant des preuves devant tout un panel dont la
fonction est d'arbitrer, est indubitablement d'une nature à deux
parties adverses. Dans ce système à deux parties adverses, l'histoire a
illustré avec éloquence que l'imposition d'un conseil juridique à un
accusé qui n'en veut pas constitue une pratique habituelle dans les
tribunaux politiques et qu'elle n'a pas sa place dans un système
démocratique de justice, et encore moins devant une institution qui va
engendrer un précédent pour une juridiction criminelle internationale
vraiment légitime, dont l'instauration aura été le fruit d'un
demi-siècle de lutte :
« Au cours de la longue histoire de la jurisprudence criminelle
britannique, il n'y a eu qu'un seul tribunal à avoir jamais adopté la
pratique du conseil juridique imposé contre son gré à un accusé dans
une procédure criminelle. Ce tribunal n'était autre que la Chambre
Etoilée. Cette curieuse institution, qui eut beaucoup de succès à la
fin du 16e et au début du 17e siècles, présentait un caractère mixte,
à la fois exécutif et judiciaire, et s'écartait de façon
caractéristique des traditions du droit commun. Pour ces raisons, et du
fait qu'elle s'était spécialisée dans le jugement des délits
'politiques', la Chambre Etoilée a, des siècles durant, symbolisé le
mépris envers les droits fondamentaux de l'individu. » (Faretta, id.)
Récemment, l'ICTY a commandé au procureur, et à lui seulement, de
fournir un avis à propos de l'imposition d'un conseil juridique dans
l'absence d'instructions ou de coopération de la part de Monsieur
Milosevic. La Chambre a fait référence à plusieurs reprises à son
obligation de mener un procès loyal et a prétendu, lorsqu'elle a
reconnu le droit à l'auto-représentation, en avril 2003, qu'elle « a
naturellement l'obligation de s'assurer qu'un procès soit loyal et
expéditif; qui plus est, lorsque la santé de l'accusé pose problème,
cette obligation revêt une signification particulière ». L'article 21
des Statuts de l'ICTY stipule que la Chambre doit exercer cette
obligation « avec le respect entier des droits de l'accusé ».
Toutefois, le caractère expéditif du procès est devenu apparemment un
souci incontournable pour la Chambre, puisque l'accusé est bien décidé
à présenter des preuves essentielles et potentiellement embarrassantes.
L'imposition d'un conseil juridique, même un conseil juridique « de
réserve », comme il appert que l'ICTY envisage la question
actuellement, n'allègera aucune des difficultés auxquelles est
confrontée le procès : elle ne traitera, et encore moins soignera,
l'hypertension maligne de Slobodan Milosevic, elle ne procurera à
l'accusé ni le temps ni les conditions pour préparer sa défense, elle
ne redressera pas le grossier déséquilibre dans les ressources
accordées au procureur et à la défense, un rééquilibrage requis par le
principe de l'égalité des armes, que la Cour admet volontiers
reconnaître. Si un conseil juridique est imposé, le droit fondamental
de Slobodan Milosevic de se représenter lui-même sera bafoué et il
n'aura disposera plus que de 150 jours pour présenter sa défense,
c'est-à-dire la moitié seulement du temps qu'on a accordé à
l'accusation.
Il est absolument difficile de préciser quel rôle pourrait jouer un
conseil juridique imposé. Quel que ce rôle puisse être, il est certain
qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice à tirer à aller de l'avant avec cette mesure
sans précédent. Les Statuts de l'ICTY assurent un droit minime à être
présent à son procès. Si l'état médical de Slobodan Milosevic ne lui
permet pas d'assister aux procédures et s'il ne renonce pas à son droit
à être présent, l'ICTY n'a pas la juridiction de tenir des audiences en
son absence. Les ajournements continueront aussi longtemps que des
mesures ne seront pas prises pour traiter l'hypertension maligne de
Monsieur Milosevic, une situation qui ne peut être traitée en
continuant à violer ses droits, en menaçant de l'éloigner du procès ou
en transférant sa défense à quelqu'un qui lui est complètement étranger.
L'ICTY a assigné trois conseils juridiques pour qu'ils agissent en tant
qu'amici curiae et dont le rôle déclaré est d'assurer, entre autres, un
procès équitable. Il est douteux qu'un conseil juridique imposé, même
s'il s'agit d'un conseil « de réserve » puisse fournir une aide
supplémentaire sans faire un enfant dans le dos de la défense de
Monsieur Milosevic ou sans simplement lui imposer le silence. En outre,
toute référence à un précédent en ce qui concerne l'imposition d'un
conseil juridique de réserve est inappropriée ici. Dans le cas du Dr
Seselj, un conseil juridique « de réserve » a été imposé, avant le
début du procès et de façon à empêcher les « trop fréquentes
interruptions » de la procédure.
Le président Slobodan Milosevic ne reconnaît pas l'ICTY. Il affirme son
innocence et critique en long et en large l'ICTY et l'Otan. Il est
innocent jusqu'à preuve du contraire et il a tous les droits de
s'opposer à la légitimité de cette institution. En imposant un conseil
juridique, l'ICTY violerait non seulement son droit à
l'auto-représentation, mais également son droit à présenter des preuves
pertinentes démontrant les violations répétées de la souveraineté
yougoslave durant une décennie entière. Ces violations ont débouché sur
la guerre d'agression illégale de l'Otan et les bombardements en
Yougoslavie - alors qu'au plus fort de cette guerre, des accusations
contre Slobodan Milosevic ont été confirmées par l'ICTY - dans une
tentative transparente de priver le peuple yougoslave d'une voix en vue
de négocier la paix et afin de justifier la continuation de cette
guerre d'agression.
Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic devant l'ICTY a été ajourné jusqu'au 31
août 2004. Le procureur a présenté 295 témoins en autant de jours, tous
ont été contre-interrogés par l'accusé en personne, puisqu'il ne
reconnaît pas l'ICTY en tant que corps juridique et qu'il signale cette
non-reconnaissance en refusant de désigner un conseil juridique.
Slobodan Milosevic est diplômé d'une école de droit, il a été élu trois
fois au poste le plus élevé de la Serbie et du Monténégro et il a, à
tous points de vue, contesté avec une grande compétence l'affaire
intentée contre lui par le procureur. Il est hors de question de mettre
en doute ses compétences mentales et son droit à refuser le droit à un
conseil juridique. L'ICTY peut ne pas apprécier l'attitude critique du
président Milosevic. Néanmoins, les bénéfices publics émanant du
respect de son droit à l'auto-représentation dépassent de loin tout
embarras qui pourrait frapper l'ICTY. La justice exige que Slobodan
Milosevic se voie accorder le droit de prouver que l'institution du
Conseil de sécurité qui le tient emprisonné constitue une arme
politique contre la souveraineté et l'autodétermination du peuple de
Serbie et de tous les peuples de la Yougoslavie.
Nelson Mandela s'était représenté lui-même durant ses infâmes procès de
Rivonia durant les années 60. Mandela construisit une défense politique
contre l'apartheid, et pourtant, le système judiciaire sud-africain
n'alla même pas jusqu'à lui imposer un conseil juridique en vue de le
faire taire. L'ICTY est tout à fait disposé à menacer l'avenir des lois
internationales en faisant ce que même les juges de l'époque de
l'apartheid n'avaient pas osé faire : bâillonner un accusé et réduire
sa capacité à répondre à un procès. Un procès, convient-il de noter,
rendu improductif, inintelligible et inexplicablement long par le
procureur, avec le consentement de la Chambre, et non par Slobodan
Milosevic. En effet, la plupart des observateurs du procès ont noté que
le procureur n'est pas parvenu à présenter des preuves irréfutables en
vue de soutenir la moindre des accusations; plutôt que de mettre un
terme aux procédures, l'ICTY a permis au procureur de présenter des
témoins additionnels, tout en désespérant apparemment d'arriver à
prouver quoi que ce soit.
Le droit de se défendre personnellement figure au cour même de la
Charte internationale des droits civiques et politiques. Les Nations
unies ne devraient pas tolérer ces violations incessantes des lois
internationales au nom de la rapidité des procédures. Se servir de la
maladie improprement traitée d'une personne détenue comme d'une excuse
pour enfreindre ses droits et la réduire au silence, puis s'embarquer
dans une « réforme radicale » des procédures - comme la Chambre
envisage désormais de la faire, en changeant les règles au beau milieu
du procès et au détriment de l'accusé - voilà bien une perversion à la
fois de la lettre et de l'esprit des lois internationales.
En tant que juristes, nous sommes profondément inquiets de ce que
l'imposition prévue d'un conseil juridique constitue un précédent
irrévocable et qu'elle prive potentiellement toute personne accusée du
droit de présenter une défense sensée à l'avenir. Dans le cas de
Slobodan Milosevic, cette mesure ne fera qu'accroître son hypertension
et mettra sa vie en danger.
L'ICTY et le Conseil de sécurité seront tenus pour responsables des
conséquences tragiquement prévisibles de leurs actes.
(Traduction Jean-Marie Flémal.
Voir le signataires à: http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm )
=== 2 ===
Source: http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
Date : Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:53:28 +0200
De : "Roland Marounek"
Objet : Le 'Tribunal' de la Haye : Milosevic commence sa défense
En attendant un éventuelle retranscription complètes de ses propos, on
doit se contenter de dépêches et d'articles éberlués, dans le ton
'Milosevic réécrit l'histoire', puisqu'il a l'outrecuidance de ne pas
accepter les fables qui nous ont été assénées pendant une décénie.
R.M.
AFP
AP
Reuters
Revue de presse du Courrier International
Figaro
LA HAYE, 1er sept (AFP)
Milosevic nie les crimes dont l'accuse le TPI
L'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic, combatif, a terminé
mercredi la présentation de sa défense devant le Tribunal pénal
international (TPI) pour l'ex-Yougoslavie en niant les crimes dont il
est accusé.
"Vous parlez de crimes que nous (les Serbes et lui-même, ndlr) n'avons
pas commis, vous les expliquez par des projets que nous n'avons pas
eu", a déclaré M. Milosevic en terminant la déclaration liminaire de
sa défense.
"Cet acte d'accusation est une addition de mensonge sans scrupules et
de manipulations", a-t-il encore lancé.
Parlant sans notes et s'adressant directement à la cour, il a estimé
que l'accusation avait "collationné mécaniquement une série d'actes,
dont certains sont bien entendus criminels, sans la moindre preuve".
"Cette prétendue accusation a fabriqué ce concept unique en son genre
d'+entreprise criminelle conjointe+ parce qu'elle n'arrive pas à
prouver la culpabilité. C'est une construction nébuleuse", a-t-il lancé.
"Ceci fut conçu pour pouvoir mettre en accusation des innocents sans
prouver leur culpabilité", a-t-il ajouté.
Le principe du "plaidé coupable" est selon lui "un exemple de
fabrication de faux témoins".
"Messieurs, vous ne pouvez pas imaginer le privilège, même avec les
conditions que vous m'imposez, d'avoir la vérité et la justice de mon
côté", a-t-il dit aux juges en conclusion de sa présentation. Devant
ses demandes pressantes, la cour lui avait accordé 90 minutes
supplémentaires, mais il lui a tout de même reproché mercredi d'être
"chiche avec le temps". [pour rappel, l'accusation avait eu droit à 3
jours pour présenter les charges]
M. Milosevic avait entamé la présentation de sa défense mardi après
des mois de retard dû à sa mauvaise santé, brossant en quatre heures
une vaste fresque historique sur les Balkans victimes selon lui d'un
complot animé principalement par l'Allemagne et le Vatican.
Il va maintenant disposer de 150 jours pour présenter ses témoins .
Comme la veille, il a assuré que "le plus cher désir (des Serbes) est
la paix".
Sans rentrer dans le détail des charges qui pèsent contre lui, il a
assuré à propos du massacre de Srebrenica que la lumière sera faite,
plutôt que "le mythe", et a promis des documents qui "jetteront des
doutes sérieux sur votre construction des événements".
La cour examinait en milieu de journée la question de sa santé et
l'éventuelle imposition d'un avocat, ce que M. Milosevic a toujours
refusé. Le procureur Carla Del Ponte a à nouveau demandé une telle
mesure si M. Milosevic refusait d'autoriser ses conseillers juridiques
à le rejoindre dans le prétoire pour présenter sa défense.
"Ce procès a besoin d'un avocat commis d'office comme garde-fou",
a-t-elle souligné. "L'évolution de ce procès dans les douze derniers
mois a rendu ce besoin encore plus évident".
Le procès de Slobodan Milosevic a été interrompu 14 fois en raison des
problèmes de santé de l'accusé, notamment son hypertension artérielle.
Les juges ont indiqué en juillet qu'ils estimaient nécessaire "une
révision radicale" du procès.
L'ancien chef d'Etat, 63 ans, est accusé d'être un des principaux
responsables des trois conflits qui ont fait plus de 200.000 morts
dans les Balkans: la Croatie (1991-1995), la Bosnie-Herzégovine
(1992-1995) et le Kosovo (1998-1999).
Il doit répondre de 66 chefs d'accusation de génocide, crimes contre
l'humanité et crimes de guerre et risque la prison à vie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Milosevic rejette en bloc les accusations du TPIY
AP
LA HAYE (AP) - L'ancien président serbe Slobodan Milosevic a rejeté
mercredi la théorie de l'accusation selon laquelle son projet
politique consistait en la création d'une "grande Serbie" ethniquement
pure.
Deux ans et demi après l'ouverture de son procès devant le tribunal
pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY), l'ancien maître de
Belgrade a terminé son argumentaire entamé mardi, dans lequel il a
exposé une série de conspirations contre le peuple serbe, impliquant
en vrac et de manière non exhaustive l'Armée de libération du Kosovo,
le Vatican, les "oustachis" (néo-nazis croates), Oussama ben Laden ou
la CIA.
L'accusé, qui est âgé de 63 ans, a qualifié son procès de "farce pure
et simple". Les procureurs n'ayant, selon lui, apporté aucune preuve
de leurs accusations, il a estimé que les charges étaient "une pure
mutilation de la justice.
Après sa conclusion, le tribunal a précisé qu'il annoncerait jeudi
s'il lui imposait un avocat pour sa défense. L'ancien président a en
effet refusé de renoncer au droit d'assurer sa défense seul malgré des
périodes répétées d'interruption du procès du fait d'une santé
déficiente.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Milosevic se dit victime d'une "déformation de l'histoire"
Reuters
Tue August 31, 2004 12:30 PM CEST
par Paul Gallagher et Emma Thomasson
LA HAYE (Reuters) - Au premier jour de sa défense, l'ancien président
yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic s'est présenté devant le Tribunal pénal
international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY) de La Haye comme victime
d'une "déformation de l'histoire".
Le début de la défense de Milosevic a été reporté de plusieurs mois du
fait de ses problèmes de santé. L'ancien président yougoslave, accusé
de génocide, crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité en Croatie,
en Bosnie et au Kosovo dans les années 1990, assure lui-même sa
défense depuis le début de son procès en février 2002.
Milosevic, vêtu d'un costume et portant une cravate et un cartable en
cuir, s'est présenté mardi matin devant le tribunal comme un
pacificateur et s'est montré tout de suite très offensif envers ses
juges.
"Les accusations portées contre moi sont un mensonge sans scrupule et
une déformation sans fin de l'histoire", a-t-il dit devant la cour.
"Tout a été présenté de manière partiale afin de protéger les
véritables responsables."
Visiblement à l'aise devant son auditoire, l'ancien homme fort de
Belgrade, qui est âgé de 63 ans, a ouvert sa défense par un rappel
chronologique de la "violente destruction" de la Yougoslavie.
"Un Etat multiethnique et multiconfessionnel a été détruit (...) cela
constitue le pire crime contre l'humanité", a-t-il affirmé.
"Des centaines de milliers de personnes ont été blessées et mutilées.
Des centaines de personnes, pour la plupart des Serbes, ont fui leurs
maisons."
COMPLOT ANTI-SERBE
Milosevic a accusé les pays occidentaux mais aussi l'Otan, la pègre
albanaise au Kosovo, les fondamentalistes musulmans et le Vatican
d'avoir avivé les tensions séparatistes en Yougoslavie après la fin de
la guerre froide.
S'estimant victime d'un complot anti-serbe, il a mis en cause le
tribunal de la Haye qui, selon lui, couvre les agissements de l'Otan,
soutenue par les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne, au Kosovo.
Avant d'entamer sa défense, Milosevic a demandé au président du
tribunal, Patrick Robinson, qu'une journée supplémentaire lui soit
accordée pour sa déclaration préliminaire, faisant valoir que
l'accusation avait bénéficié de trois jours.
Mais le président du tribunal lui a alors demandé de poursuivre son
exposé.
Milosevic a d'ores et déjà annoncé qu'il comptait appeler plus d'un
millier de témoins à la barre, dont le Premier ministre britannique
Tony Blair et l'ancien président américain Bill Clinton. Il dispose de
150 jours pour sa défense.
Echaudé par de nombreux reports d'audience, le tribunal examinera à la
fin de la déclaration préliminaire de Milosevic la possibilité de lui
adjoindre un ou plusieurs avocats en raison de ses problèmes de santé.
Les juges espèrent que le procès pourra s'achever d'ici octobre 2005.
L'accusation a bouclé son travail en février. En deux ans, elle a fait
témoigner 290 témoins.
Milosevic devrait appeler son premier témoin à la barre la semaine
prochaine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
JUSTICE INTERNATIONALE - Place à la défense pour Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.courrierinternational.com/
article.asp?obj_id=26214&provenance=europe&bloc=06
"L'ancien président serbe Slobodan Milosevic est devenu, mardi 31
août, le premier chef d'Etat accusé de crimes de guerre à présenter
lui-même sa défense devant un tribunal pénal international", signale
le quotidien canadien The Globe and Mail. Après vingt-quatre mois
d'instruction, M. Milosevic doit désormais répondre de 66 chefs
d'accusation, dont génocide, crimes contre l'humanité et crimes de
guerre. Il dispose en tout de cent cinquante jours pour présenter ses
témoins.
L'ex-dirigeant politique a entamé sa défense par un discours de plus
de quatre heures. Retraçant cent ans d'histoire serbe, il a développé
la thèse que la guerre dans l'ex-Yougoslavie avait été conduite par
une coalition des puissances occidentales, avec en tête l'Allemagne,
les Etats-Unis et le Vatican. Comme le souligne The New York Times,
tout son plaidoyer a consisté à nier son implication dans les faits
qui lui sont reprochés. "Les accusations retenues contre moi sont un
pur mensonge et une déformation de l'Histoire. Tout a été présenté de
manière partiale pour protéger les véritables coupables."
Slobodan Milosevic a décidé d'assurer seul sa défense dans le
prétoire. Son procès a déjà a été interrompu quatorze fois en raison
de ses problèmes de santé, notamment de son hypertension artérielle.
La cour devrait examiner mercredi 1er septembre les limites que
représente l'état de santé de Slobodan Milosevic, pour décider ensuite
de l'éventualité de lui imposer un avocat, ce que M. Milosevic a
toujours refusé. Selon le procureur Geoffrey Nice, "l'opinion unanime
des experts est que l'accusé ne peut pas conduire le procès lui-même",
faisant référence à plusieurs rapports médicaux remis aux juges dans
le courant du mois d'août.
L'accusation soupçonne toutefois l'ancien président yougoslave de ne
pas suivre correctement le traitement médical qui lui a été prescrit
et de tenter ainsi de faire obstruction à la bonne marche de son procès.
-----
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20040901.FIG0040.html
TPI L'ancien président yougoslave a entamé hier sa défense à La Haye
Slobodan Milosevic accuse les puissances occidentales
Isabelle Lasserre
[01 septembre 2004]
Vêtu de son éternel costume bleu marine, celui des grands jours, d'une
chemise bleu pâle et de sa cravate aux couleurs de la Yougoslavie,
Milosevic a entamé hier sa défense en accusant l'Occident d'être à
l'origine de la désintégration de la Yougoslavie. Comme s'il vivait
encore dans les années 90, comme si personne n'avait témoigné contre
lui pendant la première partie de son procès, comme s'il n'avait pas
perdu la guerre, et le pouvoir en Serbie.
Principal responsable des guerres qui ont ensanglanté les Balkans au
début des années 90, l'ancien président yougoslave est inculpé pour
génocide, crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité dans les
conflits de Croatie, de Bosnie et du Kosovo (plus de 200 000 morts).
Il est le premier chef d'Etat à être jugé par la justice
internationale. Son procès est le plus important en Europe depuis le
jugement des dirigeants nazis à Nuremberg, après la Seconde Guerre
mondiale.
Milosevic, qui assure sa défense seul, juge pourtant que les
accusations portées contre lui par le TPI sont «des mensonges éhontés»
ainsi qu'une «distorsion permanente de l'histoire». La communauté
internationale, qui se dépense pourtant sans compter depuis plus de
dix ans pour préserver le caractère multiethnique des Balkans, a selon
Milosevic «agi comme la principale force précipitant la destruction
d'un Etat multiculturel, multiconfessionnel et multiethnique». Avant
d'ajouter : «Le projet de faire éclater la Yougoslavie existait grâce
à l'alliance entre l'Allemagne, le Vatican, le reste de la communauté
européenne et les Etats-Unis.»
Jugée pour avoir la première reconnu l'indépendance de la Croatie,
l'Allemagne fait figure de principale accusée. «Durant des années, les
Allemands ont travaillé à la destruction de la Yougoslavie»,
affirme-t-il. Quant aux Etats-Unis, ils sont montrés du doigt pour
avoir soutenu l'Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK), créée en réaction
à l'oppression de Belgrade par d'anciens marxistes qui n'ont sans
doute jamais mis les pieds dans une mosquée mais que Milosevic
s'acharne à présenter comme des «terroristes islamistes».
L'ancien président yougoslave, qui a exacerbé le nationalisme pour
accéder au pouvoir à la fin des années 80 et qui est considéré comme
le principal responsable de l'épuration ethnique menée par les forces
serbes dans les Balkans, a défendu la lutte du peuple serbe et
justifié ce qu'il considère toujours comme une «guerre juste».
Silencieux sur son projet de Grande Serbie, il s'est attaché à décrire
les Serbes comme des victimes et non des agresseurs.
Très combatif, comme toujours lorsqu'il tient le rôle principal,
Slobodan Milosevic, qui ne reconnaît pas la légalité du Tribunal pénal
international, a aussi longuement refait l'histoire du XXe siècle,
citant Hitler, Gorbatchev et Bill Clinton. Comme les Russes en
Tchétchénie, l'ancien président yougoslave n'a pas omis de s'emparer
de l'épouvantail islamiste, sujet sensible s'il en est depuis le 11
septembre 2001, afin de justifier le combat des forces serbes, une
«légitime défense» contre les attaques de combattants étrangers. A
l'en croire, la désintégration de la Yougoslavie n'aurait d'ailleurs
été qu'un complot financé par l'Arabie saoudite pour créer un Etat
islamique dans les Balkans...
=== 3 ===
Source: http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
Date : Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:22:17 +0200
De : "Roland Marounek"
Objet : Conclusion de la farce : Le 'Tribunal' impose le silence à
Milosevic
jeudi 2 septembre 2004, 10h36
Milosevic se voit imposer un avocat
LA HAYE (AP) - Le tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie
(TPIY) a décidé jeudi qu'il allait imposer un avocat à l'ancien
président serbe Slobodan Milosevic dont les médecins estiment qu'il est
trop malade pour assurer lui-même sa défense. [Il ne s'agit pas des
"médecins de Milosevic", et on précise après que les "juges" refusent
curieusement qu'il soit examiné par des médecins indépendants.]
Le TPIY n'a pas donné le nom de l'avocat qui va assurer la défense de
Milosevic ni quand il serait désigné.
"Il est clair au vu des rapports médicaux que l'accusé n'est pas
suffisamment en bonne santé pour assurer lui-même sa défense", A dit le
président du TPIY Patrick Robinson.
Le tribunal a également rejeté la demande de Milosevic, qui souffre
d'hypertension, de subir de nouveaux examens médicaux réalisés par des
médecins indépendants.
L'accusation a également cité des rapports médicaux selon lesquels
Slobodan Milosevic a refusé de prendre le traitement qui lui a été
prescrit pour sa tension, ce qui a poussé les médecins à le déclarer
inapte à assurer sa défense. Ce à quoi il a rétorqué que les
médicaments l'assommaient trop pour travailler et qu'il prenait un
autre traitement prescrit par son médecin.
Milosevic, 63 ans, qui a largement utilisé les deux ans et demie de
procès comme plateforme pour diffuser ses vues politiques, a refusé
d'accepter le concours d'un avocat qui le remplacerait pour interroger
les témoins.
Deux ans et demi après l'ouverture de son procès devant le tribunal
pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY), l'ancien maître de
Belgrade a terminé son argumentaire entamé mardi, dans lequel il a
exposé une série de conspirations contre le peuple serbe, impliquant en
vrac et de manière non exhaustive l'Armée de libération du Kosovo, le
Vatican, les "oustachis" (néo-nazis croates), Oussama ben Laden ou la
CIA.
L'ancien chef d'Etat est jugé pour 66 chefs d'accusation de crimes de
guerre pour son rôle dans les guerres des Balkans dans les années 1990,
qui ont fait plus de 200.000 morts. AP
TPI: un avocat commis d'office pour assister Slobodan Milosevic
LA HAYE (AFP) - Les juges du Tribunal pénal international (TPI) pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie ont décidé jeudi qu'un avocat commis d'office
assisterait l'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic dans sa
défense, à la suite de rapports médicaux démontrant qu'il n'est pas en
état de se défendre lui-même.
"Les rapports médicaux montrent que l'accusé n'est pas en état de se
représenter lui-même (...). La Cour estime que le droit d'un accusé de
se représenter n'est pas absolu et qu'il est fondé en droit et légitime
de lui commettre un conseil, c'est pourquoi nous avons décidé de le
faire", a déclaré le juge Patrick Robinson, qui préside la Chambre,
lors de l'audience.
Slobodan Milosevic, 63 ans, comparaît devant le TPI pour répondre de
plus de 60 charges de génocide, crimes contre l'humanité et crimes de
guerre pour les trois conflits majeurs qui ont déchiré les Balkans dans
les années 1990: la Croatie, la Bosnie et le Kosovo. Il avait décidé de
présenter lui-même sa défense dans le prétoire, refusant de prendre un
avocat devant une cour qu'il juge ilégale.
Les juges ont cependant souligné que les "problèmes de santé de
l'accusé ont constitué un problème majeur" pour le procès. M. Milosevic
souffre "d'hypertension grave" et les débats ont été interrompus à plus
de dix reprises en raison de ses problèmes de santé. "Il existe un
danger réel que le procès se proroge dans des délais qui ne seraient
pas raisonnables ou même ce qui est pire ne se conclue pas" si un
avocat n'est pas commis d'office, a souligné la Chambre.
Selon les rapports médicaux remis récemment à la Chambre, une des
raisons à l'origine des problèmes de santé de l'ancien président est
"qu'il ne suit pas les traitements prescrits", a déclaré le juge
Robinson. M. Milosevic avait contesté les conclusions de ces rapports
mais les juges ont rejeté à deux voix contre une, celle de Patrick
Robinson, la demande d'expertise médicale supplémentaire formulée par
l'accusé.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
1. Ian Johnson: The Hague - A Family Affair
2. Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
3. Neboisa Malic: The Hague Showdown
---( 1 )---
THE ICTY AND THE DECIMATION OF YUGOSLAVIA - A FAMILY AFFAIR
"Gentlemen, you cannot imagine what a privilege it is, even under the
conditions you imposed on me, to have truth and justice on my side."
Slobodan Milosevic 1st September 2004.
It's a family affair, and it's a big family. It includes the Nato
powers that bombed Yugoslavia, and The Hague tribunal that puts the
victims of that bombing on trial.
The Western governments, not content with erasing the sovereign state
of Yugoslavia from the map of the world, even created, funded and
staffed an illegal court to finish things off. The Chief prosecutor at
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
is from North America, as was her predecessor. The so-called `mother'
of the tribunal is American, the leading judge in the case against
Slobodan Milosevic is British, as was his predecessor, the prosecutor
in the case against Slobodan Milosevic is British, the tribunal's 1300
staff are overwhelmingly British and American and it is Nato
governments and their intelligence services who are charged with
collecting `evidence' and finding `witnesses' to satisfy the court.
Given the above and the fact that the powers behind the creation of
this tribunal have a direct stake in the outcome of proceedings, who
in their right mind, could possible state that the defendants will
receive a fair trial?
The Guardian newspaper in December 2001 asked a British lawyer if the
Hague tribunal provides a system of justice which correctly convicts
the guilty and acquits the innocent?
The lawyer responded, "… if one was to stand back and look at it, the
judgment of any impartial observer would be that it is a forum that
provides a fair trial."
That British lawyer was Stephen Kay.
Mr Stephen Kay, with his chambers in London's Grays Inn, has just been
appointed as defence counsel for Slobodan Milosevic, against the
express wishes of the former Yugoslav president.
Mr Kay became so favoured by the Hague tribunal that he was also
selected as defence counsel for its crucial showpiece first trial
against Dusko Tadic in 1996. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
20-year sentence on Mr Tadic.
Mr Kay has also been active at the Arusha tribunal, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which is the twin tribunal of the
Hague court.
At the Arusha tribunal he acted for Alfred Musema, the first civilian
to be charged with genocide. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
sentence of life imprisonment on the defendant.
The final outcome, therefore, was that both his clients were convicted
of the main charges against them.
Mr Kay is no stranger to Mr Milosevic, being part of the court
appointed Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) in the prosecution part
of the trial. In that position Stephen Kay was made very much aware of
Mr Milosevic's insistence on his legal right to conduct his own
defence. Despite this knowledge it appears that Mr Kay had no
hesitation in being part of the rewriting of international law.
As explained in the letter `IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF
THE DEFENDANT'
which was addressed to the United Nations and has now been signed by
over 100 lawyers and jurists it states:
"The right to defend oneself against criminal charges is central in
both international law and in the very structure of the adversarial
system. The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under
the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia, include the right to defend oneself in person."
The letter also contains this warning:
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying 'political'
offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
The letter correctly reaches the conclusion that:
".. expediency has become, as the defendant is set to present
essential and potentially embarrassing evidence, the Chamber's
apparently overwhelming concern."
Prior to Stephen Kay's acceptance of the position of defense counsel,
another former amicus curiae at the Hague process, Branislav
Tapuskovic, was asked why he would not accept the position of defence
counsel.
He replied: "I have respected the provision of Article 21, point 4/d
of the Statute of the ICTY, according to which every defendant has the
guaranteed right TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
PERSON." (German daily "junge Welt", 30 August 2004).
The newspaper posed a further question:
"Critical voices say that imposing counsel on Mr. Milosevic is an
attempt to prevent him from presenting his facts and witnesses.
Comment, please."
Mr Tapuskovic answered: " The trial cannot be valid if Slobodan
Milosevic does not present his evidence." (Ibid).
A principled response, principles that are obviously not shared by
some of his colleagues.
In his new role Stephen Kay will have the assistance of another
lawyer, Gilian Higgins.
Although known by this name for some years her actual name is Gilian
Kay Higgins. She is the daughter of Stephen Kay. A family affair indeed.
The imposition of defense counsel not only violates Mr Milosevic's
legal rights, but is also intended to sabotage the case for the defence.
In his opening statement at the commencement of his defence case
Slobodan Milosevic expounded in great detail the repeated violations
of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over the last decade, which eventually led
to Nato's illegal war, and astounded the court with his breadth of
knowledge and his attention to detail, which vividly demonstrated the
illegal actions of the western powers. Clearly he had to be silenced.
Ian Johnson.
Coordinator CDSM-UK
2nd September 2004.
---( 2 )---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 3 Set 2004 01:21:03 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Co-Chairman of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) has made
this afternoon the following statement:
================================================
Under International Law, every person accused of a crime has the right
to represent himself in person in the court adjudicating his case.
Slobodan Milosevic is no exception. The Trial Chamber of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has destroyed
its last claim to legality by attempting to deprive the former
President of Yugoslavia of this fundamental human right.
The appearance of President Milosevic representing himself alone
during the prosecution case for over 2 years, nearly 300 trial days,
cross examining nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, coping with 500,000
documents, and 30,000 pages of trial transcript then at the very
beginning of his presentation of his own defense being silenced and
lawyers he rejects placed in charge of his destiny, speaks of injustice.
President Milosevic vigorously presented his opening statement of his
own defense in person for two days on August 31 and September 1, 2004
immediately before the Trial Chamber decided he "is not fit enough to
represent himself". He was apparently "fit enough" to perform that
task. If the time comes when credible doctors, including his own, find
that a slower pace is required to protect his health, or that further
effort by him at that time may impair his health, then the only
permissible course is to follow a schedule that honors his right to
defend himself in person and protects his ability to do so. Life,
truth and justice are more important than the schedules of courts, or
railroads.
The very lawyers appointed by the Trial Chamber have a direct conflict
of interest. They have served by appointment of the court as "friends
of the Court". You cannot serve two masters. Having served as friend
of the Court, that same counsel selected by the Court to represent
President Milosevic cannot ethically serve as his counsel.
No lawyer who might be appointed to represent President Milosevic has
interviewed his witnesses, knows the testimony they can give, what
questions to ask them, or what their answers might be. Professional
preparation - and this is no ordinary case - would require months.
The Trial Chamber must abandon this travesty and do its duty
consistent with the health of the accused to faithfully, competently,
independently and impartially hear the evidence, find the facts and
apply the law.
Ramsey Clark
New York
September 2, 2004
---( 3 )---
The Hague Showdown
Milosevic Strikes Back
by Nebojsa Malic
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3487
Slobodan Milosevic's defense at the Hague Inquisition began this week,
after several delays. Reporters in The Hague, who are without
exception partial to the Tribunal and scornful of Milosevic, described
his opening statement as "defiant" but pointless, as he supposedly did
not address the actual charges. But the prattling of Tribunal
camp-followers notwithstanding, even the sparse quotes coming from The
Hague indicate otherwise.
Milosevic apparently chose to ignore the pseudo-legal fictions the
Inquisition uses as props, and focused on the heart of the matter: the
underlying premise that he was at the heart of the "joint criminal
enterprise," a conspiracy of Serb leadership to destroy and carve up
Yugoslavia, while systematically killing and expelling Croats, Muslims
and Albanians, which he deemed "unscrupulous lies and a tireless
distortion of history."
In that, he is absolutely right. The crux of the indictment against
him is a conspiracy theory conjured by a former FBI agent and
garnished with a vulgar, warmed-over canard theory first concocted
over 100 years ago ("Greater Serbia"), which has little or nothing to
do with the truth, and even less with justice.
Conjuring a Conspiracy
A very revealing two-part article appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette on August 22 and 29. The paper's reporter profiled a
local law professor, John Cencich. As it turns out:
"Cencich played a key role in devising a revolutionary strategy for
prosecuting war criminals. The Milosevic case marks the first time the
principle of accomplice liability has been used in an international
court.
"Milosevic didn't commit the crimes in the conventional sense, by
pulling a trigger or assaulting anyone. As president of Serbia at the
time – he wasn't president of Yugoslavia until 1997 – he lacked legal
command of federal forces and of the paramilitary units raised in
Croatian Serbian enclaves and blamed for many atrocities.
"Yet world opinion held Milosevic accountable for Yugoslavia's violent
disintegration, and court records alleged he directed events from the
Serbian capital, Belgrade."
In Cencich's innovative interpretation of international law, if
Milosevic could be charged of belonging to a group of conspirators,
then "each member of the group was responsible for every crime,
planned or unplanned, arising from the enterprise." This mind-boggling
theory, worse even than the catchall doctrine of "command
responsibility" also used by the ICTY, is the basis for the entire
indictment!
Many supporters of the ICTY argue that it does not seek to apportion
collective responsibility, but determine individual guilt for specific
atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. The theories of "command
responsibility" and "joint criminal enterprise" effectively scuttle
that argument, because they have been used to indict the entire
political and military leadership of the Serbian people. So while it
is an obvious truth that Milosevic is not Serbia, the ICTY treats him
as such, and by prosecuting him effectively prosecutes Serbia. Whoever
believes that there won't be any consequences to Serbia as a result of
guilty verdicts against its political and military leadership is
either disingenuous or breathtakingly stupid, or both.
Whosoever Is Without Sin…
On the eve of Milosevic's opening statement, the Belgrade agent of
Human Rights Watch, one Bogdan Ivanisevic, published an op-ed in the
International Herald Tribune, defending the trial and the Tribunal as
paragons of fairness and justice. Says Ivanisevic:
"Many Western observers expected the tribunal to rapidly confirm the
accepted wisdom that Milosevic was responsible for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and even genocide in the former Yugoslavia in the
1990s.
Yet they failed to appreciate the important difference between
determining political responsibility in the realm of public opinion
and establishing criminal responsibility in a court of law."
Perhaps this is because for most of Tribunal's backers, that
difference is nonexistent. They own the public opinion, and create the
accepted wisdom, in addition to owning and creating the "court of law"
such as the ICTY. It may be a waste of breath to point out that the UN
Security Council cannot establish courts, because it has no judicial
authority, and that the ICTY therefore is not legal – but that makes
it no less true.
From a perspective of legitimacy, prosecuting Milosevic for war crimes
would make sense if the forces backing the Tribunal – i.e., the Empire
and its allies – themselves respected the laws and customs of war. But
they do not, and even reject the notion that any laws apply to their
unrestrained use of power.
The Inquisition claims Milosevic condoned "ethnic cleansing," even as
its chief backer – the United States – organized, instigated and
supported the Croatian ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia
(1995) and the Albanian expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo (1999+). Is it
not incongruous that the country that gave us Abu Ghraib can champion
a court that charges Milosevic of being responsible for torture,
deaths and inhumane conditions in POW camps in Bosnia?
None of these is an argument of moral equivalence; Milosevic's
involvement in these alleged atrocities has always been in the realm
of wild insinuations, while the U.S. responsibility for the
aforementioned atrocities – and a host of others, elsewhere – has been
established well beyond reasonable doubt.
Whence the Hate?
Yet as HRW's Ivanisevic points out, there is an "accepted wisdom" that
Milosevic was responsible for the Balkans wars of the 1990s, even
though there is no evidence for it, and much against. In effect, he
has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and the
ICTY proceedings are just a formality.
That may be true, but who is that "court," then? Was the verdict
reached based on efforts of PR companies, who had once similarly
convinced the world of Iraqi incubator-smashing? Were its "expert
witnesses" the various adherents of the Stephen Glass school of
journalism? This is the very same media – sometimes the very same
people – who peddled the shameless lies of Bush and Blair about
"Saddam's WMD" and the war in Iraq, isn't it?
Just because everyone believes what is said on TV and in the papers
does not make it true; the WMD example demonstrates clearly that it
can be absolutely false. The notion that Western media persistently
lied – whether about Milosevic and the Balkans, or about Saddam
Hussein and Iraq, or who knows what else – may sound incredible, but
it is a lot more realistic than the crackpot conspiracy theories
peddled by the ICTY.
Of course, Milosevic is hated by many in Croatia, Bosnia and the
Albanian-occupied Kosovo, as the arch-villain responsible for all
their suffering. Lost in their haze of hatred is the consideration of
their own role in the 1990s violence. Victim politics is a powerful
force.
This also explains why Milosevic is vilified by so many in Serbia. The
Western media, governments and NGOs love to claim that Serbs have been
fed "a steady diet of propaganda" over the past 15 years, but most of
that propaganda was their own. Unable to comprehend why anyone would
hate them so much, many Serbs began to think they must have done
something to merit such demonization. While Milosevic and his family
have certainly given people plenty to be bitter about, that does not
explain the extent to which he is hated. More likely, most Serbians
blame Milosevic because that is convenient – certainly more so than
facing the Empire's lies, or rediscovering personal responsibility. We
are, after all, talking about people who jailed the TV station
supervisor because NATO bombed and killed his workers.
An "Obvious Equation"
All these lies and insinuations serve the same end: to strengthen the
Empire in its mission of world domination, supposedly benevolent and
prosperity-bringing. This pursuit is by definition hypocritical and
cynical, treating the Balkans as chump change and harboring contempt
for truth and justice.
Consider this official government statement by Condoleezza Rice, just
last weekend:
"America has gone to war five times since the end of the Cold War …
each time it was to help Muslims[.] Americans have fought in Kuwait
and in Bosnia and in Kosovo and in Afghanistan and Iraq. Without
exception, these were wars of liberation and of freedom."
And here is Peter Fray, in Australia's The Age, writing about the U.S.
desire to catch Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic:
"As Iraq inflames anti-U.S. tensions in the Arab world, Washington
would like nothing better than to bring a high-profile alleged
Muslim-killer to justice.
"'It would be an obvious story for us to sell,' a U.S. official told
The Age, on condition of anonymity. 'It is an obvious equation for us.'"
Criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraq war (but not the war itself),
former first lady and now Senator Hillary Clinton boasted to CNN of
her husband's war record: "You know, we were successful in Kosovo –
and we didn't lose a single American military person."
That Kosovo fit the definition of the very first Nuremberg crime is
beside the point, of course. Hillary Clinton's contempt for lives of
non-Americans rivals that of her husband for the truth.
It's the Truth, Stupid
Defending Milosevic from the ridiculous and trumped-up charges of the
Hague Inquisition does not mean approving either of his policies or
his actions. It does, however, mean opposing the ongoing travesty in
The Hague that claims the mantle of international justice while in
fact it represents the exact opposite.
Were the Balkans wars of the 1990s ridden with atrocities? Of course –
and those responsible for them ought to be properly tried and
punished, that should be obvious. But does the Milosevic trial serve
the cause of justice?
Its perversion of judicial procedures, the very existence of ICTY
without the requisite legitimacy, and most of all the manifestly false
"facts" asserted in the indictment and in the Imperial media, make it
obvious that it does not. Justice is served by truth – but in The
Hague, there just isn't any.
============
***********************************************************
THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm
SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/
*********************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora
(Cuba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
1. Ian Johnson: The Hague - A Family Affair
2. Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
3. Neboisa Malic: The Hague Showdown
---( 1 )---
THE ICTY AND THE DECIMATION OF YUGOSLAVIA - A FAMILY AFFAIR
"Gentlemen, you cannot imagine what a privilege it is, even under the
conditions you imposed on me, to have truth and justice on my side."
Slobodan Milosevic 1st September 2004.
It's a family affair, and it's a big family. It includes the Nato
powers that bombed Yugoslavia, and The Hague tribunal that puts the
victims of that bombing on trial.
The Western governments, not content with erasing the sovereign state
of Yugoslavia from the map of the world, even created, funded and
staffed an illegal court to finish things off. The Chief prosecutor at
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
is from North America, as was her predecessor. The so-called `mother'
of the tribunal is American, the leading judge in the case against
Slobodan Milosevic is British, as was his predecessor, the prosecutor
in the case against Slobodan Milosevic is British, the tribunal's 1300
staff are overwhelmingly British and American and it is Nato
governments and their intelligence services who are charged with
collecting `evidence' and finding `witnesses' to satisfy the court.
Given the above and the fact that the powers behind the creation of
this tribunal have a direct stake in the outcome of proceedings, who
in their right mind, could possible state that the defendants will
receive a fair trial?
The Guardian newspaper in December 2001 asked a British lawyer if the
Hague tribunal provides a system of justice which correctly convicts
the guilty and acquits the innocent?
The lawyer responded, "… if one was to stand back and look at it, the
judgment of any impartial observer would be that it is a forum that
provides a fair trial."
That British lawyer was Stephen Kay.
Mr Stephen Kay, with his chambers in London's Grays Inn, has just been
appointed as defence counsel for Slobodan Milosevic, against the
express wishes of the former Yugoslav president.
Mr Kay became so favoured by the Hague tribunal that he was also
selected as defence counsel for its crucial showpiece first trial
against Dusko Tadic in 1996. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
20-year sentence on Mr Tadic.
Mr Kay has also been active at the Arusha tribunal, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which is the twin tribunal of the
Hague court.
At the Arusha tribunal he acted for Alfred Musema, the first civilian
to be charged with genocide. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
sentence of life imprisonment on the defendant.
The final outcome, therefore, was that both his clients were convicted
of the main charges against them.
Mr Kay is no stranger to Mr Milosevic, being part of the court
appointed Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) in the prosecution part
of the trial. In that position Stephen Kay was made very much aware of
Mr Milosevic's insistence on his legal right to conduct his own
defence. Despite this knowledge it appears that Mr Kay had no
hesitation in being part of the rewriting of international law.
As explained in the letter `IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF
THE DEFENDANT'
which was addressed to the United Nations and has now been signed by
over 100 lawyers and jurists it states:
"The right to defend oneself against criminal charges is central in
both international law and in the very structure of the adversarial
system. The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under
the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia, include the right to defend oneself in person."
The letter also contains this warning:
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying 'political'
offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
The letter correctly reaches the conclusion that:
".. expediency has become, as the defendant is set to present
essential and potentially embarrassing evidence, the Chamber's
apparently overwhelming concern."
Prior to Stephen Kay's acceptance of the position of defense counsel,
another former amicus curiae at the Hague process, Branislav
Tapuskovic, was asked why he would not accept the position of defence
counsel.
He replied: "I have respected the provision of Article 21, point 4/d
of the Statute of the ICTY, according to which every defendant has the
guaranteed right TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
PERSON." (German daily "junge Welt", 30 August 2004).
The newspaper posed a further question:
"Critical voices say that imposing counsel on Mr. Milosevic is an
attempt to prevent him from presenting his facts and witnesses.
Comment, please."
Mr Tapuskovic answered: " The trial cannot be valid if Slobodan
Milosevic does not present his evidence." (Ibid).
A principled response, principles that are obviously not shared by
some of his colleagues.
In his new role Stephen Kay will have the assistance of another
lawyer, Gilian Higgins.
Although known by this name for some years her actual name is Gilian
Kay Higgins. She is the daughter of Stephen Kay. A family affair indeed.
The imposition of defense counsel not only violates Mr Milosevic's
legal rights, but is also intended to sabotage the case for the defence.
In his opening statement at the commencement of his defence case
Slobodan Milosevic expounded in great detail the repeated violations
of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over the last decade, which eventually led
to Nato's illegal war, and astounded the court with his breadth of
knowledge and his attention to detail, which vividly demonstrated the
illegal actions of the western powers. Clearly he had to be silenced.
Ian Johnson.
Coordinator CDSM-UK
2nd September 2004.
---( 2 )---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 3 Set 2004 01:21:03 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Co-Chairman of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) has made
this afternoon the following statement:
================================================
Under International Law, every person accused of a crime has the right
to represent himself in person in the court adjudicating his case.
Slobodan Milosevic is no exception. The Trial Chamber of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has destroyed
its last claim to legality by attempting to deprive the former
President of Yugoslavia of this fundamental human right.
The appearance of President Milosevic representing himself alone
during the prosecution case for over 2 years, nearly 300 trial days,
cross examining nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, coping with 500,000
documents, and 30,000 pages of trial transcript then at the very
beginning of his presentation of his own defense being silenced and
lawyers he rejects placed in charge of his destiny, speaks of injustice.
President Milosevic vigorously presented his opening statement of his
own defense in person for two days on August 31 and September 1, 2004
immediately before the Trial Chamber decided he "is not fit enough to
represent himself". He was apparently "fit enough" to perform that
task. If the time comes when credible doctors, including his own, find
that a slower pace is required to protect his health, or that further
effort by him at that time may impair his health, then the only
permissible course is to follow a schedule that honors his right to
defend himself in person and protects his ability to do so. Life,
truth and justice are more important than the schedules of courts, or
railroads.
The very lawyers appointed by the Trial Chamber have a direct conflict
of interest. They have served by appointment of the court as "friends
of the Court". You cannot serve two masters. Having served as friend
of the Court, that same counsel selected by the Court to represent
President Milosevic cannot ethically serve as his counsel.
No lawyer who might be appointed to represent President Milosevic has
interviewed his witnesses, knows the testimony they can give, what
questions to ask them, or what their answers might be. Professional
preparation - and this is no ordinary case - would require months.
The Trial Chamber must abandon this travesty and do its duty
consistent with the health of the accused to faithfully, competently,
independently and impartially hear the evidence, find the facts and
apply the law.
Ramsey Clark
New York
September 2, 2004
---( 3 )---
The Hague Showdown
Milosevic Strikes Back
by Nebojsa Malic
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3487
Slobodan Milosevic's defense at the Hague Inquisition began this week,
after several delays. Reporters in The Hague, who are without
exception partial to the Tribunal and scornful of Milosevic, described
his opening statement as "defiant" but pointless, as he supposedly did
not address the actual charges. But the prattling of Tribunal
camp-followers notwithstanding, even the sparse quotes coming from The
Hague indicate otherwise.
Milosevic apparently chose to ignore the pseudo-legal fictions the
Inquisition uses as props, and focused on the heart of the matter: the
underlying premise that he was at the heart of the "joint criminal
enterprise," a conspiracy of Serb leadership to destroy and carve up
Yugoslavia, while systematically killing and expelling Croats, Muslims
and Albanians, which he deemed "unscrupulous lies and a tireless
distortion of history."
In that, he is absolutely right. The crux of the indictment against
him is a conspiracy theory conjured by a former FBI agent and
garnished with a vulgar, warmed-over canard theory first concocted
over 100 years ago ("Greater Serbia"), which has little or nothing to
do with the truth, and even less with justice.
Conjuring a Conspiracy
A very revealing two-part article appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette on August 22 and 29. The paper's reporter profiled a
local law professor, John Cencich. As it turns out:
"Cencich played a key role in devising a revolutionary strategy for
prosecuting war criminals. The Milosevic case marks the first time the
principle of accomplice liability has been used in an international
court.
"Milosevic didn't commit the crimes in the conventional sense, by
pulling a trigger or assaulting anyone. As president of Serbia at the
time – he wasn't president of Yugoslavia until 1997 – he lacked legal
command of federal forces and of the paramilitary units raised in
Croatian Serbian enclaves and blamed for many atrocities.
"Yet world opinion held Milosevic accountable for Yugoslavia's violent
disintegration, and court records alleged he directed events from the
Serbian capital, Belgrade."
In Cencich's innovative interpretation of international law, if
Milosevic could be charged of belonging to a group of conspirators,
then "each member of the group was responsible for every crime,
planned or unplanned, arising from the enterprise." This mind-boggling
theory, worse even than the catchall doctrine of "command
responsibility" also used by the ICTY, is the basis for the entire
indictment!
Many supporters of the ICTY argue that it does not seek to apportion
collective responsibility, but determine individual guilt for specific
atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. The theories of "command
responsibility" and "joint criminal enterprise" effectively scuttle
that argument, because they have been used to indict the entire
political and military leadership of the Serbian people. So while it
is an obvious truth that Milosevic is not Serbia, the ICTY treats him
as such, and by prosecuting him effectively prosecutes Serbia. Whoever
believes that there won't be any consequences to Serbia as a result of
guilty verdicts against its political and military leadership is
either disingenuous or breathtakingly stupid, or both.
Whosoever Is Without Sin…
On the eve of Milosevic's opening statement, the Belgrade agent of
Human Rights Watch, one Bogdan Ivanisevic, published an op-ed in the
International Herald Tribune, defending the trial and the Tribunal as
paragons of fairness and justice. Says Ivanisevic:
"Many Western observers expected the tribunal to rapidly confirm the
accepted wisdom that Milosevic was responsible for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and even genocide in the former Yugoslavia in the
1990s.
Yet they failed to appreciate the important difference between
determining political responsibility in the realm of public opinion
and establishing criminal responsibility in a court of law."
Perhaps this is because for most of Tribunal's backers, that
difference is nonexistent. They own the public opinion, and create the
accepted wisdom, in addition to owning and creating the "court of law"
such as the ICTY. It may be a waste of breath to point out that the UN
Security Council cannot establish courts, because it has no judicial
authority, and that the ICTY therefore is not legal – but that makes
it no less true.
From a perspective of legitimacy, prosecuting Milosevic for war crimes
would make sense if the forces backing the Tribunal – i.e., the Empire
and its allies – themselves respected the laws and customs of war. But
they do not, and even reject the notion that any laws apply to their
unrestrained use of power.
The Inquisition claims Milosevic condoned "ethnic cleansing," even as
its chief backer – the United States – organized, instigated and
supported the Croatian ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia
(1995) and the Albanian expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo (1999+). Is it
not incongruous that the country that gave us Abu Ghraib can champion
a court that charges Milosevic of being responsible for torture,
deaths and inhumane conditions in POW camps in Bosnia?
None of these is an argument of moral equivalence; Milosevic's
involvement in these alleged atrocities has always been in the realm
of wild insinuations, while the U.S. responsibility for the
aforementioned atrocities – and a host of others, elsewhere – has been
established well beyond reasonable doubt.
Whence the Hate?
Yet as HRW's Ivanisevic points out, there is an "accepted wisdom" that
Milosevic was responsible for the Balkans wars of the 1990s, even
though there is no evidence for it, and much against. In effect, he
has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and the
ICTY proceedings are just a formality.
That may be true, but who is that "court," then? Was the verdict
reached based on efforts of PR companies, who had once similarly
convinced the world of Iraqi incubator-smashing? Were its "expert
witnesses" the various adherents of the Stephen Glass school of
journalism? This is the very same media – sometimes the very same
people – who peddled the shameless lies of Bush and Blair about
"Saddam's WMD" and the war in Iraq, isn't it?
Just because everyone believes what is said on TV and in the papers
does not make it true; the WMD example demonstrates clearly that it
can be absolutely false. The notion that Western media persistently
lied – whether about Milosevic and the Balkans, or about Saddam
Hussein and Iraq, or who knows what else – may sound incredible, but
it is a lot more realistic than the crackpot conspiracy theories
peddled by the ICTY.
Of course, Milosevic is hated by many in Croatia, Bosnia and the
Albanian-occupied Kosovo, as the arch-villain responsible for all
their suffering. Lost in their haze of hatred is the consideration of
their own role in the 1990s violence. Victim politics is a powerful
force.
This also explains why Milosevic is vilified by so many in Serbia. The
Western media, governments and NGOs love to claim that Serbs have been
fed "a steady diet of propaganda" over the past 15 years, but most of
that propaganda was their own. Unable to comprehend why anyone would
hate them so much, many Serbs began to think they must have done
something to merit such demonization. While Milosevic and his family
have certainly given people plenty to be bitter about, that does not
explain the extent to which he is hated. More likely, most Serbians
blame Milosevic because that is convenient – certainly more so than
facing the Empire's lies, or rediscovering personal responsibility. We
are, after all, talking about people who jailed the TV station
supervisor because NATO bombed and killed his workers.
An "Obvious Equation"
All these lies and insinuations serve the same end: to strengthen the
Empire in its mission of world domination, supposedly benevolent and
prosperity-bringing. This pursuit is by definition hypocritical and
cynical, treating the Balkans as chump change and harboring contempt
for truth and justice.
Consider this official government statement by Condoleezza Rice, just
last weekend:
"America has gone to war five times since the end of the Cold War …
each time it was to help Muslims[.] Americans have fought in Kuwait
and in Bosnia and in Kosovo and in Afghanistan and Iraq. Without
exception, these were wars of liberation and of freedom."
And here is Peter Fray, in Australia's The Age, writing about the U.S.
desire to catch Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic:
"As Iraq inflames anti-U.S. tensions in the Arab world, Washington
would like nothing better than to bring a high-profile alleged
Muslim-killer to justice.
"'It would be an obvious story for us to sell,' a U.S. official told
The Age, on condition of anonymity. 'It is an obvious equation for us.'"
Criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraq war (but not the war itself),
former first lady and now Senator Hillary Clinton boasted to CNN of
her husband's war record: "You know, we were successful in Kosovo –
and we didn't lose a single American military person."
That Kosovo fit the definition of the very first Nuremberg crime is
beside the point, of course. Hillary Clinton's contempt for lives of
non-Americans rivals that of her husband for the truth.
It's the Truth, Stupid
Defending Milosevic from the ridiculous and trumped-up charges of the
Hague Inquisition does not mean approving either of his policies or
his actions. It does, however, mean opposing the ongoing travesty in
The Hague that claims the mantle of international justice while in
fact it represents the exact opposite.
Were the Balkans wars of the 1990s ridden with atrocities? Of course –
and those responsible for them ought to be properly tried and
punished, that should be obvious. But does the Milosevic trial serve
the cause of justice?
Its perversion of judicial procedures, the very existence of ICTY
without the requisite legitimacy, and most of all the manifestly false
"facts" asserted in the indictment and in the Imperial media, make it
obvious that it does not. Justice is served by truth – but in The
Hague, there just isn't any.
============
***********************************************************
THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm
SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/
*********************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora
(Cuba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
In prima linea, con Zbignew Brzezinski e Marco Pannella, per squartare
la Russia:
ANTONIO MOSCATO ("ERRE") APPOGGIA IL SEPARATISMO RAZZISTA DAL KOSOVO
ALLA CECENIA
Sul numero di oggi di "Liberazione" appare un articolo di Antonio
Moscato (1) che falsifica tanto la storia quanto l'attualita' ed usa
chiavi di interpretazione del tutto fuorvianti rispetto allo stragismo
dei separatisti ceceni.
Addossando tutte le responsabilita' della situazione alla parte russa,
decontestualizzando il nazionalismo ceceno dal quadro piu' generale di
una frammentazione dell'Europa su basi "etniche", cioe'
razziali-razziste, fomentata dalla NATO per "sfondare" nei paesi ex
socialisti di interesse strategico, Antonio Moscato di fatto assolve
completamente il fanatismo nazionalista che da un decennio provoca
lutti e disgrazie in tutta la regione causasica.
Scrive Moscato: "Da anni la Cecenia è sottoposta a un feroce genocidio,
che ha sterminato tra il 20 e il 30% della popolazione, e costretto i
sopravvissuti a condizioni tremende di esistenza." Questa affermazione
e' falsa e tendenziosa: l'unico genocidio (nel senso di una
eliminazione pianificata di una popolazione in base a criteri razziali)
in atto in Cecenia dal 1990 e' quello della componente russofona, la
quale e' dovuta scappare in massa (centinaia di migliaia di persone)
per sfuggire alla violenza dello sciovinismo islamista filoturco e
filoamericano.
Ha scritto Mauro Gemma: "La componente etnica russa è oggi parte
imprescindibile dell'entità multinazionale nord caucasica: i russi
costituivano, al momento della dissoluzione dell'URSS, il 68% della
popolazione in Adighea, il 42,4% nella Karaciaj-Circassia, il 32% in
Kabardo-Balkaria, il 30% nella Ossezia del Nord, il 25% in Cecenia
(prima di subire gli effetti della "pulizia etnica") e il 9,2% in
Daghestan (dove sono stati settori della stessa popolazione autoctona
ad autorganizzarsi e ad affiancare l'esercito contro il terrorismo
"wahabita"), mentre nelle regioni settentrionali di Rostov, Krasnodar e
Stavropol rappresentavano addirittura l'86,9%, l'85,1% e il 77,9%. E
non va neppure trascurata la presenza di significative rappresentanze
di nazionalità cosiddette "non titolari" (ucraini,
bielorussi, armeni, ebrei, greci, zigani, coreani, tedeschi, ecc.). C'è
inoltre da mettere in rilievo che settori consistenti delle stesse
popolazioni autoctone abbracciano fedi religiose diverse da quella
islamica. Come si vede, ce n'è a sufficienza per temere il dilagare
delle indipendenze artificiali. Solo un
irresponsabile può non essere preoccupato delle conseguenze
imprevedibili che la "balcanizzazione" del nord del Caucaso (già
attraversato nella sua parte meridionale, in Georgia, da altri
terribili conflitti) potrebbe comportare..." (2)
Ma Antonio Moscato non nutre preoccupazioni del genere! Come prima nei
Balcani - dove con la sua area politica post-trotzkista (prima
"Bandiera Rossa", oggi "Erre") ha appoggiato tutti i separatismi
antijugoslavi e continua ad appoggiare oggi l'idea di una "Grande
Albania" -, Moscato si preoccupa solo di criminalizzare il "potere
centrale".
Abbandonato qualsiasi richiamo alle ragioni del socialismo e
dell'internazionalismo - inteso come unita' piuttosto che non
contrapposizione fra i popoli che coabitano una stessa terra -,
Moscato, parlando della Cecenia, canta le lodi di una fantasiosa "lotta
iniziata almeno dal 1770, e con motivazioni solo in parte religiose,
tanto è vero che uno dei suoi capi (per ben diciotto anni, fino al
1791) fu una singolare figura di avventuriero [SIC], che si faceva
chiamare Mansur Ushurma, ma che era arrivato nel Caucaso come
missionario cattolico [SIC]: padre Giovan Battista Boetti, un
domenicano originario del Monferrato [SIC] che a trent'anni si era
convertito all'Islam [SIC - e le motivazioni non sarebbero religiose?!]
e alla causa dell'indipendenza da Mosca..."
Dunque nel 1770 la Cecenia era gia' russa; si confronti con il
Sudtirolo, che e' italiano solo da novanta anni! Ma non e' tanto questo
il punto: con una lettura storica ridicola e caricaturale, Moscato si
inventa un "indipendentismo" ceceno che avrebbe precorso tutti i
nazionalismi europei (di fatto nati nell'Ottocento), laddove il
conflitto, all'epoca, casomai poteva essere solo tra Russia zarista ed
Impero Ottomano - ed i separatisti ceceni all'epoca chiedevano la
annessione a quest'ultimo. Tanto e' vero che: "Dal 1824 al 1859 la
regione fu di fatto [?] indipendente, come Emirato [SIC] del Caucaso
del Nord sotto la guida di Imam Shamil... Dopo la sconfitta russa nella
guerra di Crimea... una parte degli sconfitti [ceceni] lo seguì e si
installò nell'impero ottomano." [SIC]
Ha scritto molto giustamente Mauro Gemma: "ancora oggi, come ai tempi
di Shemil, su base tribale sono organizzate le bande dalle
caratteristiche mafiose che sviluppano la 'resistenza' cecena al potere
centrale. Tutti i paragoni con le esperienze più nobili di lotta di
liberazione sono assolutamente fuorvianti. Nessuno storico serio
potrebbe negare che, non solo nel resto del Caucaso compreso nel
territorio dell'attuale Federazione Russa, ma (almeno dal 1957 al 1991)
anche nella Cecenia stessa, durante i decenni dell'esperienza uscita
dall'Ottobre, tra i popoli autoctoni di confessione islamica, si è
avvertito in modo estremamente marginale un sentimento di ostilità nei
confronti del potere sovietico, e che, al contrario, si è assistito ad
un periodo di fioritura civile e culturale, di impetuosa crescita
economica e sociale e di sostanziale convivenza multietnica, frutto
delle conquiste della rivoluzione. Come non riflettere sul fatto che,
ai tempi dell'aggressione nazifascista, quando gli occupanti cercarono,
come era ovvio, di sfruttare le tensioni interetniche, il tentativo di
strumentalizzazione cadde praticamente nel vuoto e tutti i popoli
caucasici con l'eccezione dei ceceni e delle piccole etnie dei balkari
e dei karaciaj, che pagarono poi con la tragica deportazione
staliniana" (2). Inoltre, "contrariamente alle tesi primordialiste dei
nazionalisti, nel Caucaso la formazione di 'nazioni' legate ad un
territorio dotato degli attributi della statualità è stata una
creazione delle autorità sovietiche". (3)
E invece Antonio Moscato, che evidentemente all'ideale unitario
dell'Unione Sovietica staliniana preferisce quello dell'Impero
Ottomano, scrive: "I ceceni non si sono mai piegati. Hanno lottato
contro lo zar (...), hanno accolto con favore la rivoluzione d'ottobre,
ma hanno ripreso a ribellarsi contro la russificazione forzata del
periodo di Stalin e sono stati deportati in massa nell'Asia centrale
durante la seconda guerra mondiale". Qui va detto che i leader ceceni
antisovietici accolsero a braccia aperte Hitler, come fecero d'altronde
tanti altri micro-nazionalismi, dai paesi Baltici alla Grande Albania.
Di che cosa stiamo parlando? E' presto detto: nel 1936 il "Congresso
delle Nazionalita'" di Ginevra, riunione annuale di tutte le
organizzazioni per la difesa dei piccoli popoli europei sostenute dal
nazismo, si pronuncio' per una "suddivisione" dell'Europa su base
micro-etnica: "Il riconoscimento di una soggettivita' del 'Volk' come
base fondante dello sviluppo europeo non significa altro che tracciare
i contorni di una nuova Europa". Il serissimo relatore era uomo di
fiducia dei servizi segreti nazionalsocialisti, impegnato proprio in
quell'epoca contro lo Stato cecoslovacco. Ancora piu' chiaramente, in
un documento riservato del 15/5/1940 il capo delle SS Himmler esprimeva
la convinzione che:
"Nel trattamento delle etnie straniere dell'Oriente dobbiamo vedere di
riconoscere e di badare quanto piu' possibile alle singole popolazioni,
vale a dire oltre ai Polacchi e gli Ebrei gli Ucraini, i Russi Bianchi,
i Gorali, i Lemchi ed i Casciubi. Ed ovunque si trovino pure solo
frammenti etnici, ebbene anche a quelli. Con questo voglio dire che noi
non solo abbiamo il piu' grande interesse acche' le popolazioni
dell'Oriente non siano unite, ma che al contrario siano suddivise nel
numero maggiore possibile di parti e di frammenti. Ma anche all'interno
delle stesse popolazioni non abbiamo alcun interesse a portarle
all'unita' ed alla grandezza, a trasmettere loro forse pian piano una
coscienza nazionale ed una cultura nazionale, bensi' piuttosto a
scioglierle in innumerevoli piccoli frammenti e particelle..." (4)
Pero', secondo Antonio Moscato, dire che i ceceni avrebbero "appoggiato
Hitler" sarebbe "una svista [SIC] influenzata dalla versione ufficiale
staliniana, dura a morire anche se smentita fin dagli anni Settanta da
storici rigorosi come Aleksandr Nekriç e Roy Medvedev" - perbacco!
Dopodiche' Moscato si lancia in una discettazione su popoli sovietici
piu' o meno comunisti e piu' o meno collaborazionisti dei nazisti,
rivoltando completamente la "frittata" della verita' storica. Poi si
rende conto di avere esagerato con i paradossi e cambia registro:
"Ma questi antefatti lontani sono solo indirettamente all'origine
dell'attuale disperazione e quindi della scelta di mezzi tremendi e
ingiusti per «far parlare della Cecenia». Veniamo invece alla storia
più recente." Magari! La "storia piu' recente" di Moscato e' lo
stravolgimento dei fatti: si tessono le lodi di Djokar Dudayev e di
"più di tre anni [in cui] la piccola repubblica è di fatto
indipendente", ma si dimentica di parlare degli attentati e della
pulizia etnica dei russofoni, e si prosegue dando ad intendere che
tutte le grandi stragi contro la popolazione di Mosca, attribuite ai
separatisti ceceni, sarebbero state il frutto della perfidia di Putin e
dei servizi segreti russi. Infine si parla delle recenti fasi della
guerra in Cecenia come di un unico indiscriminato massacro commesso dai
russi contro i civili inermi (ceceni): "Ecco da dove vengono fuori le
'vedove nere' disposte a sacrificarsi, tanto più ferocemente, quanto
più hanno di fronte la ferocia dell'avversario, dalle bombe dell'agosto
1999 che mezza Russia e tutta la Cecenia attribuiscono a Putin, alla
strage di combattenti e di innocenti ostaggi russi compiuta
nell'ottobre 2002 nel teatro Na Dubrovke dai corpi speciali di Putin.
Non vogliamo giustificare [SIC], vogliamo solo che non si dimentichi
chi ha innescato la barbarie."
Noi, per capire chi ha innescato veramente la barbarie, suggeriamo
piuttosto i seguenti elementi:
1. i separatisti ceceni hanno goduto dell'appoggio militare USA
attraverso Bin Laden - agente CIA dalla guerra antisovietica in
Afghanistan fino, perlomeno, a pochi anni fa (5);
2. i separatisti ceceni hanno goduto dell'appoggio militare USA anche
attraverso i Lupi Grigi turchi (6);
3. tutti i siti internet dei separatisti ceceni fanno base su server
statunitensi (vedi ad esempio kavkaz.org - lo stesso d'altronde si puo'
dire anche per la maggiorparte dei siti dei gruppi che si dice siano
legati a Bin Laden, ma questo e' un altro discorso, forse...);
4. uno dei piu' grandi sponsor dichiarati del separatismo ceceno, a
livello internazionale, e' Zbignew Brzezinski, il notissimo
"think-tank" dell'establishment USA, quello della "Grande scacchiera":
egli adesso dirige un "American Committee for Peace in Chechnya" [SIC]
(7); in questa veste nel 2002 si espose clamorosamente, chiedendo (ed
ottenendo) la liberazione del leader terrorista ceceno Akhmed Zakayev
fatto arrestare dai russi in Danimarca;
5. in Cecenia passa(va) l'oleodotto che porta(va) il petrolio di Baku
sulle coste russe del Mar Nero; ma, come e' noto, gli statunitensi
(cioe' Zbignew Brzezinski ed Antonio Moscato) preferiscono la rotta
turca...
6. per brevita', omettiamo di commentare sul problema della espansione
della NATO ad Est... E chiudiamo invece con una ciliegina:
---
CECENIA
Pannella: «Sono partigiani»
«Né kamikaze né terroristi», regisce a caldo Marco Pannella nel
tentativo di capire l'azione dei ceceni morti all'alba di ieri a Mosca.
«Questa è un'azione chiaramente, manifestamente, nelle modalità e
nelle finalità, guerrigliera, partigiana. Guerriglieri come quelli cui
pensava Gandhi: dinanzi la guerra omicida si può essere violenti o no,
ma se si è inerti si può essere solamente codardi», ha aggiunto.
Secondo Pannella, le finalità del comando ceceno non era quella di
fare strage di civili (o lo avrebbero fatto, prima o comunque), quanto
piuttosto «richiamare l'attenzione del mondo democratico sulla guerra
in Cecenia».
(da "Il Manifesto" del 27/10/02)
---
NOTE:
(1) L'articolo di Antonio Moscato "Le premesse dell'orrore e i nostri
silenzi" si puo' leggere integralmente alla pagina:
http://www.liberazione.it/giornale/040903/default.asp
http://www.liberazione.it/giornale/040903/LB12D680.asp
(2) "Alcune riflessioni sulla Questione Cecena" di Mauro Gemma:
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/ru/poru2m08.htm
L'autore giustamente consiglia, per dare una "ripassata" alla storia
del Caucaso, di leggere vari passaggi comparsi sull'argomento nella
Storia Universale dell'Accademia delle scienze dell'URSS (Teti Editore)
che alle "aree periferiche" sovietiche ha dedicato un'attenzione
considerevole. Si veda anche il testo dell'appello approvato dai
delegati al "Primo congresso dei popoli del Caucaso" e altri documenti
sulla questione cecena, apparsi in "L'Ernesto", n.6/1999. La stessa
rivista è ritornata varie volte sull'argomento, anche nelle annate
seguenti.
(3) Cristiano Codagnone, "Questione nazionale e migrazioni etniche: la
Russia e lo spazio post-sovietico", Milano 1997. Citato in: Mauro
Gemma, op. cit.
(4) Heinrich Himmler, capo delle SS, citato in: R. Opitz,
"Europa-Strategien des deutschen Kapitals 1900-1945", Colonia 1977
(pag. 653)
(5) "Il Manifesto", 20 Settembre 2001: L'utile mostro "wanted". Chi è
Osama bin Laden / 2. Una chiave per le operazioni militari e
d'intelligence americane nei Balcani e nell'ex-Urss
Dopo l'89. Il fondamentalismo islamico diventa utile agli
interessi strategici di Washington |nell'ex Unione sovietica
MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY
(6) Vedi ad esempio:
http://www.cnnitalia.it/2000/DOSSIER/01/18/reportage/
A Istanbul la porta della guerra santa
19 gennaio 2000 - di Ali Isingor - CNNItalia
http://www.cnnitalia.it/2000/DOSSIER/01/18/intervista/
Parla un mujaheddin: "Perchè ho combattuto a Grozny"
19 gennaio 2000 - di Ali Isingor - CNNItalia
http://www.dweb.repubblica.it/archivio_d/2000/03/14/attualita/dalmondo/
082cas19282.html
Reportage - Il tesoro del Caspio
La posta in gioco è un'immensa ricchezza in petrolio. La realtà
d'oggi, tensioni, contrabbando e popoli in fuga dalle sue rive
di Luca Rastello
"... quando le alleanze maturate sulle rotte dell'oppio - per
esempio nei rapporti con le potenti organizzazioni criminali legate
all'estrema destra turca, e in particolare ai famosi lupi grigi -
incominciarono a determinare la politica estera di Baku, le
cose cambiarono. Se oggi la Russia indica proprio nell'Azerbaigian la
principale base di azioni criminali nel Caucaso (dopo la
Cecenia, ovviamente), è probabilmente perché, secondo Mosca, il clan di
Aliev ha avanzato troppe pretese nei negoziati sulla
formidabile produzione caspiana di oro nero..."
(7) http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/about.htm
(a cura di A. Martocchia)
la Russia:
ANTONIO MOSCATO ("ERRE") APPOGGIA IL SEPARATISMO RAZZISTA DAL KOSOVO
ALLA CECENIA
Sul numero di oggi di "Liberazione" appare un articolo di Antonio
Moscato (1) che falsifica tanto la storia quanto l'attualita' ed usa
chiavi di interpretazione del tutto fuorvianti rispetto allo stragismo
dei separatisti ceceni.
Addossando tutte le responsabilita' della situazione alla parte russa,
decontestualizzando il nazionalismo ceceno dal quadro piu' generale di
una frammentazione dell'Europa su basi "etniche", cioe'
razziali-razziste, fomentata dalla NATO per "sfondare" nei paesi ex
socialisti di interesse strategico, Antonio Moscato di fatto assolve
completamente il fanatismo nazionalista che da un decennio provoca
lutti e disgrazie in tutta la regione causasica.
Scrive Moscato: "Da anni la Cecenia è sottoposta a un feroce genocidio,
che ha sterminato tra il 20 e il 30% della popolazione, e costretto i
sopravvissuti a condizioni tremende di esistenza." Questa affermazione
e' falsa e tendenziosa: l'unico genocidio (nel senso di una
eliminazione pianificata di una popolazione in base a criteri razziali)
in atto in Cecenia dal 1990 e' quello della componente russofona, la
quale e' dovuta scappare in massa (centinaia di migliaia di persone)
per sfuggire alla violenza dello sciovinismo islamista filoturco e
filoamericano.
Ha scritto Mauro Gemma: "La componente etnica russa è oggi parte
imprescindibile dell'entità multinazionale nord caucasica: i russi
costituivano, al momento della dissoluzione dell'URSS, il 68% della
popolazione in Adighea, il 42,4% nella Karaciaj-Circassia, il 32% in
Kabardo-Balkaria, il 30% nella Ossezia del Nord, il 25% in Cecenia
(prima di subire gli effetti della "pulizia etnica") e il 9,2% in
Daghestan (dove sono stati settori della stessa popolazione autoctona
ad autorganizzarsi e ad affiancare l'esercito contro il terrorismo
"wahabita"), mentre nelle regioni settentrionali di Rostov, Krasnodar e
Stavropol rappresentavano addirittura l'86,9%, l'85,1% e il 77,9%. E
non va neppure trascurata la presenza di significative rappresentanze
di nazionalità cosiddette "non titolari" (ucraini,
bielorussi, armeni, ebrei, greci, zigani, coreani, tedeschi, ecc.). C'è
inoltre da mettere in rilievo che settori consistenti delle stesse
popolazioni autoctone abbracciano fedi religiose diverse da quella
islamica. Come si vede, ce n'è a sufficienza per temere il dilagare
delle indipendenze artificiali. Solo un
irresponsabile può non essere preoccupato delle conseguenze
imprevedibili che la "balcanizzazione" del nord del Caucaso (già
attraversato nella sua parte meridionale, in Georgia, da altri
terribili conflitti) potrebbe comportare..." (2)
Ma Antonio Moscato non nutre preoccupazioni del genere! Come prima nei
Balcani - dove con la sua area politica post-trotzkista (prima
"Bandiera Rossa", oggi "Erre") ha appoggiato tutti i separatismi
antijugoslavi e continua ad appoggiare oggi l'idea di una "Grande
Albania" -, Moscato si preoccupa solo di criminalizzare il "potere
centrale".
Abbandonato qualsiasi richiamo alle ragioni del socialismo e
dell'internazionalismo - inteso come unita' piuttosto che non
contrapposizione fra i popoli che coabitano una stessa terra -,
Moscato, parlando della Cecenia, canta le lodi di una fantasiosa "lotta
iniziata almeno dal 1770, e con motivazioni solo in parte religiose,
tanto è vero che uno dei suoi capi (per ben diciotto anni, fino al
1791) fu una singolare figura di avventuriero [SIC], che si faceva
chiamare Mansur Ushurma, ma che era arrivato nel Caucaso come
missionario cattolico [SIC]: padre Giovan Battista Boetti, un
domenicano originario del Monferrato [SIC] che a trent'anni si era
convertito all'Islam [SIC - e le motivazioni non sarebbero religiose?!]
e alla causa dell'indipendenza da Mosca..."
Dunque nel 1770 la Cecenia era gia' russa; si confronti con il
Sudtirolo, che e' italiano solo da novanta anni! Ma non e' tanto questo
il punto: con una lettura storica ridicola e caricaturale, Moscato si
inventa un "indipendentismo" ceceno che avrebbe precorso tutti i
nazionalismi europei (di fatto nati nell'Ottocento), laddove il
conflitto, all'epoca, casomai poteva essere solo tra Russia zarista ed
Impero Ottomano - ed i separatisti ceceni all'epoca chiedevano la
annessione a quest'ultimo. Tanto e' vero che: "Dal 1824 al 1859 la
regione fu di fatto [?] indipendente, come Emirato [SIC] del Caucaso
del Nord sotto la guida di Imam Shamil... Dopo la sconfitta russa nella
guerra di Crimea... una parte degli sconfitti [ceceni] lo seguì e si
installò nell'impero ottomano." [SIC]
Ha scritto molto giustamente Mauro Gemma: "ancora oggi, come ai tempi
di Shemil, su base tribale sono organizzate le bande dalle
caratteristiche mafiose che sviluppano la 'resistenza' cecena al potere
centrale. Tutti i paragoni con le esperienze più nobili di lotta di
liberazione sono assolutamente fuorvianti. Nessuno storico serio
potrebbe negare che, non solo nel resto del Caucaso compreso nel
territorio dell'attuale Federazione Russa, ma (almeno dal 1957 al 1991)
anche nella Cecenia stessa, durante i decenni dell'esperienza uscita
dall'Ottobre, tra i popoli autoctoni di confessione islamica, si è
avvertito in modo estremamente marginale un sentimento di ostilità nei
confronti del potere sovietico, e che, al contrario, si è assistito ad
un periodo di fioritura civile e culturale, di impetuosa crescita
economica e sociale e di sostanziale convivenza multietnica, frutto
delle conquiste della rivoluzione. Come non riflettere sul fatto che,
ai tempi dell'aggressione nazifascista, quando gli occupanti cercarono,
come era ovvio, di sfruttare le tensioni interetniche, il tentativo di
strumentalizzazione cadde praticamente nel vuoto e tutti i popoli
caucasici con l'eccezione dei ceceni e delle piccole etnie dei balkari
e dei karaciaj, che pagarono poi con la tragica deportazione
staliniana" (2). Inoltre, "contrariamente alle tesi primordialiste dei
nazionalisti, nel Caucaso la formazione di 'nazioni' legate ad un
territorio dotato degli attributi della statualità è stata una
creazione delle autorità sovietiche". (3)
E invece Antonio Moscato, che evidentemente all'ideale unitario
dell'Unione Sovietica staliniana preferisce quello dell'Impero
Ottomano, scrive: "I ceceni non si sono mai piegati. Hanno lottato
contro lo zar (...), hanno accolto con favore la rivoluzione d'ottobre,
ma hanno ripreso a ribellarsi contro la russificazione forzata del
periodo di Stalin e sono stati deportati in massa nell'Asia centrale
durante la seconda guerra mondiale". Qui va detto che i leader ceceni
antisovietici accolsero a braccia aperte Hitler, come fecero d'altronde
tanti altri micro-nazionalismi, dai paesi Baltici alla Grande Albania.
Di che cosa stiamo parlando? E' presto detto: nel 1936 il "Congresso
delle Nazionalita'" di Ginevra, riunione annuale di tutte le
organizzazioni per la difesa dei piccoli popoli europei sostenute dal
nazismo, si pronuncio' per una "suddivisione" dell'Europa su base
micro-etnica: "Il riconoscimento di una soggettivita' del 'Volk' come
base fondante dello sviluppo europeo non significa altro che tracciare
i contorni di una nuova Europa". Il serissimo relatore era uomo di
fiducia dei servizi segreti nazionalsocialisti, impegnato proprio in
quell'epoca contro lo Stato cecoslovacco. Ancora piu' chiaramente, in
un documento riservato del 15/5/1940 il capo delle SS Himmler esprimeva
la convinzione che:
"Nel trattamento delle etnie straniere dell'Oriente dobbiamo vedere di
riconoscere e di badare quanto piu' possibile alle singole popolazioni,
vale a dire oltre ai Polacchi e gli Ebrei gli Ucraini, i Russi Bianchi,
i Gorali, i Lemchi ed i Casciubi. Ed ovunque si trovino pure solo
frammenti etnici, ebbene anche a quelli. Con questo voglio dire che noi
non solo abbiamo il piu' grande interesse acche' le popolazioni
dell'Oriente non siano unite, ma che al contrario siano suddivise nel
numero maggiore possibile di parti e di frammenti. Ma anche all'interno
delle stesse popolazioni non abbiamo alcun interesse a portarle
all'unita' ed alla grandezza, a trasmettere loro forse pian piano una
coscienza nazionale ed una cultura nazionale, bensi' piuttosto a
scioglierle in innumerevoli piccoli frammenti e particelle..." (4)
Pero', secondo Antonio Moscato, dire che i ceceni avrebbero "appoggiato
Hitler" sarebbe "una svista [SIC] influenzata dalla versione ufficiale
staliniana, dura a morire anche se smentita fin dagli anni Settanta da
storici rigorosi come Aleksandr Nekriç e Roy Medvedev" - perbacco!
Dopodiche' Moscato si lancia in una discettazione su popoli sovietici
piu' o meno comunisti e piu' o meno collaborazionisti dei nazisti,
rivoltando completamente la "frittata" della verita' storica. Poi si
rende conto di avere esagerato con i paradossi e cambia registro:
"Ma questi antefatti lontani sono solo indirettamente all'origine
dell'attuale disperazione e quindi della scelta di mezzi tremendi e
ingiusti per «far parlare della Cecenia». Veniamo invece alla storia
più recente." Magari! La "storia piu' recente" di Moscato e' lo
stravolgimento dei fatti: si tessono le lodi di Djokar Dudayev e di
"più di tre anni [in cui] la piccola repubblica è di fatto
indipendente", ma si dimentica di parlare degli attentati e della
pulizia etnica dei russofoni, e si prosegue dando ad intendere che
tutte le grandi stragi contro la popolazione di Mosca, attribuite ai
separatisti ceceni, sarebbero state il frutto della perfidia di Putin e
dei servizi segreti russi. Infine si parla delle recenti fasi della
guerra in Cecenia come di un unico indiscriminato massacro commesso dai
russi contro i civili inermi (ceceni): "Ecco da dove vengono fuori le
'vedove nere' disposte a sacrificarsi, tanto più ferocemente, quanto
più hanno di fronte la ferocia dell'avversario, dalle bombe dell'agosto
1999 che mezza Russia e tutta la Cecenia attribuiscono a Putin, alla
strage di combattenti e di innocenti ostaggi russi compiuta
nell'ottobre 2002 nel teatro Na Dubrovke dai corpi speciali di Putin.
Non vogliamo giustificare [SIC], vogliamo solo che non si dimentichi
chi ha innescato la barbarie."
Noi, per capire chi ha innescato veramente la barbarie, suggeriamo
piuttosto i seguenti elementi:
1. i separatisti ceceni hanno goduto dell'appoggio militare USA
attraverso Bin Laden - agente CIA dalla guerra antisovietica in
Afghanistan fino, perlomeno, a pochi anni fa (5);
2. i separatisti ceceni hanno goduto dell'appoggio militare USA anche
attraverso i Lupi Grigi turchi (6);
3. tutti i siti internet dei separatisti ceceni fanno base su server
statunitensi (vedi ad esempio kavkaz.org - lo stesso d'altronde si puo'
dire anche per la maggiorparte dei siti dei gruppi che si dice siano
legati a Bin Laden, ma questo e' un altro discorso, forse...);
4. uno dei piu' grandi sponsor dichiarati del separatismo ceceno, a
livello internazionale, e' Zbignew Brzezinski, il notissimo
"think-tank" dell'establishment USA, quello della "Grande scacchiera":
egli adesso dirige un "American Committee for Peace in Chechnya" [SIC]
(7); in questa veste nel 2002 si espose clamorosamente, chiedendo (ed
ottenendo) la liberazione del leader terrorista ceceno Akhmed Zakayev
fatto arrestare dai russi in Danimarca;
5. in Cecenia passa(va) l'oleodotto che porta(va) il petrolio di Baku
sulle coste russe del Mar Nero; ma, come e' noto, gli statunitensi
(cioe' Zbignew Brzezinski ed Antonio Moscato) preferiscono la rotta
turca...
6. per brevita', omettiamo di commentare sul problema della espansione
della NATO ad Est... E chiudiamo invece con una ciliegina:
---
CECENIA
Pannella: «Sono partigiani»
«Né kamikaze né terroristi», regisce a caldo Marco Pannella nel
tentativo di capire l'azione dei ceceni morti all'alba di ieri a Mosca.
«Questa è un'azione chiaramente, manifestamente, nelle modalità e
nelle finalità, guerrigliera, partigiana. Guerriglieri come quelli cui
pensava Gandhi: dinanzi la guerra omicida si può essere violenti o no,
ma se si è inerti si può essere solamente codardi», ha aggiunto.
Secondo Pannella, le finalità del comando ceceno non era quella di
fare strage di civili (o lo avrebbero fatto, prima o comunque), quanto
piuttosto «richiamare l'attenzione del mondo democratico sulla guerra
in Cecenia».
(da "Il Manifesto" del 27/10/02)
---
NOTE:
(1) L'articolo di Antonio Moscato "Le premesse dell'orrore e i nostri
silenzi" si puo' leggere integralmente alla pagina:
http://www.liberazione.it/giornale/040903/default.asp
http://www.liberazione.it/giornale/040903/LB12D680.asp
(2) "Alcune riflessioni sulla Questione Cecena" di Mauro Gemma:
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/ru/poru2m08.htm
L'autore giustamente consiglia, per dare una "ripassata" alla storia
del Caucaso, di leggere vari passaggi comparsi sull'argomento nella
Storia Universale dell'Accademia delle scienze dell'URSS (Teti Editore)
che alle "aree periferiche" sovietiche ha dedicato un'attenzione
considerevole. Si veda anche il testo dell'appello approvato dai
delegati al "Primo congresso dei popoli del Caucaso" e altri documenti
sulla questione cecena, apparsi in "L'Ernesto", n.6/1999. La stessa
rivista è ritornata varie volte sull'argomento, anche nelle annate
seguenti.
(3) Cristiano Codagnone, "Questione nazionale e migrazioni etniche: la
Russia e lo spazio post-sovietico", Milano 1997. Citato in: Mauro
Gemma, op. cit.
(4) Heinrich Himmler, capo delle SS, citato in: R. Opitz,
"Europa-Strategien des deutschen Kapitals 1900-1945", Colonia 1977
(pag. 653)
(5) "Il Manifesto", 20 Settembre 2001: L'utile mostro "wanted". Chi è
Osama bin Laden / 2. Una chiave per le operazioni militari e
d'intelligence americane nei Balcani e nell'ex-Urss
Dopo l'89. Il fondamentalismo islamico diventa utile agli
interessi strategici di Washington |nell'ex Unione sovietica
MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY
(6) Vedi ad esempio:
http://www.cnnitalia.it/2000/DOSSIER/01/18/reportage/
A Istanbul la porta della guerra santa
19 gennaio 2000 - di Ali Isingor - CNNItalia
http://www.cnnitalia.it/2000/DOSSIER/01/18/intervista/
Parla un mujaheddin: "Perchè ho combattuto a Grozny"
19 gennaio 2000 - di Ali Isingor - CNNItalia
http://www.dweb.repubblica.it/archivio_d/2000/03/14/attualita/dalmondo/
082cas19282.html
Reportage - Il tesoro del Caspio
La posta in gioco è un'immensa ricchezza in petrolio. La realtà
d'oggi, tensioni, contrabbando e popoli in fuga dalle sue rive
di Luca Rastello
"... quando le alleanze maturate sulle rotte dell'oppio - per
esempio nei rapporti con le potenti organizzazioni criminali legate
all'estrema destra turca, e in particolare ai famosi lupi grigi -
incominciarono a determinare la politica estera di Baku, le
cose cambiarono. Se oggi la Russia indica proprio nell'Azerbaigian la
principale base di azioni criminali nel Caucaso (dopo la
Cecenia, ovviamente), è probabilmente perché, secondo Mosca, il clan di
Aliev ha avanzato troppe pretese nei negoziati sulla
formidabile produzione caspiana di oro nero..."
(7) http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/about.htm
(a cura di A. Martocchia)
La Jugoslavia alle Olimpiadi
1. IL MEDAGLIERE
2. ATENE 2004: BASKET; PER SERBIA-MONTENEGRO TRISTE RITORNO A CASA
(ANSA) / PALLACANESTRO: EX-JUGOSLAVIA, IL GRIDO DI DOLORE (M. Matteuzzi)
3. Un commento di Ivan all'articolo di Matteuzzi
=== 1 ===
MEDAGLIERE : ORO ARG BRO TOT
Il numero riportato tra parentesi indica la posizione del paese
nella graduatoria dei corrispondenti giochi olimpici.
Sono riportati solo i giochi olimpici in cui e' stata vinta qualche
medaglia, e non tutte le partecipazioni.
Repubblica Federativa Socialista di Jugoslavia
( 14 ) Parigi 1924 2 0 0 2
( 21 ) Amsterdam 1928 1 1 3 5
( 25 ) Berlino 1936 0 1 0 1
( 24 ) Londra 1948 0 2 0 2
( 21 ) Helsinki 1952 1 2 0 3
( 26 ) Melbourne 1956 0 3 0 3
( 18 ) Roma 1960 1 1 0 2
( 19 ) Tokyo 1964 2 1 2 5
( 16 ) Città del Messico 1968 3 3 2 8
( 20 ) Monaco 1972 2 1 2 5
( 16 ) Montreal 1976 2 3 3 8
( 14 ) Mosca 1980 2 3 4 9
( 9 ) Los Angeles 1984 7 4 7 18
( 16 ) Seul 1988 3 4 5 12
Slovenia
( 52 ) Barcellona 1992 0 0 2 2
( 55 ) Atlanta 1996 0 2 0 2
( 35 ) Sydney 2000 2 0 0 2
( 64 ) Atene 2004 0 1 3 4
Croazia
( 44 ) Barcellona 1992 0 1 2 3
( 45 ) Atlanta 1996 1 1 0 2
( 48 ) Sydney 2000 1 0 1 2
( 44 ) Atene 2004 1 2 2 5
Bosnia-Erzegovina
PARTECIPAZIONI ALLE OLIMPIADI ESTIVE:
1992, 1996, 2000, 2004
TOTALE MEDAGLIE CONQUISTATE 0
Repubblica ex-jugoslava di Macedonia - FYROM
( 70 ) Sydney 2000 0 0 1 1
Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia,
dal 2004: Unione di Serbia-Montenegro
( 41 ) Atlanta 1996 1 1 2 4
( 42 ) Sydney 2000 1 1 1 3
( 62 ) Atene 2004 0 2 0 2
DUNQUE LE 5 ENTITA' CHE COMPONGONO LA JUGOSLAVIA HANNO CONQUISTATO IN
TUTTO:
3 ori
4 argenti
5 bronzi
= 12 medaglie
alle ultime Olimpiadi cui parteciparono assieme (Seul 1988), e
1 oro
5 argenti
5 bronzi
= 11 medaglie
alle ultime Olimpiadi di Atene del 2004.
(FONTI:
http://www.athens2004.com/en/OlympicMedals/medals
http://www.olympic.it/italian/country )
=== 2 ===
ATENE 2004: BASKET; PER SERBIA-MONTENEGRO TRISTE RITORNO A CASA
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 25 AGO - Eroi fino a ieri, oggi rinnegati: sono
rientrati nel silenzio, senza che nessuno si fosse preoccupato di
accoglierli, i giocatori della nazionale di basket serbo-montenegrina
che ieri sono stati eliminati dal torneo olimpico per opera del team
cinese.
Solo il direttore dell'aeroporto di Belgrado si e' preoccupato di
attendere l'aereo charter che riportava in patria i campioni, che hanno
pur sempre all'attivo un titolo mondiale conquistato contro il 'dream
team' statunitense.
La stampa e' stata unanime nella ferocia dei commenti, attribuendo
quella che ha definito una ''catastrofe'' alla ''immaturita' dei
giocatori'' e all' ''insipienza'' dell'allenatore. Il coach Zeljko
Obradovic non ha neanche tentato di difendersi: ''e' il peggior momento
della mia carriera - ha ammesso sconsolato in una intervista al
quotidiano 'Express' - non so cosa sia successo. Dovremo analizzare
attentamente i filmati per farci una ragione del perche' di un tale
disastro''.
I giornali si sono sbizzarriti nei giochi di parole fra il nome del
gigantesco atleta cinese Jao Ming e il termine serbo 'jao', che esprime
appunto dolore: 'Jao, Jao. Ciao', titola ad esempio 'Express' (i serbi
hanno adottato da tempo il ciao italiano come forma di saluto), mentre
'Vecernje Novosti' replica con un 'Jao Ming, jao noi'. Sceglie il tono
favolistico 'Glas', che comincia con 'C'era una volta una squadra di
basket'.
Per quanti errori possano aver commesso, i campioni di ieri - oggi
idoli abbattuti - non meritavano forse tanto disprezzo. E' vero che la
loro posizione e' la peggiore mai registrata alle Olimpiadi da una
squadra di Belgrado, ma e' anche vero che non e' facile rappresentare
un paese che non si ritiene ancora tale, come e' il caso della
controversa unione Serbia e Montenegro. (ANSA).
OT 25/08/2004 17:26
---
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/25-Agosto-2004/art88.html
Il Manifesto, 25 agosto 2004
PALLACANESTRO
Ex-Jugoslavia, il grido di dolore
MAURIZIO MATTEUZZI
Se ci fosse bisogno di trovare una ragione in più per maledire il papa
e la Germania - che furono i primi a soffiare sulle pulsioni
secessioniste di Croazia e Slovenia sfociate poi nelle feroci guerre
balcaniche degli anni '90 e nell'inevitabile dissoluzione della
Jugoslavia - e per maledire gli americani - che alla fine del decennio
completarono l'opera di disfacimento con la «guerra umanitaria» nel
Kosovo -, quella ragione la si è vista con assoluta chiarezza ad Atene.
La «Serbia-Montenegro», paese inesistente in attesa anch'esso di
dissoluzione, eliminata nel basket dall'inconsistente Cina - che aveva
fatto apparire dei supermen anche la generosa Italietta di Recalcati -
e costretta all'umiliazione di una partita con la simpatica Angola con
l'undicesimo posto in palio. Non era più successo dagli Europei di
Helsinki del `67, che la (ex)Jugoslavia del basket non riuscisse a
entrare neppure nei quarti di finale.
Fra le tante atrocità delle guerre balcaniche, noi amanti del basket,
osiamo mettere anche la fine della Grande Jugoslavia. Quella cinque
volte campione del mondo - l'ultima nel 2002 a Indianapolis, in casa
dei maestri Usa, contro la fortissima Argentina di Manuel Ginobili -,
quella campione olimpico - nell'80 a Mosca, contro l'allora formidabile
Urss - e quattro volte seconda nei giochi, quella non so quante volte
campione d'Europa - l'ultima nel 2001 a Istanbul contro una validissima
squadra turca. Quella che ha fatto godere la gente che loves this game,
come dice lo slogan della Nba, su tutti i campi d'Europa e del mondo.
Sparita la Jugoslavia, sorti sulle sue ceneri - letteralmente
-un'infinità di paesini furiosamente nazionalisti, era impossibile che
i meravigliosi «plavi» potessero reggere a lungo. Per un attimo era
sembrato che quel team meraviglioso - fatto di una mescola unica e
superba di serbi, croati, dalmati, sloveni, macedoni, bosniaci -
potesse resistere agli eventi politici più distruttivi. Ma fu un
attimo, appunto. Poi la storia fece inevitabilmente il suo corso. E una
straordinaria squadra implose - come, su scala maggiore, tutto il
blocco del socialismo reale - in una pletora di squadrette rissose e
nemiche. Anche l'unica eccezione - la «Serbia-Montenegro» - non poteva
durare.
Colpa non tanto della diaspora jugoslava in Europa, che c'è sempre
stata negli ultimi 30-40 anni, a cui li ha portati la loro vocazione
«zingara» (loro detestano questa parola, ma qui vuole avere
un'accezione positiva). Colpa delle macerie a cui è stato ridotto il
loro paese e colpa (anche qui leggasi in positivo) della loro classe
che li ha fatti approdare per primi nella mitica e ricchissima Nba. In
tempi non sospetti, quando si contavano sulle dita di una mano i
non-americani invitati alla festa.
Questa non vuole essere un'analisi tecnica della tragedia (cestistica,
in questo caso) jugoslava. E' solo un grido di dolore di chi ha visto
la Grande Jugoslavia in cui dalla panchina l'imperturbabile professor
Asa Nikolic giostrava in campo i Cosic - un pivot di 2 e 10 che
all'occorrenza sapeva giocare divinamente da play -, i Petrovic, i
Dalipagic, i Kucoc, fino allo zar Sasha Danilovic che fece grande anche
la Virtus di Bologna. Ora gli ultimi eredi di quei grandi - gli
Stojakovic, gli Jaric, i Divac, i Milicic - sono troppo stanchi e
impegnati a curare i loro interessi negli Usa per trovare ancora la
voglia di mettere in campo lo straordinario talento e l'atavica rabbia
in difesa non della Grande Jugoslavia ma di un paese sempre più
secondario e rachitico (chissà che agli Europei del 2005 a Belgrado, il
Montenegro non sia già riuscito a staccarsi dalla mal amata Serbia).
Grandi, indimenticabili «plavi». Riusciranno a farci sognare ancora?
=== 3 ===
Grazie a Maurizio Matteuzzi per questo articolo. Commovente, per uno
che ha visto da vicino quando iniziò l'attacco a quel magnifico
cerchio di fratellanza e unità della nostra squadra jugoslava,
dei nostri "zlatni plavi". Era nel giugno 1991, Campionati europei di
pallacanestro a Roma. Nel mezzo del campionato arrivò un dispaccio da
Lubiana col quale intimarono a Jure Zdovc, giocatore sloveno,di non
giocare più per la Jugoslavia, se no sarà dichiarato nemico del suo
popolo!". Sorvolo sulla campagna denigratoria politica, fatta dai media
in quel periodo, ma voglio ricordare quei giornalisti sportivi,
sciacalli, che assalirono il tecnico e i giocatori con delle domande
che nulla avevano a che fare con il gioco tecnico e speculavano sulle
disgrazie personali; A Los Angeles, dove si trovava la moglie di Divac
in attesa del bambino, c'è stato in quel giorno il terremoto!
Dicessero il contrario, questi sciacalli, a me, che rispondevo al
telefono! Ivan
1. IL MEDAGLIERE
2. ATENE 2004: BASKET; PER SERBIA-MONTENEGRO TRISTE RITORNO A CASA
(ANSA) / PALLACANESTRO: EX-JUGOSLAVIA, IL GRIDO DI DOLORE (M. Matteuzzi)
3. Un commento di Ivan all'articolo di Matteuzzi
=== 1 ===
MEDAGLIERE : ORO ARG BRO TOT
Il numero riportato tra parentesi indica la posizione del paese
nella graduatoria dei corrispondenti giochi olimpici.
Sono riportati solo i giochi olimpici in cui e' stata vinta qualche
medaglia, e non tutte le partecipazioni.
Repubblica Federativa Socialista di Jugoslavia
( 14 ) Parigi 1924 2 0 0 2
( 21 ) Amsterdam 1928 1 1 3 5
( 25 ) Berlino 1936 0 1 0 1
( 24 ) Londra 1948 0 2 0 2
( 21 ) Helsinki 1952 1 2 0 3
( 26 ) Melbourne 1956 0 3 0 3
( 18 ) Roma 1960 1 1 0 2
( 19 ) Tokyo 1964 2 1 2 5
( 16 ) Città del Messico 1968 3 3 2 8
( 20 ) Monaco 1972 2 1 2 5
( 16 ) Montreal 1976 2 3 3 8
( 14 ) Mosca 1980 2 3 4 9
( 9 ) Los Angeles 1984 7 4 7 18
( 16 ) Seul 1988 3 4 5 12
Slovenia
( 52 ) Barcellona 1992 0 0 2 2
( 55 ) Atlanta 1996 0 2 0 2
( 35 ) Sydney 2000 2 0 0 2
( 64 ) Atene 2004 0 1 3 4
Croazia
( 44 ) Barcellona 1992 0 1 2 3
( 45 ) Atlanta 1996 1 1 0 2
( 48 ) Sydney 2000 1 0 1 2
( 44 ) Atene 2004 1 2 2 5
Bosnia-Erzegovina
PARTECIPAZIONI ALLE OLIMPIADI ESTIVE:
1992, 1996, 2000, 2004
TOTALE MEDAGLIE CONQUISTATE 0
Repubblica ex-jugoslava di Macedonia - FYROM
( 70 ) Sydney 2000 0 0 1 1
Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia,
dal 2004: Unione di Serbia-Montenegro
( 41 ) Atlanta 1996 1 1 2 4
( 42 ) Sydney 2000 1 1 1 3
( 62 ) Atene 2004 0 2 0 2
DUNQUE LE 5 ENTITA' CHE COMPONGONO LA JUGOSLAVIA HANNO CONQUISTATO IN
TUTTO:
3 ori
4 argenti
5 bronzi
= 12 medaglie
alle ultime Olimpiadi cui parteciparono assieme (Seul 1988), e
1 oro
5 argenti
5 bronzi
= 11 medaglie
alle ultime Olimpiadi di Atene del 2004.
(FONTI:
http://www.athens2004.com/en/OlympicMedals/medals
http://www.olympic.it/italian/country )
=== 2 ===
ATENE 2004: BASKET; PER SERBIA-MONTENEGRO TRISTE RITORNO A CASA
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 25 AGO - Eroi fino a ieri, oggi rinnegati: sono
rientrati nel silenzio, senza che nessuno si fosse preoccupato di
accoglierli, i giocatori della nazionale di basket serbo-montenegrina
che ieri sono stati eliminati dal torneo olimpico per opera del team
cinese.
Solo il direttore dell'aeroporto di Belgrado si e' preoccupato di
attendere l'aereo charter che riportava in patria i campioni, che hanno
pur sempre all'attivo un titolo mondiale conquistato contro il 'dream
team' statunitense.
La stampa e' stata unanime nella ferocia dei commenti, attribuendo
quella che ha definito una ''catastrofe'' alla ''immaturita' dei
giocatori'' e all' ''insipienza'' dell'allenatore. Il coach Zeljko
Obradovic non ha neanche tentato di difendersi: ''e' il peggior momento
della mia carriera - ha ammesso sconsolato in una intervista al
quotidiano 'Express' - non so cosa sia successo. Dovremo analizzare
attentamente i filmati per farci una ragione del perche' di un tale
disastro''.
I giornali si sono sbizzarriti nei giochi di parole fra il nome del
gigantesco atleta cinese Jao Ming e il termine serbo 'jao', che esprime
appunto dolore: 'Jao, Jao. Ciao', titola ad esempio 'Express' (i serbi
hanno adottato da tempo il ciao italiano come forma di saluto), mentre
'Vecernje Novosti' replica con un 'Jao Ming, jao noi'. Sceglie il tono
favolistico 'Glas', che comincia con 'C'era una volta una squadra di
basket'.
Per quanti errori possano aver commesso, i campioni di ieri - oggi
idoli abbattuti - non meritavano forse tanto disprezzo. E' vero che la
loro posizione e' la peggiore mai registrata alle Olimpiadi da una
squadra di Belgrado, ma e' anche vero che non e' facile rappresentare
un paese che non si ritiene ancora tale, come e' il caso della
controversa unione Serbia e Montenegro. (ANSA).
OT 25/08/2004 17:26
---
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/25-Agosto-2004/art88.html
Il Manifesto, 25 agosto 2004
PALLACANESTRO
Ex-Jugoslavia, il grido di dolore
MAURIZIO MATTEUZZI
Se ci fosse bisogno di trovare una ragione in più per maledire il papa
e la Germania - che furono i primi a soffiare sulle pulsioni
secessioniste di Croazia e Slovenia sfociate poi nelle feroci guerre
balcaniche degli anni '90 e nell'inevitabile dissoluzione della
Jugoslavia - e per maledire gli americani - che alla fine del decennio
completarono l'opera di disfacimento con la «guerra umanitaria» nel
Kosovo -, quella ragione la si è vista con assoluta chiarezza ad Atene.
La «Serbia-Montenegro», paese inesistente in attesa anch'esso di
dissoluzione, eliminata nel basket dall'inconsistente Cina - che aveva
fatto apparire dei supermen anche la generosa Italietta di Recalcati -
e costretta all'umiliazione di una partita con la simpatica Angola con
l'undicesimo posto in palio. Non era più successo dagli Europei di
Helsinki del `67, che la (ex)Jugoslavia del basket non riuscisse a
entrare neppure nei quarti di finale.
Fra le tante atrocità delle guerre balcaniche, noi amanti del basket,
osiamo mettere anche la fine della Grande Jugoslavia. Quella cinque
volte campione del mondo - l'ultima nel 2002 a Indianapolis, in casa
dei maestri Usa, contro la fortissima Argentina di Manuel Ginobili -,
quella campione olimpico - nell'80 a Mosca, contro l'allora formidabile
Urss - e quattro volte seconda nei giochi, quella non so quante volte
campione d'Europa - l'ultima nel 2001 a Istanbul contro una validissima
squadra turca. Quella che ha fatto godere la gente che loves this game,
come dice lo slogan della Nba, su tutti i campi d'Europa e del mondo.
Sparita la Jugoslavia, sorti sulle sue ceneri - letteralmente
-un'infinità di paesini furiosamente nazionalisti, era impossibile che
i meravigliosi «plavi» potessero reggere a lungo. Per un attimo era
sembrato che quel team meraviglioso - fatto di una mescola unica e
superba di serbi, croati, dalmati, sloveni, macedoni, bosniaci -
potesse resistere agli eventi politici più distruttivi. Ma fu un
attimo, appunto. Poi la storia fece inevitabilmente il suo corso. E una
straordinaria squadra implose - come, su scala maggiore, tutto il
blocco del socialismo reale - in una pletora di squadrette rissose e
nemiche. Anche l'unica eccezione - la «Serbia-Montenegro» - non poteva
durare.
Colpa non tanto della diaspora jugoslava in Europa, che c'è sempre
stata negli ultimi 30-40 anni, a cui li ha portati la loro vocazione
«zingara» (loro detestano questa parola, ma qui vuole avere
un'accezione positiva). Colpa delle macerie a cui è stato ridotto il
loro paese e colpa (anche qui leggasi in positivo) della loro classe
che li ha fatti approdare per primi nella mitica e ricchissima Nba. In
tempi non sospetti, quando si contavano sulle dita di una mano i
non-americani invitati alla festa.
Questa non vuole essere un'analisi tecnica della tragedia (cestistica,
in questo caso) jugoslava. E' solo un grido di dolore di chi ha visto
la Grande Jugoslavia in cui dalla panchina l'imperturbabile professor
Asa Nikolic giostrava in campo i Cosic - un pivot di 2 e 10 che
all'occorrenza sapeva giocare divinamente da play -, i Petrovic, i
Dalipagic, i Kucoc, fino allo zar Sasha Danilovic che fece grande anche
la Virtus di Bologna. Ora gli ultimi eredi di quei grandi - gli
Stojakovic, gli Jaric, i Divac, i Milicic - sono troppo stanchi e
impegnati a curare i loro interessi negli Usa per trovare ancora la
voglia di mettere in campo lo straordinario talento e l'atavica rabbia
in difesa non della Grande Jugoslavia ma di un paese sempre più
secondario e rachitico (chissà che agli Europei del 2005 a Belgrado, il
Montenegro non sia già riuscito a staccarsi dalla mal amata Serbia).
Grandi, indimenticabili «plavi». Riusciranno a farci sognare ancora?
=== 3 ===
Grazie a Maurizio Matteuzzi per questo articolo. Commovente, per uno
che ha visto da vicino quando iniziò l'attacco a quel magnifico
cerchio di fratellanza e unità della nostra squadra jugoslava,
dei nostri "zlatni plavi". Era nel giugno 1991, Campionati europei di
pallacanestro a Roma. Nel mezzo del campionato arrivò un dispaccio da
Lubiana col quale intimarono a Jure Zdovc, giocatore sloveno,di non
giocare più per la Jugoslavia, se no sarà dichiarato nemico del suo
popolo!". Sorvolo sulla campagna denigratoria politica, fatta dai media
in quel periodo, ma voglio ricordare quei giornalisti sportivi,
sciacalli, che assalirono il tecnico e i giocatori con delle domande
che nulla avevano a che fare con il gioco tecnico e speculavano sulle
disgrazie personali; A Los Angeles, dove si trovava la moglie di Divac
in attesa del bambino, c'è stato in quel giorno il terremoto!
Dicessero il contrario, questi sciacalli, a me, che rispondevo al
telefono! Ivan
(english / srpskohrvatski)
Kosovo-Metohija: il Consiglio d'Europa fuorilegge
I rappresentanti del Consiglio Europeo firmano documenti in nome del
Kosmet gia' ratificati da Belgrado, come se il Kosmet non fosse parte
integrante della Serbia...
BELGRADE FORUM: Press Release / Saopstenje
=== english ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2004-09-03.html
BELGRADE FORUM FOR THE WORLD OF EQUALS
Belgrade, 02.09.2004.
Press Release
The recent signing of the document adhering of Kosovo and Metohija to
the Framework Convention on protection of National Minorities and to
the Convention on torture of the Council of Europe by Secretary General
of CE Mr. Walter Schwimmer and UNMIK Chief Sorren Janssen Peterson
represent the violation of UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).
According to that resolution the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is
integral part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro). As FRY (SCG) is a member of CE and the member state of the
aforesaid conventions, the same have been applicable on the entire
territory of FRY (SCG), including Kosovo and Metohija, and therefore
there is no need whatever to sign those conventions anew in Pristina.
The signature of those international documents by the highest
representatives of CE and UNMIK is violation of the rights of SCG being
sole subject of international law, for entire its territory, of the UN
SC resolution 1244 (1999), international law in general and the UN
Charter in particular. In essence, this means step forward recognition
of the international subjectivity to the part of the territory of the
sovereign state, member of UN, CE and OSCE. This is a dangerous
precedent with far reaching consequences which must not be tolerated.
The essential problems in Kosovo and Metohija are not to be sought in
lacking of the laws or in unsigned conventions but in everyday
violation of existing basic norms and laws, in ethnic cleansing of
Serbs and others nonalbanians, in terrorism, as well as in the absence
of political will to effectively stop that.
The Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals calls upon the competent
authorities of SCG and Serbia, particularly the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, to resolutely react to this unacceptable act and to bring this
problem immediately to the attention of UN, CE and OSCE.
The Belgrade Forum
for the World of Equals
BELGRADE FORUM FOR WORLD OF EQUALS
11000 Belgrade, 27.marta 95/I, Serbia and Montenegro
Tel./Fax: (++381 11) 324 81 51, 322 00 88
E-Mail: beoforum@ verat. net
www.belgrade-forum.org
=== srpskohrvatski ===
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
Beograd, 24. avgust 2004. godine
Saopstenje povodom potpisivanja akta o pristupanju Kosova i Metohije
dvema konvencijama Saveta Evrope
Potpisivanje akta o pristupanju Kosova i Metohije dvema konvencijama
Saveta Evrope (Okvirna konvencija o zastiti nacionalnih manjina i
Konvencija o torturi) od strane Generalnog sekretara SE Valtera Svimera
i sefa UNMIK-a Sorena Petersena predstavlja krsenje Rezolucije 1244
Saveta bezbednosti UN. Tom rezolucijom je potvrdjeno da pokrajina
Kosovo i Metohija cini sastavni deo SRJ, odnosno Srbije i Crne Gore.
Kako je SRJ, odnosno SCG clanica Saveta Evrope i drzava potpisnica
pomenutih konvencija, te konvencije vaze na citavoj teritoriji SCG,
ukljucujuci i Kosovo i Metohiju, pa nije bilo nikakvih potreba za
ponovnim potpisivanjem tih konvencija u Pristini.
Potpisivanje ovih medjunarodnih konvencija od strane najvisih
predstavnika SE i UNMIK-a predstavlja grubu povredu prava SCG kao
jedino priznatog subjekta medjunarodnog prava , rezolucije SB 1244 i
povredu medjunarodnog prava i Povelje Ujedinjenih nacija. U sustini ono
znaci priznavanje medjunarodnopravnog subjektiviteta jednom delu
suverene drzave, sto je opasan presedan sa dalekoseznim posledicama
koji se ne sme tolerisati. Sustinski problemi na Kosovu i Metohiji nisu
u nedostatku zakona ili nepotpisanim medjunarodnim konvencijama vec u
svakodnevnom krsenju postojecih elementarnih normi i zakona, etnickom
ciscenju Srba i drugog nealbanskog stanovnistva i terorizmu, kao i
nedostatku politicke volje da se to zaustavi.
Beogradski forum za svet ravnopravnih poziva nadlezne vlasti SCG, a
posebno Ministarstvo za spoljne poslove da odlucno reaguju na ovaj
neprihvatljiv potez i da pitanje odmah pokrenu, kako u Savetu
bezbednosti UN, tako i u Savetu Evrope.
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
Beograd, 27. marta 95, I sprat, 11000 SCG
Tel/faks: (+381 11) 3220088
E-mail: beoforum@ verat. net
www.belgrade-forum.org
Kosovo-Metohija: il Consiglio d'Europa fuorilegge
I rappresentanti del Consiglio Europeo firmano documenti in nome del
Kosmet gia' ratificati da Belgrado, come se il Kosmet non fosse parte
integrante della Serbia...
BELGRADE FORUM: Press Release / Saopstenje
=== english ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2004-09-03.html
BELGRADE FORUM FOR THE WORLD OF EQUALS
Belgrade, 02.09.2004.
Press Release
The recent signing of the document adhering of Kosovo and Metohija to
the Framework Convention on protection of National Minorities and to
the Convention on torture of the Council of Europe by Secretary General
of CE Mr. Walter Schwimmer and UNMIK Chief Sorren Janssen Peterson
represent the violation of UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).
According to that resolution the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is
integral part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro). As FRY (SCG) is a member of CE and the member state of the
aforesaid conventions, the same have been applicable on the entire
territory of FRY (SCG), including Kosovo and Metohija, and therefore
there is no need whatever to sign those conventions anew in Pristina.
The signature of those international documents by the highest
representatives of CE and UNMIK is violation of the rights of SCG being
sole subject of international law, for entire its territory, of the UN
SC resolution 1244 (1999), international law in general and the UN
Charter in particular. In essence, this means step forward recognition
of the international subjectivity to the part of the territory of the
sovereign state, member of UN, CE and OSCE. This is a dangerous
precedent with far reaching consequences which must not be tolerated.
The essential problems in Kosovo and Metohija are not to be sought in
lacking of the laws or in unsigned conventions but in everyday
violation of existing basic norms and laws, in ethnic cleansing of
Serbs and others nonalbanians, in terrorism, as well as in the absence
of political will to effectively stop that.
The Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals calls upon the competent
authorities of SCG and Serbia, particularly the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, to resolutely react to this unacceptable act and to bring this
problem immediately to the attention of UN, CE and OSCE.
The Belgrade Forum
for the World of Equals
BELGRADE FORUM FOR WORLD OF EQUALS
11000 Belgrade, 27.marta 95/I, Serbia and Montenegro
Tel./Fax: (++381 11) 324 81 51, 322 00 88
E-Mail: beoforum@ verat. net
www.belgrade-forum.org
=== srpskohrvatski ===
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
Beograd, 24. avgust 2004. godine
Saopstenje povodom potpisivanja akta o pristupanju Kosova i Metohije
dvema konvencijama Saveta Evrope
Potpisivanje akta o pristupanju Kosova i Metohije dvema konvencijama
Saveta Evrope (Okvirna konvencija o zastiti nacionalnih manjina i
Konvencija o torturi) od strane Generalnog sekretara SE Valtera Svimera
i sefa UNMIK-a Sorena Petersena predstavlja krsenje Rezolucije 1244
Saveta bezbednosti UN. Tom rezolucijom je potvrdjeno da pokrajina
Kosovo i Metohija cini sastavni deo SRJ, odnosno Srbije i Crne Gore.
Kako je SRJ, odnosno SCG clanica Saveta Evrope i drzava potpisnica
pomenutih konvencija, te konvencije vaze na citavoj teritoriji SCG,
ukljucujuci i Kosovo i Metohiju, pa nije bilo nikakvih potreba za
ponovnim potpisivanjem tih konvencija u Pristini.
Potpisivanje ovih medjunarodnih konvencija od strane najvisih
predstavnika SE i UNMIK-a predstavlja grubu povredu prava SCG kao
jedino priznatog subjekta medjunarodnog prava , rezolucije SB 1244 i
povredu medjunarodnog prava i Povelje Ujedinjenih nacija. U sustini ono
znaci priznavanje medjunarodnopravnog subjektiviteta jednom delu
suverene drzave, sto je opasan presedan sa dalekoseznim posledicama
koji se ne sme tolerisati. Sustinski problemi na Kosovu i Metohiji nisu
u nedostatku zakona ili nepotpisanim medjunarodnim konvencijama vec u
svakodnevnom krsenju postojecih elementarnih normi i zakona, etnickom
ciscenju Srba i drugog nealbanskog stanovnistva i terorizmu, kao i
nedostatku politicke volje da se to zaustavi.
Beogradski forum za svet ravnopravnih poziva nadlezne vlasti SCG, a
posebno Ministarstvo za spoljne poslove da odlucno reaguju na ovaj
neprihvatljiv potez i da pitanje odmah pokrenu, kako u Savetu
bezbednosti UN, tako i u Savetu Evrope.
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
Beograd, 27. marta 95, I sprat, 11000 SCG
Tel/faks: (+381 11) 3220088
E-mail: beoforum@ verat. net
www.belgrade-forum.org
ARTEL: Kosmet
1. POSTAVITI PITANJE ODGOVORNOSTI ZA GENOCID NA KOSMETU - Dr Zoran
Vucinic, profesor medunarodnog prava na Fakultetu civilne odbrane u
Beogradu - 21. mart 2004.
2. UZROCI ALBANSKOG TERORIZMA - Prof. dr Milan Mijalkovski, Vojna
akademija Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore - April 2004. godine
=== 1 ===
POSTAVITI PITANJE ODGOVORNOSTI ZA GENOCID NA KOSMETU
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2004-03-22_1.html
Dr Zoran Vucinic
Beograd, 21. mart 2004. godine
(autor je profesor medunarodnog prava na Fakultetu civilne odbrane u
Beogradu)
Najnovije brutalno, dobro isplanirano i sinhronizovano izvedeno nasilje
od strane hordi kosmetskih Albanaca nad Srbima, Crnogorcima i drugim
nealbancima na Kosmetu, njihovom imovinom, grobljima i verskim
objektima, samo je finalni cin jednog kontinuiranog procesa etnickog
cišcenja u ovoj pokrajini kako bi se uklono svaki trag njihovog
prisustva na tom prostoru. Ako se sve ovo posmatra kroz prizmu
savremenog medunarodnog prava, onda se može reci da je naš narod u ovoj
pokrajini bio i još uvek ostao izložen fizickom i kulturnom genocidu.
Prema tom pravu, genocid je najteži zlocin protiv covecnosti koji se
vrši u nameri da se odredena nacionalna, verska, etnicka ili rasna
grupa delimicno ili potpuno fizicki (biološki) uništi. Fizicko
uništenje po pravilu prati i uništenje svega onoga što predstavlja
kulturno naslede napadnute grupe (kulturni genocid). Praksa potvrduje
da se takvo delo uvek unapred planira i da iza njega stoje dugorocni
ciljevi, odnosno odredena politicka orijentacija. U našem slucaju,
napadni objekat je prevashodno srpski i crnogorski narod, a namera je
da se njegovim uništenjem i proterivanjem, kao i uništenjem istorijskih
dokaza njegovog postojanja, Kosmet definitivno etnicki ocisti. Ona je
proizvod dobro poznate politicke orijentacije za nezavisnom albanskom
državom koja ima svoje dugo istorijsko trajanje.
Upravo zbog ovakvih svojih specificnosti, odgovornost za genocid je
višeslojna jer obuhvata njegove naredbodavace, organizatore,
podstrekace, saucesnike, kao i neposredne izvršioce bez obzira na
njihov društveni položaj, cime je negirano pravo na imunitet od
odgovornosti bilo kome od njih. Ona postoji cak i kada ovo delo nije
propisano u unutrašnjem zakonodavstvu, što mu daje univerzalni
karakter. Prema Konvenciji o sprecavanju i kažnjavanju zlocina genocida
iz 1948. godine, džave clanice su obavezne ne samo da kazne odgovorne
pojedince, vec i da sprece genocid u bilo kom njegovom propisanom
obliku, pa cak i u pokušaju.
Kada je rec o odgovornosti za genocid na Kosmetu, nesporno je da je ona
na strani albanskih politickih lidera koji apsolutno kontrolišu
sopstveni etnicki kompleks, ali i na strani onih medunarodnih faktora
koji su ih do sada podržavali i bez cije podrške se ovakve stvari ne bi
dogadale. Ona se može pripisati i UN jer su se sva ova zverstva
dešavala upravo u njihovom prisutvu, a na koja one nisu reagovale iako
su preuzele odgovornost za stanje na Kosmetu.. Cak ih je na to
indirektno obavezivala i pomenuta konvencija o genocidu koju su one
same donele i u istoj proklamovale da je genocid u suprotnosti sa
ciljevima zbog kojih one postoje i da je potrebna medunarodna saradnja
"da bi se covecanstvo oslobodilo jednog jako mrskog zla". Kao što
vidimo, takva saradnja u ovom slucaju je potpuno izostala. I konacno,
one su prekršile sopstvenu Povelju koja propisuje da su održanje
medunarodnog mira i bezbednosti jedan od njihovih glavnih ciljeva.
Petogodišnji dogadaji na Kosmetu koji su ovih dana kulminirali na
najstravicniji nacin, potvrduju da su UN još jednom pale na ispitu.
Odgovornost UN je utoliko veca što su mimo okvira utvrdenog Rezolucijom
1244 SB delovale u pravcu izgradnje državnih atributa Kosmeta izvan
ustavnog poretka Srbije, u sklopu cega je formiran i tzv. Kosovski
zaštitni korpus. Pojedini specijalni predstavnici GS UN cak su kljucno
doprineli oslobadanju ozloglašenih albanskih lidera uhapšenih po osnovu
naših poternica. Ni tužilaštvo tzv. haškog tribunala kao suda UN ne
reaguje jer navodno još uvek prikuplja dokaze o albanskim zlocinima nad
Srbima pre i za vreme NATO agresije na SRJ. Takvim ponašanjem UN su se
fakticki svrstale na albansku stranu pružajuci joj osnov za uverenje da
je nezavisnosti vec gotova stvar i da se može ostvariti i na zlocinacki
nacin.
S obzirom na sve ovo, naša država bi morala veoma odlucno da postavi
pitanje odgovornosti za genocid pred institucijama medunarodne
zajednice, koliko god se cinilo da je ono u ovom trenutku deplasirano
zbog oprecnih interesa kljucnih medunarodnih faktora. U prilog nam idu
stavovi nekih važnih zapadnih centara da se radi o etnickom cišcenju za
koje su odgovorni albanski lideri i konacno priznanje da je naš narod
žrtva albanskog terora, pa i izjava Solane da se vinovnici ovog
poslednjeg zlocina moraju izvesti pred lice pravde. Sve je više i
uticajnih medija u svetu koji stvari nazivaju pravim imenom.
Zato bi ove okolnosti morali iskoristiti kao svoju prednost i
maksimalnom diplomatskom ofanzivom uticati da se odgovorni za genocid,
bar na albanskoj strani, privedu pravdi. Na to imamo i moralnu obavezu
zbog žrtava ovih pogroma. Cak i kao clanica pomenute konvencije o
genocidu imamo pravo da se obratimo nadležnim organima UN "kako bi ovi,
prema Povelji UN, preduzeli mere koje smatraju odgovarajucim za
sprecavanje i kažnjavanje dela genocida". Indikativno je što ovu
mogucnost do sada nismo koristili, a trebalo je da je eksploatišemo sve
ove godine. Pošto je SCG prihvatila nadležnost nedavno konstituisanog
stalnog Medunarodnog krivicnog suda (osnovan u saradnji sa UN), postoji
pravna mogucnost da se i njemu poveri utvrdivanje odgovornosti za
genocid, jer je isti cinjen na našoj teritoriji i nakon stupanja na
snagu njegovog Statuta. On je naša šansa s obzirom da nam je
suspendovan suverenitet u ovoj pokrajini koja je formalno pod
protektoratom UN.
Ovo pitanje je od izuzetne važnosti i zato na ovom planu treba istrajno
delovati, cak i ako se medunarodni faktori tome budu protivili. U
svakom slucaju argumenti su na našoj strani. Uostalom, kada smo mi bili
u pitanju i u nizu drugih situacija oni su tvrdili da im je stalo do
pravde i medunarodnopravnog poretka. Neka to potvrde i sada. Ako su za
iste stvari naši bivši lideri u Hagu, onda takva sudbina ne sme da
mimoide ni albanske. U suprotnom, izjave o njihovoj odgovornosti ostace
samo farsa i podloga za novi haos na Balkanu.
=== 2 ===
UZROCI ALBANSKOG TERORIZMA
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/izbor/terorizam/2004-06-08.html
Pukovnik Prof. dr Milan Mijalkovski
Vojna akademija Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore -
Beograd, april 2004. godine
Poznat i priznat pravnik Antoni Sotil zapoceo je svoja predavanja na
Akademiji za medunarodno pravo u Hagu 1938. godine recima: "Jacanje
teroristicih aktivnosti tokom poslednjih godina dovelo je do toga da
terorizam postane jedna od najaktuelnijih problema današnjice".1
Uporedenje bitnih obeležja terorizma iz tog perioda i na pocetku ovog
veka omogucava da se formuliše sledeca ocena: terorizam danas
predstavlja jednu od najvecih pretnji bezbednosti i miru medunarodnoj
zajednici. Ovo, pre svega zato što višestruka medusobna povezanost
aktera terorizma ima za posledicu to, da prostorno ne ogranicava
njihovo nasilje samo na jednu državu ili region, neposrednu žrtvu sve
cešce napadaju upotrebom specificnog "oružja", odnosno teroristima
samoubica2 i opsežno se pripremaju da upotrebe oružje za masovno
uništavanje.
Imajuci u vidu poznatu cinjenicu o tome da se društveni problemi
najuspešnije rešavaju identifikacijom i otklanjanjem njihovih uzroka,
iskrsava nezaobilazno pitanje: da li medunarodnoj zajednici nije poznat
(ovaj) najefikasniji nacin odbrane od terorizma ili jeste, ali nije u
stanju da se njime koristi? Brojni i raznovrsni, promenljivi,
otklonjivi, delimicno otklonjivi ili neotklonjivi i, posebno,
specificni uzroci terorizma za svaku mikrolokaciju (državu), koji se
nacelno mogu razvrstati na objektivne i subjektivne, odgovor na pitanje
cine veoma komplikovanim. S tim u vezi, pomenimo to da Ad hoc Komitet
OUN za medunarodni terorizam3 na sednici od 19. marta do 6. juna 1979.
godine, iako nije uspeo da usaglasi stavove o definisanju terorizma,
složio se da njegovi uzroci mogu se razvrstati na spoljne i unutrašnje.
Kao spoljni su identifikovani kolonijalizam, agresija, strana
okupacija, mešanje u unutrašnje odnose država, politika ekspanzionizma
i hegemonije i ekonomska eksploatacija prirodnih izvora država, a kao
unutrašnji - rasizam, rasna diskriminacija, aparhejd, genocid,
neofašizam, povrede ljudskih prava, siromaštvo, beda i slicno
Evidentno je da su identifikovani uzroci u suprotnosti sa jednim
znacajnim obeležjem terorizma (amoralnost), jer mnogi od njih, posebno
unutrašnji, objektivno, za teroriste predstavljaju "opravadanje" za
brutalno nasilje kojim se služe radi postizanje politickog cilja. I
pored ovakvog cudnovatog alibija za teroristicko delovanje, analiza
savremenog terorizma u svetu ukazuje na to da preovladuju mikrolokacije
ovog brutalnog nasilja, gde nijedan od navedneih ili drugih objektivnih
uzroka nije pokrenuo njegove aktere da se koriste njime. Naprotiv,
uocava se da je glavni uzrok njihovog nasilnickog opredeljenja i
ispoljavanja subjektivna procena rukovodstva doticnog teroristickog
subjekta o tome da društveni status ljudskog kolektiviteta (etnicki,
socijalni, verski...) "u cije ime" primenjuju terorizm nije
zadovoljavajuce ureden (neadekvatan) u maticnoj državi ili medunarodnoj
zajednici i da ga je mogucno i "dopustivo" menjati primenom nasilja.
Takva procena iskljucuje mogucnost da se aktuelni ili potencijalni
problem razmotri i reši na legitiman (parlamentaran) nacin. U stvari,
takva psihopatološka procena prozizvodi brojne iluzije, prvenstveno u
smislu da je nasilje najcelishodnija, najbrža i jedino moguca
alternativa. Kada razrešenje spornog ili "spornog" problema otpocne
upotrebom terorizma, pocetni motivi terorista se osnažuju i iskrsavaju
novi, a sve to doprinosi eskalaciji sukoba.
Terorizam albanskih ekstremista protiv Srbije i Crne Gore i Makedonije
predstavlja karakteristican primer koji ukazuje na to da nema uporište
u tzv. opravdanim (objektivnim) uzrocima, vec da je rezultat
subjektivne (iluzorne) procene njihovih voda o tome da je "neko nekad
oteo teritoriju Albancima" i da je tu "nepravdu" mogucno otloniti ovom
vrstom nasilja. Dakako, istina je sasvim drugacija. Teritoriju na koju
pretenduju albanski ekstremisti nikada nije bila albanska, medutim, oni
u skladu sa teorijom o džihadu o stvaranju svestkog islamskog Kalifata,
opsednuti su iluzijom da ce terorizmom uspeti da razbiju teritorijalni
integritet maticne države i ustolice islamsku "veliku albansku državu"
na Balkanu, problem koji se razmatra u ovom radu.
Džihadovsko legitimisanje albanskih ekstremista
Albanski teroristi na Kosovu i podrucju opština Preševo i Bujanovac na
jugoistoku Srbije, u razdoblju januar - april 2003. godine, izveli su
oko 40 akata nasilja u kojima je ubijeno osam i ranjeno sedam lica4.
Voda teroristicke samozvane "Albanske nacionalne armije" ("ANA") Vigan
Gradica, u saopštenju za javnost (U februaru) izjavio je da "ANA deluje
na svim albanskim teritorijama koje uzurpiraju srpski, makedonski,
crnogorski i grcki pravoslavci", ponovo je podsetio na poznatu ali iz
nepoznatih razloga sistemstki zanemarivanu cinjenicu o tome da je
džihad5, a ne nepovoljan ili "nepodnošljiv" status albanske etnicke
zajednice na Balkanu, glavni uzrok njihovom nasilju, posredstvom kojeg
smatraju da mogu razbiti teritorijalni integritet maticne države i da
uspostave islamsku "veliku albansku državu" na Balkanu. Takode u
februaru 2003. godine, komercijalna (izraelska) obaveštajna agencija
"Debka", pozivajuci se na strucnjake za borbu protiv terorizma
upozorila je javnost na povezanost albanskih terorista sa udarnom
pesnicom planetarnog džihada - islamisticko teroristickom mrežom "Al
Kaidom". Prema "Debki", pripadnici "Al Kaide" se infiltriraju u Evropu
preko Kosova uz pomoc albanske mafije, odnosno krecu u Evropu iz
Cecenije i putuju brodovima preko Crnog mora do Bugarske, gde ih
docekuje albanska mafija i potom prebacuje u Skoplje i Prištinu. Tu ih
snabdeva falsifikovanim putnim ispravama i uskladištenim oružjem,
ukljucujuci i hemijsko oružje (otrov ricin) koje transportuje od
skrovišta do skrovišta, pre nego stigne na krajno odredište.
Teroristicki napadi na policijske stanice UNMIK-a u Prištini (21. marta
u 20.30 i 21 00 casova bacene su rucne bombe) izvršeni u trenutku kada
su mediji objavili pocetak vojne operacije SAD i Velike Britanije na
Irak, predstavljaju još jedno u nizu legitimisanja albanskih terorista
kao verni sledbenici džihada. U stvari, navedenim aktima nasilja
albanski teroristi su podsetili "neobaveštenu" medunarodnu zajednicu da
predstavljaju zvacajan kontingent "Al Kaide" u predvorju Evrope i
upozorili je na odlucnost da ce u narednom periodu izraženije
ugrožavati njenu bezbednost i interese na nacin kako su to cinili i
cine protiv Srbije i Crne Gore i Makedonije.
Pomenute cinjenice u vezi sa kljucnim uzrokom terorizma albanskih
ekstremista na Balkanu (Džihad) ukazuju na potrebu njegovog svestranog
obuhvata.To ce omoguciti da se otklone mnoge zablude koje su višestruko
pogodovale održavanju i sukcesivnom pojacavanju njihovog nasilja na
Balkanu. U stvari, stvorili bi se uslovi za eliminisanje ove,
nesdumnjivo, najvece pretnje bezbednosti i prosperitetu regiona.
Džihadom do tudih teritorija
U 14. veku srpska država, posebno u razdoblju vladavine cara Dušana,
obuhvatala je skoro ceo Balkan. Albanci ( zvali su se Arbanasi) pre
njenog uspostavljanja nisu bili organizovani u državnu zajednicu,
odnosno nisu imali granicama omedenu teritoriju, vec su bili rasštrkani
na pojedinim mikrolokacijama današnje severne Albanije. Turski agresor
je 1501. godine zauzeo Drac i time okupirao teritoriju današnje
Albanije. Osmanlijski okupator je zaveo vojno - spahijski terorski
sistem, odnosno dosledno primenjivao džihad pod geslom "islam ili
smrt", što je imalo za posledicu da najveci broj Albanaca prihvati
islam za svoju veru, dok su Srbi i Vlasi koji su cinili vecinu
stanovništva na prostoru izmedu Skadra i Draca odbili da se preveruju i
doživeli su genocid.
Islamizirani Albanci postali su pouzdani podanici turskom okupatoru u
svakom pogledu, posebno u vojno - terorskom. Naime, okupator je medu
njima regrutovao kontingente bašibozuka (turska neregularna vojska)
koje je angažovao za cinjenje najtežih zlocina (ubistva, silovanja i
pljacke) nad pravoslavnim civilima na Balkanu. Njihov zlocinacki
doprinos je nagradivao dodeljivanjem imanja ubijenih i prognanih
pravoslavaca na prostoru današnje Albanije, Makedonije i Srbije i
podsticao njihovo nadiranje (naseljavanjem) prema Epiru, Vardaru, Nišu
i Podgorici.
Sve izraženije slabljenje Turske imalo je za posledicu pojacavanja
terora nad srpskim stanovništvom na Balkanu. Tako je u razdoblju od
prvog srpsko-turskog rata (1876) do 1912. godine kada su Stara Srbija
(Kosmet) i Makedonija oslobodeni od turskog ropstva, sa tog prostora
oko 400 000 Srba bilo je prinudeno da pobegne6. Turski okupator
ocigledno svestan pocetka kraja svoje vladavine na Balkanu7, u dosluhu
sa autoritativnim Albancima, 23. maja 1878. godine u Prizrenu
organizovao je sastanak (skupštinu) na kome je prisustvovalo 300
delegata (Albanci i predstavnici muslimanskih veleposednika iz Bosne i
tadašnjeg Novopazarskog sandžaka). Ovaj skup predstavnika Muslimana na
Balkanu nazvan je Liga (Kongra), a zbog mesta gde je održan -
Prizrenska.
Evidentne su mnoge cinjenice koje ukazuju na to da je formiranje,
navodno albanske Lige u Prizrenu, u stvari, smišljena ujdurma turskog
okupatora (potpuno u skladu o teoriji o džihadu), kako bi uz podršku
svojih vernih podanika (Albanaca) produžio trajanje svoje okupacije na
Balkanu. Tako je "Odluka Kongrina - zborska - napisana u formi mauzara
(peticija) u dva primerka. Jedan je primerak odmah poslat turskom
Sultanu u Istanbulu, a drugi je bio namenjen Berlinskom kongresu8.
Nemacki naucnik dr Štuli u svom radu "Albansko pitanje 1875 - 1882"
ustanovljava da je rezultat zborovanja u Prizrenu bilo donošenje
Statuta (Kararname) politickog saveza albanskih predstavnika i Uputstva
(Talimat) datiranih od 5. do 17. juna 1878. godine. U najopštijem
smislu, sadržaj ovih dokumenata je proturski i panislamisticki, odnosno
(1) izražava odanost Albanaca Turskoj ("Liga ne priznaje nijednu drugu
državu kao svoju, sem Osmanlijske imperije"), dok se nacionalni
(albanski) karakter tek nazire ("Mi poslanici neumrlih heroja Severne
Albanije, Epira i Bosne, koji su spremni da proliju svoju krv za
Carstvo, naciju i domovinu izabrali smo Prizren za glavni grad naše
Lige"), (2) odiše verskom zaslepljenošcu (Liga osuduje za "neprijatelje
nacije i otadžbine" sve one koji rade na slabljenju osmanlijske vlasti
i "uznemiravanju zakonite gradane" imperije, zatim, Liga ce uz uzvišen
zakon Šerijata (islamski propis, verozakon ) braniti "cast i imanje
muslimanskih podrucja ako se budu pokoravali zakonima, "Ovu Ligu cemo
preneti na naše sinove unuke. I svaki onaj koji je napustio smatrace se
da je napustio vezu sa islamom. Na njega palo prokletstvo i prezir ovih
ostalih" i (3) iako se u dokumentima Lige nigde izricito ne pominju
Albanci i Albanija,9 vec se kao politicki subjekat identifikuju
Muslimani, s obzirom na to da se zahteva teritorijalna autonomija
Albanaca u okviru Turske koja bi obuhvatala prostor turskih vilajeta
(skadarski, kosovski, bitoljski i janjinski) u kojima su Albanci cinili
samo 44 odsto stanovništva, time su javno izražene teritorijalne
pretenzije prema susednim narodima. Vode albanskih ekstremista su u
narednom periodu (i danas) da bi zavarali hrišcanske narode i zemlje,
suksesivno i prilicno oprezno (lukavo) isticali versko obeležje
projekta o "neotudivim albanskim teritorijama" i nacina njegove
realizacije (terorizmom i oružanom pobunom), dok su u prvi plan
isticali nacionalno obeležje, odnosno ovakve svoje pretenzije promovišu
kroz zahtev za formiranje "Velike Albanije".
Sadržaji Programa i drugih dokumenata donetih 1878. godine prilikom
konstituisanja Prizrenske Lige, prividno albanski a u suštini proturski
i panislamisticki, predstavljaju izvorište nasilju koje albanski
ekstremisti od tada naovamo primenjuju protiv maticne države,
prvenstveno rukovodeni iluzijom da ce razbiti njen teritorijalni
integritet i obnoviti šerijatske vladavine na Balkanu, odnosno
uspostaviti islamsku "veliku" albansku državu u regionu. U stvari,
sadržaj tih dokumenata10 predstavljaju vernu kopiju teoriju o džihadu,
cinjenica koja omogucava da se uvidi zbog cega albanski ekstremisti vec
125 godina (od 1912. naovamo) kontinuirano se služe terorizmom koji
povremeno eskalira u oružanu pobunu. To je evidentno i danas, jer niko
ne ugrožava ljudska i manjinska prava albanske etnicke zajednice, ali
oni izvode teroristicke akte. Zanemarivanje ove kljucne cinjenice,
odnosno kljucnog uzroka terorizmu albanskih ekstremista ima za
posledicu da se pokušava neutralisati neadekvatnim merama , postignuti
rezultati u tom smislu su zanemarljivi i stvara utisak o njegovoj
"neuništivosti". Ukoliko ne bude uzet u obzir ovaj neoboriv argument,
to ce održavati i osnaživati iluzije albanskih ekstremista o tome da ce
u skladu sa teorijom o džihadu postici svoje politicke ciljeve -
uspostaviti na Balkanu islamsku šerijatsku državu kao deo takode,
iracionalnog islamskog projekta (Svetskog Kalifata)11. O verskom
fanatizmu albanskih ekstremista s ovim u vezi, dokaza je na pretek,
radi cega se prezentuju samo neki.
Višedecenijsko nasilje u ime džihada
Prvi ozbiljan pokušaj albanskih ekstemista da nasilno preotmu srpske
teritorije desio se u septembru 1913. godine, dakle samo godinu dana
posle oslobodenja Stare Srbije i Makedonije od osmanlijsko -
džihadovskog turskog okupatora. Naime, 1912/1913. godine Vlada Albanije
uz podršku Austrougarske naoružala je oko 20 000 Albanaca (bivši
pripadnici turske vojske) sa Kosova i iz Makedonije. Oni su 14.
septembra 1913. godine podigli oružanu pobunu na tom prostoru s ciljem
da izbiju na desnu obalu reke Vardar i zauzmu Kosovo (Vojska Kraljevine
Srbije je za nepun mesec dana razbila pobunjenike i proterala ih na
teritoriji Albanije).
Podstaknuti od Italije, albanski ekstremisti predvodeni Azemom Bejtom,
1919. godine otpoceli su pobunu protiv Kraljevine Srba,Hrvata i
Slovenaca na mikrolokalitetu Drenica (Kosmet) i potom sve do 1941.
godine, posredstvom manjih teroristickih bandi (njihovi pripadnici su
nazivani Kacaci) izvodili su akte nasilja protiv maticne države. Ubrzo
posle kapitualcije i okupacije Kraljevine Jugoslavije od strane
nemackih i italijanskih fašista, Musolini je svojim Dekretom od 29.
juna 1941. godine uspostavio "Veliku Albaniju" u koju je uvrstio
tadašnju Albaniju, Kosovo i Metohiju, delove zapadne Makedonije i Crne
Gore. Više hiljada Albanaca je potom stupilo dobrovoljno u kvinsliške
oružane formacije. Posle kapitulacije fašisticke Italije (u septembru
1943) nemacki okupator iskoristio je džihadovski ekspanzionizam
Albanaca na Kosovu, tako što je inicirao obnavljanje "Prizrenske
Lige"12 i formirao 21. SS diviziju "Skenderbeg", ciji vojnicki sastav
su cinili Albanci.
S obzirom na to da je program obnovljene "Druge Prizrenske Lige"
prvenstveno predstavljao "verski pokret Muslimana ciji je osnovni
zadatak stvaranje verske države", pa tek onda etnicka albanska
organizacija,13
privukao je oko 12 000 albanskih fanatika da stupe u nemacku 21. SS
brdsku diviziju "Skenderbeg". Njena prva "vojna" akcija znacila
hapšenje i ubijanje 281 Jevrejina u Prištini a potom je izvela niz
masakara nad "nevernicima", medu kojima je posebno bio monstruozan u
selu Vanica na Cakoru u Crnoj Gori kada su njeni pripadnici zaklali 380
Srba, od toga 120 dece i opljackali i zapalili 300 kuca. Nasilje u ime
džihada koje su primenjivali pripadnici divizije "Skenderbeg" bilo je
rezultat verskih aktivnosti lidera "Druge prizrenske lige" (Džafer
Deva, Ali - beg Draga, Vehbi Frašeri, Bajazit Boljetin i drugi) a
posebno jerusalimskog muftije El Hadž Emin Huseina koji su isticali da
je stupanje Albanaca - muslimana u ovu diviziju njihova verska obaveza.
U jesen 1944. godine dok su partizanske jedinice oslobadale Kosmet od
nemackog okupatora, Sokolj Dobroši, uticajni lider albanske
ekstremisticke organizacije "Bali kombetar" ("Nacionalni front") uputio
je proglas albanskom stanovništvu u kome ga je pozvao na sveti rat -
džihad protiv komunizma14, posle cega ( u novembru 1944) je otpocela
oružana pobuna Albanaca na Kosmetu, neutralisana u februaru 1945.
godine.
Evidentni su pouzdani brojni dokazi o tome da pripreme albanskih
ekstremista na Kosmetu u periodu od 1990. do 1997. godine i
teroristicko nasilje koje su ispoljili 1998. godine i koje danas traje,
odišu džihadom. Ova suštinska cinjenica u vezi sa terorizmom albanskih
ekstremista koja je istovremeno i uskladeno propagirana u Republici
Albaniji i na Kosmetu, pravovremeno i valjano su registrovali
odbrambeni subjekti i snage Srbije i Jugoslavije, ali i mnogi
medunarodni nevladini i vladini subjekti i o tome, izmedu ostalog,
obaveštavali javnost15.
Radi se jednostavno o tome da su osnaživanju teroristicke "OVK" na
teritoriji Albanije u razdoblju od 1992. do 1997. godine višestruko
doprineli medunarodni "Islamski oružani pokret" i islamisticka
teroristicka mreža "Al Kaida" na celu sa Osamom Bin Ladenom. Naime,
Islamski oružani pokret je u aprilu 1995. godine na Narodnoj arapskoj
islamskoj konferenciji (PAIS) u glavnom gradu Sudana, Kartumu, formirao
nove komande za vodenje džihada na Balkanu (odluceno je da za "odbranu
islama" u Bosni bude nadležna komanda sa sedištem u Teheranu, a da se
centar u Karaciju bavi organizovanjem "islamskih ratnika" u Albaniji,
ukljucujuci i Kosovo). Sa druge strane, raspolaže se proverenim
podacima o tome da je više hiljada Albanaca iz Srbije (sa Kosmeta) u
Albaniji, obezbedeni novcano i instruktorski od pripadnika "Al Kaide" i
državljana radikalnih islamista iz pojedinih islamskih zemalja završili
vojno-teroristicku obuku. Na ovakvu njihovu džihadovsku angažovanost
upozorio je tadašnji funkcioner albanske obaveštajne službe Fatos
Kljosi, izjavivši: "Kada je Bin Laden posetio Albaniju 1994. godine,
navodno na celu izdašne humanitarne akcije za pomoc siromašnim
Albancima i onima na Kosovu, on je u stvari oformio teroristicku mrežu
koja operiše iz Albanije, a regrutovao je i borce za sukobe na Kosovu
1999.godine". Tadašnji šef albanske diplomatije Paskal Miljo, u
intervjuu listu "Koha Jone" (avgust 1998) izjavio je da je "Albanija
postala stecište islamskih fundamentalista, koji, u saradnji sa
elementima u zemlji, ali i šire, žele da destabilizuju zemlju".
Ibrahim Rugova i Hašim Taci, voda teroristicke "OVK" negiraju bilo
kakvu povezanost sa mudžahedinima i Osamom Bin Ladenom a poznato je i
zašto - da bi odagnali sa sebe bilo kakvu sumnju Vašingtona. Medutim,
praksa ih argumentovano demantuje, jer su se pripadnici "OVK" obucavali
u kampovima koje vodi islamski voda Osama Bin Laden, pisao je
(4.5.1999) "Vašington post", pozivajuci se na izvore americkih
obaveštajnih službi. Prema izveštajima tih službi, Bin Laden je
finansirao "OVK" tako što je obucavao njene pripadnike u svojim
centrima razmeštenih u Albaniji i Avganistanu i što je pomogao "OVK" da
regrutuje islamske teroriste - pripadnike mudžahedina - za borbu protiv
Srbije16
Versko obeležje terorizma albanskih ekstremista na Kosmetu je
sistematski i na druge nacine ispoljavano. Tako je predsednik "Islamske
zajednice Kosova" dr Redžep Boja prilikom održavanja zajednicke molitve
(10. 7. 1998) sa hodžama, muftijama i imamima Kosmeta u Prištini
potencirao versku obavezu muslimana u ratu protiv Srba, odnosno posle
molitve, preko razglasnog uredaja džamije u centru Prištine, u podne,
emitovana je 30-minutna fafta - izdajnicima (Albancima islamske
veroispovesti lojalni Srbiji) i objave svetog rata Srbima. Naime,
Albanci su pozvani na džihad, isticane su pohvale teroristickoj "OVK" i
objavljen "opšti ustanak protiv Srba". Imajuci u vidu da u trenutku
kada je objavljena ovakva poruka džihada, iako su bande teroristicke
"OVK" brojale oko 20 000 terorista, prilican broj Albanaca je bio
lojalan maticnoj državi Srbiji. Zato ta poruka im je upucena s ciljem
da ih podseti i opomene na obavezu da uzmu ucešce u verskom terorizmu
protiv maticne "bezbožnicke" države. Takode u tom periodu, u
teroristickoj "OVK" se nalazilo više stotina tamnoputih mudžahedina
poznati kao "Avgani" 17 i pripadnika "bele Al Kaide" (muslimanski
fanatici iz Bosne), izmedu ostalog, organizovani u posebne
mudžahedinske jedinice18 a pojedine vode teroristickih bandi nadmeno su
isticali da vode džihad. Na primer, pripadnik teroristicke bande "OVK"
Bekim Mazreku u selu Klecka (Kosovo) gde je ubijeno i masakrirano
nekoliko desetina srpskih civila, istražnim organima vlasti Srbije je
izjavio:"Naši komandanti Fatmir Ljimaj, Gani Krasnici i Hisni Kiljaj
govorili su nam da svi Srbi moraju da budu ubijeni, pa ce naša
republika da bude najbolja država. Aslan Klecka bio je zadužen da nam
svaki dan kao šah drži molitve i uci nas da klanjamo. Govorio je da ce
svi Albanci posle proterivanja Srba biti najbolji muslimani i da
katolika medu Albancima više nece biti. Morace da budu muslimani ili
cemo i njih pobiti".
Aktuelni džihad albanskih ekstremista
Tokom 2001. godine, uz naglašeno angažovanje medunarodne zajednice a u
vezi sa stabilizacijom bezbednosnog i ukupnog stanja na Balkanu, kome
je terorizam albanskih ekstremista predstavljao najvecu pretnju,
pokrenute su i preduzete mnoge znacajne mere.19 Albanskim ekstremistima
u Srbiji i Makedoniji argumentovano im je stavljeno na znanje da
ljudska i kolektivna prava albanske etnicke zajednice u regionu nisu
ugrožena, da imaju mogucnost za demokratsko izražavanje svog
eventualnog nezadovoljstva po bilo kom pitanju i naravno, da ga na
civilizovan nacin otklanjaju i najzad, da ce eventualno posezanje za
terorizmom biti tretirano na nacin kako se postupa protiv nosilaca
ovakvog nasilja. Vode albanskih ekstremista suoceni sa ovakvom
realnošcu, umesto da se odreknu svoje verske i nasilnicke
zaslepljenosti i usmere svoju energiju u izgradnji i jacanju
meduetnicke tolerancijei poverenja, opredelili su se "Alahov put",
odnosno još cvršce su prigrlili teoriju o džihadu.
U stvari, reagovali su munjevito, jer Združene snage bezbednosti SRJ su
31. maja 2001. godine okoncale ulazak u Kopnenu zonu bezbednosti na
jugoistoku Srbije a oni su se 10. juna sastali i formirali novu
ilegalnu teroristicku organizaciju koju su nazvali "Nacionalni komitet
za odbranu i oslobodenje albanskih teritorija" ("NKOOAT"). Da bi
prikrili mesto gde je njeno sedište, s jedne strane, i da sebe prikažu
kao legitimni predstavnici svih Albanaca, sa druge strane, u zaglavlju
Platforme "NKOOAT" su zapisali "Debar - Tirana - Priština", a na njenom
kraju "Skoplje - Tirana - Priština"
Analiza sadržaja Platforme (obima je 10 stranica teksta i dostupna je
samo istaknutim albanskim ekstremistima,n.p.) teroristicke "NKOOAT"
pouzdano ukazuje na to da ovaj pamflet u potpunosti uvažava teoriju o
džihadu a time i na obim i nivo ugroženosti bezbednosti Zapadnog
Balkana. Prvo, u njoj je neistinito i tendenciozno prikazan društveni
položaj albanske nacionalne zajednice, jer se ocenjuje kao krajnje
nepovoljan ("Albanci su potlaceni, diskriminisani i izloženi genocidu i
1912. godine su im otete teritorije"), nesumnjivo s ciljem da pravdaju
vlastiti terorizam u produženom trajanju. Drugo, neosnovano se optužuje
promenjen (negativan) odnos Albanije prema terorizmu u susednim
zemljama ("mirotvorna politika skracene albanske države - Albanije je
slepi instrument strateških ciljeva velikih sila") i medunarodne
zajednice ("UNMIK zajedno sa mirovnim snagama Kfor-a ne samo da ne
uvažava istorijsko i prirodno pravo ponovnog ujedinjenja albanskih
teritorija vec nepravedno Kosovo tretira kao region SRJ").
Trece,odbacuje mogucnost rešavanja spornih pitanja mirnim putem
("albanska politika nece postici više od zablude u buducim sporovima i
obecanjima medunarodne zajednice politicki i tu bolno vidimo
okrvavljene ruke medunarodne politike na albanskim teritorijama pod
Makedonijom i ove na Istocnom Kosovu"). Cetvrto, osuduje i protivi se
ukljucivanju pripadnika bivših i aktuelnih albanskih ekstremisticko -
teroristickih organizacija u Makedoniji i na jugoistoku Srbije u
parlamentarne oblike politicke borbe radi rešavanja tzv. albanskog
pitanja (" bez presedana je cinjenica da se u svim krajevima, politicke
strukture ONA ukljucuju u politicki proces rešavanja problema Albanaca
unutar Makedonije..."). Peto, zagovara se oružano nasilje protiv
maticne države ciji realizator ce biti snažna vojna organizacija
("Komitet ne priznaje nijednu drugu vlast na svim albanskim
teritorijama, a pre svega na okupiranim... Komitet smatra da u
trenutnim uslovima samo beskompromisna oružana borba omogucava sigurnu
i definitivnu realizaciju nacionalnih težnji Albanaca...Osnovni zadatak
Komiteta je naoružavanje i formiranje snažne nacionalne armije").
Udarna pesnica "NKOOAT" samozvane teroristicke "ANA" krece se od 700 do
800 islamskih fanatika, kriminalaca, narkodilera, makroa... koji, radi
zavaravanja javnosti predstavljaju se kao cetiri divizije : "Adem
Jašari"(nadležna za izvodenje teroristickih dejstava na Kosmetu i
jugoistoku Srbije), "Skenderbeg" (Makedonija), "Uljcinj" (Crna Gora) i
"Camerija" (Grcka). Njihovo brojno stanje nedvosmisleno pokazuje da je
rec o kriminalno-teroristickim bandama koje niukom slucaju nisu
sposobne da izvode opsežne vojne operacije. Medutim kako ovo jezgro
cine okoreli teroristi nad kojima islamisticka teroristicka mreža "Al
Kaida" ima ogroman uticaj, ovaj kontigent albanskih terorista
predstavlja ozbiljna pretnja bezbednosti regionu, jer je u stanju da
izvodi raznovrsne akte nasilja. S tim u vezi, posebno treba imati u
vidu cinjenicu da je veliki deo albanskog stanovništva zaokupljen
navedenom idejom i programa ekstremista, radi cega postoji realna
mogucnost da se u odredenim okolnostima više hiljada naoružanih
Albanaca pridruži teroristickoj "ANA" i otpocnu sa primenom masovnog
oružanog nasilja protiv maticne države i pripadnika i sastava
medunarodnih mirovnih misija u regionu. Dakle, pretnja bezbednosti
Zapadnom Balkanu od albanskih terorista je evidentna.
Na istovetnost terorizma (islamski džihad) na Kosmetu, u Avganistanu,
Ceceniji, Saudijskoj Arabiji..., ali i višestruke povezanosti njegovih
aktera (pod okriljem teroristicke mreže Al Kaida), ukazuju i mnoge
druge cinjenice. Tako je predsednik Rusije Vladimir Putin, u izjavi za
vodece americke medije (11. 11. 2001) u Moskvi istakao da su cecenski
teroristi povezani sa Al Kaidom i da je samo na teritoriji Cecenije od
1995. godine prošlo obuku više od 2 000 terorista, koji su potom
ucestvovali u borbama na Kosovu, u Kašmiru, Sudanu i Avganistanu.
Povezanost albanskih terorista sa Al Kaidom je potvrdio i americki
sekretar za odbranu Donald Ramsfeld na sastanku sa ministrima odbrane
zemalja NATO u Briselu (19.12. 2001) rekavši da je "terorizam potucen u
Avganistanu i na Balkanu", pojasnivši kako su "u Bosni i na Kosovu
razbijene teroristicke celije Bin Ladena". S obzirom na to da su
albanski teroristi u prolece ove godine na suptilan nacin zapretili
Kforu i UNMIK-u na Kosmetu, a vode teroristicke "ANA" nasilje koje
izvode njeni pripadnici javno dovode u vezu sa džihadom, time je u
velikoj meri demantovan Donald Ramfsfeld u vezi sa "uništenim" celijama
Al Kaide na Balkanu. Na njihovu povezanost sa Al Kaidom je ukazao
zamenik direktora vašingtonskog Centra za strateška istraživanja Tomas
Anderson izjavivši (16.7.2002) za "Glas Amerike" da je Balkan postao
"pristupacan teren za teroristicke organizacije poput Al Kaide, zbog
dobro uhodanih aktivnosti medunarodnih kriminalaca, ali i cinjenice da
na tom prostoru ima mudžahedina obucavanih u logorima Al Kaide".
Istinitost ovakvog navoda je potvrdena u martu 2003. godine kada je
americki Stejt department uputio upozorenje UNMIK-u na Kosovu u kome se
navodi da su "zbog vojne intervencije protiv Iraka mogucne odmazde nad
americkim gradanima", kao i to da "postoji bojazan od akcija bombaša
samoubica".
Najzad, varvarizam albanskih terorista na Kosovu nad srpskim
pravoslavnim verskim objektima u prisustvu oko 50 000 medunarodnih
vojnika i policajaca, predstavlja još jedan veoma jak argument o
njihovoj džihadovskoj opredeljenosti i agresivnosti. Naime, oni su samo
u periodu od 20. juna do 20. avgusta 1999. godine, uništili 59
srednjevekovnih srpskih crkava i manastira, medu kojima su neki pod
zaštitom UNESKO-a i uništili i oštetili oko 150 parohijskih domova i
crkava novijeg datuma. Ovakav kulturni genocig su nastavili u narednom
periodu i traje danas20.
1 A. Sottile, Le terrorisme international, Reenel des Cours, 1938.
T.65. p. 91.
2 Kamion natovaren eksplozivom sa dvojicom terorista samoubica 12. maja
2003. godine u 10.00 casova se probio kroz ogradu i eksplodirao u
dvospratnoj zgradi lokalne administracije u gradu Znamenskoje u
Ceceniji. Poginulo je 59 i ranjeno više od 200 lica. Trideset i cetiri
osobe su poginule i ranjeno preko 200 u tri samoubilacka napada koji su
12. maja 2003. godine izveli pripadnici teroristicke mreže Al Kaida u
Rijadu, Saudijska Arabija. Napad su izveli sa tri automobila - bombe u
stambenim cetvrtima u Rijadu, gde uglavnom žive Amerikanci. Više od 30
ljudi je poginulo i veliki broj je ranjen 14. maja 2003. godine
prilikom samoubilackog napada koji je izvršila žena samoubica u mestu
Iliška - Jurt, nedaleko od Groznog u Ceceniji.
3 Dokument A - AC 160 -L.8, str. 4-4.
4 Na jugoistoku Srbije ubijen je jedan pripadnik Bezbednosno
informativne agencije i Žandarmerije Srbije i dva civila i teže ranjena
dva pripadnikia Žandarmerije a na Kosmetu su ubijena cetiri civila (tri
Albanca i Srbin) i ranjena pet civila (Srbi).
5 Teoriju o džihadu je uoblicio islamista Al Gazali (umro 1111.
godine), a operacionalizovao Sejid Kutb (1906 - 1966. godine, kada je
obešen zbog toga što je objašnjavao Kuran pozivajuci na gradanski rat u
sekularnom Egiptu). Bitne odrednice džihada (svetog rata ili rata u ime
vere) su: "Suština islamskog rata jeste borba za istinu, samo islam je
istina, a sve ostalo je laž", "Citav ljudski rod je cilj islamske vere,
citava zemljina kugla jeste polje njene akcije", "krajnji cilj islama
je uspostavljanje šerijatskog pravnog poretka u svetu", "samo agresijom
na potencijalne neprijatelje može se zaštititi najbolji i
najplemenitiji poredak na svetu", "nacija ne igra nikakvu ulogu, jer
jedini faktor, koji veže ljude jeste vera, tj. Islam", " svet se deli
na dar al islam (svet islama) i dar al harb (neislamski svet)", "svet
islama se sa ostalim svetom nalazi u stalnom ratu", dakle, trajan mir
sa stanovništvom drugih veroispovesti je nedopustivo, odnosno
"prihvatljiva su samo privremena primirja, kada su Muslimani nedovoljno
jaki za primenu oružanog nasilja", "Tek kad se pristane na kretanje u
rat, životom i imanjem svojim, može se videti ko je iskreni Musliman ko
se ne boji smrti, jer ga u raju ceka vecni život"... (M. Jeftic,
Savremeni džihad kao rat, Nova knjiga, Beograd, 1989)
6 Mihajlo Vujic, ministar spoljnih poslova Srbije o teroru Albanaca
obaveštava 16. avgusta 1903. godine Stojana Novakovica, srpskog
opunomocenog ministra u Petrogradu, sledece: "Karakteristicno je
pomenuti da su u ovoj godini Arnauti više nego ikada udarili na cast i
obraz žena i devojaka Srpkinja. A još je simptomaticnija pojava što ove
godine Arnauti, primer redak u analima arnautskih zlocina - udaraju na
srpske svetinje, crkve i manastire. Turska i ne haje za žalbe Srba" (V.
Đordevic, diplomatska prepiska Kraljevine Srbije, knjiga Prva, januar
1902, 1. jun 1904, Beograd 1933, strana 272).
7 Na Berlinskom kongresu (13.6. - 13.7. 1878) Srbija, Crna Gora i
Rumunija dobile su nezavisnost i teritorijalno proširenje, namesto tzv.
Sanstefanske Bugarske uspostavljene su autonomne Kneževina Bugarska i
Istocna Rumelija, a Austrougarska je dobila pravo na okupaciju Bosnu i
Hercegovinu.
8 "Depeša upucena Berlinskom kongresu napisana je u zgradi
Austrougarskog konzulata u Prizrenu, a pregledali su je prizrenski paša
i engleski konzul. Iz iste pošte odakle je telegram upucen, cetrdeset
Albanaca se obratilo pitanjem Sultanu, da li su oni njegovi podanici,
ili su prodati tudincima! A odgovoreno im je da su oni Alahovi i
Sultanovi, i niciji više, te da bi trebalo da ustanu na oružje. Ovakvo
raspoloženje Albanaca, Turci su vrlo vešto iskoristili. Dato im je
oružje i nagovoreni da se bore protiv prisajedinjenja Plava i Gusinja
Crnoj Gori.. Albanska težnja za autonomijom dobila je svoj izraz u
Prvoj Prizrenskoj ligi koja je ujedno postigla i efekat zaoštravanja
verskog fanatizma kod albanskih Muslimana i podstrekavanje na pljacke,
paljevine, nasilja kao i na ubistva 14 videnih Srba, uglednih
Prizrenaca, koje je 23. juna 1880. godine Kongra osudila na smrt"(P.
Dželetovic Ivanov, 21. SS-divizija Skenderbeg, Nova knjiga, Beograd,
1987, str. 20-21).
9 "Odluke Berlinskog kongresa 1878. godine izazvale su nacionalno
budenje kod izvesnog broja Albanaca. Trenutno stanje je najbolje
ilustrovao Albanac Stavro Škendi, koji je isticao da se do
Sanstefanskog mira nije znalo, niti moglo znati, niti je bilo jasno,
šta se stvarno zamišljalo pod pojmom Albanija, niti se taj pojam u to
doba mogao definisati. Tek posle ovih odluka kod vodeceg sloja Albanaca
pocinje da se budi i uobicava nacionalna svest, kao i težnja za
teritorijalnim oznacenjem Albanije" (Isto, str. 17).U leto 1912.
godine, Ismail Kemal-beg, vodeci albanski politicar u Carigradu, podneo
je Memorandum turskoj Vladi u kome je naveo da Albanci traže autonomiju
na teritoriji cetiri vilajeta (skadarski, kosovski, bitoljski i
janjinski). Turska je 4.9. 1912. godine prihvatila albanske zahteve,
cime je prvi put prihvacen geografsjki pojam "velika Albanija". Inace,
uz podršku Austrougarske i Italije, 28. novembra 1912. godine, u Valoni
je proglašeno osnivanje albanske države i obrazovana privremena vlada
sa Ismailom Kemalom na celu.
10 "U svih 16 clanova Statuta nigde se izricito ne pominju Albanci i
Albanija vec politicki subjekat saveza su jednostavno Muslimani! U
clanu 7. govori se o potrebi saveza sa "našim mucenicima zemljacima i
pripadnicima iste vere na Balkanu" dok se u poslednjem 16. clanu
napuštanje Saveza kvalifikuje kao otpadanje od islama. Ciljevi Saveza
obuhvataju odbranu teritorijalnog integriteta i borba protiv svake
vlasti, osim velike Porte (cl. 1) ocuvanja carskih prava Nj.V.Sultana
(cl.2) i nedopuštanje pristupa stanim trupama "u naš kraj" (cl. 6).
Zatim se istice da se ni po imenu ne prihvata Bugarska vlada (cl.6).
Ako Srbija ne bi dragovoljno vratila "okupiranio podrucje", protivu nje
bi se uputili dobrovoljacki odredi i ucinili krajnji napori, kako bi se
isposlovala predaja tih krajeva, a na isti nacin bi trebalo da se
postupi protiv Crne Gore (cl.6).
11 "Planetarni zamah džihadu, svetom muslimanskom ratu za Umu, dao je
Ajatolah Ruholah Homeini, verski voda iranske revolucije. Iz svetog
grada Koma, rasadnika islamske revolucije i predstojece borbe za
islamski Kalifat, Homeini upucuje nezaborvanu poruku, posle svrgavanja
Šaha: "Mi smo u ratu protiv nevernika. Ponesite ovu poruku sa vama. Ja
tražim od islamskih nacija, od svih muslimanskih armija i svih šefova
islamskih država, da se pridruže svetom ratu. Treba još puno
neprijatelja da se ubije, ili uništi. Džihad mora da trijumfuje "...
Omar Bakri Mohamed, voda pokreta "Al Muhadžirun" u Londonu, izmedu
ostalog, porucuje" Vaspostaviti kalifat, to jest jednu istinski
islamsku državu koja najzad okuplja sve MUslcimane pod jednom istom
vladom...", a egipatski predsednik Hosni Mubarak, koji je izbegao jedan
atentat u Adis Abebi 1997. godine, inspirisanog Osamom Bin Ladenom i
doktorom Ajmanom Al-Zavahirijem, vodu Al Kaide je okarakterissao
sledecim recima: "On želi da preuzme svet. On je megalomanijak" (Z.
Petrovic, Al Kaida, Evro, Beograd, 2002, str.5, 10, 11).
12 Druga Prizrenska liga je osnovana na inicijativu obaveštajne službe
fašisticke Nemacke 16. 9. 1943. godine u Prizrenu, s ciljem da se oko
njenog programa okupe svi Albanci radi oružane borbe protiv
pravoslavaca i komunista. Njen najistaknutiji predstavnik i ideolog
Džafer Deva je radi pridobijanja Albanca katolika za borbu protiv
Slovena javno isticao znacaj albanizma, medutim u krugu svojih vernih
podanika naglašavao je da je njegov osnovni cilj stvaranje islamske
države Albanije.
13 S. Hasani, Kosovo - istine i zablude, Centar za informacije i
publicitet, Zagreb, 1986, str.113.
14 Mnoge ilegalne organizacije albanskih terorista u komunistickoj
Jugoslaviji prilikom prijema novih clanova pridavale su veliki znacaj
džihadu jer su zahtevali od njih da polože zakletvu koja glasi: "Kunem
se u Kuran, na zastavu i krvlju heroja... da cu biti veran
organizaciji..."
15 U julu 1998. godine, informišuci o krvavim zbivanjima na Kosovu,
"Njujork tajms" je izmedu ostalog, naveo da su "mnogi borci OVK
religiozni Muslimani koji u svojim uniformama nose Kuran"
16 Francuski državljanin alžirskog porekla je za vreme sudenja, u
novembru 1998. godine u Tirani (bio je optužen za ubistvo jedne
Albnke), izjavio je da je "u Albaniji došao po naredenju Osame Bin
Ladena, sa zadatkom da mobiliše, naoruža i obuci 300 mudžahedina koji
bi se borili na Kosovu protiv Srbije. "
17 U noci izmedu 18. i 19. jul 1998. godine granicne jedinice Vojske
Jugoslavije su na jugoslovensko-albanskoj granici razbili bandu
teroristicke "OVK" jacine nekoliko stotinu terorista. Na osnovu analize
identifikacionih dokumenata ubijenih terorista, ustanovljeno je da su
njih 13 mudžahedini iz Jemena i Saudijske Arabije.
18 U selu Ramoc, opština Đakovica na Kosovu tokom leta 1998. godine u
sastav teroristicke "OVK" nalazile su se dve mudžahedinske jedinice, od
po petnaest studenata medresa iz Prištine, Skoplja, Tirane i pojedinih
arapskih zemalja. Jedan pripadnik teroristicke "OVK" je u vezi sa ovom
jedinicom, u svom dnevniku pod naslovom "Mudžahedini i Alahov put",
izmedu ostalog, je zapisao: "...spremni su da izvrše svaki zadatak i
spremni su da daju svoj život u borbi. Dolazak ovih iz medrese ima jak
odjek kod ovdašnjeg albanskog stanovništva i na jacanje sigurnosti u
islamsku veru" (M. Mijalkovski, Zlocini i zablude albanskig
separatista, NIC"Vojska", Beograd, 1999, str.135).
19 Pocetkom februara potpredsednik Vlade Srbije i predsednik
Koordinacionog tela vlada Srbije i SRJ za opštine Preševo, Bujanovac i
Medveda dr Nebojša Covic predstavio je javnosti "Program i plan za
rešavanje krize nastale delovanjem albanskih ekstremistickih grupa u
opštinama Bujanovac, Preševo i Medveda", koji je naišao na veoma
pozitivan odjek u medunarodnoj zajednici i potom u celini prihvacen kao
model za neutralisanje teroristickih bandi tzv. "OVPMB". Šefovi država
ili vlada zemalja jugoistocne Evrope su 22. februara na sastanku u
Skoplju usvojili Deklaraciju u kojoj su oštro osudili nasilje,
terorizam i ekstremizam, kao i sve druge aktivnosti kojima se
ugrožavaju mir i saradnja, te otežava povratak prognanih na Kosovu. U
periodu od 14. marta do 31. maja Združene snage bezbednosti SRJ su u
saradnji i sadejstvu sa KFOR-om posele Kopnenu zonu bezbednosti, ne
pruživši mogucnost bandama teroristicke "OVPBM" za primenu oružanog
nasilja. U avgustu, vlasti Makedonije i predstavnici etnickih Albanaca
u Ohridu su sklopili sporazum o mirnom rešavanju aktuelnog oružanog
sukoba izmedu bandi teroristicke "ONA" i makedonskih odbrambenih snaga.
Izmedu UNMIK-a i SRJ i Srbije je potpisan Zajednicki dokument, kojim je
dogovoreno adekvatno (u skladu sa rezolucijom SB OUN 1244) rešavanje
problema u srpskoj pokrajini Kosovo i Metohija. Konacno, 17. novembra
na Kosmetu su održani parlamentarni izbori, pod pretpostavkom da ce
doprineti obuzdavanju terorizma albanskih ekstremista.
20 U popodnevnim satima, 16. juna 2oo2. godine na seoskom groblju Staro
Gracko u opštini Lipljan, poginuo je Albanac - terorist, dok je
pokušavao da minira nadgrobne spomenike srpskih civila koje su pre
godinu ubili i potom masakrirali pripadnici jedne bande teroristicke
"OVK"
===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA je privatan, nezavisan i nelukrativan web site koji
se izdražava od volonterskog rada nekolicine entuzijasta.
Ukoliko vam se informacije koje ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA objavljuje dopadaju
bili bismo zahvalni da nas podržite bilo kojom finansijskim doprinosom
ili kroz reklamiranje na našem web site-u. Vaša pomoć biće upotrebljena
za još kvalitetnije selektiranje informacija, njihovo brže postavljanje
na site i, što smatramo možda i najvažnijim, prevodjenje
najkvalitetnijih tekstova i na druge jezike.
Za dinarske uplate: Rade Drobac- Postanska stedionica-, žiro račun br.
908-20001-18-8888-47712653
Za devizne uplate: Rade Drobac- Nacionalna [tedionica- Devizni ra~un
br.: 00-305-0002922.2
1. POSTAVITI PITANJE ODGOVORNOSTI ZA GENOCID NA KOSMETU - Dr Zoran
Vucinic, profesor medunarodnog prava na Fakultetu civilne odbrane u
Beogradu - 21. mart 2004.
2. UZROCI ALBANSKOG TERORIZMA - Prof. dr Milan Mijalkovski, Vojna
akademija Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore - April 2004. godine
=== 1 ===
POSTAVITI PITANJE ODGOVORNOSTI ZA GENOCID NA KOSMETU
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2004-03-22_1.html
Dr Zoran Vucinic
Beograd, 21. mart 2004. godine
(autor je profesor medunarodnog prava na Fakultetu civilne odbrane u
Beogradu)
Najnovije brutalno, dobro isplanirano i sinhronizovano izvedeno nasilje
od strane hordi kosmetskih Albanaca nad Srbima, Crnogorcima i drugim
nealbancima na Kosmetu, njihovom imovinom, grobljima i verskim
objektima, samo je finalni cin jednog kontinuiranog procesa etnickog
cišcenja u ovoj pokrajini kako bi se uklono svaki trag njihovog
prisustva na tom prostoru. Ako se sve ovo posmatra kroz prizmu
savremenog medunarodnog prava, onda se može reci da je naš narod u ovoj
pokrajini bio i još uvek ostao izložen fizickom i kulturnom genocidu.
Prema tom pravu, genocid je najteži zlocin protiv covecnosti koji se
vrši u nameri da se odredena nacionalna, verska, etnicka ili rasna
grupa delimicno ili potpuno fizicki (biološki) uništi. Fizicko
uništenje po pravilu prati i uništenje svega onoga što predstavlja
kulturno naslede napadnute grupe (kulturni genocid). Praksa potvrduje
da se takvo delo uvek unapred planira i da iza njega stoje dugorocni
ciljevi, odnosno odredena politicka orijentacija. U našem slucaju,
napadni objekat je prevashodno srpski i crnogorski narod, a namera je
da se njegovim uništenjem i proterivanjem, kao i uništenjem istorijskih
dokaza njegovog postojanja, Kosmet definitivno etnicki ocisti. Ona je
proizvod dobro poznate politicke orijentacije za nezavisnom albanskom
državom koja ima svoje dugo istorijsko trajanje.
Upravo zbog ovakvih svojih specificnosti, odgovornost za genocid je
višeslojna jer obuhvata njegove naredbodavace, organizatore,
podstrekace, saucesnike, kao i neposredne izvršioce bez obzira na
njihov društveni položaj, cime je negirano pravo na imunitet od
odgovornosti bilo kome od njih. Ona postoji cak i kada ovo delo nije
propisano u unutrašnjem zakonodavstvu, što mu daje univerzalni
karakter. Prema Konvenciji o sprecavanju i kažnjavanju zlocina genocida
iz 1948. godine, džave clanice su obavezne ne samo da kazne odgovorne
pojedince, vec i da sprece genocid u bilo kom njegovom propisanom
obliku, pa cak i u pokušaju.
Kada je rec o odgovornosti za genocid na Kosmetu, nesporno je da je ona
na strani albanskih politickih lidera koji apsolutno kontrolišu
sopstveni etnicki kompleks, ali i na strani onih medunarodnih faktora
koji su ih do sada podržavali i bez cije podrške se ovakve stvari ne bi
dogadale. Ona se može pripisati i UN jer su se sva ova zverstva
dešavala upravo u njihovom prisutvu, a na koja one nisu reagovale iako
su preuzele odgovornost za stanje na Kosmetu.. Cak ih je na to
indirektno obavezivala i pomenuta konvencija o genocidu koju su one
same donele i u istoj proklamovale da je genocid u suprotnosti sa
ciljevima zbog kojih one postoje i da je potrebna medunarodna saradnja
"da bi se covecanstvo oslobodilo jednog jako mrskog zla". Kao što
vidimo, takva saradnja u ovom slucaju je potpuno izostala. I konacno,
one su prekršile sopstvenu Povelju koja propisuje da su održanje
medunarodnog mira i bezbednosti jedan od njihovih glavnih ciljeva.
Petogodišnji dogadaji na Kosmetu koji su ovih dana kulminirali na
najstravicniji nacin, potvrduju da su UN još jednom pale na ispitu.
Odgovornost UN je utoliko veca što su mimo okvira utvrdenog Rezolucijom
1244 SB delovale u pravcu izgradnje državnih atributa Kosmeta izvan
ustavnog poretka Srbije, u sklopu cega je formiran i tzv. Kosovski
zaštitni korpus. Pojedini specijalni predstavnici GS UN cak su kljucno
doprineli oslobadanju ozloglašenih albanskih lidera uhapšenih po osnovu
naših poternica. Ni tužilaštvo tzv. haškog tribunala kao suda UN ne
reaguje jer navodno još uvek prikuplja dokaze o albanskim zlocinima nad
Srbima pre i za vreme NATO agresije na SRJ. Takvim ponašanjem UN su se
fakticki svrstale na albansku stranu pružajuci joj osnov za uverenje da
je nezavisnosti vec gotova stvar i da se može ostvariti i na zlocinacki
nacin.
S obzirom na sve ovo, naša država bi morala veoma odlucno da postavi
pitanje odgovornosti za genocid pred institucijama medunarodne
zajednice, koliko god se cinilo da je ono u ovom trenutku deplasirano
zbog oprecnih interesa kljucnih medunarodnih faktora. U prilog nam idu
stavovi nekih važnih zapadnih centara da se radi o etnickom cišcenju za
koje su odgovorni albanski lideri i konacno priznanje da je naš narod
žrtva albanskog terora, pa i izjava Solane da se vinovnici ovog
poslednjeg zlocina moraju izvesti pred lice pravde. Sve je više i
uticajnih medija u svetu koji stvari nazivaju pravim imenom.
Zato bi ove okolnosti morali iskoristiti kao svoju prednost i
maksimalnom diplomatskom ofanzivom uticati da se odgovorni za genocid,
bar na albanskoj strani, privedu pravdi. Na to imamo i moralnu obavezu
zbog žrtava ovih pogroma. Cak i kao clanica pomenute konvencije o
genocidu imamo pravo da se obratimo nadležnim organima UN "kako bi ovi,
prema Povelji UN, preduzeli mere koje smatraju odgovarajucim za
sprecavanje i kažnjavanje dela genocida". Indikativno je što ovu
mogucnost do sada nismo koristili, a trebalo je da je eksploatišemo sve
ove godine. Pošto je SCG prihvatila nadležnost nedavno konstituisanog
stalnog Medunarodnog krivicnog suda (osnovan u saradnji sa UN), postoji
pravna mogucnost da se i njemu poveri utvrdivanje odgovornosti za
genocid, jer je isti cinjen na našoj teritoriji i nakon stupanja na
snagu njegovog Statuta. On je naša šansa s obzirom da nam je
suspendovan suverenitet u ovoj pokrajini koja je formalno pod
protektoratom UN.
Ovo pitanje je od izuzetne važnosti i zato na ovom planu treba istrajno
delovati, cak i ako se medunarodni faktori tome budu protivili. U
svakom slucaju argumenti su na našoj strani. Uostalom, kada smo mi bili
u pitanju i u nizu drugih situacija oni su tvrdili da im je stalo do
pravde i medunarodnopravnog poretka. Neka to potvrde i sada. Ako su za
iste stvari naši bivši lideri u Hagu, onda takva sudbina ne sme da
mimoide ni albanske. U suprotnom, izjave o njihovoj odgovornosti ostace
samo farsa i podloga za novi haos na Balkanu.
=== 2 ===
UZROCI ALBANSKOG TERORIZMA
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/izbor/terorizam/2004-06-08.html
Pukovnik Prof. dr Milan Mijalkovski
Vojna akademija Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore -
Beograd, april 2004. godine
Poznat i priznat pravnik Antoni Sotil zapoceo je svoja predavanja na
Akademiji za medunarodno pravo u Hagu 1938. godine recima: "Jacanje
teroristicih aktivnosti tokom poslednjih godina dovelo je do toga da
terorizam postane jedna od najaktuelnijih problema današnjice".1
Uporedenje bitnih obeležja terorizma iz tog perioda i na pocetku ovog
veka omogucava da se formuliše sledeca ocena: terorizam danas
predstavlja jednu od najvecih pretnji bezbednosti i miru medunarodnoj
zajednici. Ovo, pre svega zato što višestruka medusobna povezanost
aktera terorizma ima za posledicu to, da prostorno ne ogranicava
njihovo nasilje samo na jednu državu ili region, neposrednu žrtvu sve
cešce napadaju upotrebom specificnog "oružja", odnosno teroristima
samoubica2 i opsežno se pripremaju da upotrebe oružje za masovno
uništavanje.
Imajuci u vidu poznatu cinjenicu o tome da se društveni problemi
najuspešnije rešavaju identifikacijom i otklanjanjem njihovih uzroka,
iskrsava nezaobilazno pitanje: da li medunarodnoj zajednici nije poznat
(ovaj) najefikasniji nacin odbrane od terorizma ili jeste, ali nije u
stanju da se njime koristi? Brojni i raznovrsni, promenljivi,
otklonjivi, delimicno otklonjivi ili neotklonjivi i, posebno,
specificni uzroci terorizma za svaku mikrolokaciju (državu), koji se
nacelno mogu razvrstati na objektivne i subjektivne, odgovor na pitanje
cine veoma komplikovanim. S tim u vezi, pomenimo to da Ad hoc Komitet
OUN za medunarodni terorizam3 na sednici od 19. marta do 6. juna 1979.
godine, iako nije uspeo da usaglasi stavove o definisanju terorizma,
složio se da njegovi uzroci mogu se razvrstati na spoljne i unutrašnje.
Kao spoljni su identifikovani kolonijalizam, agresija, strana
okupacija, mešanje u unutrašnje odnose država, politika ekspanzionizma
i hegemonije i ekonomska eksploatacija prirodnih izvora država, a kao
unutrašnji - rasizam, rasna diskriminacija, aparhejd, genocid,
neofašizam, povrede ljudskih prava, siromaštvo, beda i slicno
Evidentno je da su identifikovani uzroci u suprotnosti sa jednim
znacajnim obeležjem terorizma (amoralnost), jer mnogi od njih, posebno
unutrašnji, objektivno, za teroriste predstavljaju "opravadanje" za
brutalno nasilje kojim se služe radi postizanje politickog cilja. I
pored ovakvog cudnovatog alibija za teroristicko delovanje, analiza
savremenog terorizma u svetu ukazuje na to da preovladuju mikrolokacije
ovog brutalnog nasilja, gde nijedan od navedneih ili drugih objektivnih
uzroka nije pokrenuo njegove aktere da se koriste njime. Naprotiv,
uocava se da je glavni uzrok njihovog nasilnickog opredeljenja i
ispoljavanja subjektivna procena rukovodstva doticnog teroristickog
subjekta o tome da društveni status ljudskog kolektiviteta (etnicki,
socijalni, verski...) "u cije ime" primenjuju terorizm nije
zadovoljavajuce ureden (neadekvatan) u maticnoj državi ili medunarodnoj
zajednici i da ga je mogucno i "dopustivo" menjati primenom nasilja.
Takva procena iskljucuje mogucnost da se aktuelni ili potencijalni
problem razmotri i reši na legitiman (parlamentaran) nacin. U stvari,
takva psihopatološka procena prozizvodi brojne iluzije, prvenstveno u
smislu da je nasilje najcelishodnija, najbrža i jedino moguca
alternativa. Kada razrešenje spornog ili "spornog" problema otpocne
upotrebom terorizma, pocetni motivi terorista se osnažuju i iskrsavaju
novi, a sve to doprinosi eskalaciji sukoba.
Terorizam albanskih ekstremista protiv Srbije i Crne Gore i Makedonije
predstavlja karakteristican primer koji ukazuje na to da nema uporište
u tzv. opravdanim (objektivnim) uzrocima, vec da je rezultat
subjektivne (iluzorne) procene njihovih voda o tome da je "neko nekad
oteo teritoriju Albancima" i da je tu "nepravdu" mogucno otloniti ovom
vrstom nasilja. Dakako, istina je sasvim drugacija. Teritoriju na koju
pretenduju albanski ekstremisti nikada nije bila albanska, medutim, oni
u skladu sa teorijom o džihadu o stvaranju svestkog islamskog Kalifata,
opsednuti su iluzijom da ce terorizmom uspeti da razbiju teritorijalni
integritet maticne države i ustolice islamsku "veliku albansku državu"
na Balkanu, problem koji se razmatra u ovom radu.
Džihadovsko legitimisanje albanskih ekstremista
Albanski teroristi na Kosovu i podrucju opština Preševo i Bujanovac na
jugoistoku Srbije, u razdoblju januar - april 2003. godine, izveli su
oko 40 akata nasilja u kojima je ubijeno osam i ranjeno sedam lica4.
Voda teroristicke samozvane "Albanske nacionalne armije" ("ANA") Vigan
Gradica, u saopštenju za javnost (U februaru) izjavio je da "ANA deluje
na svim albanskim teritorijama koje uzurpiraju srpski, makedonski,
crnogorski i grcki pravoslavci", ponovo je podsetio na poznatu ali iz
nepoznatih razloga sistemstki zanemarivanu cinjenicu o tome da je
džihad5, a ne nepovoljan ili "nepodnošljiv" status albanske etnicke
zajednice na Balkanu, glavni uzrok njihovom nasilju, posredstvom kojeg
smatraju da mogu razbiti teritorijalni integritet maticne države i da
uspostave islamsku "veliku albansku državu" na Balkanu. Takode u
februaru 2003. godine, komercijalna (izraelska) obaveštajna agencija
"Debka", pozivajuci se na strucnjake za borbu protiv terorizma
upozorila je javnost na povezanost albanskih terorista sa udarnom
pesnicom planetarnog džihada - islamisticko teroristickom mrežom "Al
Kaidom". Prema "Debki", pripadnici "Al Kaide" se infiltriraju u Evropu
preko Kosova uz pomoc albanske mafije, odnosno krecu u Evropu iz
Cecenije i putuju brodovima preko Crnog mora do Bugarske, gde ih
docekuje albanska mafija i potom prebacuje u Skoplje i Prištinu. Tu ih
snabdeva falsifikovanim putnim ispravama i uskladištenim oružjem,
ukljucujuci i hemijsko oružje (otrov ricin) koje transportuje od
skrovišta do skrovišta, pre nego stigne na krajno odredište.
Teroristicki napadi na policijske stanice UNMIK-a u Prištini (21. marta
u 20.30 i 21 00 casova bacene su rucne bombe) izvršeni u trenutku kada
su mediji objavili pocetak vojne operacije SAD i Velike Britanije na
Irak, predstavljaju još jedno u nizu legitimisanja albanskih terorista
kao verni sledbenici džihada. U stvari, navedenim aktima nasilja
albanski teroristi su podsetili "neobaveštenu" medunarodnu zajednicu da
predstavljaju zvacajan kontingent "Al Kaide" u predvorju Evrope i
upozorili je na odlucnost da ce u narednom periodu izraženije
ugrožavati njenu bezbednost i interese na nacin kako su to cinili i
cine protiv Srbije i Crne Gore i Makedonije.
Pomenute cinjenice u vezi sa kljucnim uzrokom terorizma albanskih
ekstremista na Balkanu (Džihad) ukazuju na potrebu njegovog svestranog
obuhvata.To ce omoguciti da se otklone mnoge zablude koje su višestruko
pogodovale održavanju i sukcesivnom pojacavanju njihovog nasilja na
Balkanu. U stvari, stvorili bi se uslovi za eliminisanje ove,
nesdumnjivo, najvece pretnje bezbednosti i prosperitetu regiona.
Džihadom do tudih teritorija
U 14. veku srpska država, posebno u razdoblju vladavine cara Dušana,
obuhvatala je skoro ceo Balkan. Albanci ( zvali su se Arbanasi) pre
njenog uspostavljanja nisu bili organizovani u državnu zajednicu,
odnosno nisu imali granicama omedenu teritoriju, vec su bili rasštrkani
na pojedinim mikrolokacijama današnje severne Albanije. Turski agresor
je 1501. godine zauzeo Drac i time okupirao teritoriju današnje
Albanije. Osmanlijski okupator je zaveo vojno - spahijski terorski
sistem, odnosno dosledno primenjivao džihad pod geslom "islam ili
smrt", što je imalo za posledicu da najveci broj Albanaca prihvati
islam za svoju veru, dok su Srbi i Vlasi koji su cinili vecinu
stanovništva na prostoru izmedu Skadra i Draca odbili da se preveruju i
doživeli su genocid.
Islamizirani Albanci postali su pouzdani podanici turskom okupatoru u
svakom pogledu, posebno u vojno - terorskom. Naime, okupator je medu
njima regrutovao kontingente bašibozuka (turska neregularna vojska)
koje je angažovao za cinjenje najtežih zlocina (ubistva, silovanja i
pljacke) nad pravoslavnim civilima na Balkanu. Njihov zlocinacki
doprinos je nagradivao dodeljivanjem imanja ubijenih i prognanih
pravoslavaca na prostoru današnje Albanije, Makedonije i Srbije i
podsticao njihovo nadiranje (naseljavanjem) prema Epiru, Vardaru, Nišu
i Podgorici.
Sve izraženije slabljenje Turske imalo je za posledicu pojacavanja
terora nad srpskim stanovništvom na Balkanu. Tako je u razdoblju od
prvog srpsko-turskog rata (1876) do 1912. godine kada su Stara Srbija
(Kosmet) i Makedonija oslobodeni od turskog ropstva, sa tog prostora
oko 400 000 Srba bilo je prinudeno da pobegne6. Turski okupator
ocigledno svestan pocetka kraja svoje vladavine na Balkanu7, u dosluhu
sa autoritativnim Albancima, 23. maja 1878. godine u Prizrenu
organizovao je sastanak (skupštinu) na kome je prisustvovalo 300
delegata (Albanci i predstavnici muslimanskih veleposednika iz Bosne i
tadašnjeg Novopazarskog sandžaka). Ovaj skup predstavnika Muslimana na
Balkanu nazvan je Liga (Kongra), a zbog mesta gde je održan -
Prizrenska.
Evidentne su mnoge cinjenice koje ukazuju na to da je formiranje,
navodno albanske Lige u Prizrenu, u stvari, smišljena ujdurma turskog
okupatora (potpuno u skladu o teoriji o džihadu), kako bi uz podršku
svojih vernih podanika (Albanaca) produžio trajanje svoje okupacije na
Balkanu. Tako je "Odluka Kongrina - zborska - napisana u formi mauzara
(peticija) u dva primerka. Jedan je primerak odmah poslat turskom
Sultanu u Istanbulu, a drugi je bio namenjen Berlinskom kongresu8.
Nemacki naucnik dr Štuli u svom radu "Albansko pitanje 1875 - 1882"
ustanovljava da je rezultat zborovanja u Prizrenu bilo donošenje
Statuta (Kararname) politickog saveza albanskih predstavnika i Uputstva
(Talimat) datiranih od 5. do 17. juna 1878. godine. U najopštijem
smislu, sadržaj ovih dokumenata je proturski i panislamisticki, odnosno
(1) izražava odanost Albanaca Turskoj ("Liga ne priznaje nijednu drugu
državu kao svoju, sem Osmanlijske imperije"), dok se nacionalni
(albanski) karakter tek nazire ("Mi poslanici neumrlih heroja Severne
Albanije, Epira i Bosne, koji su spremni da proliju svoju krv za
Carstvo, naciju i domovinu izabrali smo Prizren za glavni grad naše
Lige"), (2) odiše verskom zaslepljenošcu (Liga osuduje za "neprijatelje
nacije i otadžbine" sve one koji rade na slabljenju osmanlijske vlasti
i "uznemiravanju zakonite gradane" imperije, zatim, Liga ce uz uzvišen
zakon Šerijata (islamski propis, verozakon ) braniti "cast i imanje
muslimanskih podrucja ako se budu pokoravali zakonima, "Ovu Ligu cemo
preneti na naše sinove unuke. I svaki onaj koji je napustio smatrace se
da je napustio vezu sa islamom. Na njega palo prokletstvo i prezir ovih
ostalih" i (3) iako se u dokumentima Lige nigde izricito ne pominju
Albanci i Albanija,9 vec se kao politicki subjekat identifikuju
Muslimani, s obzirom na to da se zahteva teritorijalna autonomija
Albanaca u okviru Turske koja bi obuhvatala prostor turskih vilajeta
(skadarski, kosovski, bitoljski i janjinski) u kojima su Albanci cinili
samo 44 odsto stanovništva, time su javno izražene teritorijalne
pretenzije prema susednim narodima. Vode albanskih ekstremista su u
narednom periodu (i danas) da bi zavarali hrišcanske narode i zemlje,
suksesivno i prilicno oprezno (lukavo) isticali versko obeležje
projekta o "neotudivim albanskim teritorijama" i nacina njegove
realizacije (terorizmom i oružanom pobunom), dok su u prvi plan
isticali nacionalno obeležje, odnosno ovakve svoje pretenzije promovišu
kroz zahtev za formiranje "Velike Albanije".
Sadržaji Programa i drugih dokumenata donetih 1878. godine prilikom
konstituisanja Prizrenske Lige, prividno albanski a u suštini proturski
i panislamisticki, predstavljaju izvorište nasilju koje albanski
ekstremisti od tada naovamo primenjuju protiv maticne države,
prvenstveno rukovodeni iluzijom da ce razbiti njen teritorijalni
integritet i obnoviti šerijatske vladavine na Balkanu, odnosno
uspostaviti islamsku "veliku" albansku državu u regionu. U stvari,
sadržaj tih dokumenata10 predstavljaju vernu kopiju teoriju o džihadu,
cinjenica koja omogucava da se uvidi zbog cega albanski ekstremisti vec
125 godina (od 1912. naovamo) kontinuirano se služe terorizmom koji
povremeno eskalira u oružanu pobunu. To je evidentno i danas, jer niko
ne ugrožava ljudska i manjinska prava albanske etnicke zajednice, ali
oni izvode teroristicke akte. Zanemarivanje ove kljucne cinjenice,
odnosno kljucnog uzroka terorizmu albanskih ekstremista ima za
posledicu da se pokušava neutralisati neadekvatnim merama , postignuti
rezultati u tom smislu su zanemarljivi i stvara utisak o njegovoj
"neuništivosti". Ukoliko ne bude uzet u obzir ovaj neoboriv argument,
to ce održavati i osnaživati iluzije albanskih ekstremista o tome da ce
u skladu sa teorijom o džihadu postici svoje politicke ciljeve -
uspostaviti na Balkanu islamsku šerijatsku državu kao deo takode,
iracionalnog islamskog projekta (Svetskog Kalifata)11. O verskom
fanatizmu albanskih ekstremista s ovim u vezi, dokaza je na pretek,
radi cega se prezentuju samo neki.
Višedecenijsko nasilje u ime džihada
Prvi ozbiljan pokušaj albanskih ekstemista da nasilno preotmu srpske
teritorije desio se u septembru 1913. godine, dakle samo godinu dana
posle oslobodenja Stare Srbije i Makedonije od osmanlijsko -
džihadovskog turskog okupatora. Naime, 1912/1913. godine Vlada Albanije
uz podršku Austrougarske naoružala je oko 20 000 Albanaca (bivši
pripadnici turske vojske) sa Kosova i iz Makedonije. Oni su 14.
septembra 1913. godine podigli oružanu pobunu na tom prostoru s ciljem
da izbiju na desnu obalu reke Vardar i zauzmu Kosovo (Vojska Kraljevine
Srbije je za nepun mesec dana razbila pobunjenike i proterala ih na
teritoriji Albanije).
Podstaknuti od Italije, albanski ekstremisti predvodeni Azemom Bejtom,
1919. godine otpoceli su pobunu protiv Kraljevine Srba,Hrvata i
Slovenaca na mikrolokalitetu Drenica (Kosmet) i potom sve do 1941.
godine, posredstvom manjih teroristickih bandi (njihovi pripadnici su
nazivani Kacaci) izvodili su akte nasilja protiv maticne države. Ubrzo
posle kapitualcije i okupacije Kraljevine Jugoslavije od strane
nemackih i italijanskih fašista, Musolini je svojim Dekretom od 29.
juna 1941. godine uspostavio "Veliku Albaniju" u koju je uvrstio
tadašnju Albaniju, Kosovo i Metohiju, delove zapadne Makedonije i Crne
Gore. Više hiljada Albanaca je potom stupilo dobrovoljno u kvinsliške
oružane formacije. Posle kapitulacije fašisticke Italije (u septembru
1943) nemacki okupator iskoristio je džihadovski ekspanzionizam
Albanaca na Kosovu, tako što je inicirao obnavljanje "Prizrenske
Lige"12 i formirao 21. SS diviziju "Skenderbeg", ciji vojnicki sastav
su cinili Albanci.
S obzirom na to da je program obnovljene "Druge Prizrenske Lige"
prvenstveno predstavljao "verski pokret Muslimana ciji je osnovni
zadatak stvaranje verske države", pa tek onda etnicka albanska
organizacija,13
privukao je oko 12 000 albanskih fanatika da stupe u nemacku 21. SS
brdsku diviziju "Skenderbeg". Njena prva "vojna" akcija znacila
hapšenje i ubijanje 281 Jevrejina u Prištini a potom je izvela niz
masakara nad "nevernicima", medu kojima je posebno bio monstruozan u
selu Vanica na Cakoru u Crnoj Gori kada su njeni pripadnici zaklali 380
Srba, od toga 120 dece i opljackali i zapalili 300 kuca. Nasilje u ime
džihada koje su primenjivali pripadnici divizije "Skenderbeg" bilo je
rezultat verskih aktivnosti lidera "Druge prizrenske lige" (Džafer
Deva, Ali - beg Draga, Vehbi Frašeri, Bajazit Boljetin i drugi) a
posebno jerusalimskog muftije El Hadž Emin Huseina koji su isticali da
je stupanje Albanaca - muslimana u ovu diviziju njihova verska obaveza.
U jesen 1944. godine dok su partizanske jedinice oslobadale Kosmet od
nemackog okupatora, Sokolj Dobroši, uticajni lider albanske
ekstremisticke organizacije "Bali kombetar" ("Nacionalni front") uputio
je proglas albanskom stanovništvu u kome ga je pozvao na sveti rat -
džihad protiv komunizma14, posle cega ( u novembru 1944) je otpocela
oružana pobuna Albanaca na Kosmetu, neutralisana u februaru 1945.
godine.
Evidentni su pouzdani brojni dokazi o tome da pripreme albanskih
ekstremista na Kosmetu u periodu od 1990. do 1997. godine i
teroristicko nasilje koje su ispoljili 1998. godine i koje danas traje,
odišu džihadom. Ova suštinska cinjenica u vezi sa terorizmom albanskih
ekstremista koja je istovremeno i uskladeno propagirana u Republici
Albaniji i na Kosmetu, pravovremeno i valjano su registrovali
odbrambeni subjekti i snage Srbije i Jugoslavije, ali i mnogi
medunarodni nevladini i vladini subjekti i o tome, izmedu ostalog,
obaveštavali javnost15.
Radi se jednostavno o tome da su osnaživanju teroristicke "OVK" na
teritoriji Albanije u razdoblju od 1992. do 1997. godine višestruko
doprineli medunarodni "Islamski oružani pokret" i islamisticka
teroristicka mreža "Al Kaida" na celu sa Osamom Bin Ladenom. Naime,
Islamski oružani pokret je u aprilu 1995. godine na Narodnoj arapskoj
islamskoj konferenciji (PAIS) u glavnom gradu Sudana, Kartumu, formirao
nove komande za vodenje džihada na Balkanu (odluceno je da za "odbranu
islama" u Bosni bude nadležna komanda sa sedištem u Teheranu, a da se
centar u Karaciju bavi organizovanjem "islamskih ratnika" u Albaniji,
ukljucujuci i Kosovo). Sa druge strane, raspolaže se proverenim
podacima o tome da je više hiljada Albanaca iz Srbije (sa Kosmeta) u
Albaniji, obezbedeni novcano i instruktorski od pripadnika "Al Kaide" i
državljana radikalnih islamista iz pojedinih islamskih zemalja završili
vojno-teroristicku obuku. Na ovakvu njihovu džihadovsku angažovanost
upozorio je tadašnji funkcioner albanske obaveštajne službe Fatos
Kljosi, izjavivši: "Kada je Bin Laden posetio Albaniju 1994. godine,
navodno na celu izdašne humanitarne akcije za pomoc siromašnim
Albancima i onima na Kosovu, on je u stvari oformio teroristicku mrežu
koja operiše iz Albanije, a regrutovao je i borce za sukobe na Kosovu
1999.godine". Tadašnji šef albanske diplomatije Paskal Miljo, u
intervjuu listu "Koha Jone" (avgust 1998) izjavio je da je "Albanija
postala stecište islamskih fundamentalista, koji, u saradnji sa
elementima u zemlji, ali i šire, žele da destabilizuju zemlju".
Ibrahim Rugova i Hašim Taci, voda teroristicke "OVK" negiraju bilo
kakvu povezanost sa mudžahedinima i Osamom Bin Ladenom a poznato je i
zašto - da bi odagnali sa sebe bilo kakvu sumnju Vašingtona. Medutim,
praksa ih argumentovano demantuje, jer su se pripadnici "OVK" obucavali
u kampovima koje vodi islamski voda Osama Bin Laden, pisao je
(4.5.1999) "Vašington post", pozivajuci se na izvore americkih
obaveštajnih službi. Prema izveštajima tih službi, Bin Laden je
finansirao "OVK" tako što je obucavao njene pripadnike u svojim
centrima razmeštenih u Albaniji i Avganistanu i što je pomogao "OVK" da
regrutuje islamske teroriste - pripadnike mudžahedina - za borbu protiv
Srbije16
Versko obeležje terorizma albanskih ekstremista na Kosmetu je
sistematski i na druge nacine ispoljavano. Tako je predsednik "Islamske
zajednice Kosova" dr Redžep Boja prilikom održavanja zajednicke molitve
(10. 7. 1998) sa hodžama, muftijama i imamima Kosmeta u Prištini
potencirao versku obavezu muslimana u ratu protiv Srba, odnosno posle
molitve, preko razglasnog uredaja džamije u centru Prištine, u podne,
emitovana je 30-minutna fafta - izdajnicima (Albancima islamske
veroispovesti lojalni Srbiji) i objave svetog rata Srbima. Naime,
Albanci su pozvani na džihad, isticane su pohvale teroristickoj "OVK" i
objavljen "opšti ustanak protiv Srba". Imajuci u vidu da u trenutku
kada je objavljena ovakva poruka džihada, iako su bande teroristicke
"OVK" brojale oko 20 000 terorista, prilican broj Albanaca je bio
lojalan maticnoj državi Srbiji. Zato ta poruka im je upucena s ciljem
da ih podseti i opomene na obavezu da uzmu ucešce u verskom terorizmu
protiv maticne "bezbožnicke" države. Takode u tom periodu, u
teroristickoj "OVK" se nalazilo više stotina tamnoputih mudžahedina
poznati kao "Avgani" 17 i pripadnika "bele Al Kaide" (muslimanski
fanatici iz Bosne), izmedu ostalog, organizovani u posebne
mudžahedinske jedinice18 a pojedine vode teroristickih bandi nadmeno su
isticali da vode džihad. Na primer, pripadnik teroristicke bande "OVK"
Bekim Mazreku u selu Klecka (Kosovo) gde je ubijeno i masakrirano
nekoliko desetina srpskih civila, istražnim organima vlasti Srbije je
izjavio:"Naši komandanti Fatmir Ljimaj, Gani Krasnici i Hisni Kiljaj
govorili su nam da svi Srbi moraju da budu ubijeni, pa ce naša
republika da bude najbolja država. Aslan Klecka bio je zadužen da nam
svaki dan kao šah drži molitve i uci nas da klanjamo. Govorio je da ce
svi Albanci posle proterivanja Srba biti najbolji muslimani i da
katolika medu Albancima više nece biti. Morace da budu muslimani ili
cemo i njih pobiti".
Aktuelni džihad albanskih ekstremista
Tokom 2001. godine, uz naglašeno angažovanje medunarodne zajednice a u
vezi sa stabilizacijom bezbednosnog i ukupnog stanja na Balkanu, kome
je terorizam albanskih ekstremista predstavljao najvecu pretnju,
pokrenute su i preduzete mnoge znacajne mere.19 Albanskim ekstremistima
u Srbiji i Makedoniji argumentovano im je stavljeno na znanje da
ljudska i kolektivna prava albanske etnicke zajednice u regionu nisu
ugrožena, da imaju mogucnost za demokratsko izražavanje svog
eventualnog nezadovoljstva po bilo kom pitanju i naravno, da ga na
civilizovan nacin otklanjaju i najzad, da ce eventualno posezanje za
terorizmom biti tretirano na nacin kako se postupa protiv nosilaca
ovakvog nasilja. Vode albanskih ekstremista suoceni sa ovakvom
realnošcu, umesto da se odreknu svoje verske i nasilnicke
zaslepljenosti i usmere svoju energiju u izgradnji i jacanju
meduetnicke tolerancijei poverenja, opredelili su se "Alahov put",
odnosno još cvršce su prigrlili teoriju o džihadu.
U stvari, reagovali su munjevito, jer Združene snage bezbednosti SRJ su
31. maja 2001. godine okoncale ulazak u Kopnenu zonu bezbednosti na
jugoistoku Srbije a oni su se 10. juna sastali i formirali novu
ilegalnu teroristicku organizaciju koju su nazvali "Nacionalni komitet
za odbranu i oslobodenje albanskih teritorija" ("NKOOAT"). Da bi
prikrili mesto gde je njeno sedište, s jedne strane, i da sebe prikažu
kao legitimni predstavnici svih Albanaca, sa druge strane, u zaglavlju
Platforme "NKOOAT" su zapisali "Debar - Tirana - Priština", a na njenom
kraju "Skoplje - Tirana - Priština"
Analiza sadržaja Platforme (obima je 10 stranica teksta i dostupna je
samo istaknutim albanskim ekstremistima,n.p.) teroristicke "NKOOAT"
pouzdano ukazuje na to da ovaj pamflet u potpunosti uvažava teoriju o
džihadu a time i na obim i nivo ugroženosti bezbednosti Zapadnog
Balkana. Prvo, u njoj je neistinito i tendenciozno prikazan društveni
položaj albanske nacionalne zajednice, jer se ocenjuje kao krajnje
nepovoljan ("Albanci su potlaceni, diskriminisani i izloženi genocidu i
1912. godine su im otete teritorije"), nesumnjivo s ciljem da pravdaju
vlastiti terorizam u produženom trajanju. Drugo, neosnovano se optužuje
promenjen (negativan) odnos Albanije prema terorizmu u susednim
zemljama ("mirotvorna politika skracene albanske države - Albanije je
slepi instrument strateških ciljeva velikih sila") i medunarodne
zajednice ("UNMIK zajedno sa mirovnim snagama Kfor-a ne samo da ne
uvažava istorijsko i prirodno pravo ponovnog ujedinjenja albanskih
teritorija vec nepravedno Kosovo tretira kao region SRJ").
Trece,odbacuje mogucnost rešavanja spornih pitanja mirnim putem
("albanska politika nece postici više od zablude u buducim sporovima i
obecanjima medunarodne zajednice politicki i tu bolno vidimo
okrvavljene ruke medunarodne politike na albanskim teritorijama pod
Makedonijom i ove na Istocnom Kosovu"). Cetvrto, osuduje i protivi se
ukljucivanju pripadnika bivših i aktuelnih albanskih ekstremisticko -
teroristickih organizacija u Makedoniji i na jugoistoku Srbije u
parlamentarne oblike politicke borbe radi rešavanja tzv. albanskog
pitanja (" bez presedana je cinjenica da se u svim krajevima, politicke
strukture ONA ukljucuju u politicki proces rešavanja problema Albanaca
unutar Makedonije..."). Peto, zagovara se oružano nasilje protiv
maticne države ciji realizator ce biti snažna vojna organizacija
("Komitet ne priznaje nijednu drugu vlast na svim albanskim
teritorijama, a pre svega na okupiranim... Komitet smatra da u
trenutnim uslovima samo beskompromisna oružana borba omogucava sigurnu
i definitivnu realizaciju nacionalnih težnji Albanaca...Osnovni zadatak
Komiteta je naoružavanje i formiranje snažne nacionalne armije").
Udarna pesnica "NKOOAT" samozvane teroristicke "ANA" krece se od 700 do
800 islamskih fanatika, kriminalaca, narkodilera, makroa... koji, radi
zavaravanja javnosti predstavljaju se kao cetiri divizije : "Adem
Jašari"(nadležna za izvodenje teroristickih dejstava na Kosmetu i
jugoistoku Srbije), "Skenderbeg" (Makedonija), "Uljcinj" (Crna Gora) i
"Camerija" (Grcka). Njihovo brojno stanje nedvosmisleno pokazuje da je
rec o kriminalno-teroristickim bandama koje niukom slucaju nisu
sposobne da izvode opsežne vojne operacije. Medutim kako ovo jezgro
cine okoreli teroristi nad kojima islamisticka teroristicka mreža "Al
Kaida" ima ogroman uticaj, ovaj kontigent albanskih terorista
predstavlja ozbiljna pretnja bezbednosti regionu, jer je u stanju da
izvodi raznovrsne akte nasilja. S tim u vezi, posebno treba imati u
vidu cinjenicu da je veliki deo albanskog stanovništva zaokupljen
navedenom idejom i programa ekstremista, radi cega postoji realna
mogucnost da se u odredenim okolnostima više hiljada naoružanih
Albanaca pridruži teroristickoj "ANA" i otpocnu sa primenom masovnog
oružanog nasilja protiv maticne države i pripadnika i sastava
medunarodnih mirovnih misija u regionu. Dakle, pretnja bezbednosti
Zapadnom Balkanu od albanskih terorista je evidentna.
Na istovetnost terorizma (islamski džihad) na Kosmetu, u Avganistanu,
Ceceniji, Saudijskoj Arabiji..., ali i višestruke povezanosti njegovih
aktera (pod okriljem teroristicke mreže Al Kaida), ukazuju i mnoge
druge cinjenice. Tako je predsednik Rusije Vladimir Putin, u izjavi za
vodece americke medije (11. 11. 2001) u Moskvi istakao da su cecenski
teroristi povezani sa Al Kaidom i da je samo na teritoriji Cecenije od
1995. godine prošlo obuku više od 2 000 terorista, koji su potom
ucestvovali u borbama na Kosovu, u Kašmiru, Sudanu i Avganistanu.
Povezanost albanskih terorista sa Al Kaidom je potvrdio i americki
sekretar za odbranu Donald Ramsfeld na sastanku sa ministrima odbrane
zemalja NATO u Briselu (19.12. 2001) rekavši da je "terorizam potucen u
Avganistanu i na Balkanu", pojasnivši kako su "u Bosni i na Kosovu
razbijene teroristicke celije Bin Ladena". S obzirom na to da su
albanski teroristi u prolece ove godine na suptilan nacin zapretili
Kforu i UNMIK-u na Kosmetu, a vode teroristicke "ANA" nasilje koje
izvode njeni pripadnici javno dovode u vezu sa džihadom, time je u
velikoj meri demantovan Donald Ramfsfeld u vezi sa "uništenim" celijama
Al Kaide na Balkanu. Na njihovu povezanost sa Al Kaidom je ukazao
zamenik direktora vašingtonskog Centra za strateška istraživanja Tomas
Anderson izjavivši (16.7.2002) za "Glas Amerike" da je Balkan postao
"pristupacan teren za teroristicke organizacije poput Al Kaide, zbog
dobro uhodanih aktivnosti medunarodnih kriminalaca, ali i cinjenice da
na tom prostoru ima mudžahedina obucavanih u logorima Al Kaide".
Istinitost ovakvog navoda je potvrdena u martu 2003. godine kada je
americki Stejt department uputio upozorenje UNMIK-u na Kosovu u kome se
navodi da su "zbog vojne intervencije protiv Iraka mogucne odmazde nad
americkim gradanima", kao i to da "postoji bojazan od akcija bombaša
samoubica".
Najzad, varvarizam albanskih terorista na Kosovu nad srpskim
pravoslavnim verskim objektima u prisustvu oko 50 000 medunarodnih
vojnika i policajaca, predstavlja još jedan veoma jak argument o
njihovoj džihadovskoj opredeljenosti i agresivnosti. Naime, oni su samo
u periodu od 20. juna do 20. avgusta 1999. godine, uništili 59
srednjevekovnih srpskih crkava i manastira, medu kojima su neki pod
zaštitom UNESKO-a i uništili i oštetili oko 150 parohijskih domova i
crkava novijeg datuma. Ovakav kulturni genocig su nastavili u narednom
periodu i traje danas20.
1 A. Sottile, Le terrorisme international, Reenel des Cours, 1938.
T.65. p. 91.
2 Kamion natovaren eksplozivom sa dvojicom terorista samoubica 12. maja
2003. godine u 10.00 casova se probio kroz ogradu i eksplodirao u
dvospratnoj zgradi lokalne administracije u gradu Znamenskoje u
Ceceniji. Poginulo je 59 i ranjeno više od 200 lica. Trideset i cetiri
osobe su poginule i ranjeno preko 200 u tri samoubilacka napada koji su
12. maja 2003. godine izveli pripadnici teroristicke mreže Al Kaida u
Rijadu, Saudijska Arabija. Napad su izveli sa tri automobila - bombe u
stambenim cetvrtima u Rijadu, gde uglavnom žive Amerikanci. Više od 30
ljudi je poginulo i veliki broj je ranjen 14. maja 2003. godine
prilikom samoubilackog napada koji je izvršila žena samoubica u mestu
Iliška - Jurt, nedaleko od Groznog u Ceceniji.
3 Dokument A - AC 160 -L.8, str. 4-4.
4 Na jugoistoku Srbije ubijen je jedan pripadnik Bezbednosno
informativne agencije i Žandarmerije Srbije i dva civila i teže ranjena
dva pripadnikia Žandarmerije a na Kosmetu su ubijena cetiri civila (tri
Albanca i Srbin) i ranjena pet civila (Srbi).
5 Teoriju o džihadu je uoblicio islamista Al Gazali (umro 1111.
godine), a operacionalizovao Sejid Kutb (1906 - 1966. godine, kada je
obešen zbog toga što je objašnjavao Kuran pozivajuci na gradanski rat u
sekularnom Egiptu). Bitne odrednice džihada (svetog rata ili rata u ime
vere) su: "Suština islamskog rata jeste borba za istinu, samo islam je
istina, a sve ostalo je laž", "Citav ljudski rod je cilj islamske vere,
citava zemljina kugla jeste polje njene akcije", "krajnji cilj islama
je uspostavljanje šerijatskog pravnog poretka u svetu", "samo agresijom
na potencijalne neprijatelje može se zaštititi najbolji i
najplemenitiji poredak na svetu", "nacija ne igra nikakvu ulogu, jer
jedini faktor, koji veže ljude jeste vera, tj. Islam", " svet se deli
na dar al islam (svet islama) i dar al harb (neislamski svet)", "svet
islama se sa ostalim svetom nalazi u stalnom ratu", dakle, trajan mir
sa stanovništvom drugih veroispovesti je nedopustivo, odnosno
"prihvatljiva su samo privremena primirja, kada su Muslimani nedovoljno
jaki za primenu oružanog nasilja", "Tek kad se pristane na kretanje u
rat, životom i imanjem svojim, može se videti ko je iskreni Musliman ko
se ne boji smrti, jer ga u raju ceka vecni život"... (M. Jeftic,
Savremeni džihad kao rat, Nova knjiga, Beograd, 1989)
6 Mihajlo Vujic, ministar spoljnih poslova Srbije o teroru Albanaca
obaveštava 16. avgusta 1903. godine Stojana Novakovica, srpskog
opunomocenog ministra u Petrogradu, sledece: "Karakteristicno je
pomenuti da su u ovoj godini Arnauti više nego ikada udarili na cast i
obraz žena i devojaka Srpkinja. A još je simptomaticnija pojava što ove
godine Arnauti, primer redak u analima arnautskih zlocina - udaraju na
srpske svetinje, crkve i manastire. Turska i ne haje za žalbe Srba" (V.
Đordevic, diplomatska prepiska Kraljevine Srbije, knjiga Prva, januar
1902, 1. jun 1904, Beograd 1933, strana 272).
7 Na Berlinskom kongresu (13.6. - 13.7. 1878) Srbija, Crna Gora i
Rumunija dobile su nezavisnost i teritorijalno proširenje, namesto tzv.
Sanstefanske Bugarske uspostavljene su autonomne Kneževina Bugarska i
Istocna Rumelija, a Austrougarska je dobila pravo na okupaciju Bosnu i
Hercegovinu.
8 "Depeša upucena Berlinskom kongresu napisana je u zgradi
Austrougarskog konzulata u Prizrenu, a pregledali su je prizrenski paša
i engleski konzul. Iz iste pošte odakle je telegram upucen, cetrdeset
Albanaca se obratilo pitanjem Sultanu, da li su oni njegovi podanici,
ili su prodati tudincima! A odgovoreno im je da su oni Alahovi i
Sultanovi, i niciji više, te da bi trebalo da ustanu na oružje. Ovakvo
raspoloženje Albanaca, Turci su vrlo vešto iskoristili. Dato im je
oružje i nagovoreni da se bore protiv prisajedinjenja Plava i Gusinja
Crnoj Gori.. Albanska težnja za autonomijom dobila je svoj izraz u
Prvoj Prizrenskoj ligi koja je ujedno postigla i efekat zaoštravanja
verskog fanatizma kod albanskih Muslimana i podstrekavanje na pljacke,
paljevine, nasilja kao i na ubistva 14 videnih Srba, uglednih
Prizrenaca, koje je 23. juna 1880. godine Kongra osudila na smrt"(P.
Dželetovic Ivanov, 21. SS-divizija Skenderbeg, Nova knjiga, Beograd,
1987, str. 20-21).
9 "Odluke Berlinskog kongresa 1878. godine izazvale su nacionalno
budenje kod izvesnog broja Albanaca. Trenutno stanje je najbolje
ilustrovao Albanac Stavro Škendi, koji je isticao da se do
Sanstefanskog mira nije znalo, niti moglo znati, niti je bilo jasno,
šta se stvarno zamišljalo pod pojmom Albanija, niti se taj pojam u to
doba mogao definisati. Tek posle ovih odluka kod vodeceg sloja Albanaca
pocinje da se budi i uobicava nacionalna svest, kao i težnja za
teritorijalnim oznacenjem Albanije" (Isto, str. 17).U leto 1912.
godine, Ismail Kemal-beg, vodeci albanski politicar u Carigradu, podneo
je Memorandum turskoj Vladi u kome je naveo da Albanci traže autonomiju
na teritoriji cetiri vilajeta (skadarski, kosovski, bitoljski i
janjinski). Turska je 4.9. 1912. godine prihvatila albanske zahteve,
cime je prvi put prihvacen geografsjki pojam "velika Albanija". Inace,
uz podršku Austrougarske i Italije, 28. novembra 1912. godine, u Valoni
je proglašeno osnivanje albanske države i obrazovana privremena vlada
sa Ismailom Kemalom na celu.
10 "U svih 16 clanova Statuta nigde se izricito ne pominju Albanci i
Albanija vec politicki subjekat saveza su jednostavno Muslimani! U
clanu 7. govori se o potrebi saveza sa "našim mucenicima zemljacima i
pripadnicima iste vere na Balkanu" dok se u poslednjem 16. clanu
napuštanje Saveza kvalifikuje kao otpadanje od islama. Ciljevi Saveza
obuhvataju odbranu teritorijalnog integriteta i borba protiv svake
vlasti, osim velike Porte (cl. 1) ocuvanja carskih prava Nj.V.Sultana
(cl.2) i nedopuštanje pristupa stanim trupama "u naš kraj" (cl. 6).
Zatim se istice da se ni po imenu ne prihvata Bugarska vlada (cl.6).
Ako Srbija ne bi dragovoljno vratila "okupiranio podrucje", protivu nje
bi se uputili dobrovoljacki odredi i ucinili krajnji napori, kako bi se
isposlovala predaja tih krajeva, a na isti nacin bi trebalo da se
postupi protiv Crne Gore (cl.6).
11 "Planetarni zamah džihadu, svetom muslimanskom ratu za Umu, dao je
Ajatolah Ruholah Homeini, verski voda iranske revolucije. Iz svetog
grada Koma, rasadnika islamske revolucije i predstojece borbe za
islamski Kalifat, Homeini upucuje nezaborvanu poruku, posle svrgavanja
Šaha: "Mi smo u ratu protiv nevernika. Ponesite ovu poruku sa vama. Ja
tražim od islamskih nacija, od svih muslimanskih armija i svih šefova
islamskih država, da se pridruže svetom ratu. Treba još puno
neprijatelja da se ubije, ili uništi. Džihad mora da trijumfuje "...
Omar Bakri Mohamed, voda pokreta "Al Muhadžirun" u Londonu, izmedu
ostalog, porucuje" Vaspostaviti kalifat, to jest jednu istinski
islamsku državu koja najzad okuplja sve MUslcimane pod jednom istom
vladom...", a egipatski predsednik Hosni Mubarak, koji je izbegao jedan
atentat u Adis Abebi 1997. godine, inspirisanog Osamom Bin Ladenom i
doktorom Ajmanom Al-Zavahirijem, vodu Al Kaide je okarakterissao
sledecim recima: "On želi da preuzme svet. On je megalomanijak" (Z.
Petrovic, Al Kaida, Evro, Beograd, 2002, str.5, 10, 11).
12 Druga Prizrenska liga je osnovana na inicijativu obaveštajne službe
fašisticke Nemacke 16. 9. 1943. godine u Prizrenu, s ciljem da se oko
njenog programa okupe svi Albanci radi oružane borbe protiv
pravoslavaca i komunista. Njen najistaknutiji predstavnik i ideolog
Džafer Deva je radi pridobijanja Albanca katolika za borbu protiv
Slovena javno isticao znacaj albanizma, medutim u krugu svojih vernih
podanika naglašavao je da je njegov osnovni cilj stvaranje islamske
države Albanije.
13 S. Hasani, Kosovo - istine i zablude, Centar za informacije i
publicitet, Zagreb, 1986, str.113.
14 Mnoge ilegalne organizacije albanskih terorista u komunistickoj
Jugoslaviji prilikom prijema novih clanova pridavale su veliki znacaj
džihadu jer su zahtevali od njih da polože zakletvu koja glasi: "Kunem
se u Kuran, na zastavu i krvlju heroja... da cu biti veran
organizaciji..."
15 U julu 1998. godine, informišuci o krvavim zbivanjima na Kosovu,
"Njujork tajms" je izmedu ostalog, naveo da su "mnogi borci OVK
religiozni Muslimani koji u svojim uniformama nose Kuran"
16 Francuski državljanin alžirskog porekla je za vreme sudenja, u
novembru 1998. godine u Tirani (bio je optužen za ubistvo jedne
Albnke), izjavio je da je "u Albaniji došao po naredenju Osame Bin
Ladena, sa zadatkom da mobiliše, naoruža i obuci 300 mudžahedina koji
bi se borili na Kosovu protiv Srbije. "
17 U noci izmedu 18. i 19. jul 1998. godine granicne jedinice Vojske
Jugoslavije su na jugoslovensko-albanskoj granici razbili bandu
teroristicke "OVK" jacine nekoliko stotinu terorista. Na osnovu analize
identifikacionih dokumenata ubijenih terorista, ustanovljeno je da su
njih 13 mudžahedini iz Jemena i Saudijske Arabije.
18 U selu Ramoc, opština Đakovica na Kosovu tokom leta 1998. godine u
sastav teroristicke "OVK" nalazile su se dve mudžahedinske jedinice, od
po petnaest studenata medresa iz Prištine, Skoplja, Tirane i pojedinih
arapskih zemalja. Jedan pripadnik teroristicke "OVK" je u vezi sa ovom
jedinicom, u svom dnevniku pod naslovom "Mudžahedini i Alahov put",
izmedu ostalog, je zapisao: "...spremni su da izvrše svaki zadatak i
spremni su da daju svoj život u borbi. Dolazak ovih iz medrese ima jak
odjek kod ovdašnjeg albanskog stanovništva i na jacanje sigurnosti u
islamsku veru" (M. Mijalkovski, Zlocini i zablude albanskig
separatista, NIC"Vojska", Beograd, 1999, str.135).
19 Pocetkom februara potpredsednik Vlade Srbije i predsednik
Koordinacionog tela vlada Srbije i SRJ za opštine Preševo, Bujanovac i
Medveda dr Nebojša Covic predstavio je javnosti "Program i plan za
rešavanje krize nastale delovanjem albanskih ekstremistickih grupa u
opštinama Bujanovac, Preševo i Medveda", koji je naišao na veoma
pozitivan odjek u medunarodnoj zajednici i potom u celini prihvacen kao
model za neutralisanje teroristickih bandi tzv. "OVPMB". Šefovi država
ili vlada zemalja jugoistocne Evrope su 22. februara na sastanku u
Skoplju usvojili Deklaraciju u kojoj su oštro osudili nasilje,
terorizam i ekstremizam, kao i sve druge aktivnosti kojima se
ugrožavaju mir i saradnja, te otežava povratak prognanih na Kosovu. U
periodu od 14. marta do 31. maja Združene snage bezbednosti SRJ su u
saradnji i sadejstvu sa KFOR-om posele Kopnenu zonu bezbednosti, ne
pruživši mogucnost bandama teroristicke "OVPBM" za primenu oružanog
nasilja. U avgustu, vlasti Makedonije i predstavnici etnickih Albanaca
u Ohridu su sklopili sporazum o mirnom rešavanju aktuelnog oružanog
sukoba izmedu bandi teroristicke "ONA" i makedonskih odbrambenih snaga.
Izmedu UNMIK-a i SRJ i Srbije je potpisan Zajednicki dokument, kojim je
dogovoreno adekvatno (u skladu sa rezolucijom SB OUN 1244) rešavanje
problema u srpskoj pokrajini Kosovo i Metohija. Konacno, 17. novembra
na Kosmetu su održani parlamentarni izbori, pod pretpostavkom da ce
doprineti obuzdavanju terorizma albanskih ekstremista.
20 U popodnevnim satima, 16. juna 2oo2. godine na seoskom groblju Staro
Gracko u opštini Lipljan, poginuo je Albanac - terorist, dok je
pokušavao da minira nadgrobne spomenike srpskih civila koje su pre
godinu ubili i potom masakrirali pripadnici jedne bande teroristicke
"OVK"
===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA je privatan, nezavisan i nelukrativan web site koji
se izdražava od volonterskog rada nekolicine entuzijasta.
Ukoliko vam se informacije koje ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA objavljuje dopadaju
bili bismo zahvalni da nas podržite bilo kojom finansijskim doprinosom
ili kroz reklamiranje na našem web site-u. Vaša pomoć biće upotrebljena
za još kvalitetnije selektiranje informacija, njihovo brže postavljanje
na site i, što smatramo možda i najvažnijim, prevodjenje
najkvalitetnijih tekstova i na druge jezike.
Za dinarske uplate: Rade Drobac- Postanska stedionica-, žiro račun br.
908-20001-18-8888-47712653
Za devizne uplate: Rade Drobac- Nacionalna [tedionica- Devizni ra~un
br.: 00-305-0002922.2
(english / italiano)
Dal Comitato Internazionale per la Difesa di Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM)
1. Aperta la fase della "autodifesa" di Milosevic:
- Tapuskovic on the rights of Milosevic and notice how to watch
the opening speech
2. Come volevasi dimostrare:
IMPOSTO A MILOSEVIC UN AVVOCATO "DIFENSORE" CHE LAVORA PER LA ACCUSA
- una nota di Michael Parenti
- l'articolo di Michael Scharf (consulente legale di Madeleine
Albright ed autore dello "Statuto" del "Tribunale") apparso sul
Washington Post del 29 agosto u.s., nel quale si chiarisce in maniera
persino sfacciata che le pressioni per imporre a Milosevic un
"avvocato d'ufficio" contro la sua volonta' provengono direttamente
dal New York e da Washington
3. DUE APPELLI:
- AD OFFRIRSI COME TRADUTTORI
- PER LA CAMPAGNA DI AUTOFINANZIAMENTO
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
1. Aperta la fase della "autodifesa" di Milosevic
Dopo la riapertura del "processo" politico contro Slobodan Milosevic
nell'aula dell'illegittimo "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia (ICTY), il
pubblico attende per domani la decisione ufficiale della "Corte" in
merito alla possibile assegnazione di un "avvocato d'ufficio".
Tale assegnazione avverrebbe in contrasto con la volonta'
dell'imputato - che notoriamente non riconosce alcuna legittimita' a
questo "Tribunale" - ed in contrasto anche con numerosi precedenti e
consuetudini giuridiche (vedi in proposito la memoria gia'
sottoscritta da numerose decine di giuristi ed avvocati di tutto il
mondo: http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm , e la intervista
all'avvocato Tapuskovic riportata di seguito). Con il pretesto di
tutelare la salute dell'imputato, di fatto, imponendogli un "avvocato
d'ufficio", la Corte otterrebbe il risultato - altamente desiderato
dalla "pubblica accusa" e dai veri sponsor del "Tribunale ad hoc",
cioe' i leader della NATO - di mettere il bavaglio a Milosevic,
impedendogli di gestire in prima persona il seguito della sua
"autodifesa".
La dichiarazione di apertura di Milosevic - un lungo, dettagliato
"J'accuse" contro i veri criminali che hanno squartato la Jugoslavia -
ha avuto luogo ieri ed oggi. La trascrizione integrale si dovrebbe
poter leggere a breve sul sito ufficiale dell'ICTY:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm
Non appena essa sara' disponibile (speriamo presto) provvederemo a
farne circolare ampi stralci; seguira', prima possibile, una
traduzione in lingua italiana.
Allo stesso sito - http://www.un.org/icty/ - si potra' fare
riferimento anche nel seguito, per seguire le udienze del processo
anche in audio/video (in formato RealPlayer).
(...)
=====
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Lun 30 Ago 2004 16:59:25 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Tapuskovic on the rights of Milosevic and notice how to watch
the opening speech
HAGUE TRIBUNAL: IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC?
Interview of Belgrade lawyer Branislav Tapuskovic (former Amicus
Curiae at the Hague process) to the German daily "junge Welt", 30
August 2004
By Anna Gutenberg
Q: The ICTY Registrar recently asked you whether you would agree to be
on the list of potential lawyers to be imposed on Mr. Milosevic. Were
you surprised that the judges reintroduced that issue after Mr.
Milosevic successfully defended himself during the Prosecution case?
Or did you have some other thoughts on the matter?
A: Yes, I was surprised, because, if Slobodan Milosevic is ill, even
if he had had a counsel all the time, the trial could not have gone on
as long as the illness lasted. The proposal of the Prosecution to use
a video-link is senseless: a video link cannot make an ill person
process-capable.
Q: Why did you refuse?
A: I have respected the provision of Article 21, point 4/d of the
Statute of the ICTY, according to which every defendant has the
guaranteed right TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
PERSON.
Q: I remember the occasions when the judges treated you harshly
whenever you put forward the important facts during the testimony of
prosecution witnesses. They once accused you of defending Mr.
Milosevic. Can you comment on that?
A: I did not see it that way. My duty in particular was to insist on
releasing evidence that came out of the exhibits I was receiving from
the Prosecution. It was really not my problem to worry about how the
Judges treated me.
Q: What do you think about the argument that an accused can be too ill
to present his case, but fit enough to stand trial? Is that common?
A: About the accused's health condition, only physicians can decide on
that. And, in my opinion, that has to be obligatory for the court. If
the physicians conclude that Slobodan Milosevic is ill, unfit to
defend himself, and cannot be present in the court, then there can be
no trial at all. Simply, in that case the Prosecution does not have a
case.
Q: Critical voices say that imposing counsel on Mr. Milosevic is an
attempt to prevent him from presenting his facts and witnesses.
Comment, please.
A: The trial cannot be valid if Slobodan Milosevic does not present his
evidence.
Q: What do you think about the fact that former US Secretary of State
M. Albright was visiting the ICTY on the very day in early July when
the judges accepted the possibility of imposing counsel?
A: One can only guess, but my position has always been that politics
must not influence the work of any court.
Q: Thank you very much.
Den Artikel finden Sie unter:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/08-30/018.php
(c) Junge Welt 2004
http://www.jungewelt.de
***********************************************************
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
==================
ALL WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO BE AT THE HAGUE ON 31 August AND 1 September
2004 CAN WATCH THE HISTORIC OPENING SPEECH OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC VIA
INTERNET.
Everything you have to do is to go to the tribunal's web site:
www.un.org/icty
and to choose the proper link on the main page (video or audio,
English, French or Serbian channel - in all cases you need the
freeware called Real Player, that can be also downloaded from the
Internet).
***********************************************************
THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm
SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/
*********************************************************
*************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
www.icdsm.org
slobodavk@ yubc. net
**************************************************************
In the struggle US/NATO vs. People which is going on at The Hague,
US/NATO is represented by 1300 employees fed every year with 100.000 $
per person. People is represented by Slobodan Milosevic alone, armed
only with truth and with your support!
NOW is the last moment for full mobilization of all our political,
intellectual and financial potentials to prevent the worse and to
decisively help People and Slobodan Milosevic to win the battle for
truth.
ICDSM has to set up an effective information center at The Hague to
prevent criminal injustices and to promote, in closest interaction
with President Milosevic and with the small team of his assistants,
his struggle for truth, to bring his numerous important witnesses
before the press and to show the mass people's support.
SO - ACT NOW - DON'T LET THE TRUTH BE SILENCED!
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Secretary of ICDSM,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
Please send us your donations and engage in organizing fundraising.
*************************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora
(Cuba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
===========
2. Come volevasi dimostrare:
IMPOSTO A MILOSEVIC UN AVVOCATO "DIFENSORE" CHE LAVORA PER LA ACCUSA
Vi siete mai chiesti come mai, se i giudici dell'Aia nutrono tanta
preoccupazione per le condizioni di salute di Milosevic, non hanno mai
preso alcun serio provvedimento in materia durante tutta la fase della
"accusa", che e' durata per due anni e mezzo?
Vi siete mai chiesti come mai i giudici dell'Aia hanno aspettato
proprio adesso, l'inizio della fase della "difesa", per imporre a
Milosevic un "avvocato d'ufficio" per "tutelare la sua salute" - come
richiesto dalla Del Ponte?
Se della salute di Milosevic vogliamo parlare - piuttosto che non
della illegittimita' del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia - diciamo allora
che numerosi precedenti e consuetudini giuridiche giustificano
piuttosto la richiesta dell'IMMEDIATO RILASCIO dell'imputato, per
consentirgli di curarsi.
Su questa ennesima scandalosa vicenda della quale si rende
responsabile il "Tribunale ad hoc" si vedano di seguito:
- una nota di Michael Parenti (vedi anche la precedente, tradotta in
italiano su:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/93 )
- la memoria gia' sottoscritta da un centinaio di giuristi ed avvocati
di tutto il mondo (vedi anche l'elenco provvisorio delle adesioni su:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
- l'articolo di Michael Scharf, consulente legale di Madeleine
Albright ed autore dello "Statuto" del "Tribunale", apparso sul
Washington Post del 29 agosto u.s., nel quale si chiarisce in maniera
persino sfacciata che le pressioni per imporre a Milosevic un
"avvocato d'ufficio" contro la sua volonta' provengono direttamente
dal New York e da Washington.
Nel frattempo, la trascrizione della dichiarazione preliminare di
Milosevic, enunciata il 31 agosto ed il 1 settembre, non e' stata
ancora pubblicata sul sito del "Tribunale". Mentre le agenzie di
stampa battono dispacci tendenziosi, disinformativi o persino
sarcastici, all'opinione pubblica viene negato il testo del discorso
di Milosevic, almeno finche' la questione non si sara' "raffreddata"...
Come sempre, come da 15 anni a questa parte, come per tutti gli altri
discorsi pubblici e dichiarazioni di Milosevic.
(a cura del coord. tecnico di ICDSM Italia)
---
From : "Michael Parenti"
To : "ICDSM Italia"
Date : Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:47:37 -0700
Subject : Milosevic and his illness
Dear Friends at ICDSM Italia and other interested parties:
I wish to reiterate and amplify a point I made in an earlier
correspondence to you:
If President Milosevic is too ill to carry out his own defense and
needs to have a court appointed lawyer, as the Hague ICTY insists,
then he is too ill to continue to stand trial.
One right of any defendent is to be able to participate in the
preparation of his own case. Indeed, it is not only a right but an
essential consideration for the defense. Even if the ICTY appoints a
lawyer--whose political awareness and legal competence may leave much
to be desired--President Milosevic would still be obliged to play a
strenuously active preparatory role.
And he would have the additional difficulty of not only confronting
the Court but wrestling with the court appointed lawyer whose ability
and determination to make the strongest case is not assured. In other
words, the appointment of a lawyer will not ease Milosevic's burden
but only add to it--which may be one reason the ICTY is pushing for
such an appointment.
The converse is also true. If President Milosevic is well enough to
stand trial and take on the additional burden of tutoring a court
appointed lawyer, then he is obviously well enough to argue his own
case.
Given the time constraints imposed on Milosevic, it would be easier
for him to make his own defense (as he has been doing with much
brilliant success) than to attempt to guide and tutor a court
appointed lawyer regarding the many particulars of the case, even a
lawyer who might be willing to make a sincere effort.
In sum, the court cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that
President Milosevic is too sick to plead his own case yet well enough
to continue to be subjected to the grueling challenge of a public trial.
Solidarietà
Michael Parenti
ICDSM USA
---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Gio 2 Set 2004 11:44:05 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: URGENT - HAGUE: Imposition of International Dictatorship
HAGUE: IMPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL DICTATORSHIP
NATO/US/UN "Tribunal" at The Hague decided today to impose a counsel
on Slobodan Milosevic against his will.
This way this para-judicial creation overran the Nazi court which
tried Dimitrov and Apartheid court which tried Mandela.
The decision was made immediately after the opening speech of
President Milosevic, which was the most concentrated presentation of
arguments and historical facts that totally annulled the NATO
anti-Serbian war propaganda.
This speech also announced the President Milosevic's strategy - to
beat the false indictments by proving the real guilt of those who
broke-up, bombed and abolished the glorious European nation, Yugoslavia.
This is another aggressive crime against this country and its people,
against the International Law and against freedom and sovereignty of
peoples.
At the same time, this is a total denial of the whole international
system of human rights protection.
Brutal force imposes its own "international law" to silence, convict
and eliminate each political opponent or freedom fighter. This new
"law" is an art of punishing innocent.
Our struggle enters a new phase - phase of open struggle against
international dictatorship which has absolutely no scrupules.
Our struggle, which is people's struggle, remains a struggle for
freedom. In our struggle, truth remains our strongest weapon.
Our main slogan and our imminent goal is:
FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC!
RAISE YOUR VOICE NOW!
LAUNCH A MOST POWERFUL ACTION NOW!
The open dictatorship legitimizes all forms of resistance!
SLOBODA/ICDSM
2nd September 2004-09-02
*****************************************************************
COMPARE YOURSELF THE ARGUMENTS:
ARGUMENTS OF JUSTICE AND LOW THROUGH THE VOICE OF 100 INTERNATIONAL
LAWYERS AND LAW PROFESSORS AND
POLITICAL ARGUMENTS OF THE EMPIRE THROUGH THE VOICE OF MICHAEL SCHARF,
ALBRIGHT'S LEGAL ADVISER AND THE AUTHOR OF ICTY STATUTE.
****************************************************************
IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT
(...)
[ SEE THE WHOLE DOCUMENT AND SIGNATURES AT:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm ]
**********************************************************
The Washington Post
August 29, 2004 Sunday
Final Edition
SECTION: Outlook; B02
LENGTH: 1413 words
HEADLINE: Making a Spectacle of Himself;
Milosevic Wants a Stage, Not the Right to Provide His Own Defense
BYLINE: Michael P. Scharf
Almost everyone knows the old legal saying: "He who represents himself
has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer." The trial of
former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic suggests a related adage: "A
judge who permits a rogue leader to represent himself in an
international war crimes trial is just as misguided."
On Tuesday, Milosevic's trial -- more than two years old and counting
-- is scheduled to resume before the International Criminal Tribunal
in The Hague.
The opening act of the trial's new phase will be the judges'
announcement of their decision on whether to allow Milosevic to
continue acting as his own lawyer.
At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding
judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that "under international law, the
defendant has a right to counsel, but he also has a right not to have
counsel."
Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic trial can
be traced back to that erroneous ruling.
The decision has caused the trial to drag on twice as long as
anticipated.
Because of concerns about Milosevic's high blood pressure (240 over
120), the judges have had to scale back the length and frequency of
the proceedings to ensure that the former leader is not "tried to
death." As a result, the trial takes place only three times a week as
opposed to the standard five; the number of hours per day has been
reduced from eight to four; and there are frequent lengthy recesses to
allow the defendant-lawyer to regain his strength. These delays have
taken their toll on justice. Judge May recently died of cancer and a
replacement had to be found; witness memories are fading; and the
international community is losing interest.
The judges have given Milosevic wider latitude than an ordinary
defendant or lawyer. Normally, the accused addresses the court only
when he takes the stand to give testimony, and he must take an oath to
tell the truth.
Moreover, he is limited to offering evidence that is relevant to the
charges, and is subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. By
acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial with
an 18-hour-long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality
video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by
the 1999 NATO bombing campaign.
As his own defense counsel, Milosevic has been able to treat the
witnesses, prosecutors and judges in a manner that would earn ordinary
defense counsel a citation or incarceration for contempt of court. In
addition to regularly making disparaging remarks about the court and
browbeating witnesses, Milosevic pontificates at length during
cross-examination of every witness, despite repeated warnings from the
bench. Milosevic, who spends his nights at the tribunal's detention
center, has no incentive to heed the judges' admonitions.
Milosevic's caustic defense strategy is unlikely to win him an
acquittal, but it isn't aimed at the court of law in The Hague. His
audience is the court of public opinion back home in Serbia, where the
trial is a top-rated TV show and Milosevic's standing continues to rise.
Opinion polls have reported that 75 percent of Serbs do not feel that
Milosevic is getting a fair trial, and 67 percent think that he is not
responsible for any war crimes. "Sloba Hero!" graffiti is omnipresent
on Belgrade buses and buildings. Last December, he easily won a seat
in the Serbian parliament in a national election.
In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the U.N. Security Council
set three objectives: first, to educate the Serbian people, who were
long misled by Milosevic's propaganda, about the acts of aggression,
war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime;
second, to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and
other top leaders and disclosing the ways in which the Milosevic
regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit atrocities; and third, to
promote political catharsis while enabling Serbia's newly elected
leaders to distance themselves from the repressive policies of the
past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to represent himself has
seriously undercut these aims.
May felt he had no choice in the matter because the tribunal's legal
charter stated that the defendant has the right "to defend himself in
person or through legal assistance of his own choosing." But some
experts -- and I'm including myself -- are now arguing that May got
the law wrong.
The language from the Yugoslavia tribunal statute originally comes
from a human rights treaty known as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. The negotiating record of the
International Covenant indicates that the drafters' concern was with
effective representation, not self-representation. In other words, the
drafters felt that a defendant should have a right to either be
represented by a lawyer or to represent himself; they did not state
that each defendant must be asked to choose between the two. Unlike
Britain and the United States, most countries of the world do not
allow criminal defendants to represent themselves under any
circumstances, and this has been deemed consistent with international
law by the European Court of Human Rights.
Even if May was correct in his reading of the law as providing a right
to self-representation, he was wrong to treat that right as absolute.
As authority for his position, May cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1975
ruling in Feratta v. California, which held that there was a
fundamental right to self-representation in U.S. courts. But the high
court also added a caveat, which May overlooked, stating that "a right
of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the
courtroom." U.S. appellate courts have subsequently held that the
right of self-representation is subject to exceptions -- such as when
the defendant acts in a disruptive manner, when self-representation
interferes with the dignity of the proceedings or when the issues in
the case are too complex for a defendant to represent himself
adequately.
Milosevic's antics and poor health have repeatedly disrupted the
trial, justifying appointment of counsel to represent him in court for
the remainder of the proceedings. There's precedent for taking such a
step: In the trial of former Serbian paramilitary leader Vojislav
Seselj, the Yugoslavia tribunal required Seselj -- over his objection
-- to accept "stand-by counsel," ready to step in as soon as the
defendant became disruptive or the issues became too complex.
In a sense, the tribunal has already appointed standby counsel for
Milosevic in the guise of Stephen Kay and the other amicus ("friends
of the court") counsel. While not bound to follow the defendant's
directives, their job has been to ensure that legal arguments favoring
the defense are presented to the judges. It would be a small step to
transform the amicus counsel into a full-blown defense team, and
instruct it to represent Milosevic for the rest of the trial. The
lawyers are already intimately familiar with the case and are willing
to take on such a role. And unlike Milosevic, they will be bound to
play by the rules.
If, on the other hand, the tribunal rules that Milosevic still has a
right to represent himself, the precedent will affect other
international cases.
Saddam Hussein, whose war crimes trial is set to begin later this
year, will be able to argue that he, too, has a right to represent
himself before the Iraqi Special Tribunal.
If Hussein were allowed to follow Milosevic's playbook -- using the
unique opportunity of self-representation to launch daily attacks
against the legitimacy of the proceedings and the U.S. invasion of
Iraq -- this would seriously undermine the goal of fostering
reconciliation between the Iraqi Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. The
historic record developed by such a trial would forever be questioned.
And the trial would transform Hussein and his subordinates into
martyrs, potentially fueling violent opposition to the new Iraqi
government.
Justice demands that Milosevic and Hussein be given fair trials. That
can best be guaranteed by appointing distinguished counsel to defend
them, not by permitting them to act as their own lawyers.
Author's e-mail:
michael.scharf@...
Michael Scharf is professor of law and director of the Frederick K.
Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland. His latest book is "Slobodan Milosevic on Trial" (Continuum).
========
3. RINNOVIAMO I NOSTRI DUE APPELLI:
AD OFFRIRSI COME TRADUTTORI
La battaglia per la difesa di Milosevic non va sottovalutata.
Essa ha un valore strategico, e non solo etico, in quanto puo'
avere conseguenze importanti per tutte le altre battaglie
internazionaliste del movimento contro la guerra.
Infatti, con il processo-farsa contro Milosevic, le grandi potenze
imperialiste vogliono creare un precedente. Esse vogliono avere
mano libera in futuro nelle loro decisioni sugli assetti del pianeta;
vogliono avere formalmente riconosciuta la facolta' di stabilire
ad arbitrio quali guerre scatenare, contro chi e con quali mezzi;
esse vogliono garantirsi la impunita' su tutti i propri crimini
di guerra, e si arrogano la facolta' di giudicare e condannare -
anche formalmente, non solo mediaticamente - le loro stesse
vittime... condannandole persino al risarcimento dei danni causati
da loro stesse, con le loro guerre imperialiste!
Dopo Milosevic, potrebbe essere la volta di Saddam; e non
illudiamoci: la "guerra preventiva e permanente" non finisce certo
in Iraq. Ma intanto, i crimini di Pancevo (1999) o di Falluja (2004)
chi li dovrebbe giudicare? Il "tribunale" dell'Aia si e' ostinatamente
rifiutato di aprire qualsivoglia procedimento per tutti quei crimini di
guerra, ben documentati, commessi dalla NATO nella primavera del
1999, in spregio alle richieste formali e nonostante tutta la
documentazione pervenuta.
Dunque, dobbiamo impedire che la storia tragica e vergognosa di
questi anni in Jugoslavia sia scritta esclusivamente sulla base delle
"sentenze giudiziarie" dettate dai servizi di intelligence della NATO.
Per questo, noi possiamo essere di grande aiuto, in effetti.
Sara' sufficiente far circolare i testi di cio' che e' stato e verra'
detto in quell'aula. Ne' piu' ne' meno.
I giornalisti hanno evitato finora di fare cronaca sul "processo",
perche' non conviene ai loro datori di lavoro: percio' dobbiamo
pensarci noi.
E' necessario costituire subito una rete di persone disponibili
a TRADURRE DALL'INGLESE IN LINGUA ITALIANA. Ogni
giorno le pagine di nuovi verbali saranno decine e decine: si
trattera' di selezionarne una parte e di dividerci il lavoro di
traduzione e diffusione dei testi.
Affinche' tutti sappiano, e nessuno possa dire: "Io non sapevo".
Per contatti, per offrirsi volontari nel lavoro di traduzione:
segreteria: tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia@ libero. it
PER LA CAMPAGNA DI AUTOFINANZIAMENTO
Nello scontro che si sta svolgendo al "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, gli
interessi imperialisti della NATO sono rappresentati da uno staff di
1300 persone profumatamente pagate (circa 100mila dollari l'anno a
testa), mentre gli interessi della Jugoslavia e di tutti i suoi popoli
sono rappresentati dal solo Slobodan Milosevic, il quale dispone
esclusivamente dei poveri mezzi del suo comitato internazionale di
sostegno: l'ICDSM.
L'impresa cui deve far fronte Milosevic appare dunque titanica, ma non
puo' comunque essere abbandonata. Se pure essa avesse solo valore
testimoniale, tale valore sarebbe comunque inestimabile, poiche' si
tratta di testimoniare a proposito di almeno un decennio di
macchinazioni e crimini finalizzati alla distruzione di un paese
europeo, ovvero - nelle parole dello stesso Milosevic - finalizzati al
"capovolgimento degli esiti della Seconda Guerra Mondiale" nei
Balcani. Crimini e macchinazioni su cui nessun altro e' stato o sara'
mai intenzionato a fare chiarezza.
Senza mezzi finanziari, la difesa di Milosevic non ha chances.
Si valuta che sia indispensabile raccogliere diverse migliaia euro
ogni mese per far fronte a tutte le necessita' di assistenza legale,
di documentazione e di comunicazione.
La Sezione Italiana dell'ICDSM, ringraziando tutti quelli che
hanno finora contribuito alla campagna di autofinanziamento
(in Italia sono gia' state raccolte alcune migliaia di euro), chiede
che lo sforzo in tal senso prosegua, cosi' come sta proseguendo
in tutte le altre realta' nazionali.
Si badi bene:
NON ESISTONO ALTRE FONTI DI FINANZIAMENTO.
Una recente legge passata dal Parlamento serbo - che
in linea di principio avrebbe garantito una parziale copertura
delle spese - e' stata subito "congelata" in seguito alle
minacce occidentali. Una qualsivoglia campagna di finanziamento
su basi volontarie a Belgrado e' praticamente irrealizzabile:
a causa delle scelte estremistiche, in senso neoliberista, del regime
instaurato il 5 ottobre 2000 la situazione sociale e' disastrosa, la
disoccupazione dilaga, i salari sono da fame, chi ha i soldi per
mangiare li tiene ben stretti e non rischia certo la galera (o peggio:
vedi le torture in carcere nella primavera 2003, durante la
cosiddetta "Operazione Sciabola") in attivita' politiche o di
solidarieta' a favore di Milosevic, che viene tuttora demonizzato
dai media locali - oramai tutti in mano a societa' occidentali,
soprattutto tedesche - esattamente come da noi.
I nuovi ricchi votano i partiti filo-occidentali e di destra, e
preferiscono che Milosevic marcisca in carcere, insieme alla
loro cattiva coscienza. A tutti deve essere infine chiaro - se ancora
ci fosse bisogno di ripeterlo - che al di la' delle menzogne
giornalistiche non esiste e non e' mai esistito alcun "tesoro
nascosto" di Milosevic, e che il nostro impegno per la sua
difesa e' insostituibile oltreche' indispensabile.
Contribuite dunque e fate contribuire, attraverso il
*** Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
Dal Comitato Internazionale per la Difesa di Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM)
1. Aperta la fase della "autodifesa" di Milosevic:
- Tapuskovic on the rights of Milosevic and notice how to watch
the opening speech
2. Come volevasi dimostrare:
IMPOSTO A MILOSEVIC UN AVVOCATO "DIFENSORE" CHE LAVORA PER LA ACCUSA
- una nota di Michael Parenti
- l'articolo di Michael Scharf (consulente legale di Madeleine
Albright ed autore dello "Statuto" del "Tribunale") apparso sul
Washington Post del 29 agosto u.s., nel quale si chiarisce in maniera
persino sfacciata che le pressioni per imporre a Milosevic un
"avvocato d'ufficio" contro la sua volonta' provengono direttamente
dal New York e da Washington
3. DUE APPELLI:
- AD OFFRIRSI COME TRADUTTORI
- PER LA CAMPAGNA DI AUTOFINANZIAMENTO
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
1. Aperta la fase della "autodifesa" di Milosevic
Dopo la riapertura del "processo" politico contro Slobodan Milosevic
nell'aula dell'illegittimo "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia (ICTY), il
pubblico attende per domani la decisione ufficiale della "Corte" in
merito alla possibile assegnazione di un "avvocato d'ufficio".
Tale assegnazione avverrebbe in contrasto con la volonta'
dell'imputato - che notoriamente non riconosce alcuna legittimita' a
questo "Tribunale" - ed in contrasto anche con numerosi precedenti e
consuetudini giuridiche (vedi in proposito la memoria gia'
sottoscritta da numerose decine di giuristi ed avvocati di tutto il
mondo: http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm , e la intervista
all'avvocato Tapuskovic riportata di seguito). Con il pretesto di
tutelare la salute dell'imputato, di fatto, imponendogli un "avvocato
d'ufficio", la Corte otterrebbe il risultato - altamente desiderato
dalla "pubblica accusa" e dai veri sponsor del "Tribunale ad hoc",
cioe' i leader della NATO - di mettere il bavaglio a Milosevic,
impedendogli di gestire in prima persona il seguito della sua
"autodifesa".
La dichiarazione di apertura di Milosevic - un lungo, dettagliato
"J'accuse" contro i veri criminali che hanno squartato la Jugoslavia -
ha avuto luogo ieri ed oggi. La trascrizione integrale si dovrebbe
poter leggere a breve sul sito ufficiale dell'ICTY:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm
Non appena essa sara' disponibile (speriamo presto) provvederemo a
farne circolare ampi stralci; seguira', prima possibile, una
traduzione in lingua italiana.
Allo stesso sito - http://www.un.org/icty/ - si potra' fare
riferimento anche nel seguito, per seguire le udienze del processo
anche in audio/video (in formato RealPlayer).
(...)
=====
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Lun 30 Ago 2004 16:59:25 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Tapuskovic on the rights of Milosevic and notice how to watch
the opening speech
HAGUE TRIBUNAL: IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC?
Interview of Belgrade lawyer Branislav Tapuskovic (former Amicus
Curiae at the Hague process) to the German daily "junge Welt", 30
August 2004
By Anna Gutenberg
Q: The ICTY Registrar recently asked you whether you would agree to be
on the list of potential lawyers to be imposed on Mr. Milosevic. Were
you surprised that the judges reintroduced that issue after Mr.
Milosevic successfully defended himself during the Prosecution case?
Or did you have some other thoughts on the matter?
A: Yes, I was surprised, because, if Slobodan Milosevic is ill, even
if he had had a counsel all the time, the trial could not have gone on
as long as the illness lasted. The proposal of the Prosecution to use
a video-link is senseless: a video link cannot make an ill person
process-capable.
Q: Why did you refuse?
A: I have respected the provision of Article 21, point 4/d of the
Statute of the ICTY, according to which every defendant has the
guaranteed right TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
PERSON.
Q: I remember the occasions when the judges treated you harshly
whenever you put forward the important facts during the testimony of
prosecution witnesses. They once accused you of defending Mr.
Milosevic. Can you comment on that?
A: I did not see it that way. My duty in particular was to insist on
releasing evidence that came out of the exhibits I was receiving from
the Prosecution. It was really not my problem to worry about how the
Judges treated me.
Q: What do you think about the argument that an accused can be too ill
to present his case, but fit enough to stand trial? Is that common?
A: About the accused's health condition, only physicians can decide on
that. And, in my opinion, that has to be obligatory for the court. If
the physicians conclude that Slobodan Milosevic is ill, unfit to
defend himself, and cannot be present in the court, then there can be
no trial at all. Simply, in that case the Prosecution does not have a
case.
Q: Critical voices say that imposing counsel on Mr. Milosevic is an
attempt to prevent him from presenting his facts and witnesses.
Comment, please.
A: The trial cannot be valid if Slobodan Milosevic does not present his
evidence.
Q: What do you think about the fact that former US Secretary of State
M. Albright was visiting the ICTY on the very day in early July when
the judges accepted the possibility of imposing counsel?
A: One can only guess, but my position has always been that politics
must not influence the work of any court.
Q: Thank you very much.
Den Artikel finden Sie unter:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/08-30/018.php
(c) Junge Welt 2004
http://www.jungewelt.de
***********************************************************
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
==================
ALL WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO BE AT THE HAGUE ON 31 August AND 1 September
2004 CAN WATCH THE HISTORIC OPENING SPEECH OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC VIA
INTERNET.
Everything you have to do is to go to the tribunal's web site:
www.un.org/icty
and to choose the proper link on the main page (video or audio,
English, French or Serbian channel - in all cases you need the
freeware called Real Player, that can be also downloaded from the
Internet).
***********************************************************
THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm
SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/
*********************************************************
*************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
www.icdsm.org
slobodavk@ yubc. net
**************************************************************
In the struggle US/NATO vs. People which is going on at The Hague,
US/NATO is represented by 1300 employees fed every year with 100.000 $
per person. People is represented by Slobodan Milosevic alone, armed
only with truth and with your support!
NOW is the last moment for full mobilization of all our political,
intellectual and financial potentials to prevent the worse and to
decisively help People and Slobodan Milosevic to win the battle for
truth.
ICDSM has to set up an effective information center at The Hague to
prevent criminal injustices and to promote, in closest interaction
with President Milosevic and with the small team of his assistants,
his struggle for truth, to bring his numerous important witnesses
before the press and to show the mass people's support.
SO - ACT NOW - DON'T LET THE TRUTH BE SILENCED!
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Secretary of ICDSM,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
Please send us your donations and engage in organizing fundraising.
*************************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora
(Cuba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
===========
2. Come volevasi dimostrare:
IMPOSTO A MILOSEVIC UN AVVOCATO "DIFENSORE" CHE LAVORA PER LA ACCUSA
Vi siete mai chiesti come mai, se i giudici dell'Aia nutrono tanta
preoccupazione per le condizioni di salute di Milosevic, non hanno mai
preso alcun serio provvedimento in materia durante tutta la fase della
"accusa", che e' durata per due anni e mezzo?
Vi siete mai chiesti come mai i giudici dell'Aia hanno aspettato
proprio adesso, l'inizio della fase della "difesa", per imporre a
Milosevic un "avvocato d'ufficio" per "tutelare la sua salute" - come
richiesto dalla Del Ponte?
Se della salute di Milosevic vogliamo parlare - piuttosto che non
della illegittimita' del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia - diciamo allora
che numerosi precedenti e consuetudini giuridiche giustificano
piuttosto la richiesta dell'IMMEDIATO RILASCIO dell'imputato, per
consentirgli di curarsi.
Su questa ennesima scandalosa vicenda della quale si rende
responsabile il "Tribunale ad hoc" si vedano di seguito:
- una nota di Michael Parenti (vedi anche la precedente, tradotta in
italiano su:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/93 )
- la memoria gia' sottoscritta da un centinaio di giuristi ed avvocati
di tutto il mondo (vedi anche l'elenco provvisorio delle adesioni su:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
- l'articolo di Michael Scharf, consulente legale di Madeleine
Albright ed autore dello "Statuto" del "Tribunale", apparso sul
Washington Post del 29 agosto u.s., nel quale si chiarisce in maniera
persino sfacciata che le pressioni per imporre a Milosevic un
"avvocato d'ufficio" contro la sua volonta' provengono direttamente
dal New York e da Washington.
Nel frattempo, la trascrizione della dichiarazione preliminare di
Milosevic, enunciata il 31 agosto ed il 1 settembre, non e' stata
ancora pubblicata sul sito del "Tribunale". Mentre le agenzie di
stampa battono dispacci tendenziosi, disinformativi o persino
sarcastici, all'opinione pubblica viene negato il testo del discorso
di Milosevic, almeno finche' la questione non si sara' "raffreddata"...
Come sempre, come da 15 anni a questa parte, come per tutti gli altri
discorsi pubblici e dichiarazioni di Milosevic.
(a cura del coord. tecnico di ICDSM Italia)
---
From : "Michael Parenti"
To : "ICDSM Italia"
Date : Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:47:37 -0700
Subject : Milosevic and his illness
Dear Friends at ICDSM Italia and other interested parties:
I wish to reiterate and amplify a point I made in an earlier
correspondence to you:
If President Milosevic is too ill to carry out his own defense and
needs to have a court appointed lawyer, as the Hague ICTY insists,
then he is too ill to continue to stand trial.
One right of any defendent is to be able to participate in the
preparation of his own case. Indeed, it is not only a right but an
essential consideration for the defense. Even if the ICTY appoints a
lawyer--whose political awareness and legal competence may leave much
to be desired--President Milosevic would still be obliged to play a
strenuously active preparatory role.
And he would have the additional difficulty of not only confronting
the Court but wrestling with the court appointed lawyer whose ability
and determination to make the strongest case is not assured. In other
words, the appointment of a lawyer will not ease Milosevic's burden
but only add to it--which may be one reason the ICTY is pushing for
such an appointment.
The converse is also true. If President Milosevic is well enough to
stand trial and take on the additional burden of tutoring a court
appointed lawyer, then he is obviously well enough to argue his own
case.
Given the time constraints imposed on Milosevic, it would be easier
for him to make his own defense (as he has been doing with much
brilliant success) than to attempt to guide and tutor a court
appointed lawyer regarding the many particulars of the case, even a
lawyer who might be willing to make a sincere effort.
In sum, the court cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that
President Milosevic is too sick to plead his own case yet well enough
to continue to be subjected to the grueling challenge of a public trial.
Solidarietà
Michael Parenti
ICDSM USA
---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Gio 2 Set 2004 11:44:05 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: URGENT - HAGUE: Imposition of International Dictatorship
HAGUE: IMPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL DICTATORSHIP
NATO/US/UN "Tribunal" at The Hague decided today to impose a counsel
on Slobodan Milosevic against his will.
This way this para-judicial creation overran the Nazi court which
tried Dimitrov and Apartheid court which tried Mandela.
The decision was made immediately after the opening speech of
President Milosevic, which was the most concentrated presentation of
arguments and historical facts that totally annulled the NATO
anti-Serbian war propaganda.
This speech also announced the President Milosevic's strategy - to
beat the false indictments by proving the real guilt of those who
broke-up, bombed and abolished the glorious European nation, Yugoslavia.
This is another aggressive crime against this country and its people,
against the International Law and against freedom and sovereignty of
peoples.
At the same time, this is a total denial of the whole international
system of human rights protection.
Brutal force imposes its own "international law" to silence, convict
and eliminate each political opponent or freedom fighter. This new
"law" is an art of punishing innocent.
Our struggle enters a new phase - phase of open struggle against
international dictatorship which has absolutely no scrupules.
Our struggle, which is people's struggle, remains a struggle for
freedom. In our struggle, truth remains our strongest weapon.
Our main slogan and our imminent goal is:
FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC!
RAISE YOUR VOICE NOW!
LAUNCH A MOST POWERFUL ACTION NOW!
The open dictatorship legitimizes all forms of resistance!
SLOBODA/ICDSM
2nd September 2004-09-02
*****************************************************************
COMPARE YOURSELF THE ARGUMENTS:
ARGUMENTS OF JUSTICE AND LOW THROUGH THE VOICE OF 100 INTERNATIONAL
LAWYERS AND LAW PROFESSORS AND
POLITICAL ARGUMENTS OF THE EMPIRE THROUGH THE VOICE OF MICHAEL SCHARF,
ALBRIGHT'S LEGAL ADVISER AND THE AUTHOR OF ICTY STATUTE.
****************************************************************
IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT
(...)
[ SEE THE WHOLE DOCUMENT AND SIGNATURES AT:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm ]
**********************************************************
The Washington Post
August 29, 2004 Sunday
Final Edition
SECTION: Outlook; B02
LENGTH: 1413 words
HEADLINE: Making a Spectacle of Himself;
Milosevic Wants a Stage, Not the Right to Provide His Own Defense
BYLINE: Michael P. Scharf
Almost everyone knows the old legal saying: "He who represents himself
has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer." The trial of
former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic suggests a related adage: "A
judge who permits a rogue leader to represent himself in an
international war crimes trial is just as misguided."
On Tuesday, Milosevic's trial -- more than two years old and counting
-- is scheduled to resume before the International Criminal Tribunal
in The Hague.
The opening act of the trial's new phase will be the judges'
announcement of their decision on whether to allow Milosevic to
continue acting as his own lawyer.
At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding
judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that "under international law, the
defendant has a right to counsel, but he also has a right not to have
counsel."
Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic trial can
be traced back to that erroneous ruling.
The decision has caused the trial to drag on twice as long as
anticipated.
Because of concerns about Milosevic's high blood pressure (240 over
120), the judges have had to scale back the length and frequency of
the proceedings to ensure that the former leader is not "tried to
death." As a result, the trial takes place only three times a week as
opposed to the standard five; the number of hours per day has been
reduced from eight to four; and there are frequent lengthy recesses to
allow the defendant-lawyer to regain his strength. These delays have
taken their toll on justice. Judge May recently died of cancer and a
replacement had to be found; witness memories are fading; and the
international community is losing interest.
The judges have given Milosevic wider latitude than an ordinary
defendant or lawyer. Normally, the accused addresses the court only
when he takes the stand to give testimony, and he must take an oath to
tell the truth.
Moreover, he is limited to offering evidence that is relevant to the
charges, and is subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. By
acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial with
an 18-hour-long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality
video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by
the 1999 NATO bombing campaign.
As his own defense counsel, Milosevic has been able to treat the
witnesses, prosecutors and judges in a manner that would earn ordinary
defense counsel a citation or incarceration for contempt of court. In
addition to regularly making disparaging remarks about the court and
browbeating witnesses, Milosevic pontificates at length during
cross-examination of every witness, despite repeated warnings from the
bench. Milosevic, who spends his nights at the tribunal's detention
center, has no incentive to heed the judges' admonitions.
Milosevic's caustic defense strategy is unlikely to win him an
acquittal, but it isn't aimed at the court of law in The Hague. His
audience is the court of public opinion back home in Serbia, where the
trial is a top-rated TV show and Milosevic's standing continues to rise.
Opinion polls have reported that 75 percent of Serbs do not feel that
Milosevic is getting a fair trial, and 67 percent think that he is not
responsible for any war crimes. "Sloba Hero!" graffiti is omnipresent
on Belgrade buses and buildings. Last December, he easily won a seat
in the Serbian parliament in a national election.
In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the U.N. Security Council
set three objectives: first, to educate the Serbian people, who were
long misled by Milosevic's propaganda, about the acts of aggression,
war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime;
second, to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and
other top leaders and disclosing the ways in which the Milosevic
regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit atrocities; and third, to
promote political catharsis while enabling Serbia's newly elected
leaders to distance themselves from the repressive policies of the
past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to represent himself has
seriously undercut these aims.
May felt he had no choice in the matter because the tribunal's legal
charter stated that the defendant has the right "to defend himself in
person or through legal assistance of his own choosing." But some
experts -- and I'm including myself -- are now arguing that May got
the law wrong.
The language from the Yugoslavia tribunal statute originally comes
from a human rights treaty known as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. The negotiating record of the
International Covenant indicates that the drafters' concern was with
effective representation, not self-representation. In other words, the
drafters felt that a defendant should have a right to either be
represented by a lawyer or to represent himself; they did not state
that each defendant must be asked to choose between the two. Unlike
Britain and the United States, most countries of the world do not
allow criminal defendants to represent themselves under any
circumstances, and this has been deemed consistent with international
law by the European Court of Human Rights.
Even if May was correct in his reading of the law as providing a right
to self-representation, he was wrong to treat that right as absolute.
As authority for his position, May cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1975
ruling in Feratta v. California, which held that there was a
fundamental right to self-representation in U.S. courts. But the high
court also added a caveat, which May overlooked, stating that "a right
of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the
courtroom." U.S. appellate courts have subsequently held that the
right of self-representation is subject to exceptions -- such as when
the defendant acts in a disruptive manner, when self-representation
interferes with the dignity of the proceedings or when the issues in
the case are too complex for a defendant to represent himself
adequately.
Milosevic's antics and poor health have repeatedly disrupted the
trial, justifying appointment of counsel to represent him in court for
the remainder of the proceedings. There's precedent for taking such a
step: In the trial of former Serbian paramilitary leader Vojislav
Seselj, the Yugoslavia tribunal required Seselj -- over his objection
-- to accept "stand-by counsel," ready to step in as soon as the
defendant became disruptive or the issues became too complex.
In a sense, the tribunal has already appointed standby counsel for
Milosevic in the guise of Stephen Kay and the other amicus ("friends
of the court") counsel. While not bound to follow the defendant's
directives, their job has been to ensure that legal arguments favoring
the defense are presented to the judges. It would be a small step to
transform the amicus counsel into a full-blown defense team, and
instruct it to represent Milosevic for the rest of the trial. The
lawyers are already intimately familiar with the case and are willing
to take on such a role. And unlike Milosevic, they will be bound to
play by the rules.
If, on the other hand, the tribunal rules that Milosevic still has a
right to represent himself, the precedent will affect other
international cases.
Saddam Hussein, whose war crimes trial is set to begin later this
year, will be able to argue that he, too, has a right to represent
himself before the Iraqi Special Tribunal.
If Hussein were allowed to follow Milosevic's playbook -- using the
unique opportunity of self-representation to launch daily attacks
against the legitimacy of the proceedings and the U.S. invasion of
Iraq -- this would seriously undermine the goal of fostering
reconciliation between the Iraqi Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. The
historic record developed by such a trial would forever be questioned.
And the trial would transform Hussein and his subordinates into
martyrs, potentially fueling violent opposition to the new Iraqi
government.
Justice demands that Milosevic and Hussein be given fair trials. That
can best be guaranteed by appointing distinguished counsel to defend
them, not by permitting them to act as their own lawyers.
Author's e-mail:
michael.scharf@...
Michael Scharf is professor of law and director of the Frederick K.
Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland. His latest book is "Slobodan Milosevic on Trial" (Continuum).
========
3. RINNOVIAMO I NOSTRI DUE APPELLI:
AD OFFRIRSI COME TRADUTTORI
La battaglia per la difesa di Milosevic non va sottovalutata.
Essa ha un valore strategico, e non solo etico, in quanto puo'
avere conseguenze importanti per tutte le altre battaglie
internazionaliste del movimento contro la guerra.
Infatti, con il processo-farsa contro Milosevic, le grandi potenze
imperialiste vogliono creare un precedente. Esse vogliono avere
mano libera in futuro nelle loro decisioni sugli assetti del pianeta;
vogliono avere formalmente riconosciuta la facolta' di stabilire
ad arbitrio quali guerre scatenare, contro chi e con quali mezzi;
esse vogliono garantirsi la impunita' su tutti i propri crimini
di guerra, e si arrogano la facolta' di giudicare e condannare -
anche formalmente, non solo mediaticamente - le loro stesse
vittime... condannandole persino al risarcimento dei danni causati
da loro stesse, con le loro guerre imperialiste!
Dopo Milosevic, potrebbe essere la volta di Saddam; e non
illudiamoci: la "guerra preventiva e permanente" non finisce certo
in Iraq. Ma intanto, i crimini di Pancevo (1999) o di Falluja (2004)
chi li dovrebbe giudicare? Il "tribunale" dell'Aia si e' ostinatamente
rifiutato di aprire qualsivoglia procedimento per tutti quei crimini di
guerra, ben documentati, commessi dalla NATO nella primavera del
1999, in spregio alle richieste formali e nonostante tutta la
documentazione pervenuta.
Dunque, dobbiamo impedire che la storia tragica e vergognosa di
questi anni in Jugoslavia sia scritta esclusivamente sulla base delle
"sentenze giudiziarie" dettate dai servizi di intelligence della NATO.
Per questo, noi possiamo essere di grande aiuto, in effetti.
Sara' sufficiente far circolare i testi di cio' che e' stato e verra'
detto in quell'aula. Ne' piu' ne' meno.
I giornalisti hanno evitato finora di fare cronaca sul "processo",
perche' non conviene ai loro datori di lavoro: percio' dobbiamo
pensarci noi.
E' necessario costituire subito una rete di persone disponibili
a TRADURRE DALL'INGLESE IN LINGUA ITALIANA. Ogni
giorno le pagine di nuovi verbali saranno decine e decine: si
trattera' di selezionarne una parte e di dividerci il lavoro di
traduzione e diffusione dei testi.
Affinche' tutti sappiano, e nessuno possa dire: "Io non sapevo".
Per contatti, per offrirsi volontari nel lavoro di traduzione:
segreteria: tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia@ libero. it
PER LA CAMPAGNA DI AUTOFINANZIAMENTO
Nello scontro che si sta svolgendo al "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, gli
interessi imperialisti della NATO sono rappresentati da uno staff di
1300 persone profumatamente pagate (circa 100mila dollari l'anno a
testa), mentre gli interessi della Jugoslavia e di tutti i suoi popoli
sono rappresentati dal solo Slobodan Milosevic, il quale dispone
esclusivamente dei poveri mezzi del suo comitato internazionale di
sostegno: l'ICDSM.
L'impresa cui deve far fronte Milosevic appare dunque titanica, ma non
puo' comunque essere abbandonata. Se pure essa avesse solo valore
testimoniale, tale valore sarebbe comunque inestimabile, poiche' si
tratta di testimoniare a proposito di almeno un decennio di
macchinazioni e crimini finalizzati alla distruzione di un paese
europeo, ovvero - nelle parole dello stesso Milosevic - finalizzati al
"capovolgimento degli esiti della Seconda Guerra Mondiale" nei
Balcani. Crimini e macchinazioni su cui nessun altro e' stato o sara'
mai intenzionato a fare chiarezza.
Senza mezzi finanziari, la difesa di Milosevic non ha chances.
Si valuta che sia indispensabile raccogliere diverse migliaia euro
ogni mese per far fronte a tutte le necessita' di assistenza legale,
di documentazione e di comunicazione.
La Sezione Italiana dell'ICDSM, ringraziando tutti quelli che
hanno finora contribuito alla campagna di autofinanziamento
(in Italia sono gia' state raccolte alcune migliaia di euro), chiede
che lo sforzo in tal senso prosegua, cosi' come sta proseguendo
in tutte le altre realta' nazionali.
Si badi bene:
NON ESISTONO ALTRE FONTI DI FINANZIAMENTO.
Una recente legge passata dal Parlamento serbo - che
in linea di principio avrebbe garantito una parziale copertura
delle spese - e' stata subito "congelata" in seguito alle
minacce occidentali. Una qualsivoglia campagna di finanziamento
su basi volontarie a Belgrado e' praticamente irrealizzabile:
a causa delle scelte estremistiche, in senso neoliberista, del regime
instaurato il 5 ottobre 2000 la situazione sociale e' disastrosa, la
disoccupazione dilaga, i salari sono da fame, chi ha i soldi per
mangiare li tiene ben stretti e non rischia certo la galera (o peggio:
vedi le torture in carcere nella primavera 2003, durante la
cosiddetta "Operazione Sciabola") in attivita' politiche o di
solidarieta' a favore di Milosevic, che viene tuttora demonizzato
dai media locali - oramai tutti in mano a societa' occidentali,
soprattutto tedesche - esattamente come da noi.
I nuovi ricchi votano i partiti filo-occidentali e di destra, e
preferiscono che Milosevic marcisca in carcere, insieme alla
loro cattiva coscienza. A tutti deve essere infine chiaro - se ancora
ci fosse bisogno di ripeterlo - che al di la' delle menzogne
giornalistiche non esiste e non e' mai esistito alcun "tesoro
nascosto" di Milosevic, e che il nostro impegno per la sua
difesa e' insostituibile oltreche' indispensabile.
Contribuite dunque e fate contribuire, attraverso il
*** Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Gio 2 Set 2004 13:37:56 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Sloboda: Haski zlocin bez presedana
SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
Danasnja odluka tzv. "sudskog veca" o nametanju branioca Predsedniku
Milosevicu u procesu koji se vodi u Hagu, predstavlja nezabelezeno
krsenje ljudskih prava coveka koji, po svim medjunarodno-pravnim
dokumentima, ima pravo na licnu odbranu.
Ovakvom svojom odlukom tzv. "sudsko vece" je pokazalo kako im je ideal
pravicnosti sudjenja srednjevekovna katolicka Inkvizicija i kako su
tvrdnje i proklamacije u dokumentima tzv. "tribunala" o pravu na licnu
odbranu u stvari samo mrtvo slovo na papiru. Jedini cilj ovakve odluke
jeste da se Predsednik Milosevic spreci da iznese istinu o dogadjajima
koji su pratili razbijanje Jugoslavije u poslednjoj deceniji XX veka.
Jedini motiv za ovakvu odluku jeste nepravna zastita NATO lidera
odgovornih za zlocin protiv mira, ratne zlocine i zlocine protiv
covecnosti.
Dokaz za to je cinjenica da se odluka donosi u trenutku kada je iz
istorijski znacajane uvodne reci predsednika Milosevica svima postalo
jasno da on namerava naslage ratne propagande NATO sadrzane u laznim
optuznicama zauvek pokopa istinom, odnosno dokazima o krivici onih koji
su razbili i bombardovali nasu zemlju.
Nijedan zlocin za koji je optuzen Predsednik Milosevic nije dokazan -
naprotiv, sve optuzbe su, tokom njegovog bravuroznog unakrsnog
ispitivanja, srusene; sada je, medjutim, ocit jedan novi zlocin - onaj
koji je pocinili tzv. "sudsko vece" uskracujuci pravo Predsedniku
Milosevicu da se sam brani.
Zahtevamo od medjunarodnih organizacija koje se bave ljudskim pravima,
ali i od predsednika i premijera Srbije i predsednika DZ SCG da odmah
reaguju u pravcu zastite osnovnih ljudskih prava svoga drzavljaninma,
koja su na ovaj nacin potpuno negirana.
Beograd, 02.09.2004. godine
UDRUZENJE «SLOBODA»
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
Data: Gio 2 Set 2004 13:37:56 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Sloboda: Haski zlocin bez presedana
SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
Danasnja odluka tzv. "sudskog veca" o nametanju branioca Predsedniku
Milosevicu u procesu koji se vodi u Hagu, predstavlja nezabelezeno
krsenje ljudskih prava coveka koji, po svim medjunarodno-pravnim
dokumentima, ima pravo na licnu odbranu.
Ovakvom svojom odlukom tzv. "sudsko vece" je pokazalo kako im je ideal
pravicnosti sudjenja srednjevekovna katolicka Inkvizicija i kako su
tvrdnje i proklamacije u dokumentima tzv. "tribunala" o pravu na licnu
odbranu u stvari samo mrtvo slovo na papiru. Jedini cilj ovakve odluke
jeste da se Predsednik Milosevic spreci da iznese istinu o dogadjajima
koji su pratili razbijanje Jugoslavije u poslednjoj deceniji XX veka.
Jedini motiv za ovakvu odluku jeste nepravna zastita NATO lidera
odgovornih za zlocin protiv mira, ratne zlocine i zlocine protiv
covecnosti.
Dokaz za to je cinjenica da se odluka donosi u trenutku kada je iz
istorijski znacajane uvodne reci predsednika Milosevica svima postalo
jasno da on namerava naslage ratne propagande NATO sadrzane u laznim
optuznicama zauvek pokopa istinom, odnosno dokazima o krivici onih koji
su razbili i bombardovali nasu zemlju.
Nijedan zlocin za koji je optuzen Predsednik Milosevic nije dokazan -
naprotiv, sve optuzbe su, tokom njegovog bravuroznog unakrsnog
ispitivanja, srusene; sada je, medjutim, ocit jedan novi zlocin - onaj
koji je pocinili tzv. "sudsko vece" uskracujuci pravo Predsedniku
Milosevicu da se sam brani.
Zahtevamo od medjunarodnih organizacija koje se bave ljudskim pravima,
ali i od predsednika i premijera Srbije i predsednika DZ SCG da odmah
reaguju u pravcu zastite osnovnih ljudskih prava svoga drzavljaninma,
koja su na ovaj nacin potpuno negirana.
Beograd, 02.09.2004. godine
UDRUZENJE «SLOBODA»
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <slobodavk@ yubc. net>
Data: Lun 30 Ago 2004 15:54:37 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Vazno obavestenje: Najvazniji dani u Hagu i intervju advokata
Tapuskovica
HASKI TRIBUNAL: NAMETANJE ADVOKATA MILOSEVICU?
Intervju Branislava Tapuskovica nemackom dnevnom listu "junge Welt",
30. Avgusta 2004.
Razgovarala: Ana Gutenberg
P: Sekretar MKTJ Vas je nedavno molio da se saglsite da budete na listi
advokata koji bi potencijalno mogli biti odredjeni za nametnute
branioce g. Milosevicu. Da li ste bili iznenadjeni sto se sudije
vracaju tom pitanju posto se g. Milosevic uspesno branio sam u prvoj
polovini procesa? Odnosno, sta ste u stvari pomislili?
O: Jesam, bio sam iznenadjen. Jer, ako je Slobodan Milosevic bolestan,
cak i da je sve vreme imao branioca, sudjenje se ne bi moglo odrzati
sve dok bolest traje. Predlog tuzilastva da se koristi video link je
besmislen: video link bolesnog coveka ne moze uciniti procesno
sposobnim.
P: Zasto ste to odbili?
O: Postovao sam odredbu cl. 21, tacka 4/d Statuta medjunarodnog
tribunala za bivsu Jugoslaviju prema kojoj je svakom optuzenom
zagarantovano pravo DA MU SE SUDI U NJEGOVOJ PRISUTNOSTI I DA SE BRANI
LICNO.
P: Secam se da su se sudije povremeno vrlo grubo odnosile prema Vama
kada ste uspesno povezivali cinjenice tokom svedocenja svedoka optuzbe.
Jednom su Vas cak optuzili da branite g. Milosevica. Kakav je Vas
komentar?
O: Ja to nisam tako doziveo. Moja duznost je bila da narocito
insistiram na oslobadjajucim cinjenicama koje su proizlazile iz
pismenih dokaza koje sam dobijao od tuzilastva. Zaista, nije moj
problem kako su se sudije drzale prema meni.
P: Sta mislite o stavu da je optuzeni suvise bolestan da se sam brani,
a dovoljno zdrav da izdrzi sudjenje? Da li je to uobicajeno?
O: O stanju zdravlja odlucuju iskljucivo lekari i po mom misljenju to
je obavezujuce za sud. Ako lekari utvrde da je Slobodan Milosevic
bolestan i da nije sposoban da se sam brani i da prisustvuje sudjenju
sudjenja ne moze biti. Jednostavno: tuzilastvo tada nema slucaj.
P: Kriticari kazu da je nametanje branioca g. Milosevicu u stvari
pokusaj da se on onemoguci da izvede svoje cinjenice i svedoke. Molim
za Vas komentar.
O: Sudjenje ne moze biti regularno ukoliko Slobodan Milosevic ne izvede
svoje dokaze.
P: Sta mislite o cinjenici da je bivsi drzavni sekretar SAD Medlin
Olbrajt posetila tribunal upravo istog dana pocetkom jula kada su
sudije prihvatile mogucnost nametanja branioca?
O: Moze se samo nagadjati, moj stav je uvek bio: politika ne sme da
utice na rad bilo kog suda.
P: Mnogo Vam hvala.
Den Artikel finden Sie unter:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/08-30/018.php
(c) Junge Welt 2004
http://www.jungewelt.de
***************************************************************
**************************************************************
BITKA ZA ISTINU PREDSEDNIKA MILOSEVICA JE BITKA ZA NASU BUDUCNOST.
ISTINA CE POBEDITI SAMO UZ VASU POMOC.
POMOZITE ODMAH!
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
**************************************************************
***************************************************************
VAZNO OBAVESTENJE
===================
ISTORIJSKI ZNACAJNA UVODNA REC SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA PRED NATO
TRIBUNALOM U HAGU BICE IZRECENA U UTORAK, 31. AVGUSTA 2004. GODINE SA
POCETKOM U 9:00 CASOVA UJUTRU.
SLEDECEG DANA, U SREDU 1. SEPTEMBRA, TRIBUNAL CE RASPRAVLJATI O
MOGUCNOSTI NAMETANJA BRANIOCA PREDSEDNIKU MILOSEVICU, SUPROTNO NORMAMA
MEDJUNARODNOG PRAVA I SAMOG TRIBUNALA.
UDRUZENJE SLOBODA I MEDJUNARODNI KOMITET ZA ODBRANU SLOBODANA
MILOSEVICA POZIVAJU SVE PRIJATELJE SLOBODE, SRPSKOG NARODA I
JUGOSLAVIJE DA TIH DANA BUDU U HAGU ILI DA NA DRUGI NACIN IZRAZE SVOJU
SOLIDARNOST SA NAJVECIM BORCEM ZA SLOBODU, RAVNOPRAVNOST I NACIONALNO
DOSTOJANSTVO.
U SREDU, 1. SEPTEMBRA, PO ZAVRSETKU ZASEDANJA TRIBUNALA, MEDJUNARODNI
KOMITET ZA ODBRANU SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA SE ODRZATI KONFERENCIJU ZA
STAMPU NA KOJOJ CE GOVORITI:
- KLAUS HARTMAN (Nemacka), Potpredsednik Medjunarodnog komiteta za
odbranu Slobodana Milosevica i
- TIFEN DIKSON (Kanada), advokat Medjunarodnog komiteta za odbranu
Slobodana Milosevica.
SVI KOJI NE BUDU U STANJU DA TIH DANA BUDU U HAGU, MOGU PRATITI PRENOS
PREKO INTERNETA, BIRAJUCI ODGOVARAJUCI LINK (video ili audio, na
srpskom ili na
engleskom jeziku - za pracenje je potreban besplatni program Real
Player, koji se takodje moze "skinuti" sa Interneta) NA GLAVNOJ
STRANICI VEB SAJTA SAMOG TRIBUNALA:
www.un.org/icty
Prenos je u vremenu "pomeren" za pola casa, dakle pocinje u 9:30.
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
Data: Lun 30 Ago 2004 15:54:37 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Vazno obavestenje: Najvazniji dani u Hagu i intervju advokata
Tapuskovica
HASKI TRIBUNAL: NAMETANJE ADVOKATA MILOSEVICU?
Intervju Branislava Tapuskovica nemackom dnevnom listu "junge Welt",
30. Avgusta 2004.
Razgovarala: Ana Gutenberg
P: Sekretar MKTJ Vas je nedavno molio da se saglsite da budete na listi
advokata koji bi potencijalno mogli biti odredjeni za nametnute
branioce g. Milosevicu. Da li ste bili iznenadjeni sto se sudije
vracaju tom pitanju posto se g. Milosevic uspesno branio sam u prvoj
polovini procesa? Odnosno, sta ste u stvari pomislili?
O: Jesam, bio sam iznenadjen. Jer, ako je Slobodan Milosevic bolestan,
cak i da je sve vreme imao branioca, sudjenje se ne bi moglo odrzati
sve dok bolest traje. Predlog tuzilastva da se koristi video link je
besmislen: video link bolesnog coveka ne moze uciniti procesno
sposobnim.
P: Zasto ste to odbili?
O: Postovao sam odredbu cl. 21, tacka 4/d Statuta medjunarodnog
tribunala za bivsu Jugoslaviju prema kojoj je svakom optuzenom
zagarantovano pravo DA MU SE SUDI U NJEGOVOJ PRISUTNOSTI I DA SE BRANI
LICNO.
P: Secam se da su se sudije povremeno vrlo grubo odnosile prema Vama
kada ste uspesno povezivali cinjenice tokom svedocenja svedoka optuzbe.
Jednom su Vas cak optuzili da branite g. Milosevica. Kakav je Vas
komentar?
O: Ja to nisam tako doziveo. Moja duznost je bila da narocito
insistiram na oslobadjajucim cinjenicama koje su proizlazile iz
pismenih dokaza koje sam dobijao od tuzilastva. Zaista, nije moj
problem kako su se sudije drzale prema meni.
P: Sta mislite o stavu da je optuzeni suvise bolestan da se sam brani,
a dovoljno zdrav da izdrzi sudjenje? Da li je to uobicajeno?
O: O stanju zdravlja odlucuju iskljucivo lekari i po mom misljenju to
je obavezujuce za sud. Ako lekari utvrde da je Slobodan Milosevic
bolestan i da nije sposoban da se sam brani i da prisustvuje sudjenju
sudjenja ne moze biti. Jednostavno: tuzilastvo tada nema slucaj.
P: Kriticari kazu da je nametanje branioca g. Milosevicu u stvari
pokusaj da se on onemoguci da izvede svoje cinjenice i svedoke. Molim
za Vas komentar.
O: Sudjenje ne moze biti regularno ukoliko Slobodan Milosevic ne izvede
svoje dokaze.
P: Sta mislite o cinjenici da je bivsi drzavni sekretar SAD Medlin
Olbrajt posetila tribunal upravo istog dana pocetkom jula kada su
sudije prihvatile mogucnost nametanja branioca?
O: Moze se samo nagadjati, moj stav je uvek bio: politika ne sme da
utice na rad bilo kog suda.
P: Mnogo Vam hvala.
Den Artikel finden Sie unter:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/08-30/018.php
(c) Junge Welt 2004
http://www.jungewelt.de
***************************************************************
**************************************************************
BITKA ZA ISTINU PREDSEDNIKA MILOSEVICA JE BITKA ZA NASU BUDUCNOST.
ISTINA CE POBEDITI SAMO UZ VASU POMOC.
POMOZITE ODMAH!
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
**************************************************************
***************************************************************
VAZNO OBAVESTENJE
===================
ISTORIJSKI ZNACAJNA UVODNA REC SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA PRED NATO
TRIBUNALOM U HAGU BICE IZRECENA U UTORAK, 31. AVGUSTA 2004. GODINE SA
POCETKOM U 9:00 CASOVA UJUTRU.
SLEDECEG DANA, U SREDU 1. SEPTEMBRA, TRIBUNAL CE RASPRAVLJATI O
MOGUCNOSTI NAMETANJA BRANIOCA PREDSEDNIKU MILOSEVICU, SUPROTNO NORMAMA
MEDJUNARODNOG PRAVA I SAMOG TRIBUNALA.
UDRUZENJE SLOBODA I MEDJUNARODNI KOMITET ZA ODBRANU SLOBODANA
MILOSEVICA POZIVAJU SVE PRIJATELJE SLOBODE, SRPSKOG NARODA I
JUGOSLAVIJE DA TIH DANA BUDU U HAGU ILI DA NA DRUGI NACIN IZRAZE SVOJU
SOLIDARNOST SA NAJVECIM BORCEM ZA SLOBODU, RAVNOPRAVNOST I NACIONALNO
DOSTOJANSTVO.
U SREDU, 1. SEPTEMBRA, PO ZAVRSETKU ZASEDANJA TRIBUNALA, MEDJUNARODNI
KOMITET ZA ODBRANU SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA SE ODRZATI KONFERENCIJU ZA
STAMPU NA KOJOJ CE GOVORITI:
- KLAUS HARTMAN (Nemacka), Potpredsednik Medjunarodnog komiteta za
odbranu Slobodana Milosevica i
- TIFEN DIKSON (Kanada), advokat Medjunarodnog komiteta za odbranu
Slobodana Milosevica.
SVI KOJI NE BUDU U STANJU DA TIH DANA BUDU U HAGU, MOGU PRATITI PRENOS
PREKO INTERNETA, BIRAJUCI ODGOVARAJUCI LINK (video ili audio, na
srpskom ili na
engleskom jeziku - za pracenje je potreban besplatni program Real
Player, koji se takodje moze "skinuti" sa Interneta) NA GLAVNOJ
STRANICI VEB SAJTA SAMOG TRIBUNALA:
www.un.org/icty
Prenos je u vremenu "pomeren" za pola casa, dakle pocinje u 9:30.
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
[ E.S. Herman - professore alla Universita' di Pennsylvania e tra
l'altro collaboratore della nota rivista progressista "chomskiana" Z
Magazine - presenta in questo articolo una dettagliata disamina dei
casi piu' eclatanti di falsificazione delle cifre delle vittime di
"massacri" e "genocidi" nelle recenti guerre imperialiste. Il caso
jugoslavo, ovviamente e purtroppo, occupa una posizione preminente
nella casistica della disinformazione strategica in materia... ]
http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political21.htm
"BODY COUNTS" IN IMPERIAL SERVICE:
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere
By Edward S. Herman
It is really impressive how efficiently the intellectual and propaganda
resources of the imperial state are mobilized to meet its need to
demonize its enemies and put its own and its client state's actions in
a benevolent light.
This is especially important for an imperial power that retains its
democratic forms as it kills lavishly and on a global basis, and
justifies these killings, and its enormous "defense" expenditures, on
grounds of "human rights" concerns as well as "national security."
Getting its message across requires not only a compliant media and
"journalists of attachment" who will follow the official agenda, but
also an intellectual community of experts, academic and think-tank
specialists, New Humanitarians, human rights group officials, and
former leftists who have finally seen the light, who serve as
"independent" commentators and guide the public toward the official
truth. They constitute an ideological and propaganda collective that
provides a gigantic echo chamber in which the official agenda
resonates, and which helps get the public on the killing bandwagon.
The operation of this collective, and its techniques, are well
illustrated by its treatment of "body counts" in comparable wars and
atrocities throughout the world. Where there is an official and
imperial demand for a high body count and great indignation, as in the
case of Kosovo in 1998 and 1999 (earlier in Bosnia in the years
1992-1995, Kuwait in 1990-1991, still earlier in the case of Cambodia
under Pol Pot, 1975-1978), the collective will be deeply concerned with
civilian casualties, will pursue refugees relentlessly to get details
of their suffering, and will search eagerly for dead bodies. Given that
they know the truth in advance -that "another Hitler" is committing
genocide, they will not look at evidence very critically, and will be
happy to accept any congenial story and any inflated account of numbers
of bodies, however biased the source. They will also explain away the
ex post findings that "another Hitler's" body count had been inflated.
On the other hand, where the imperial power and/or its proxies are
doing the killing, as in Afghanistan from October 7, 2001 onward, or in
Panama in 1989, or in Iraq from January 1991 to the present; or where
client states like Israel, Turkey and Indonesia in East Timor are doing
the killing, the establishment collective has little interest in
civilian casualties [exception: ISRAELI civilians], fails to pursue
refugees to get their stories of suffering, and does not engage in any
search for dead bodies. In fact, its members tend to be sceptical of
stories of suffering and estimates of dead bodies made by others, in a
direct reversal of their position on such stories and estimates for
"worthy" victims of "another Hitler."
This same contrast applies to larger body counts such as in the famous
100 million death toll of Communism in the Black Book, which includes
millions who died in Chinese and Soviet famines. But it would be
unthinkable for writers in the mainstream to count in the death toll of
Capitalism those who have died of exposure, hard labor, starvation, and
preventable diseases resulting from economic structures and policies,
which would run well over 100 million; or the aggregate of
"disappeared" in Latin America during the National Security State
years; or the "collateral damage" deaths from sanctions and bombing in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places. AOL Time Warner is not likely
to be interested in publishing a Black Book of Capitalism.
Bosnia and Kosovo: Give Us Bodies!
With Milosevic "another Hitler" and the Serbs "willing executioners,"
by NATO-power determination in the early 1990s, the quest for bodies
was early and intense. But only Bosnian Muslim bodies were sought, not
victims of the Bosnian Muslims or Croatians, although there is
extensive evidence of repeated massacres of Serbs in Bosnia in the
years 1992-1995. In 1994 and 1995, Muslim commander in Srebrenica,
Naser Oric, proudly showed journalists videotapes of his "war
trophies," including severed heads and heaps of bodies of Serbs, but
these were not the bodies the collective was seeking. (The NATO
establishment, including New Humanitarians and genocide hustlers David
Rieff, Susan Sontag, Aryeh Neier, Christopher Hitchens, Ian Williams et
al., have been exceedingly quiet on the implications for likely source
of massacres of the fact that thousands of bin Laden's troops and
allies had been imported to fight the Bosnian Muslim cause in those
years).
In his book Slaughterhouse, David Rieff says there were more than
250,000 Bosnians killed--and Rieff uses the word Bosnians to mean
Bosnian Muslims only--but he gives no source, and he is clearly
regurgitating claims of Bosnian Muslim officials, notably Foreign
Minister Haris Silajdzic. The propagandists on his side are
truth-tellers. For Rieff, his mother Susan Sontag, Hitchens, et al.,
this was "genocide," but the thousands of Serbs killed by Naser Oric
and Bin Laden's cadres was not genocide; in fact, those slaughters and
mass graves (at least 53 claimed by the Bosnian Serbs) never show up on
the screen of the collective or reach the U.S. public.
According to George Kenney, who worked on Yugoslavia in the State
Department during the Bosnian war, the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) estimates 20-30,000 dead in Bosnia, and U.S.
intelligence community estimates "run to tens of thousands." Only a few
thousand bodies have been found in Bosnia attributable to the
Bosnia-Herzegovina wars, and the ICRC says "more than 20,000" are
unaccounted for, which, again, doesn't get us near 250,000 and
"genocide." In Srebrenica, there have been only 473 bodies recovered,
and there is absolutely no credible evidence that 7,500 men and boys
who allegedly disappeared in this area in July 1995 were murdered. The
absence of bodies, despite an intense search and strong incentives to
produce them, hasn't interfered with the conclusion that 7,500 were
slaughtered there.
One claim of course was that the Serbs removed the bodies. This is not
credible, as removing thousands of bodies would not only require
significant human and capital resources, not likely to be a high
priority in times of intense warfare, but it would also be a project
readily observable in satellite photos. U.S. satellite observations of
this area never came up with any photos of killing, digging, or
removal. The removal theory was also popular for Kosovo, especially
after the Tribunal produced fewer than 4,000 bodies (on all sides,
including dead soldiers). Long after the war, but timed well to provide
a suitable context for bringing Milosevic to the Hague, a story was
widely circulated about a Mercedes refrigerated truck dumped into the
Danube with a load of bodies, the inference being that maybe many such
trucks with bodies were dumped into the river. Needless to say no such
evidence has been forthcoming.
The search for bodies intensified during the 78-day bombing war, and
then in its aftermath, in NATO-occupied Kosovo. This was urgently
needed by NATO's war-makers, as the really severe refugee flight and
escalated killing FOLLOWED the NATO bombing; before that, a
Belgrade-NATO agreement had seen the drawing back of the Serbian army,
the return of many of the refugees, admission of a sizable OSCE
observer presence, and reduced killing, despite KLA provocations. A
pre-bombing German Foreign office assessment even denied any ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, describing Serbian army actions there as targeted
against KLA forces and strongholds. Furthermore, it eventually entered
the public domain that the United States had actually aided the KLA
before the bombing, so that the KLA's provocations aimed at inducing
Serbian retaliation to help bring NATO into war could be said to be
U.S.-sponsored. The indignation at Serbian retaliation was therefore
cynical and hypocritical.
The NATO propaganda machine needed to ignore this history, as well as
the military collaboration of NATO and the KLA during the war, and
blame the refugee crisis and killings entirely on the Serbs. This was
helped by a claim of an "Operation Horseshoe" plan to expel the Kosovo
Albanians even without a NATO war. The establishment collective's
cooperation in this task was exemplary, including the suppression up to
this day of the evidence that the alleged Operation Horseshoe was a
propaganda fabrication (exposed in a book by retired German Brigadier
General Heinz Loquai, The Kosovo Conflict: A War That Could Be Avoided).
A final problem was the absence of enough bodies in Kosovo after the
June 10, 1999 NATO-occupation to satisfy the frenzied propaganda claims
of genocide. During the war, NATO propagandists had made wild claims of
100,000 and even 500,000 killings and the word "genocide" was used
freely to describe Serb actions. After the war, NATO and its agents
organized what must have be the largest forensic search in history, and
the media descended on the conquered province like an invasion of
locusts, interviewing refugees, looking for and examining grave sites,
insatiable for stories of abuse and bodies. They got painful stories
from the refugees, many no doubt true, but there was much
disappointment that the Trepca mine, for example, which Kosovo Albanian
informants had claimed had been the site of mass cremation, showed no
signs of any bodies having been burned there, and the Tribunal's final
count was under 4,000 dead--from unknown causes and on all sides.
According to the ICRC, there were some 3,500 Kosovo residents still
missing in May 2001, a figure that included some 900 Serbs, Roma and
other non-Albanians. Whether these were all genuinely missing or had
died is unclear. With the body count numbers clearly inadequate,
instead of pointing out that NATO officials had lied and admitting that
they had been gulled, the media and other members of the propaganda
collective simply dropped the subject. Having exploited the inflated
claims and squeezed all they could out of refugee testimony, and having
failed to mention that the claim of an Operation Horseshoe had been
refuted, the collective's abandonment of the subject meant that they
left a system of convenient lies intact. This would allow them to
support the Tribunal in anything it did, as the Tribunal worked with a
closely related system of politicized and biased "information."
The New Humanitarian members of the collective, who had swallowed and
disseminated the inflated numbers, also never recanted based on the
actual body count. None of them have ever mentioned the evidence that
the United States had secretly aided the KLA before the bombing war and
was in active contact with them during the war. None has conceded that
"Operation Horseshoe" had been demonstrated to be a propaganda
concoction; Christopher Hitchens repeats that "a plan of mass
expulsion...was in train," and Michael Ignatieff says that "Milosevic
decided to solve an 'internal problem' by exporting an entire nation to
his impoverished neighbors."
For Ian Williams and Ignatieff, those who point to the absence of
bodies consistent with the inflated claims of NATO propaganda are
"revisionists"! Both cite Tribunal estimates as the last word--
Williams says Carla del Ponte's estimate of 11,334 dead based on
"eyewitnesses" "should have put questions concerning the death toll to
rest," but no--"the downward revision of the numbers murdered in Kosovo
is proving very fashionable--even in the New York Times," which to
Williams' outrage put up a headline "Early Count Hints at Fewer Kosovo
Deaths." The actual body count was under 4,000, but for Williams, del
Ponte's estimate of how many she EXPECTS to be found is the only
relevant number, given the Tribunal's known objectivity. (In dismissing
the need for investigating NATO's war crimes in bombing Serbia, del
Ponte acknowledged taking NATO press releases as an authoritative
source of information, but Williams probably wouldn't find this
problematic either.)
Williams does the New York Times an injustice. In addition to never
finding the U.S.-KLA connection of news interest, nor the collapse of
the Operation Horseshoe claim, nor the contesting evidence concerning
the Racak massacre, the paper called upon Michael Ignatieff to give the
authoritative word on "Counting Bodies in Kosovo" (Nov. 21, 1999).
Like, Williams, Ignatieff has the "revisionists...getting their facts
wrong." The NATO leaders didn't exaggerate the killings. While U.S.
Defense Secretary William Cohen claimed that 100,000 Kosovo Albanian
males were "missing," he "also clearly stated that his reports showed
that 4,600 Kosovars had been executed, a claim that has been confirmed
by the forensic trail of evidence uncovered by war crimes investigators
since June." But Ignatieff eventually admits that the Tribunal had up
to then found only 2,108 bodies, so that "forensic evidence" based on
discovered bodies could certainly not demonstrate that 4,600 people had
been executed. Of course, Ignatieff talks about a forensic "trail of
evidence," but this rhetorical trick cannot cover up the fact that he
is engaging in deliberate deception. He also doesn't discuss Cohen's
use of "missing," in the midst of a war when such number was a
meaningless propaganda ploy, and used to suggest the likelihood that
100,000 had already been murdered.
The Tribunal estimated that 11,334 bodies will be found, so Ignatieff
says whether they will be found "depends on whether the Serb military
and the police removed them." That the Tribunal's estimate might be
inflated for political reasons, or be simply mistaken, is ruled out by
ideological premise. The Tribunal hasn't found more than 4,000 bodies,
but neither Ignatieff nor the Times has noticed, and by ideological
assumption any missing bodies must have been removed by agents of
another Hitler! This is bias running wild.
Afghanistan: What Bodies?
The contrast between the media and collective's treatment of civilian
casualties and body count in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan after September
11 couldn't be more dramatic. The media's disinterest in questioning
Afghan refugees is especially noteworthy as there were large numbers
put to flight by the bombing, and this new burden of war was imposed on
a population already in a starvation crisis. Elementary humanity would
make their condition and plight of interest. But, on the other hand,
U.S. policy success depended on minimizing the effect of the bombing
war on civilians. A good propaganda system will therefore make Afghan
civilian victims "unworthy," and their plight will be ignored. The U.S.
media and collective responded at least as well as Pravda or Izvestia
responded to the demands of the Soviet state when IT was doing damage
to Afghan civilians.
For the U.S. media, it was "A Nation Challenged" and a "War On Terror."
The focus has been on U.S. war plans, war actions, successes in
attacking the enemy, coalition organization, and reactions on the home
front. Considerable attention has been paid to civilian casualties and
the pains of death, but only as regards the victims of 9/11; in fact,
the New York Times has been providing humanizing accounts, day after
day, of each and every victim of the World Trade Center bombings. But
you would have to look hard in the massive coverage of the war to find
U.S. media reports that even touched on civilian casualties from the
intensive U.S. bombing raids on Afghanistan, or the war's effects on
refugee generation and starvation. In an enlightening contrast, whereas
The Guardian (London), reports "Refugees left in the cold at
'slaughterhouse' camp: 100 Afghans perish daily as strained network
collapses under flood of new arrivals" (Jan. 3, 2002), the Washington
Post features success in averting famine and averts its eyes from the
Afghans in travail ("Massive Food Delivery Averts Afghan Famine," Dec.
31, 2001).
Even when U.S. bombs repeatedly hit marked Red Cross facilities in
Kabul, and U.S. officials admitted that this was intended, the U.S.
media reported this with brevity and without the slightest indignation,
and it did not impel them to look at U.S. bombing strategies more
closely. Even the open admission of an intention to harm civilians, as
in British Admiral Sir Michael Boyce's statement that "The squeeze will
carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this
is going to go on until they get the leadership changed" (NYT, Oct.
28), does not move the U.S. media. Investigative zeal on this subject
is non-existent. When the academic Mark Herold went to the trouble of
carefully studying news reports at home and abroad, and came up with a
tally of over 3,700 civilians killed by U.S. bombs from October 7th to
December 7th ("A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States Aerial
Bombing of Afghanistan"), no major U.S. news institution bothered to
report this finding.
Equally interesting has been the silence and/or apologetics on civilian
casualties on the part of the New Humanitarians who were so deeply
concerned with the officially approved victims in the Balkans. Writing
and reporting on the Afghan war, Timothy Garton Ash, David Rieff,
Michael Ignatieff, and Bernard Kouchner have expressed not a word of
concern over the civilian bombing casualties, or the enhanced
starvation threat resulting from the war, or possible "war crimes."
Chistopher Hitchens has been positively enthused over the war, and
KNOWS by intuition and faith in his leaders that there has been "no
serious loss of human life" from the bombing and that the Bush
administration has followed "an almost pedantic policy of avoiding
'collateral damage'" (Nation, Dec. 17, 2001).
Hitchens' Nation colleague, Marc Cooper, was indignant at a citation to
Mark Herold's study of civilian casualties, claiming that Herold's body
count is "totally unverified and unscientific." Cooper, who was never
outraged over the much less scientific claims of Kosovo Albanian deaths
by William Cohen and other NATO spokespersons, is no doubt waiting for
the Bush administration to "verify" the Herold body count. It is
noteworthy that Cooper doesn't express indignation that neither the
government nor media seem to have made an effort to study civilian
casualties as Herold has done, a failure that clearly facilitates the
killing of civilians--but his arguments are perhaps understandable
given that the war itself strikes him as a "just cause," making the
Afghan civilians correspondingly unworthy. His, Hitchens', and the New
Humanitarians' stance toward these civilian killings makes them
facilitators of de facto war crimes.
Body Counts in East Timor, Turkey, and Israel
It goes almost without saying that the U.S. mainstream media have not
sought out refugees and pursued body counts of East Timorese victims of
Indonesia, Kurdish victims of Turkey, or Palestinian victims of Israel.
There is no way the U.S. public could know that Turkey had been killing
Kurds and producing refugees during the 1990s on a scale that exceeded
Serb operations in Kosovo by a large factor. Similarly, as regards
Israel and the Palestinians, the media have continued their long
tradition of making the Israelis the victims, the Palestinians the
aggressors and terrorists, the numerical body count on the ground the
inverse of the impression of body count conveyed in the media (see
Herman, "Israel's Approved Ethnic Cleansing, Part 3, How the U.S. Media
Protects It," Z Magazine, June 2001).
It was a telling fact that as Indonesian killing in East Timor reached
a peak in 1977 and 1978, New York Times coverage of that area fell to
zero. This was possibly the closest thing to genocide we have seen
since World War II, but the word is not applied to this case (in
contrast with its lavish use for Kosovo), and veteran New York Times
reporter Henry Kamm even explicitly denied its applicability to East
Timor (Feb. 15, 1981). That was what Times reporters call a "complex"
case, as a good genocidist (Suharto), long supported by the United
States, who brought "stability" to the area, was in charge.
In 1998 and 1999, when Indonesia attempted to prevent and subvert the
U.N.-sponsored independence referendum in East Timor, the Indonesian
army and paramilitary forces killed over 5,000 defenceless civilians
even before the August 30, 1999 vote, according to Church estimates
(John Taylor, East Timor: The Price of Freedom). This was far more than
died in Kosovo in the year before the bombing war, estimated by UN
human rights rapporteur Jiri Dienstbier at some 1,800, and more than
the number of bodies found in Kosovo even after the war. But the
disinterest of the U.S. mainstream media in refugees or body counts was
close to complete, and when on the rare occasion numbers killed have
been offered, they are low. Seth Mydans suggested that "as many as
1,000 people" died in the independence struggle, with no citation to
source, an estimate that fits well the paper's durable coverup of
Indonesia's abuse of these unworthy victims ("Bones Offer Testimony Of
Killings In East Timor," Sept. 30, 2001).
The New Humanitarians have follow the same pattern, attending with
great indignation to the "genocide" in Bosnia and Kosovo, and somehow
never getting around to the frequently far more numerous unworthy
victims of their own state and its clients. In a recent study that
David Peterson and I did on "The New Humanitarian Crusaders" for a
forthcoming book on Human Rights: Challenging the New Consensus (edited
by David Chandler), we found that in a sample of 101 recent mainstream
media articles on human rights written by a dozen leading New
Humanitarians (Rieff, Sontag, Kouchner, Havel, Hitchens, Ignatieff,
Ash, Kaldor, Aryeh Neier, Geoffrey Robertson, Tim Judah and Kenneth
Roth), the Yugoslav conflicts were discussed in detail in every
article, but human rights issues in East Timor, Turkey and Israel were
mentioned briefly in only three.
The New Humanitarians' lack of interest or concern with victims deemed
unworthy by their state was well captured by Christopher Hitchens'
treatment of East Timor, where he credits the new interventionism in
Kosovo for having helped the East Timorese. Although the intervention
was belated, in the end "The Indonesian occupiers sailed away"
("Genocide and the Body-Baggers," Nation, Nov. 29, 1999). He omits
mentioning that the United States and its allies knew, and watched
without doing anything about it, while many more innocents were killed
than died in Kosovo before the bombing war; that in addition to the
large numbers killed, the destruction was immense and 85 percent of the
population was made refugees; that no food drops were implemented on
behalf of the refugees; that nothing was done to help the more than
100,000 refugees under Indonesian control in West Timor; that no
forensic teams were rushed to check out war crimes and no war crimes
trials are pressed by the West.
That was Hitchens' last word on this subject, as he sailed away to
focus on the villainy in Kosovo, and then the just war against fascism
in Afghanistan.
Conclusion: Body Counts in Imperial Service
The beauty of this system is that it works without coercion-- the media
and New Humanitarians display great energy in pursuing the mistreatment
of the worthy victims of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Milosevic, and
their indignation seems entirely spontaneous; and their disinterest and
absence of indignation at the abuse of the unworthy victims of Suharto,
the Turkish generals, Ariel Sharon, or U.S. bombers in Serbia, the
Sudan, and Afghanistan seem equally natural. Both their benevolence and
indifference are channeled perfectly to serve the demands of the
imperial state as they quickly internalize the patriotic agenda. Thus
they can pay little or no attention to Saddam Hussein's victims while
he is in imperial service (before August 2, 1990), but quickly begin
the aggressive search for bodies after he becomes another Hitler (from
August 2). This is the way a model propaganda system should work.
Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania.
l'altro collaboratore della nota rivista progressista "chomskiana" Z
Magazine - presenta in questo articolo una dettagliata disamina dei
casi piu' eclatanti di falsificazione delle cifre delle vittime di
"massacri" e "genocidi" nelle recenti guerre imperialiste. Il caso
jugoslavo, ovviamente e purtroppo, occupa una posizione preminente
nella casistica della disinformazione strategica in materia... ]
http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political21.htm
"BODY COUNTS" IN IMPERIAL SERVICE:
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere
By Edward S. Herman
It is really impressive how efficiently the intellectual and propaganda
resources of the imperial state are mobilized to meet its need to
demonize its enemies and put its own and its client state's actions in
a benevolent light.
This is especially important for an imperial power that retains its
democratic forms as it kills lavishly and on a global basis, and
justifies these killings, and its enormous "defense" expenditures, on
grounds of "human rights" concerns as well as "national security."
Getting its message across requires not only a compliant media and
"journalists of attachment" who will follow the official agenda, but
also an intellectual community of experts, academic and think-tank
specialists, New Humanitarians, human rights group officials, and
former leftists who have finally seen the light, who serve as
"independent" commentators and guide the public toward the official
truth. They constitute an ideological and propaganda collective that
provides a gigantic echo chamber in which the official agenda
resonates, and which helps get the public on the killing bandwagon.
The operation of this collective, and its techniques, are well
illustrated by its treatment of "body counts" in comparable wars and
atrocities throughout the world. Where there is an official and
imperial demand for a high body count and great indignation, as in the
case of Kosovo in 1998 and 1999 (earlier in Bosnia in the years
1992-1995, Kuwait in 1990-1991, still earlier in the case of Cambodia
under Pol Pot, 1975-1978), the collective will be deeply concerned with
civilian casualties, will pursue refugees relentlessly to get details
of their suffering, and will search eagerly for dead bodies. Given that
they know the truth in advance -that "another Hitler" is committing
genocide, they will not look at evidence very critically, and will be
happy to accept any congenial story and any inflated account of numbers
of bodies, however biased the source. They will also explain away the
ex post findings that "another Hitler's" body count had been inflated.
On the other hand, where the imperial power and/or its proxies are
doing the killing, as in Afghanistan from October 7, 2001 onward, or in
Panama in 1989, or in Iraq from January 1991 to the present; or where
client states like Israel, Turkey and Indonesia in East Timor are doing
the killing, the establishment collective has little interest in
civilian casualties [exception: ISRAELI civilians], fails to pursue
refugees to get their stories of suffering, and does not engage in any
search for dead bodies. In fact, its members tend to be sceptical of
stories of suffering and estimates of dead bodies made by others, in a
direct reversal of their position on such stories and estimates for
"worthy" victims of "another Hitler."
This same contrast applies to larger body counts such as in the famous
100 million death toll of Communism in the Black Book, which includes
millions who died in Chinese and Soviet famines. But it would be
unthinkable for writers in the mainstream to count in the death toll of
Capitalism those who have died of exposure, hard labor, starvation, and
preventable diseases resulting from economic structures and policies,
which would run well over 100 million; or the aggregate of
"disappeared" in Latin America during the National Security State
years; or the "collateral damage" deaths from sanctions and bombing in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places. AOL Time Warner is not likely
to be interested in publishing a Black Book of Capitalism.
Bosnia and Kosovo: Give Us Bodies!
With Milosevic "another Hitler" and the Serbs "willing executioners,"
by NATO-power determination in the early 1990s, the quest for bodies
was early and intense. But only Bosnian Muslim bodies were sought, not
victims of the Bosnian Muslims or Croatians, although there is
extensive evidence of repeated massacres of Serbs in Bosnia in the
years 1992-1995. In 1994 and 1995, Muslim commander in Srebrenica,
Naser Oric, proudly showed journalists videotapes of his "war
trophies," including severed heads and heaps of bodies of Serbs, but
these were not the bodies the collective was seeking. (The NATO
establishment, including New Humanitarians and genocide hustlers David
Rieff, Susan Sontag, Aryeh Neier, Christopher Hitchens, Ian Williams et
al., have been exceedingly quiet on the implications for likely source
of massacres of the fact that thousands of bin Laden's troops and
allies had been imported to fight the Bosnian Muslim cause in those
years).
In his book Slaughterhouse, David Rieff says there were more than
250,000 Bosnians killed--and Rieff uses the word Bosnians to mean
Bosnian Muslims only--but he gives no source, and he is clearly
regurgitating claims of Bosnian Muslim officials, notably Foreign
Minister Haris Silajdzic. The propagandists on his side are
truth-tellers. For Rieff, his mother Susan Sontag, Hitchens, et al.,
this was "genocide," but the thousands of Serbs killed by Naser Oric
and Bin Laden's cadres was not genocide; in fact, those slaughters and
mass graves (at least 53 claimed by the Bosnian Serbs) never show up on
the screen of the collective or reach the U.S. public.
According to George Kenney, who worked on Yugoslavia in the State
Department during the Bosnian war, the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) estimates 20-30,000 dead in Bosnia, and U.S.
intelligence community estimates "run to tens of thousands." Only a few
thousand bodies have been found in Bosnia attributable to the
Bosnia-Herzegovina wars, and the ICRC says "more than 20,000" are
unaccounted for, which, again, doesn't get us near 250,000 and
"genocide." In Srebrenica, there have been only 473 bodies recovered,
and there is absolutely no credible evidence that 7,500 men and boys
who allegedly disappeared in this area in July 1995 were murdered. The
absence of bodies, despite an intense search and strong incentives to
produce them, hasn't interfered with the conclusion that 7,500 were
slaughtered there.
One claim of course was that the Serbs removed the bodies. This is not
credible, as removing thousands of bodies would not only require
significant human and capital resources, not likely to be a high
priority in times of intense warfare, but it would also be a project
readily observable in satellite photos. U.S. satellite observations of
this area never came up with any photos of killing, digging, or
removal. The removal theory was also popular for Kosovo, especially
after the Tribunal produced fewer than 4,000 bodies (on all sides,
including dead soldiers). Long after the war, but timed well to provide
a suitable context for bringing Milosevic to the Hague, a story was
widely circulated about a Mercedes refrigerated truck dumped into the
Danube with a load of bodies, the inference being that maybe many such
trucks with bodies were dumped into the river. Needless to say no such
evidence has been forthcoming.
The search for bodies intensified during the 78-day bombing war, and
then in its aftermath, in NATO-occupied Kosovo. This was urgently
needed by NATO's war-makers, as the really severe refugee flight and
escalated killing FOLLOWED the NATO bombing; before that, a
Belgrade-NATO agreement had seen the drawing back of the Serbian army,
the return of many of the refugees, admission of a sizable OSCE
observer presence, and reduced killing, despite KLA provocations. A
pre-bombing German Foreign office assessment even denied any ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, describing Serbian army actions there as targeted
against KLA forces and strongholds. Furthermore, it eventually entered
the public domain that the United States had actually aided the KLA
before the bombing, so that the KLA's provocations aimed at inducing
Serbian retaliation to help bring NATO into war could be said to be
U.S.-sponsored. The indignation at Serbian retaliation was therefore
cynical and hypocritical.
The NATO propaganda machine needed to ignore this history, as well as
the military collaboration of NATO and the KLA during the war, and
blame the refugee crisis and killings entirely on the Serbs. This was
helped by a claim of an "Operation Horseshoe" plan to expel the Kosovo
Albanians even without a NATO war. The establishment collective's
cooperation in this task was exemplary, including the suppression up to
this day of the evidence that the alleged Operation Horseshoe was a
propaganda fabrication (exposed in a book by retired German Brigadier
General Heinz Loquai, The Kosovo Conflict: A War That Could Be Avoided).
A final problem was the absence of enough bodies in Kosovo after the
June 10, 1999 NATO-occupation to satisfy the frenzied propaganda claims
of genocide. During the war, NATO propagandists had made wild claims of
100,000 and even 500,000 killings and the word "genocide" was used
freely to describe Serb actions. After the war, NATO and its agents
organized what must have be the largest forensic search in history, and
the media descended on the conquered province like an invasion of
locusts, interviewing refugees, looking for and examining grave sites,
insatiable for stories of abuse and bodies. They got painful stories
from the refugees, many no doubt true, but there was much
disappointment that the Trepca mine, for example, which Kosovo Albanian
informants had claimed had been the site of mass cremation, showed no
signs of any bodies having been burned there, and the Tribunal's final
count was under 4,000 dead--from unknown causes and on all sides.
According to the ICRC, there were some 3,500 Kosovo residents still
missing in May 2001, a figure that included some 900 Serbs, Roma and
other non-Albanians. Whether these were all genuinely missing or had
died is unclear. With the body count numbers clearly inadequate,
instead of pointing out that NATO officials had lied and admitting that
they had been gulled, the media and other members of the propaganda
collective simply dropped the subject. Having exploited the inflated
claims and squeezed all they could out of refugee testimony, and having
failed to mention that the claim of an Operation Horseshoe had been
refuted, the collective's abandonment of the subject meant that they
left a system of convenient lies intact. This would allow them to
support the Tribunal in anything it did, as the Tribunal worked with a
closely related system of politicized and biased "information."
The New Humanitarian members of the collective, who had swallowed and
disseminated the inflated numbers, also never recanted based on the
actual body count. None of them have ever mentioned the evidence that
the United States had secretly aided the KLA before the bombing war and
was in active contact with them during the war. None has conceded that
"Operation Horseshoe" had been demonstrated to be a propaganda
concoction; Christopher Hitchens repeats that "a plan of mass
expulsion...was in train," and Michael Ignatieff says that "Milosevic
decided to solve an 'internal problem' by exporting an entire nation to
his impoverished neighbors."
For Ian Williams and Ignatieff, those who point to the absence of
bodies consistent with the inflated claims of NATO propaganda are
"revisionists"! Both cite Tribunal estimates as the last word--
Williams says Carla del Ponte's estimate of 11,334 dead based on
"eyewitnesses" "should have put questions concerning the death toll to
rest," but no--"the downward revision of the numbers murdered in Kosovo
is proving very fashionable--even in the New York Times," which to
Williams' outrage put up a headline "Early Count Hints at Fewer Kosovo
Deaths." The actual body count was under 4,000, but for Williams, del
Ponte's estimate of how many she EXPECTS to be found is the only
relevant number, given the Tribunal's known objectivity. (In dismissing
the need for investigating NATO's war crimes in bombing Serbia, del
Ponte acknowledged taking NATO press releases as an authoritative
source of information, but Williams probably wouldn't find this
problematic either.)
Williams does the New York Times an injustice. In addition to never
finding the U.S.-KLA connection of news interest, nor the collapse of
the Operation Horseshoe claim, nor the contesting evidence concerning
the Racak massacre, the paper called upon Michael Ignatieff to give the
authoritative word on "Counting Bodies in Kosovo" (Nov. 21, 1999).
Like, Williams, Ignatieff has the "revisionists...getting their facts
wrong." The NATO leaders didn't exaggerate the killings. While U.S.
Defense Secretary William Cohen claimed that 100,000 Kosovo Albanian
males were "missing," he "also clearly stated that his reports showed
that 4,600 Kosovars had been executed, a claim that has been confirmed
by the forensic trail of evidence uncovered by war crimes investigators
since June." But Ignatieff eventually admits that the Tribunal had up
to then found only 2,108 bodies, so that "forensic evidence" based on
discovered bodies could certainly not demonstrate that 4,600 people had
been executed. Of course, Ignatieff talks about a forensic "trail of
evidence," but this rhetorical trick cannot cover up the fact that he
is engaging in deliberate deception. He also doesn't discuss Cohen's
use of "missing," in the midst of a war when such number was a
meaningless propaganda ploy, and used to suggest the likelihood that
100,000 had already been murdered.
The Tribunal estimated that 11,334 bodies will be found, so Ignatieff
says whether they will be found "depends on whether the Serb military
and the police removed them." That the Tribunal's estimate might be
inflated for political reasons, or be simply mistaken, is ruled out by
ideological premise. The Tribunal hasn't found more than 4,000 bodies,
but neither Ignatieff nor the Times has noticed, and by ideological
assumption any missing bodies must have been removed by agents of
another Hitler! This is bias running wild.
Afghanistan: What Bodies?
The contrast between the media and collective's treatment of civilian
casualties and body count in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan after September
11 couldn't be more dramatic. The media's disinterest in questioning
Afghan refugees is especially noteworthy as there were large numbers
put to flight by the bombing, and this new burden of war was imposed on
a population already in a starvation crisis. Elementary humanity would
make their condition and plight of interest. But, on the other hand,
U.S. policy success depended on minimizing the effect of the bombing
war on civilians. A good propaganda system will therefore make Afghan
civilian victims "unworthy," and their plight will be ignored. The U.S.
media and collective responded at least as well as Pravda or Izvestia
responded to the demands of the Soviet state when IT was doing damage
to Afghan civilians.
For the U.S. media, it was "A Nation Challenged" and a "War On Terror."
The focus has been on U.S. war plans, war actions, successes in
attacking the enemy, coalition organization, and reactions on the home
front. Considerable attention has been paid to civilian casualties and
the pains of death, but only as regards the victims of 9/11; in fact,
the New York Times has been providing humanizing accounts, day after
day, of each and every victim of the World Trade Center bombings. But
you would have to look hard in the massive coverage of the war to find
U.S. media reports that even touched on civilian casualties from the
intensive U.S. bombing raids on Afghanistan, or the war's effects on
refugee generation and starvation. In an enlightening contrast, whereas
The Guardian (London), reports "Refugees left in the cold at
'slaughterhouse' camp: 100 Afghans perish daily as strained network
collapses under flood of new arrivals" (Jan. 3, 2002), the Washington
Post features success in averting famine and averts its eyes from the
Afghans in travail ("Massive Food Delivery Averts Afghan Famine," Dec.
31, 2001).
Even when U.S. bombs repeatedly hit marked Red Cross facilities in
Kabul, and U.S. officials admitted that this was intended, the U.S.
media reported this with brevity and without the slightest indignation,
and it did not impel them to look at U.S. bombing strategies more
closely. Even the open admission of an intention to harm civilians, as
in British Admiral Sir Michael Boyce's statement that "The squeeze will
carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this
is going to go on until they get the leadership changed" (NYT, Oct.
28), does not move the U.S. media. Investigative zeal on this subject
is non-existent. When the academic Mark Herold went to the trouble of
carefully studying news reports at home and abroad, and came up with a
tally of over 3,700 civilians killed by U.S. bombs from October 7th to
December 7th ("A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States Aerial
Bombing of Afghanistan"), no major U.S. news institution bothered to
report this finding.
Equally interesting has been the silence and/or apologetics on civilian
casualties on the part of the New Humanitarians who were so deeply
concerned with the officially approved victims in the Balkans. Writing
and reporting on the Afghan war, Timothy Garton Ash, David Rieff,
Michael Ignatieff, and Bernard Kouchner have expressed not a word of
concern over the civilian bombing casualties, or the enhanced
starvation threat resulting from the war, or possible "war crimes."
Chistopher Hitchens has been positively enthused over the war, and
KNOWS by intuition and faith in his leaders that there has been "no
serious loss of human life" from the bombing and that the Bush
administration has followed "an almost pedantic policy of avoiding
'collateral damage'" (Nation, Dec. 17, 2001).
Hitchens' Nation colleague, Marc Cooper, was indignant at a citation to
Mark Herold's study of civilian casualties, claiming that Herold's body
count is "totally unverified and unscientific." Cooper, who was never
outraged over the much less scientific claims of Kosovo Albanian deaths
by William Cohen and other NATO spokespersons, is no doubt waiting for
the Bush administration to "verify" the Herold body count. It is
noteworthy that Cooper doesn't express indignation that neither the
government nor media seem to have made an effort to study civilian
casualties as Herold has done, a failure that clearly facilitates the
killing of civilians--but his arguments are perhaps understandable
given that the war itself strikes him as a "just cause," making the
Afghan civilians correspondingly unworthy. His, Hitchens', and the New
Humanitarians' stance toward these civilian killings makes them
facilitators of de facto war crimes.
Body Counts in East Timor, Turkey, and Israel
It goes almost without saying that the U.S. mainstream media have not
sought out refugees and pursued body counts of East Timorese victims of
Indonesia, Kurdish victims of Turkey, or Palestinian victims of Israel.
There is no way the U.S. public could know that Turkey had been killing
Kurds and producing refugees during the 1990s on a scale that exceeded
Serb operations in Kosovo by a large factor. Similarly, as regards
Israel and the Palestinians, the media have continued their long
tradition of making the Israelis the victims, the Palestinians the
aggressors and terrorists, the numerical body count on the ground the
inverse of the impression of body count conveyed in the media (see
Herman, "Israel's Approved Ethnic Cleansing, Part 3, How the U.S. Media
Protects It," Z Magazine, June 2001).
It was a telling fact that as Indonesian killing in East Timor reached
a peak in 1977 and 1978, New York Times coverage of that area fell to
zero. This was possibly the closest thing to genocide we have seen
since World War II, but the word is not applied to this case (in
contrast with its lavish use for Kosovo), and veteran New York Times
reporter Henry Kamm even explicitly denied its applicability to East
Timor (Feb. 15, 1981). That was what Times reporters call a "complex"
case, as a good genocidist (Suharto), long supported by the United
States, who brought "stability" to the area, was in charge.
In 1998 and 1999, when Indonesia attempted to prevent and subvert the
U.N.-sponsored independence referendum in East Timor, the Indonesian
army and paramilitary forces killed over 5,000 defenceless civilians
even before the August 30, 1999 vote, according to Church estimates
(John Taylor, East Timor: The Price of Freedom). This was far more than
died in Kosovo in the year before the bombing war, estimated by UN
human rights rapporteur Jiri Dienstbier at some 1,800, and more than
the number of bodies found in Kosovo even after the war. But the
disinterest of the U.S. mainstream media in refugees or body counts was
close to complete, and when on the rare occasion numbers killed have
been offered, they are low. Seth Mydans suggested that "as many as
1,000 people" died in the independence struggle, with no citation to
source, an estimate that fits well the paper's durable coverup of
Indonesia's abuse of these unworthy victims ("Bones Offer Testimony Of
Killings In East Timor," Sept. 30, 2001).
The New Humanitarians have follow the same pattern, attending with
great indignation to the "genocide" in Bosnia and Kosovo, and somehow
never getting around to the frequently far more numerous unworthy
victims of their own state and its clients. In a recent study that
David Peterson and I did on "The New Humanitarian Crusaders" for a
forthcoming book on Human Rights: Challenging the New Consensus (edited
by David Chandler), we found that in a sample of 101 recent mainstream
media articles on human rights written by a dozen leading New
Humanitarians (Rieff, Sontag, Kouchner, Havel, Hitchens, Ignatieff,
Ash, Kaldor, Aryeh Neier, Geoffrey Robertson, Tim Judah and Kenneth
Roth), the Yugoslav conflicts were discussed in detail in every
article, but human rights issues in East Timor, Turkey and Israel were
mentioned briefly in only three.
The New Humanitarians' lack of interest or concern with victims deemed
unworthy by their state was well captured by Christopher Hitchens'
treatment of East Timor, where he credits the new interventionism in
Kosovo for having helped the East Timorese. Although the intervention
was belated, in the end "The Indonesian occupiers sailed away"
("Genocide and the Body-Baggers," Nation, Nov. 29, 1999). He omits
mentioning that the United States and its allies knew, and watched
without doing anything about it, while many more innocents were killed
than died in Kosovo before the bombing war; that in addition to the
large numbers killed, the destruction was immense and 85 percent of the
population was made refugees; that no food drops were implemented on
behalf of the refugees; that nothing was done to help the more than
100,000 refugees under Indonesian control in West Timor; that no
forensic teams were rushed to check out war crimes and no war crimes
trials are pressed by the West.
That was Hitchens' last word on this subject, as he sailed away to
focus on the villainy in Kosovo, and then the just war against fascism
in Afghanistan.
Conclusion: Body Counts in Imperial Service
The beauty of this system is that it works without coercion-- the media
and New Humanitarians display great energy in pursuing the mistreatment
of the worthy victims of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Milosevic, and
their indignation seems entirely spontaneous; and their disinterest and
absence of indignation at the abuse of the unworthy victims of Suharto,
the Turkish generals, Ariel Sharon, or U.S. bombers in Serbia, the
Sudan, and Afghanistan seem equally natural. Both their benevolence and
indifference are channeled perfectly to serve the demands of the
imperial state as they quickly internalize the patriotic agenda. Thus
they can pay little or no attention to Saddam Hussein's victims while
he is in imperial service (before August 2, 1990), but quickly begin
the aggressive search for bodies after he becomes another Hitler (from
August 2). This is the way a model propaganda system should work.
Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania.
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook