Informazione
Izbori 28. decembra
1. Ko je VOJISLAV VOJA KOSTUNICA?
(Djordje Blagojevic)
2. Saopstenje za javnost
(Udruzenje graПana - Odbor za nacionalnu solidarnost - Jela Jovanovic)
=== 1 ===
Ko je VOJISLAV VOJA KOSTUNICA?
Interesantna analiza profila Voje Koštunice, pa je šaljem u celini
(preuzeto sa www.srpskapolitika.com):
Posto se pominju razne moguće i nemoguće koalicije, a i bliži se dan D
kada treba zaokružiti odgovarajuću stranu, želim da podsetim ko je
Vojislav Koštunica. Znam da svi u njegovom stranci nisu kao on, da
tamo ima i poštenih i pametnih ljudi, ali dok oni vodi tu stranku
nijedan srpski patriota ne bi smeo da glasa za nju niti da pomisli da
uđe u eventualnu koaliciju.
Dakle, Vojislav Koštunica je čovek koji je soje ime stavio na celo
DOSmanlijske liste i time značajno pomogao da oni dođu do vlasti.
Ovaj "legalista" je hladno prihvatio laz da je dobio izbore u prvom
krugu za sta mu je falilo oko jedan procenat glasova (pobedio jeste
ali dobio izbore nije).
Isti "legalista" je bio jedan od vodećih učesnika u sastavljanja
famoznog protivustavnog zakona o saradnji s haškim trubunalom, a pre
toga aktivno učestvovao u najpre protivzakonitom i protivustavnom a
zatim zakonitom ali i dalje protivustavnom izručenju Srba u Hag
(uključujući i bivšeg Predsednika SRJ).
Kada je obavio sve bazne prljavštine i učvrstio vlast DOSmanlija, on
se povukao, kao u opoziciju, i tamo izigrava "čistunca" neobaveštenog
čoveka koji sa DOSmanlijskom vlašću nema nikakve veze.
Sada bi naivni trebalo da ga prihvate kao "umerenog nacionalistu"
i "poštenog čoveka", neku "novu opciju". A u njemu nema ni
nacionaliste ni poštenja a ponajmanje nečega novoga.
Nadam se da nijedan nacionalista neće nasesti na ovu prljavu igru NSP-
a. Sumnjam, mada to ne mogu da dokažem, ali mnoge činjenice ukazuju
na to, da je bas on Vojislav Koštunica zapravo glavni igrač NSP-a, a
da je Zoran Đinđić zapravo bio samo "čovek za jednu upotrebu" da
odradi najočiglednije prljavštine, na šta pokazuje njegovo naglo
izbacivanje sa političke scene (i života).
Da bi ilustrovao ponašanje ovog "legaliste" podsetiću vas na
moju "prepisku" s njim u nekim kritičnim trenucima njegove vlasti.
Navodnice su zbog toga sto ovaj "legalista" i "poštenjačina" nije
odgovorio ni na jedno moje pismo iako sam ih poslao na njegov državni
i privatni email, a dva od njih su objavljena i u novinama.
Djordje B
PS. Pisma su pisana u jednom dahu, u emocionalno teskim trenutcima pa
se izvinjavam zbog eventualnih grešaka, jer pisma su radi potpune
originalnosti bez naknadne redakcije.
31.03.2001 07:20
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Postovani gospodine predsednice,
Pozivam Vas hitno da preduzmete nesto i sprecite nastavak ove sramote
Srpskog naroda. Vi ste predsednik ove drzave, i vasa je duznost da u
u ovakvim trenutcima nesto preduzmete, da sprecite dalje prolivanje
Srpske krvi. U najmanju ruku, ocekujem od Vas da se obratite ovom
nesrecnom narodu, cija vlada i svi ostali organi cute dok se desavaju
uzasne stvari. Ako se desi ono sto svi ocekuju, bice to onaj
poslednji emocionalni udarac koji ovaj Narod nece moci da izdrzi.
Izgubili smo sve, ostao je jos samo mali tracak
nacionalnog dostojanstva. Ako i to izgubimo - vise nas nece biti
Ucinite nesto pre nego sto bude kasno. Nemoje dozvoliti da udjete u
istoriju kao predsednik Jugoslavije za cijeg je mandata ucinjen
zlocin Srba nad Srbima. Hteo bih jos mnogo toga da kazem, ali emocije
mi ne dozvoljavaju da smisleno piasem. Moja poslednja nada je ulozena
u Vas.
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
---------------------------------------
31.03.2001 21:09
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Postovani gospodine predsednice,
Samo ponekom coveku se pruzi prilika da ucestvuje u istoriji,
istoriji svoga naroda. Vama je tu sansa Bog pruzio, ali je niste
iskoristili.
Propustili ste sansu da spasete ovaj narod od konacnog kraha i
nestanka. Potpuno se slazem s vama da "nijedan pojedinac nije vredan
zrtvovanja drzavnih i nacionalnih interesa". Nazalost, niste shvatili
da se ovde ne radi o Slobodanu Milosevicu, vec je on, u ovom slucaju,
samo simbol srpskog otpora bezboznom Novom Svetskom poretku.
Nazalost, vi ste bodlegli pritiscima najbednijih sinova naseg naroda
olicenih u Djindjicu, Baticu i ostalima... Zrtvovali ste nacionalni i
drzavni interes zarad negog prividnog "mira". Mira u kome ce srpska
drzava i srpska nacija nestati. Ako vec treba da nestanemo, onda
bolje da to bude u plamenu, nego u sidi, seksualnoj izopacenosti,
neznabostvu...
Razocarali ste me, duboko ste me razocarali.
Ne trazim od Vas da se stidite, ja se stidim u Vase i svoje ime.
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
----------------------------------------
30.05.2001 18:19
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Gospodine predsednice,
Sada je 18:14, cetvrtak 30.05.2001 godine
Obzirom na sve sto se dogodilo u poslednjih nekoliko meseci, i vase
(ne)reagovanje povodom tih dogadjaja, ne ocekujem od vas nikakvu
reakciju na trenutna dogadjanja u Skupstini Republike Srbije, i ovo
moje pismo. Ipak, pisem vam ga da umirim sopstvenu savest, da mi deca
i unuci ne bi prevbacili da sam gledao sta se desava a nista nisam
preduzeo.
U ovom trenutku u Skupstini se odlucuje o buducnosti ne samo Kosova i
Metohije, vec o buducnosti Srbije i jugoslavije. Necu da komentarisem
mlaku "rezoluciju", kojom se prakticno odustaje od suvereniteta
Srbije i jugoslavije od Kosova i Metohije (ovde se Metohija i ne
pominje!). Hocu samo da vam skrenem paznju da je ponasanje vaseg
Predsednika Skupstine ne samo nedemokratsko, nego apsolutisticko i
diktatorsko. Kao da se plasi da cuje drugacije misljenje, on oduzima
rec narodnim poslanicima, iskljucuje im mikrofon, a RTS pokriva sve
to muzickim spotovima. A to su NASI narodni poslanici, ljudi koje smo
mi birali, ljudi koji misle i zele dobro ovoj zemlji, i kojima niko
nema prava da oduzima rec, pod obrazlozenjem da su (po slobodnoj
proceni predsednika) "promasili temu". Da li je to demokratija koju
ste nam obecavali, da li su to slobodni mediji o kojima ste govorili?
Ili ste skolu demokratije ucili kod Hitlera i Gebelsa? Ako je i od
DOS-a - mnogo je!
Za koga vi, gospodine predsednice zapravo radite?
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
-------------------------
16.06 19:35
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Gospodine Predsednice,
Pre nepuna tri meseca, napisao sam vam:
"Samo ponekom coveku se pruzi prilika da ucestvuje u istoriji,
istoriji svoga naroda. Vama je tu sansa
Bog pruzio, ali je niste iskoristili."
Tada ste, suprotno nacelim koje verbalno zastupate, dopustili da se
pred vasim ocima vrsi krsenje ustava i zakona ove drzave a da nicim
niste to pokusali da sprecite. Da potsetim, najpre je grupa
naoruzanih kriminalaca, sa najlon-carapama na glavama, pokusala
oruzani prepad na zgradu koja pripada vladi SRJ i izvrsi otmicu
bivseg predsednika Jugoslavije. Zatim je, sutradan, posle vase
intervencije, bivsi predsednik uhapsen, bez naloga za hapsenje, koji
je napisan tek sutradan. Vi ste tada govorili o "pravnoj drzavi", o
svemu i svacemu, ali niste nista preduzali u smislu krivicnog
godnjenja lica koja su pokusala krivicno delo oruzanog napada i
otmice. Jos pre toga ste bili svedok krsenja i zakona ove zemlje,
kada je izvrsene otmica jednog gradjanina Republike Srpske, u cilju
njegovog isporucenja nelegalnom (to ste i Vi nekada
govorili!) "Haskom Tribunalu". Tada ste taj cin kritikovali, ali
nista niste preduzeli u smislu krivicnog gonjenja pocinilaca ovog
krivicnog dela.
Tada ste propustili da udjete u istoriju svoga naroda,. da udjete u
istoriju na osnovu pozitivnog dela. Sada Vam se ponovo pruza prilika
da udjete u istoriju, ovoga puta na osnovu negativnog dela -
unistenja SRJ, "trece Jugoslavije". U ovom trenutku se odrzava
sednica "krnje" vlade (zar ovo ne podseca na dogadjaje od pre desetak
godina, dogadjaje pred raspad "druge Jugoslavije?), vlade koju su
napustili predstavnici SNP-a, u ocajnom pokusaju da ako nistva vise
ne mogu da ucine, da barem speru ljagu sebe, da sacuvaju svoje licno
dostojanstvo. Tema te sednice je donosenje uredbe, potpuno suprotne
ustavu i zakonima ove zemlje, uredbe koja preti da dostojanstvo ovog
naroda spusti do nule ili jos nize. To ce biti najsramniji dogadjaj u
dogoj istoriji Srpskog naroda.
A Vi cutite i ne preduzimate nista. Necinjenje nejkad znaci gori cin
nego cinjenje. U ovom slucaju, nekoriscenje Vasih ovlascenja kao
predsednika SRJ i vrhovnog komandanta Vojske Jugoslavije predstavlja
zlocin. Zlocin izdaje zemlje i naroda. Duznost Predsednika drzave je
da koristi sva svoja ovlascenja u cilju zastite zakonitosti, i jos
vise u cilju zastite integriteta drzave, i jos vise u cilju zastite
dostojanstva naroda kome i sam pripada. Da li ste Vi na te duznosti
zabotravili, ili svesno odbijate da ih izvrsite? Sta jos treba da se
desi da shvatite gde se nalazite i sta vam je duznost?
Ili cete postati "srpski Mesic" i kao poslednji predsednik SRJ uskoro
negde reci: "Zadatak je izvrsen..."
Ne trazim od Vas da se stidite, ja se stidim u Vase i svoje ime.
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
=== 2 ===
Udruzenje graПana - Odbor za nacionalnu solidarnost -
Tolstojeva 34 , Beograd, Srbija
Povodom uplovljavanja i pristajanja ameriХkog ratnog broda "Gonzales" u
teritorijalne vode Srbije i Crne Gore, UG -Odbor za nacionalnu
solidarnost- izdaje sledeФe
> SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
>
> " Gonzales " u misiji zastrasivanja srpskih biraХa
>
> Nedavno je u teritorijalne vode Srbije i Crne Gore uplovio i pristao
> ameriХki ratni brod "Gonzales", jedan iz flotile brodova ubica iz 1999.
> godine, flotile sa koje su poletali avioni-ubice i isplajivane rakete
> po
> civilima u SRJ, za vreme agresije NATO pakta . Od agresije, nijedan
> americki ratni brod nije upolovio u nase vode pa cak ni 5.oktobra,
> kada su njihovi politiХki saveznici iz DOS-a izvrsili puc u Beogradu i
> nasilnim putem preuzeli vlast ,ali jesu sada, pred republiХke izbore
> 28. decembra, kada sve prognoze govore da ce vlast u Srbiji osvojiti
> Srpska Radikalna Stranka i SocijalistiХka Partija Srbije, stranke koje
> su saХinjavale vladu SRJ tokom NATO agresije i stranke koje su
> osvedoХene patriotske orijentacije.
>
> Miisija ovog ratnog broda u nasoj zemlji nije uspostavljanje dobrih
> odnosa izmeПu Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore i Armije Sjedinjenih Drzava,
> kako je to u svom obraФanju naglasio ambasador Sjedinjenih Drzava u
> Beogradu, inaХe istinski vladar u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori, Vilijem
> Montgomeri, veФ zastrasivanje biraХa u Srbiji pred decembarske
> parlamentarne izbore. Ovo prosto demonstriranje vojne moФi treba da
> podseti graПane Srbije na uzase koje su u ameriХki ratni brodovi i
> avijacija sejali po srpskim gradovima i selima i opomene ih kako treba
> da glasaju 28. decembra. AmeriХka administracija i ambasador
> Montgomeri na svaki naХin pokusavaju da uskoХe u pomoФ svojim, od
> naroda u Srbiji, prozrenim i prezrenim pulenima, pa se tako ne libe i
> da na ovaj naХin posalju poruku srpskim biraХima. Uplovljavanje ovog
> broda je izvedeno u sadejstvu sa marketing menadzerima DOS-a u jeku
> njihove histeriХne kampanje i harange protiv Srpske radikalne Stranke
> i SocijalistiХke Partije Srbije Хime ovi kvazi menadzeri i njihovi
> sefovi krse Zakon o izboru narodnih poslanika u Narodnu Skupstinu
> Republike Srbije.
> Nase udruzenje graПana ovim saopstenjem zeli da biraХima u Srbiji
> skrene paznju na ove i sliХne ameriХko-dosovske predizborne
> manipulacije i zatrazi da glasaju po svojoj savesti i slobodnoj volji
> , bez straha .
>
> Bez ikakvog nasilja i pored talasa koje prave NATO brodovi i senki
> krila NATO avijacije kao podrske, ova sramna DOS-ova vlast Фe voljom
> naroda morati da ode u istoriju i zauzme mesto koje pripada
> kratkotrajnim i potrosnim vazalnim vladama.
>
> JELA JOVANOVIC
> Generalni sekretar
>
> Do pobede !
>
> Na Svetog Nikolu, u Beogradu , 2003. godine
>
1. Ko je VOJISLAV VOJA KOSTUNICA?
(Djordje Blagojevic)
2. Saopstenje za javnost
(Udruzenje graПana - Odbor za nacionalnu solidarnost - Jela Jovanovic)
=== 1 ===
Ko je VOJISLAV VOJA KOSTUNICA?
Interesantna analiza profila Voje Koštunice, pa je šaljem u celini
(preuzeto sa www.srpskapolitika.com):
Posto se pominju razne moguće i nemoguće koalicije, a i bliži se dan D
kada treba zaokružiti odgovarajuću stranu, želim da podsetim ko je
Vojislav Koštunica. Znam da svi u njegovom stranci nisu kao on, da
tamo ima i poštenih i pametnih ljudi, ali dok oni vodi tu stranku
nijedan srpski patriota ne bi smeo da glasa za nju niti da pomisli da
uđe u eventualnu koaliciju.
Dakle, Vojislav Koštunica je čovek koji je soje ime stavio na celo
DOSmanlijske liste i time značajno pomogao da oni dođu do vlasti.
Ovaj "legalista" je hladno prihvatio laz da je dobio izbore u prvom
krugu za sta mu je falilo oko jedan procenat glasova (pobedio jeste
ali dobio izbore nije).
Isti "legalista" je bio jedan od vodećih učesnika u sastavljanja
famoznog protivustavnog zakona o saradnji s haškim trubunalom, a pre
toga aktivno učestvovao u najpre protivzakonitom i protivustavnom a
zatim zakonitom ali i dalje protivustavnom izručenju Srba u Hag
(uključujući i bivšeg Predsednika SRJ).
Kada je obavio sve bazne prljavštine i učvrstio vlast DOSmanlija, on
se povukao, kao u opoziciju, i tamo izigrava "čistunca" neobaveštenog
čoveka koji sa DOSmanlijskom vlašću nema nikakve veze.
Sada bi naivni trebalo da ga prihvate kao "umerenog nacionalistu"
i "poštenog čoveka", neku "novu opciju". A u njemu nema ni
nacionaliste ni poštenja a ponajmanje nečega novoga.
Nadam se da nijedan nacionalista neće nasesti na ovu prljavu igru NSP-
a. Sumnjam, mada to ne mogu da dokažem, ali mnoge činjenice ukazuju
na to, da je bas on Vojislav Koštunica zapravo glavni igrač NSP-a, a
da je Zoran Đinđić zapravo bio samo "čovek za jednu upotrebu" da
odradi najočiglednije prljavštine, na šta pokazuje njegovo naglo
izbacivanje sa političke scene (i života).
Da bi ilustrovao ponašanje ovog "legaliste" podsetiću vas na
moju "prepisku" s njim u nekim kritičnim trenucima njegove vlasti.
Navodnice su zbog toga sto ovaj "legalista" i "poštenjačina" nije
odgovorio ni na jedno moje pismo iako sam ih poslao na njegov državni
i privatni email, a dva od njih su objavljena i u novinama.
Djordje B
PS. Pisma su pisana u jednom dahu, u emocionalno teskim trenutcima pa
se izvinjavam zbog eventualnih grešaka, jer pisma su radi potpune
originalnosti bez naknadne redakcije.
31.03.2001 07:20
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Postovani gospodine predsednice,
Pozivam Vas hitno da preduzmete nesto i sprecite nastavak ove sramote
Srpskog naroda. Vi ste predsednik ove drzave, i vasa je duznost da u
u ovakvim trenutcima nesto preduzmete, da sprecite dalje prolivanje
Srpske krvi. U najmanju ruku, ocekujem od Vas da se obratite ovom
nesrecnom narodu, cija vlada i svi ostali organi cute dok se desavaju
uzasne stvari. Ako se desi ono sto svi ocekuju, bice to onaj
poslednji emocionalni udarac koji ovaj Narod nece moci da izdrzi.
Izgubili smo sve, ostao je jos samo mali tracak
nacionalnog dostojanstva. Ako i to izgubimo - vise nas nece biti
Ucinite nesto pre nego sto bude kasno. Nemoje dozvoliti da udjete u
istoriju kao predsednik Jugoslavije za cijeg je mandata ucinjen
zlocin Srba nad Srbima. Hteo bih jos mnogo toga da kazem, ali emocije
mi ne dozvoljavaju da smisleno piasem. Moja poslednja nada je ulozena
u Vas.
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
---------------------------------------
31.03.2001 21:09
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Postovani gospodine predsednice,
Samo ponekom coveku se pruzi prilika da ucestvuje u istoriji,
istoriji svoga naroda. Vama je tu sansa Bog pruzio, ali je niste
iskoristili.
Propustili ste sansu da spasete ovaj narod od konacnog kraha i
nestanka. Potpuno se slazem s vama da "nijedan pojedinac nije vredan
zrtvovanja drzavnih i nacionalnih interesa". Nazalost, niste shvatili
da se ovde ne radi o Slobodanu Milosevicu, vec je on, u ovom slucaju,
samo simbol srpskog otpora bezboznom Novom Svetskom poretku.
Nazalost, vi ste bodlegli pritiscima najbednijih sinova naseg naroda
olicenih u Djindjicu, Baticu i ostalima... Zrtvovali ste nacionalni i
drzavni interes zarad negog prividnog "mira". Mira u kome ce srpska
drzava i srpska nacija nestati. Ako vec treba da nestanemo, onda
bolje da to bude u plamenu, nego u sidi, seksualnoj izopacenosti,
neznabostvu...
Razocarali ste me, duboko ste me razocarali.
Ne trazim od Vas da se stidite, ja se stidim u Vase i svoje ime.
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
----------------------------------------
30.05.2001 18:19
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Gospodine predsednice,
Sada je 18:14, cetvrtak 30.05.2001 godine
Obzirom na sve sto se dogodilo u poslednjih nekoliko meseci, i vase
(ne)reagovanje povodom tih dogadjaja, ne ocekujem od vas nikakvu
reakciju na trenutna dogadjanja u Skupstini Republike Srbije, i ovo
moje pismo. Ipak, pisem vam ga da umirim sopstvenu savest, da mi deca
i unuci ne bi prevbacili da sam gledao sta se desava a nista nisam
preduzeo.
U ovom trenutku u Skupstini se odlucuje o buducnosti ne samo Kosova i
Metohije, vec o buducnosti Srbije i jugoslavije. Necu da komentarisem
mlaku "rezoluciju", kojom se prakticno odustaje od suvereniteta
Srbije i jugoslavije od Kosova i Metohije (ovde se Metohija i ne
pominje!). Hocu samo da vam skrenem paznju da je ponasanje vaseg
Predsednika Skupstine ne samo nedemokratsko, nego apsolutisticko i
diktatorsko. Kao da se plasi da cuje drugacije misljenje, on oduzima
rec narodnim poslanicima, iskljucuje im mikrofon, a RTS pokriva sve
to muzickim spotovima. A to su NASI narodni poslanici, ljudi koje smo
mi birali, ljudi koji misle i zele dobro ovoj zemlji, i kojima niko
nema prava da oduzima rec, pod obrazlozenjem da su (po slobodnoj
proceni predsednika) "promasili temu". Da li je to demokratija koju
ste nam obecavali, da li su to slobodni mediji o kojima ste govorili?
Ili ste skolu demokratije ucili kod Hitlera i Gebelsa? Ako je i od
DOS-a - mnogo je!
Za koga vi, gospodine predsednice zapravo radite?
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
-------------------------
16.06 19:35
Dr. Vojislavu Kostunici
Predsedniku Savezne republike
Jugoslavije
Gospodine Predsednice,
Pre nepuna tri meseca, napisao sam vam:
"Samo ponekom coveku se pruzi prilika da ucestvuje u istoriji,
istoriji svoga naroda. Vama je tu sansa
Bog pruzio, ali je niste iskoristili."
Tada ste, suprotno nacelim koje verbalno zastupate, dopustili da se
pred vasim ocima vrsi krsenje ustava i zakona ove drzave a da nicim
niste to pokusali da sprecite. Da potsetim, najpre je grupa
naoruzanih kriminalaca, sa najlon-carapama na glavama, pokusala
oruzani prepad na zgradu koja pripada vladi SRJ i izvrsi otmicu
bivseg predsednika Jugoslavije. Zatim je, sutradan, posle vase
intervencije, bivsi predsednik uhapsen, bez naloga za hapsenje, koji
je napisan tek sutradan. Vi ste tada govorili o "pravnoj drzavi", o
svemu i svacemu, ali niste nista preduzali u smislu krivicnog
godnjenja lica koja su pokusala krivicno delo oruzanog napada i
otmice. Jos pre toga ste bili svedok krsenja i zakona ove zemlje,
kada je izvrsene otmica jednog gradjanina Republike Srpske, u cilju
njegovog isporucenja nelegalnom (to ste i Vi nekada
govorili!) "Haskom Tribunalu". Tada ste taj cin kritikovali, ali
nista niste preduzeli u smislu krivicnog gonjenja pocinilaca ovog
krivicnog dela.
Tada ste propustili da udjete u istoriju svoga naroda,. da udjete u
istoriju na osnovu pozitivnog dela. Sada Vam se ponovo pruza prilika
da udjete u istoriju, ovoga puta na osnovu negativnog dela -
unistenja SRJ, "trece Jugoslavije". U ovom trenutku se odrzava
sednica "krnje" vlade (zar ovo ne podseca na dogadjaje od pre desetak
godina, dogadjaje pred raspad "druge Jugoslavije?), vlade koju su
napustili predstavnici SNP-a, u ocajnom pokusaju da ako nistva vise
ne mogu da ucine, da barem speru ljagu sebe, da sacuvaju svoje licno
dostojanstvo. Tema te sednice je donosenje uredbe, potpuno suprotne
ustavu i zakonima ove zemlje, uredbe koja preti da dostojanstvo ovog
naroda spusti do nule ili jos nize. To ce biti najsramniji dogadjaj u
dogoj istoriji Srpskog naroda.
A Vi cutite i ne preduzimate nista. Necinjenje nejkad znaci gori cin
nego cinjenje. U ovom slucaju, nekoriscenje Vasih ovlascenja kao
predsednika SRJ i vrhovnog komandanta Vojske Jugoslavije predstavlja
zlocin. Zlocin izdaje zemlje i naroda. Duznost Predsednika drzave je
da koristi sva svoja ovlascenja u cilju zastite zakonitosti, i jos
vise u cilju zastite integriteta drzave, i jos vise u cilju zastite
dostojanstva naroda kome i sam pripada. Da li ste Vi na te duznosti
zabotravili, ili svesno odbijate da ih izvrsite? Sta jos treba da se
desi da shvatite gde se nalazite i sta vam je duznost?
Ili cete postati "srpski Mesic" i kao poslednji predsednik SRJ uskoro
negde reci: "Zadatak je izvrsen..."
Ne trazim od Vas da se stidite, ja se stidim u Vase i svoje ime.
Dr. Djordje Blagojevic,
Profesor Masinskog Fakulteta
Univerziteta u Beogradu
=== 2 ===
Udruzenje graПana - Odbor za nacionalnu solidarnost -
Tolstojeva 34 , Beograd, Srbija
Povodom uplovljavanja i pristajanja ameriХkog ratnog broda "Gonzales" u
teritorijalne vode Srbije i Crne Gore, UG -Odbor za nacionalnu
solidarnost- izdaje sledeФe
> SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
>
> " Gonzales " u misiji zastrasivanja srpskih biraХa
>
> Nedavno je u teritorijalne vode Srbije i Crne Gore uplovio i pristao
> ameriХki ratni brod "Gonzales", jedan iz flotile brodova ubica iz 1999.
> godine, flotile sa koje su poletali avioni-ubice i isplajivane rakete
> po
> civilima u SRJ, za vreme agresije NATO pakta . Od agresije, nijedan
> americki ratni brod nije upolovio u nase vode pa cak ni 5.oktobra,
> kada su njihovi politiХki saveznici iz DOS-a izvrsili puc u Beogradu i
> nasilnim putem preuzeli vlast ,ali jesu sada, pred republiХke izbore
> 28. decembra, kada sve prognoze govore da ce vlast u Srbiji osvojiti
> Srpska Radikalna Stranka i SocijalistiХka Partija Srbije, stranke koje
> su saХinjavale vladu SRJ tokom NATO agresije i stranke koje su
> osvedoХene patriotske orijentacije.
>
> Miisija ovog ratnog broda u nasoj zemlji nije uspostavljanje dobrih
> odnosa izmeПu Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore i Armije Sjedinjenih Drzava,
> kako je to u svom obraФanju naglasio ambasador Sjedinjenih Drzava u
> Beogradu, inaХe istinski vladar u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori, Vilijem
> Montgomeri, veФ zastrasivanje biraХa u Srbiji pred decembarske
> parlamentarne izbore. Ovo prosto demonstriranje vojne moФi treba da
> podseti graПane Srbije na uzase koje su u ameriХki ratni brodovi i
> avijacija sejali po srpskim gradovima i selima i opomene ih kako treba
> da glasaju 28. decembra. AmeriХka administracija i ambasador
> Montgomeri na svaki naХin pokusavaju da uskoХe u pomoФ svojim, od
> naroda u Srbiji, prozrenim i prezrenim pulenima, pa se tako ne libe i
> da na ovaj naХin posalju poruku srpskim biraХima. Uplovljavanje ovog
> broda je izvedeno u sadejstvu sa marketing menadzerima DOS-a u jeku
> njihove histeriХne kampanje i harange protiv Srpske radikalne Stranke
> i SocijalistiХke Partije Srbije Хime ovi kvazi menadzeri i njihovi
> sefovi krse Zakon o izboru narodnih poslanika u Narodnu Skupstinu
> Republike Srbije.
> Nase udruzenje graПana ovim saopstenjem zeli da biraХima u Srbiji
> skrene paznju na ove i sliХne ameriХko-dosovske predizborne
> manipulacije i zatrazi da glasaju po svojoj savesti i slobodnoj volji
> , bez straha .
>
> Bez ikakvog nasilja i pored talasa koje prave NATO brodovi i senki
> krila NATO avijacije kao podrske, ova sramna DOS-ova vlast Фe voljom
> naroda morati da ode u istoriju i zauzme mesto koje pripada
> kratkotrajnim i potrosnim vazalnim vladama.
>
> JELA JOVANOVIC
> Generalni sekretar
>
> Do pobede !
>
> Na Svetog Nikolu, u Beogradu , 2003. godine
>
FANTASY ALBANESE...
in Albania hanno finalmente ricominciato a fare i film: secondo Radio
Popolare di Milano, questa attivita' sarebbe stata vietata dal vecchio
Enver (*), ma ora che sono "liberi" pare possano di nuovo praticarla.
Qualche giorno fa c'è stato il primo festival della nuova era. E chi ha
vinto? Una regista di Pristina, ridente cittadina che dovrebbe far
parte della Albania del futuro. Il film si chiama "Kosova 11.9". Parla
di un bambinetto che sente che sono state abbattute le "torri gemelle"
a New York e pensa che siano stati i serbi a farlo. Ma che fantasia!
Certo, lo stesso giorno che era successa la cosa, l'avevamo detto anche
noi, anzi, c'erano due versioni della barzelletta: o "sono stati i
serbi" oppure "è stato Slobo"... ma non pensavamo mai che una regista
di Pristina potesse prendere la barzelletta per il soggetto del film, e
persino vincerci un festival. E' il caso di chiedere i diritti
d'autore? (a cura di I&A)
(*) questo e' quello che dice Radio Popolare di Milano, nota bene.
in Albania hanno finalmente ricominciato a fare i film: secondo Radio
Popolare di Milano, questa attivita' sarebbe stata vietata dal vecchio
Enver (*), ma ora che sono "liberi" pare possano di nuovo praticarla.
Qualche giorno fa c'è stato il primo festival della nuova era. E chi ha
vinto? Una regista di Pristina, ridente cittadina che dovrebbe far
parte della Albania del futuro. Il film si chiama "Kosova 11.9". Parla
di un bambinetto che sente che sono state abbattute le "torri gemelle"
a New York e pensa che siano stati i serbi a farlo. Ma che fantasia!
Certo, lo stesso giorno che era successa la cosa, l'avevamo detto anche
noi, anzi, c'erano due versioni della barzelletta: o "sono stati i
serbi" oppure "è stato Slobo"... ma non pensavamo mai che una regista
di Pristina potesse prendere la barzelletta per il soggetto del film, e
persino vincerci un festival. E' il caso di chiedere i diritti
d'autore? (a cura di I&A)
(*) questo e' quello che dice Radio Popolare di Milano, nota bene.
... E REALTA' ALBANESE
SONO DUECENTO I CADUTI COME IL BRONSON ALBANESE
Il crollo del palazzo in costruzione, futura sede del museo del Mare
nel Porto Antico di Genova, che ha causato la morte dell'operaio
albanese Albert Kolgjegja, è l’argomento di non poche segnalazioni
all’Oli. Il cittadino comune -ci scrivono dal Comitato Verità
Giustizia- ha percepito che non tutti gli albanesi delinquono; molti
lavorano onestamente e sono super sfruttati: ormai è chiaro che la
maggior parte del lavoro edile vive nell'illegalita' (un conoscente
immigrato non ha potuto per 3 anni tornare in patria dalla sua
famiglia, ha lavorato senza riuscire a farsi pagare per mesi, ora è
assunto in prova, ma quando -e se- verrà confermato dal datore di
lavoro passerà come apprendista, quindi sarà pagato meno del dovuto).
Scrive un altro: bene ha fatto l’Oli a cogliere la forte somiglianza
(sennò che osservatorio sarebbe) fra Albert Kolgjegja e Charles
Bunchinsky, alias Charles Bronson. Non il Bronson giustiziere degli
anni settanta/ottanta, dalla facciasolcata a paesaggio dalle rughe, ma
il Bunchinsky giovane (giustiziato) dei "Magnifici sette", mi pare il
taciturno lanciatore di coltelli... Un giovanotto figlio di lituani (15
fratelli) già minatore in Pennsylvania, che mutua il nuovo cognome da
un ponte vicino a Hollywood e considerato -a torto?- inespressivo. E
sono tipicamente "inespressive" le pose delle fototessere, come quella
apparsa sui giornali di Albert (Sant'Agata, se avesse avuto bisogno di
un nome d'arte), l'unica immagine che sonsi riesce a trovare
scartabellando anche l'intera rete internettesca.
Albert Kolgjegja muore l'8 novembre 2003, è il 189° deceduto "edile" in
Italia fino a quel punto dell'anno. Al 30 novembre siamo arrivati a 200
vittime di incidenti mortali.
Per documentarsi, i morti dell'edilizia hanno un loro sito:
http://www.filleacgil.it/infortuni_mortali.htm
(Fonte: O.L.I.
OSSERVATORIO LIGURE SULL'INFORMAZIONE
Newsletter n.6 giovedì 18 dicembre 2003
newsletter_oli@... )
SONO DUECENTO I CADUTI COME IL BRONSON ALBANESE
Il crollo del palazzo in costruzione, futura sede del museo del Mare
nel Porto Antico di Genova, che ha causato la morte dell'operaio
albanese Albert Kolgjegja, è l’argomento di non poche segnalazioni
all’Oli. Il cittadino comune -ci scrivono dal Comitato Verità
Giustizia- ha percepito che non tutti gli albanesi delinquono; molti
lavorano onestamente e sono super sfruttati: ormai è chiaro che la
maggior parte del lavoro edile vive nell'illegalita' (un conoscente
immigrato non ha potuto per 3 anni tornare in patria dalla sua
famiglia, ha lavorato senza riuscire a farsi pagare per mesi, ora è
assunto in prova, ma quando -e se- verrà confermato dal datore di
lavoro passerà come apprendista, quindi sarà pagato meno del dovuto).
Scrive un altro: bene ha fatto l’Oli a cogliere la forte somiglianza
(sennò che osservatorio sarebbe) fra Albert Kolgjegja e Charles
Bunchinsky, alias Charles Bronson. Non il Bronson giustiziere degli
anni settanta/ottanta, dalla facciasolcata a paesaggio dalle rughe, ma
il Bunchinsky giovane (giustiziato) dei "Magnifici sette", mi pare il
taciturno lanciatore di coltelli... Un giovanotto figlio di lituani (15
fratelli) già minatore in Pennsylvania, che mutua il nuovo cognome da
un ponte vicino a Hollywood e considerato -a torto?- inespressivo. E
sono tipicamente "inespressive" le pose delle fototessere, come quella
apparsa sui giornali di Albert (Sant'Agata, se avesse avuto bisogno di
un nome d'arte), l'unica immagine che sonsi riesce a trovare
scartabellando anche l'intera rete internettesca.
Albert Kolgjegja muore l'8 novembre 2003, è il 189° deceduto "edile" in
Italia fino a quel punto dell'anno. Al 30 novembre siamo arrivati a 200
vittime di incidenti mortali.
Per documentarsi, i morti dell'edilizia hanno un loro sito:
http://www.filleacgil.it/infortuni_mortali.htm
(Fonte: O.L.I.
OSSERVATORIO LIGURE SULL'INFORMAZIONE
Newsletter n.6 giovedì 18 dicembre 2003
newsletter_oli@... )
Doris Pak – ratni huskac na Balkanu
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-12-19.html
Pise: Oliver Vulovic
oliverv@... : oliver_vulovic@...
Decembar 18, 2003.g. Beograd
U dnevnoj stampi se pojavila informacija da izvestan broj evropskih
parlamentaraca na celu sa sefom delegacije za Jugoistocnu Evropu,
gospodjom Doris Pak, zahteva reviziju Dejtonskog sporazuma u smislu
cvrsce centralizacije vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini i ukidanje Republike
Srpske. Kao razloge su naveli da “ dvovlasce “ u BiH zajedno sa
protektoratom izaziva stagnaciju, nezaposlenost, opstu ekonomsku
nestabilnost i da medju etnickim grupama vlada duboko nepoverenje.
Pored Doris Pak, pomenuti zahtev su potpisali general Morijon, Tadeus
Mazovjecki, Hans Kosnik i jos nekoliko poznatih clanova Evropskog
parlamenta.
U smislu izazivanja nestabilnosti u regionu, ovaj apel se moze porediti
samo sa nekadasnjim apelima za bombardovanje Republike Srpske i Srbije
koje su nekada potpisivani u Americi kao i sa raznim pisanijima kojima
se pretilo srpskom narodu od pojedinih evropski ministara spoljnih
poslova (za koje je Doris Pak i tada,kao i sada radila) za proteklih
petnaest godina. Doris Pak, takozvana mirotvorka, inace profesionalno i
emocionalno jedna od najzecih antisrpkinja u evropskom establismentu,
koja je svoj antisrpski angazman u poslednjoj deceniji pokrivala
takozvanom “antimilosevickom” politikom, ovim svojim nastupom samo
dodaje jos jedan, za citav niz dokaza da je svoju misiju, funkciju i
uopste politicko bitisanje i zivotnu egzistenciju sve vreme bazirala i
bazira na neprestanom i kontinuiranom delovanju protiv srpskih interesa
na Balkanu. Nijedan njen izvestaj koji je poslala sa ovih prostora nije
prosao a da u njemu, bez obzira na situaciju na terenu, za sve nedace
ili barem nedace koje je u datom izvestaju opsivala, nije generalno bio
optuzen srpski narod i njegovo rukovodstvo. Doris Pak i njeni
istomisljenici znaju da je rat u Bosni i stao samo zato sto je potpisan
Dejtonski sporazum i da bi rat, sa promenljivom ratnom srecom, trajao
jos dugo da tim sporazumom nisu uvazeni opravdani zahtevi srpskog i
hrvatskog naroda u Bosni. Dejtonski sporazum, kakav – takav, poput
Rezolucije 1244 OUN, su de facto i de jure Mirovni ugovori na osnovu
kojih su se zaracene strane sporazumele da obustave ratna dejstva jer
je postignut kompromis i svaka od njih je putem tog ugovora uspela da,
manje ili vise, zastiti svoje vitalne nacionalne interese, osim
muslimanske strane za koju je ovaj ugovor, kao i mnogi drugi prethodni,
privremeni o prekidu vatre, samo u stvari predah za prikupljanje
politicke i vojne snage za nastavk operacije majorizacije i
potcinjavanja drugih naroda u Bosni. Muslimanska strana se jednostavno
ne zadovoljava cinjenicom da Bosna nije samo njihova i nada se da ce uz
pomoc svojih vasingtonskih i evropskih saveznika uspeti da uradi u
miru, ono sto nije mogla ratom. Mirovni ugovor moze da se nadogradjuje
samo u smislu daljeg ucvrscivanja mira i stabilnosti na prostoru gede
je rat trajao i medju stranama koje su ratovale ali njegova eventualna
revizija u smislu uskracivanja vec potvrdjenih prava nekoj od bivsih
ratujucih strana, nije nista drugo do poziv na novi rat i nesrece, sto
je inace kaznjivo i po evropskim zakonima. S'tim u vezi, Doris pak i
njene kolege, zasticene imunitetom evropskih poslanika i sluzbenika,
cine krivicno delo ugrozavanja mira i bezbednost, gradjana Unije Bosne
i Hercegovine i drzava suseda. Oni se takodje polticki nedvosmisleno,
otvoreno lobisticki, stavljaju na samo jednu stranu u politickom
konfliktu pri tome ignorisuci i gazeci medjunarodno pravo te dalje,
direktno deluju u ineteresu izazivanja nestabilnosti u Bosni, i
protivzakonito napadaju njeno ustavno uredjenje i poredak i implicite
Republiku Srpsku kao medjunarodno priznati entitet. Doris Pak se nije
setila da reaguje kada je nezakonito i suprotno opste prihvacenim
demokratskim pravilima i zakona same Unije BiH i Dejtonskog sporazuma,
dekretom smenjen, od naroda izabran predsednik RS, gospodin Poplasen,
kada je histericnom harangom napadana i vredjana, narodnom voljom
najjaca partija u Republici Srpskoj SDS. Nije gospodja Pak ni reagovala
sto se osvedoceni ratni zlocincii Ejub Ganic i Alija Izetbegovic setaju
Sarajevom. Doris pak nije nista uradila da se utvrdi prava i konacna
istina u vezi Srebrenice vec se svom snagom stavila na stranu koalicije
muslimasko-evropskih nacifikatora srpskog naroda. Doris Pak je sramota
i ruglo demokratije, najgora sorta njene zloupotrebe i duhovni
inspirator novih ratova. Njeno mesto je u zatvoru a ne u tzv.
delegacijama za Jugoistocnu Evropu. Ona ne samo da treba da bude
persona non grata na Balkanu, vec sa svojim sapotpisnicima ovog sramnog
zahteva treba i da se javno zigose kao narucilac novih patnji na ovim
prostorima.
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-12-19.html
Pise: Oliver Vulovic
oliverv@... : oliver_vulovic@...
Decembar 18, 2003.g. Beograd
U dnevnoj stampi se pojavila informacija da izvestan broj evropskih
parlamentaraca na celu sa sefom delegacije za Jugoistocnu Evropu,
gospodjom Doris Pak, zahteva reviziju Dejtonskog sporazuma u smislu
cvrsce centralizacije vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini i ukidanje Republike
Srpske. Kao razloge su naveli da “ dvovlasce “ u BiH zajedno sa
protektoratom izaziva stagnaciju, nezaposlenost, opstu ekonomsku
nestabilnost i da medju etnickim grupama vlada duboko nepoverenje.
Pored Doris Pak, pomenuti zahtev su potpisali general Morijon, Tadeus
Mazovjecki, Hans Kosnik i jos nekoliko poznatih clanova Evropskog
parlamenta.
U smislu izazivanja nestabilnosti u regionu, ovaj apel se moze porediti
samo sa nekadasnjim apelima za bombardovanje Republike Srpske i Srbije
koje su nekada potpisivani u Americi kao i sa raznim pisanijima kojima
se pretilo srpskom narodu od pojedinih evropski ministara spoljnih
poslova (za koje je Doris Pak i tada,kao i sada radila) za proteklih
petnaest godina. Doris Pak, takozvana mirotvorka, inace profesionalno i
emocionalno jedna od najzecih antisrpkinja u evropskom establismentu,
koja je svoj antisrpski angazman u poslednjoj deceniji pokrivala
takozvanom “antimilosevickom” politikom, ovim svojim nastupom samo
dodaje jos jedan, za citav niz dokaza da je svoju misiju, funkciju i
uopste politicko bitisanje i zivotnu egzistenciju sve vreme bazirala i
bazira na neprestanom i kontinuiranom delovanju protiv srpskih interesa
na Balkanu. Nijedan njen izvestaj koji je poslala sa ovih prostora nije
prosao a da u njemu, bez obzira na situaciju na terenu, za sve nedace
ili barem nedace koje je u datom izvestaju opsivala, nije generalno bio
optuzen srpski narod i njegovo rukovodstvo. Doris Pak i njeni
istomisljenici znaju da je rat u Bosni i stao samo zato sto je potpisan
Dejtonski sporazum i da bi rat, sa promenljivom ratnom srecom, trajao
jos dugo da tim sporazumom nisu uvazeni opravdani zahtevi srpskog i
hrvatskog naroda u Bosni. Dejtonski sporazum, kakav – takav, poput
Rezolucije 1244 OUN, su de facto i de jure Mirovni ugovori na osnovu
kojih su se zaracene strane sporazumele da obustave ratna dejstva jer
je postignut kompromis i svaka od njih je putem tog ugovora uspela da,
manje ili vise, zastiti svoje vitalne nacionalne interese, osim
muslimanske strane za koju je ovaj ugovor, kao i mnogi drugi prethodni,
privremeni o prekidu vatre, samo u stvari predah za prikupljanje
politicke i vojne snage za nastavk operacije majorizacije i
potcinjavanja drugih naroda u Bosni. Muslimanska strana se jednostavno
ne zadovoljava cinjenicom da Bosna nije samo njihova i nada se da ce uz
pomoc svojih vasingtonskih i evropskih saveznika uspeti da uradi u
miru, ono sto nije mogla ratom. Mirovni ugovor moze da se nadogradjuje
samo u smislu daljeg ucvrscivanja mira i stabilnosti na prostoru gede
je rat trajao i medju stranama koje su ratovale ali njegova eventualna
revizija u smislu uskracivanja vec potvrdjenih prava nekoj od bivsih
ratujucih strana, nije nista drugo do poziv na novi rat i nesrece, sto
je inace kaznjivo i po evropskim zakonima. S'tim u vezi, Doris pak i
njene kolege, zasticene imunitetom evropskih poslanika i sluzbenika,
cine krivicno delo ugrozavanja mira i bezbednost, gradjana Unije Bosne
i Hercegovine i drzava suseda. Oni se takodje polticki nedvosmisleno,
otvoreno lobisticki, stavljaju na samo jednu stranu u politickom
konfliktu pri tome ignorisuci i gazeci medjunarodno pravo te dalje,
direktno deluju u ineteresu izazivanja nestabilnosti u Bosni, i
protivzakonito napadaju njeno ustavno uredjenje i poredak i implicite
Republiku Srpsku kao medjunarodno priznati entitet. Doris Pak se nije
setila da reaguje kada je nezakonito i suprotno opste prihvacenim
demokratskim pravilima i zakona same Unije BiH i Dejtonskog sporazuma,
dekretom smenjen, od naroda izabran predsednik RS, gospodin Poplasen,
kada je histericnom harangom napadana i vredjana, narodnom voljom
najjaca partija u Republici Srpskoj SDS. Nije gospodja Pak ni reagovala
sto se osvedoceni ratni zlocincii Ejub Ganic i Alija Izetbegovic setaju
Sarajevom. Doris pak nije nista uradila da se utvrdi prava i konacna
istina u vezi Srebrenice vec se svom snagom stavila na stranu koalicije
muslimasko-evropskih nacifikatora srpskog naroda. Doris Pak je sramota
i ruglo demokratije, najgora sorta njene zloupotrebe i duhovni
inspirator novih ratova. Njeno mesto je u zatvoru a ne u tzv.
delegacijama za Jugoistocnu Evropu. Ona ne samo da treba da bude
persona non grata na Balkanu, vec sa svojim sapotpisnicima ovog sramnog
zahteva treba i da se javno zigose kao narucilac novih patnji na ovim
prostorima.
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
(in ITALIANO sullo stesso argomento:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009
auf DEUTSCH um dasselbe:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009 )
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3193800.stm
Wednesday, 15 October, 2003, 13:32 GMT 14:32 UK
Serbs sue Germany over bridge attack
Relatives of civilians killed when Nato aircraft bombed a
Serbian town in 1999 have put their claims for
compensation to a court in Germany, despite the fact that
no German planes were involved in the action.
Ten civilians were killed when Nato jets targeted a bridge near a
busy market place in the town of Varvarin, as part of efforts to
put pressure on the then Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.
The relatives claimed a million euros in damages at the state
court in Bonn.
They say Germany must take responsibility as a member of
Nato.
Berlin has argued that it is not liable since neither German
planes nor German pilots were involved.
Lawyers say a German court was chosen because the families have
had support from human rights activists in Germany.
Some media in Germany have suggested that the country's foreign
policy itself is on trial.
The suit could serve as a test case for others seeking damages
from Nato countries.
'Legitimate target'
The claimants scaled down their original request for 3.5 million
euros when the proceedings opened, to bring it in line with other
similar settlements in Germany.
Three people were killed and five injured in initial raids by
F-16 fighters on the bridge in Varvarin, 110 miles (180km)
south-east of Belgrade.
The aircraft returned minutes later, killing seven more
and injuring another 12, among them people who were trying
to help victims of the first attack.
Nato said that the bridge was a legitimate target and denied
targeting civilians.
However, the claimants argue that the raid violated the Geneva
Conventions, since it came without warning and was carried out on a
busy market day.
"That was murder, bombing ordinary civilians in broad daylight,"
Zoran Milenkovic, whose 15-year-old daughter was killed in the
raid, told the Associated Press news agency.
Doubts have also been raised about the military significance of
the bridge, which has a maximum capacity of 12 metric tons.
Lawyers for the victims say the most important thing for the
claimants is to get an admission of wrongdoing.
"The least important thing is the money, it's about someone
saying that what happened was wrong," said lawyer Guel Pinar.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=25918&order=priority&style=headlines
Associated Press - December 10, 2003
Court rejects NATO victims’ compensation claims
BONN -- Wednesday – Victims of a NATO air raid on a
Serbian town during the 1999 Kosovo war can't claim
compensation from the German government, a state court
said today.
Lawyers for 35 plaintiffs - people wounded in the
bombing and relatives of the dead - had sought EUR1
million in damages from the Berlin government, arguing
that Germany bore responsibility because it is a
member of the NATO alliance.
A total of 10 people died and 17 were injured in the
May 30, 1999 attack on a bridge in Varvarin, which
came as NATO was pressing Serbian strongman Slobodan
Milosevic to withdraw Yugoslav troops from Kosovo.
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3306431.stm
Wednesday 2003-12-10, BBC News (English)
Serb families lose Nato court bid
Serbian families who tried to sue Germany over a Nato bombing raid
have lost their case, a German court ruled.
The 1999 bombing of a bridge at Varvarin, 110 miles (180km)
south-east of Belgrade, killed 10 and injured 17.
A total of 35 people sued Germany, saying that although German
planes did not take part in the raids, the government held
responsibility under its Nato membership.
They had sought one million euros ($1.2m) in compensation.
Nato says the attack on the bridge, during its campaign to drive
Serb forces from Kosovo, was legitimate.
But the families said the raid violated the international Geneva
conventions, since it came without warning and was carried out on a
busy market day.
An initial raid killed three people, but the planes returned
minutes later, killing seven more.
Some of the victims of the second attack were trying to help
victims of the first wave of bombing.
Berlin argued that it was not liable since neither German planes
nor German pilots were involved.
Lawyers said a German court was chosen because the families had
support from human rights activists in Germany.
The suit was seen as a possible test case for others seeking
damages from Nato countries.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - December 12, 2003
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
19:20 BONN , Dec 10 (Tanjug) - A member of a group of
Varvarin citizens who sued Germany because of a 1999
NATO attack at the Varvarin bridge in which their
family members were killed or injured, announced that
the group would file an appeal to the Higher Court in
Cologne, after the court of first instance in Bonn on
Wednesday rejected their lawsuit and demand for a
1-million-euro compensation.
"We have the right to appeal to the Higher Court in
Cologne and our lawyers believe that this will
certainly happen in 2005, because until we file an
appeal against this verdict, one or 1.5 years will
pass after the verdict, that is the reception of the
written verdict of the Bonn court, " Vesna Milenkovic,
whose daughter Sanja was killed in the attack, told
Tanjug.
(in ITALIANO sullo stesso argomento:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009
auf DEUTSCH um dasselbe:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009 )
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3193800.stm
Wednesday, 15 October, 2003, 13:32 GMT 14:32 UK
Serbs sue Germany over bridge attack
Relatives of civilians killed when Nato aircraft bombed a
Serbian town in 1999 have put their claims for
compensation to a court in Germany, despite the fact that
no German planes were involved in the action.
Ten civilians were killed when Nato jets targeted a bridge near a
busy market place in the town of Varvarin, as part of efforts to
put pressure on the then Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.
The relatives claimed a million euros in damages at the state
court in Bonn.
They say Germany must take responsibility as a member of
Nato.
Berlin has argued that it is not liable since neither German
planes nor German pilots were involved.
Lawyers say a German court was chosen because the families have
had support from human rights activists in Germany.
Some media in Germany have suggested that the country's foreign
policy itself is on trial.
The suit could serve as a test case for others seeking damages
from Nato countries.
'Legitimate target'
The claimants scaled down their original request for 3.5 million
euros when the proceedings opened, to bring it in line with other
similar settlements in Germany.
Three people were killed and five injured in initial raids by
F-16 fighters on the bridge in Varvarin, 110 miles (180km)
south-east of Belgrade.
The aircraft returned minutes later, killing seven more
and injuring another 12, among them people who were trying
to help victims of the first attack.
Nato said that the bridge was a legitimate target and denied
targeting civilians.
However, the claimants argue that the raid violated the Geneva
Conventions, since it came without warning and was carried out on a
busy market day.
"That was murder, bombing ordinary civilians in broad daylight,"
Zoran Milenkovic, whose 15-year-old daughter was killed in the
raid, told the Associated Press news agency.
Doubts have also been raised about the military significance of
the bridge, which has a maximum capacity of 12 metric tons.
Lawyers for the victims say the most important thing for the
claimants is to get an admission of wrongdoing.
"The least important thing is the money, it's about someone
saying that what happened was wrong," said lawyer Guel Pinar.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=25918&order=priority&style=headlines
Associated Press - December 10, 2003
Court rejects NATO victims’ compensation claims
BONN -- Wednesday – Victims of a NATO air raid on a
Serbian town during the 1999 Kosovo war can't claim
compensation from the German government, a state court
said today.
Lawyers for 35 plaintiffs - people wounded in the
bombing and relatives of the dead - had sought EUR1
million in damages from the Berlin government, arguing
that Germany bore responsibility because it is a
member of the NATO alliance.
A total of 10 people died and 17 were injured in the
May 30, 1999 attack on a bridge in Varvarin, which
came as NATO was pressing Serbian strongman Slobodan
Milosevic to withdraw Yugoslav troops from Kosovo.
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3306431.stm
Wednesday 2003-12-10, BBC News (English)
Serb families lose Nato court bid
Serbian families who tried to sue Germany over a Nato bombing raid
have lost their case, a German court ruled.
The 1999 bombing of a bridge at Varvarin, 110 miles (180km)
south-east of Belgrade, killed 10 and injured 17.
A total of 35 people sued Germany, saying that although German
planes did not take part in the raids, the government held
responsibility under its Nato membership.
They had sought one million euros ($1.2m) in compensation.
Nato says the attack on the bridge, during its campaign to drive
Serb forces from Kosovo, was legitimate.
But the families said the raid violated the international Geneva
conventions, since it came without warning and was carried out on a
busy market day.
An initial raid killed three people, but the planes returned
minutes later, killing seven more.
Some of the victims of the second attack were trying to help
victims of the first wave of bombing.
Berlin argued that it was not liable since neither German planes
nor German pilots were involved.
Lawyers said a German court was chosen because the families had
support from human rights activists in Germany.
The suit was seen as a possible test case for others seeking
damages from Nato countries.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - December 12, 2003
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
19:20 BONN , Dec 10 (Tanjug) - A member of a group of
Varvarin citizens who sued Germany because of a 1999
NATO attack at the Varvarin bridge in which their
family members were killed or injured, announced that
the group would file an appeal to the Higher Court in
Cologne, after the court of first instance in Bonn on
Wednesday rejected their lawsuit and demand for a
1-million-euro compensation.
"We have the right to appeal to the Higher Court in
Cologne and our lawyers believe that this will
certainly happen in 2005, because until we file an
appeal against this verdict, one or 1.5 years will
pass after the verdict, that is the reception of the
written verdict of the Bonn court, " Vesna Milenkovic,
whose daughter Sanja was killed in the attack, told
Tanjug.
Riceviamo e volentieri giriamo alla lista:
---
FORUM CONTRO LA GUERRA:
Il primo incontro nazionale di tutti gli aderenti all'appello
si terrà domenica 11 gennaio 2004 a Milano,
dalle ore 11.00 alle 16.00, nel salone dell'ANPI (via Pietro
Mascagni, 6 - Metro SAN BABILA - linea rossa).
Il testo dell'appello coi primi firmatari si trova sul sito:
www.forumcontrolaguerra.org
Per adesioni e comunicazioni :
adesioni@...
Tutte le informazioni relative alle iniziative del Forum
verranno rese note sul sito e comunicate direttamente agli
aderenti all'indirizzo di posta elettronica che essi ci
segnaleranno con la loro adesione. Si raccomanda pertanto
la massima precisione nella comunicazione del proprio
recapito di posta elettronica
Forum contro la guerra
---
Forum contro la guerra
Ritirare i militari italiani dall’Iraq,
fermare la "guerra preventiva",
rimuovere le radici del sistema di guerra
Appello / base di discussione
1)La "guerra preventiva" condotta dagli Stati Uniti contro
l’Iraq (e ripetutamente minacciata contro altri Paesi), ha
dimostrato con evidenza crescente di avere alle spalle
interessi economici, geopolitici e strategici che
contrappongono la superpotenza americana e i suoi più stretti
alleati al resto del mondo, a gran parte dell'opinione pubblica
e a molte potenze fino a ieri "partner" nella NATO.
Il tentativo di riscrivere con la guerra la mappa del Medio
Oriente, la geografia del petrolio e l'insieme delle relazioni
internazionali, è un ricatto inaccettabile.
2)La società civile, nella quasi totalità dei Paesi del mondo,
ha detto chiaramente no alla logica della guerra preventiva e
permanente. Lo ha fatto, anche nel nostro Paese, riempiendo le
piazze, rispondendo no alla guerra - senza se e senza ma - in tutti i
sondaggi, corredando intere città con le bandiere della pace,
con la decisiva partecipazione dei lavoratori a questa lotta :
condizione imprescindibile per accrescerne la forza e
qualificarne i contenuti.
3)La concessione dell'uso delle basi militari USA e NATO, dei
corridoi di sorvolo, della rete di trasporto per le forze
armate statunitensi, è stata giustamente contestata sui binari,
nei porti, davanti alle basi militari e in Parlamento.
Se oltre l'80% degli italiani si è opposto alla guerra, questo
governo e questo parlamento non avevano e non hanno la
legittimità morale e politica per rendere l'Italia complice di
aggressioni militari contro altri Paesi.
La Costituzione (art.11), che va difesa con intransigenza,
"ripudia" sempre e comunque il ricorso alla guerra come mezzo
di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali. Altrettanto
recita la Carta delle Nazioni Unite e lo stesso principio dovrà
ispirare qualsiasi ipotesi di Costituzione europea.
4)Nascondersi dietro il rispetto degli impegni internazionali
dell'Italia non è credibile per nessun governo e nessuna
maggioranza parlamentare. E' l'intera struttura degli
automatismi, dei vincoli e dei condizionamenti alla nostra
sovranità connessi all'adesione alla NATO che va rivista
radicalmente. Non é più accettabile che un paese venga coinvolto
in una guerra sulla base di trattati siglati cinquanta anni fa e mai
verificati democraticamente.
Lo smantellamento delle basi militari che ospitano armi
nucleari, bombe, aviogetti statunitensi , deve costituire un
obiettivo prioritario della "politica" ed un significativo
passaggio di qualità dell'ampio e unitario movimento che si
oppone alla guerra in Italia, in Europa, nel mondo.
5)In una realtà internazionale in cui, dal Medio Oriente
all'Asia, dall’Africa all’America Latina, guerre e tensioni
sono tornate a dominare, si delinea il rischio di una nuova e
devastante corsa agli armamenti, foriera a sua volta di un
perverso mercato delle armi.
Le spese militari americane sono superiori di tre volte
rispetto a quelle di tutti i paesi dell’Unione europea messi
insieme. Sarebbe tragico se, per riequilibrare questa
differenza ed affermare la propria autonomia, l'Ue inseguisse
gli Stati Uniti sulla strada del riarmo e dell'aumento delle
spese militari.
Una nuova corsa agli armamenti non è la strada giusta per la
prospettiva di un mondo multipolare, non più dominato dalla
supremazia della superpotenza statunitense. Tale prospettiva va
perseguita con una linea di disarmo progressivo e bilanciato,
di riequilibrio al ribasso, che tuteli la sicurezza di ognuno e
punti a un Trattato internazionale per la effettiva messa al
bando di tutte le armi di sterminio, a partire da quelle
nucleari.
Questo può e deve diventare un obiettivo primario e permanente
del movimento mondiale per la pace, nella convergenza di
popoli, governi e confessioni religiose che comprendono la
quasi totalità del genere umano.
6)Dire con forza no alla guerra, "senza se e senza ma",
significa non solo tenere l'Italia fuori dalla guerra e le basi
militari USA e NATO fuori dall’Italia – a cominciare dal ritiro
dei militari italiani coinvolti in operazioni belliche .
Significa anche creare le condizioni per una trasformazione
democratica e sociale che, mettendo al bando la guerra, cominci
anche ad indicare una alternativa di società tesa ad impedire
che l’umanità sia nuovamente vittima delle guerre e della
competizione globale tra le maggiori potenze capitaliste.
A tal fine crediamo utile la costruzione di un Forum permanente
che, nell’ambito del più generale movimento unitario contro la
guerra - e nella solidarietà coi popoli minacciati dalla
crescente aggressività della politica statunitense -
contribuisca al confronto e all’iniziativa su queste
problematiche.
Primi firmatari
Piergiovanni ALLEVA (docente universitario, Consulta giuridica
CGIL); Antonio AMOROSO (coordinatore nazionale Cub-Trasporti);
Michele Anelli (gruppo musicale Groovers); Pietro ANTONINI (RdB
Trasporti); Marino BADIALE (matematico, Comitato scienziate/i
contro la guerra); Angelo BARACCA (docente universitario,
Comitato scienziate/i contro la guerra); Stefano BENNI
(scrittore); Vincenzo BRANDI (ricercatore ENEA); Pino CACUCCI
(scrittore); Nino CALOGERO ( segretario confederale della
Camera del Lavoro di Gioia Tauro); Luciano CANFORA (docente
universitario); Armando Casaroli (gruppo musicale Mirafiori Kids);
Antonio Catalfamo (scrittore); Andrea CATONE (presidente
Associazione Most za Beograd); Mariella CAU (coordinatrice
Comitato sardo "Gettiamo le basi"); padre Angelo CAVAGNA ( Presidente
GAVCI) ; Gianmario CAZZANIGA (docente universitario); Paolo
CENTO (deputato al Parlamento); Stefano CHIARINI (giornalista);
Nicola CIPOLLA (presidente CEPES Palermo); Roberto COCEVARI (presidente
Ass. Italia-Vietnam Milano); Luigi CORTESI (direttore di
"Giano"); Alessandro CURZI (direttore di "Liberazione");
Michele D’APUZZO (coordinatore nazionale Sulta); Ferruccio
Danini (direttivo nazionale CGIL); Raffaele DE GRADA (critico
d’arte); Vezio DE LUCIA (urbanista); Claudio DEL BELLO (docente
universitario, direttore edizioni Odradek); Tommaso DI
FRANCESCO (caposervizi esteri de "Il Manifesto"); Manlio
DINUCCI (giornalista); Valerio EVANGELISTI (scrittore); Paolo
fara (gruppo musicale Mirafiori Kids); Massimiliano Ferraro
(gruppo musicale Groovers); Roberto FORESTI (presidente Ass.
Italia-Cuba); Fabio FRATI (coordinatore nazionale Sulta); don
Andrea GALLO (sacerdote); Mario GEYMONAT (docente universitario);
Enrico GIARMOLEO ( RSU Fiom-Cgil Officine Meccaniche
calabresi); Roberto GIUDICI (responsabile esteri Fiom Milano);
Alfiero GRANDI (deputato, direttivo nazionale Ds); Dino GRECO
(segretario generale Camera del Lavoro Brescia); Fulvio
GRIMALDI (giornalista); Margherita HACK (scienziata -
astronoma); Raniero LA VALLE (giornalista); Giancarlo LannutTi
(giornalista); Pierpaolo LEONARDI (coordinatore nazionale Cub);
Domenico LOSURDO (docente universitario); Carlo LUCARELLI
(scrittore); Riccardo LUCCIO (docente universitario); Edoardo
MAGNONE (chimico, Comitato scienziate/i contro la guerra);
Lucio MANISCO (europarlamentare); Franco MARENCO (fisico);
Emilio MARTINES (Ricercatore CNR); Federico MARTINO (docente
universitario); Andrea MARTOCCHIA (astrofisico); Giorgio MELE (sinistra
Ds); Marco MEZZETTI ( gruppo musicale Ratoblanco); Fabio
MINAZZI (docente universitario); Adalberto MINUCCI (direttore
responsabile di "Avvenimenti"); Evasio Muraro (gruppo musicale
Groovers); Carlo MUSCETTA (critico letterario); Giorgio NEBBIA
(docente universitario); Nerio NESI (vice-presidente
Associazione "Socrate"); Raffaele NOGARO (vescovo di Caserta);
Diego NOVELLI (direttore editoriale di "Avvenimenti"); Gianni
PAGLIARINI ( Segretario nazionale FP- CGIL); Emidia PAPI
(coordinamento nazionale RdB); Vittorio PAROLA (direzione DS-
Socialismo 2000); Giovanni PESCE (medaglia d’oro Resistenza);
Luciano PETTINARI (direttivo nazionale Ds, Socialismo 2000);
Giuseppe PRESTIPINO (docente universitario); Domenico
PROVENZANO (coordinatore nazionale RdB Pubblico Impiego); Francesca
PUTINI (coordinatrice nazionale Cub-Trasporti); Massimo RAFFAELI
(critico letterario); Alessandra RICCIO (co-direttrice di
"LatinoAmerica"); Gianni RINALDINI (segretario generale Fiom); Rossano
ROSSI ( Segretario CGIL-Toscana); Mauro SALIZZONI (medico
chirurgo); Cesare SALVI (senatore, Socialismo 2000); Edoardo
SANGUINETTI (poeta); Enzo SANTARELLI (storico); Giuseppina
SANTORELLI (coordinatrice nazionale Cub-Trasporti); Gianni
Sappa (gruppo musicale Mirafiori Kids); Maurizio SCARPA
(segretario nazionale Filcams-Cgil); Flaviano Sciarpa (gruppo musicale
Mirafiori Kids); Sandro e Marino SEVERINI ( gruppo musicale
Gang); Vincenzo SINISCALCHI (coordinatore nazionale Sulta);
Andrea SPADONI (coordinatore nazionale Cub-Trasporti); Osvaldo
SQUASSINA ( Segretario generale FIOM Brescia); Giancarlo
STRAINI ( segretario nazionale FILCEA-CGIL); Pino TAGLIAZUCCHI
(direttore "Notizie internazionali" Fiom-Cgil); Sergio TANZARELLA
(docente universitario); Stefano TASSINARI (scrittore); Piergiorgio
TIBONI (coordinatore nazionale Cub); Fabrizio TOMASELLI
(coordinatore nazionale Sulta); Luciano VASAPOLLO (docente
universitario); Alex ZANOTELLI (Pax Christi); Maurizio ZIPPONI
(segretario generale Fiom-Cgil Milano); Massimo ZUCCHETTI (docente
universitario);
---
FORUM CONTRO LA GUERRA:
Il primo incontro nazionale di tutti gli aderenti all'appello
si terrà domenica 11 gennaio 2004 a Milano,
dalle ore 11.00 alle 16.00, nel salone dell'ANPI (via Pietro
Mascagni, 6 - Metro SAN BABILA - linea rossa).
Il testo dell'appello coi primi firmatari si trova sul sito:
www.forumcontrolaguerra.org
Per adesioni e comunicazioni :
adesioni@...
Tutte le informazioni relative alle iniziative del Forum
verranno rese note sul sito e comunicate direttamente agli
aderenti all'indirizzo di posta elettronica che essi ci
segnaleranno con la loro adesione. Si raccomanda pertanto
la massima precisione nella comunicazione del proprio
recapito di posta elettronica
Forum contro la guerra
---
Forum contro la guerra
Ritirare i militari italiani dall’Iraq,
fermare la "guerra preventiva",
rimuovere le radici del sistema di guerra
Appello / base di discussione
1)La "guerra preventiva" condotta dagli Stati Uniti contro
l’Iraq (e ripetutamente minacciata contro altri Paesi), ha
dimostrato con evidenza crescente di avere alle spalle
interessi economici, geopolitici e strategici che
contrappongono la superpotenza americana e i suoi più stretti
alleati al resto del mondo, a gran parte dell'opinione pubblica
e a molte potenze fino a ieri "partner" nella NATO.
Il tentativo di riscrivere con la guerra la mappa del Medio
Oriente, la geografia del petrolio e l'insieme delle relazioni
internazionali, è un ricatto inaccettabile.
2)La società civile, nella quasi totalità dei Paesi del mondo,
ha detto chiaramente no alla logica della guerra preventiva e
permanente. Lo ha fatto, anche nel nostro Paese, riempiendo le
piazze, rispondendo no alla guerra - senza se e senza ma - in tutti i
sondaggi, corredando intere città con le bandiere della pace,
con la decisiva partecipazione dei lavoratori a questa lotta :
condizione imprescindibile per accrescerne la forza e
qualificarne i contenuti.
3)La concessione dell'uso delle basi militari USA e NATO, dei
corridoi di sorvolo, della rete di trasporto per le forze
armate statunitensi, è stata giustamente contestata sui binari,
nei porti, davanti alle basi militari e in Parlamento.
Se oltre l'80% degli italiani si è opposto alla guerra, questo
governo e questo parlamento non avevano e non hanno la
legittimità morale e politica per rendere l'Italia complice di
aggressioni militari contro altri Paesi.
La Costituzione (art.11), che va difesa con intransigenza,
"ripudia" sempre e comunque il ricorso alla guerra come mezzo
di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali. Altrettanto
recita la Carta delle Nazioni Unite e lo stesso principio dovrà
ispirare qualsiasi ipotesi di Costituzione europea.
4)Nascondersi dietro il rispetto degli impegni internazionali
dell'Italia non è credibile per nessun governo e nessuna
maggioranza parlamentare. E' l'intera struttura degli
automatismi, dei vincoli e dei condizionamenti alla nostra
sovranità connessi all'adesione alla NATO che va rivista
radicalmente. Non é più accettabile che un paese venga coinvolto
in una guerra sulla base di trattati siglati cinquanta anni fa e mai
verificati democraticamente.
Lo smantellamento delle basi militari che ospitano armi
nucleari, bombe, aviogetti statunitensi , deve costituire un
obiettivo prioritario della "politica" ed un significativo
passaggio di qualità dell'ampio e unitario movimento che si
oppone alla guerra in Italia, in Europa, nel mondo.
5)In una realtà internazionale in cui, dal Medio Oriente
all'Asia, dall’Africa all’America Latina, guerre e tensioni
sono tornate a dominare, si delinea il rischio di una nuova e
devastante corsa agli armamenti, foriera a sua volta di un
perverso mercato delle armi.
Le spese militari americane sono superiori di tre volte
rispetto a quelle di tutti i paesi dell’Unione europea messi
insieme. Sarebbe tragico se, per riequilibrare questa
differenza ed affermare la propria autonomia, l'Ue inseguisse
gli Stati Uniti sulla strada del riarmo e dell'aumento delle
spese militari.
Una nuova corsa agli armamenti non è la strada giusta per la
prospettiva di un mondo multipolare, non più dominato dalla
supremazia della superpotenza statunitense. Tale prospettiva va
perseguita con una linea di disarmo progressivo e bilanciato,
di riequilibrio al ribasso, che tuteli la sicurezza di ognuno e
punti a un Trattato internazionale per la effettiva messa al
bando di tutte le armi di sterminio, a partire da quelle
nucleari.
Questo può e deve diventare un obiettivo primario e permanente
del movimento mondiale per la pace, nella convergenza di
popoli, governi e confessioni religiose che comprendono la
quasi totalità del genere umano.
6)Dire con forza no alla guerra, "senza se e senza ma",
significa non solo tenere l'Italia fuori dalla guerra e le basi
militari USA e NATO fuori dall’Italia – a cominciare dal ritiro
dei militari italiani coinvolti in operazioni belliche .
Significa anche creare le condizioni per una trasformazione
democratica e sociale che, mettendo al bando la guerra, cominci
anche ad indicare una alternativa di società tesa ad impedire
che l’umanità sia nuovamente vittima delle guerre e della
competizione globale tra le maggiori potenze capitaliste.
A tal fine crediamo utile la costruzione di un Forum permanente
che, nell’ambito del più generale movimento unitario contro la
guerra - e nella solidarietà coi popoli minacciati dalla
crescente aggressività della politica statunitense -
contribuisca al confronto e all’iniziativa su queste
problematiche.
Primi firmatari
Piergiovanni ALLEVA (docente universitario, Consulta giuridica
CGIL); Antonio AMOROSO (coordinatore nazionale Cub-Trasporti);
Michele Anelli (gruppo musicale Groovers); Pietro ANTONINI (RdB
Trasporti); Marino BADIALE (matematico, Comitato scienziate/i
contro la guerra); Angelo BARACCA (docente universitario,
Comitato scienziate/i contro la guerra); Stefano BENNI
(scrittore); Vincenzo BRANDI (ricercatore ENEA); Pino CACUCCI
(scrittore); Nino CALOGERO ( segretario confederale della
Camera del Lavoro di Gioia Tauro); Luciano CANFORA (docente
universitario); Armando Casaroli (gruppo musicale Mirafiori Kids);
Antonio Catalfamo (scrittore); Andrea CATONE (presidente
Associazione Most za Beograd); Mariella CAU (coordinatrice
Comitato sardo "Gettiamo le basi"); padre Angelo CAVAGNA ( Presidente
GAVCI) ; Gianmario CAZZANIGA (docente universitario); Paolo
CENTO (deputato al Parlamento); Stefano CHIARINI (giornalista);
Nicola CIPOLLA (presidente CEPES Palermo); Roberto COCEVARI (presidente
Ass. Italia-Vietnam Milano); Luigi CORTESI (direttore di
"Giano"); Alessandro CURZI (direttore di "Liberazione");
Michele D’APUZZO (coordinatore nazionale Sulta); Ferruccio
Danini (direttivo nazionale CGIL); Raffaele DE GRADA (critico
d’arte); Vezio DE LUCIA (urbanista); Claudio DEL BELLO (docente
universitario, direttore edizioni Odradek); Tommaso DI
FRANCESCO (caposervizi esteri de "Il Manifesto"); Manlio
DINUCCI (giornalista); Valerio EVANGELISTI (scrittore); Paolo
fara (gruppo musicale Mirafiori Kids); Massimiliano Ferraro
(gruppo musicale Groovers); Roberto FORESTI (presidente Ass.
Italia-Cuba); Fabio FRATI (coordinatore nazionale Sulta); don
Andrea GALLO (sacerdote); Mario GEYMONAT (docente universitario);
Enrico GIARMOLEO ( RSU Fiom-Cgil Officine Meccaniche
calabresi); Roberto GIUDICI (responsabile esteri Fiom Milano);
Alfiero GRANDI (deputato, direttivo nazionale Ds); Dino GRECO
(segretario generale Camera del Lavoro Brescia); Fulvio
GRIMALDI (giornalista); Margherita HACK (scienziata -
astronoma); Raniero LA VALLE (giornalista); Giancarlo LannutTi
(giornalista); Pierpaolo LEONARDI (coordinatore nazionale Cub);
Domenico LOSURDO (docente universitario); Carlo LUCARELLI
(scrittore); Riccardo LUCCIO (docente universitario); Edoardo
MAGNONE (chimico, Comitato scienziate/i contro la guerra);
Lucio MANISCO (europarlamentare); Franco MARENCO (fisico);
Emilio MARTINES (Ricercatore CNR); Federico MARTINO (docente
universitario); Andrea MARTOCCHIA (astrofisico); Giorgio MELE (sinistra
Ds); Marco MEZZETTI ( gruppo musicale Ratoblanco); Fabio
MINAZZI (docente universitario); Adalberto MINUCCI (direttore
responsabile di "Avvenimenti"); Evasio Muraro (gruppo musicale
Groovers); Carlo MUSCETTA (critico letterario); Giorgio NEBBIA
(docente universitario); Nerio NESI (vice-presidente
Associazione "Socrate"); Raffaele NOGARO (vescovo di Caserta);
Diego NOVELLI (direttore editoriale di "Avvenimenti"); Gianni
PAGLIARINI ( Segretario nazionale FP- CGIL); Emidia PAPI
(coordinamento nazionale RdB); Vittorio PAROLA (direzione DS-
Socialismo 2000); Giovanni PESCE (medaglia d’oro Resistenza);
Luciano PETTINARI (direttivo nazionale Ds, Socialismo 2000);
Giuseppe PRESTIPINO (docente universitario); Domenico
PROVENZANO (coordinatore nazionale RdB Pubblico Impiego); Francesca
PUTINI (coordinatrice nazionale Cub-Trasporti); Massimo RAFFAELI
(critico letterario); Alessandra RICCIO (co-direttrice di
"LatinoAmerica"); Gianni RINALDINI (segretario generale Fiom); Rossano
ROSSI ( Segretario CGIL-Toscana); Mauro SALIZZONI (medico
chirurgo); Cesare SALVI (senatore, Socialismo 2000); Edoardo
SANGUINETTI (poeta); Enzo SANTARELLI (storico); Giuseppina
SANTORELLI (coordinatrice nazionale Cub-Trasporti); Gianni
Sappa (gruppo musicale Mirafiori Kids); Maurizio SCARPA
(segretario nazionale Filcams-Cgil); Flaviano Sciarpa (gruppo musicale
Mirafiori Kids); Sandro e Marino SEVERINI ( gruppo musicale
Gang); Vincenzo SINISCALCHI (coordinatore nazionale Sulta);
Andrea SPADONI (coordinatore nazionale Cub-Trasporti); Osvaldo
SQUASSINA ( Segretario generale FIOM Brescia); Giancarlo
STRAINI ( segretario nazionale FILCEA-CGIL); Pino TAGLIAZUCCHI
(direttore "Notizie internazionali" Fiom-Cgil); Sergio TANZARELLA
(docente universitario); Stefano TASSINARI (scrittore); Piergiorgio
TIBONI (coordinatore nazionale Cub); Fabrizio TOMASELLI
(coordinatore nazionale Sulta); Luciano VASAPOLLO (docente
universitario); Alex ZANOTELLI (Pax Christi); Maurizio ZIPPONI
(segretario generale Fiom-Cgil Milano); Massimo ZUCCHETTI (docente
universitario);
BEOGRADSKI FORUM: Medjunarodni faktori "ukinuli drzavu"
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-12-18.html
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
Beograd, 12.12..2003.
UKIDANJE DRŽAVE
Zajedničku državu Srbije i Crne Gore ukinuli su Vojislav Koštunica,
Miroljub Labus, pokojni Zoran Djindjić, Milo Djukanović, Filip
Vujanović i Havijer Solana svojim potpisima na tzv. "Polazne osnove" od
14. marta 2002. godine. Kasnije je to formalizovano usvajanjem Ustavne
povelje u Saveznoj skupštini kojom je predsedavao Dragoljub Mićunović.
Danas smo bez zajedničke države, bez zajedničke strategije, sa urušenom
privredom, novim ogromnim dugovima, novim nabujalim separatizmima i
novom armijom nezaposlenih. To što su domaći političari time izvršavali
naloge Solane i štitili njegove interese ne smanjuje, već povećava
njihovu odgovornost.
Ovo je, pored ostalog, rečeno na promociji knjige "Ukidanje države"
Živadina Jovanovića u Srpskom kulturnom centru "Sveti Sava" u Subotici.
U prisustvu velikog broja Subotičana, o knjizi su govorili članovi
Beogradskog foruma za svet ravnopravnih prof. Oskar Kovač, koji je
recenzent i pisac predgovora, Rade Drobac, publicista i
spoljnopolitički komentator i autor knjige.
Prof. Oskar Kovač, govoreći o stanju u zemlji u protekle tri godine,
rekao je: bivši DOS koji je na vlast došao uz pomoć"medjunarodne
zajednice" odgovoran je za eskalaciju krize u svim oblastima života u
zamlji. Krizu u državi nisu rešili ali su zato ukinuli državu! To je
lek gori od bolesti! Odgovarajući na pitanje iz publike: koliko je
verovati minhauzenskim obećanjima ostatka DOS u sadašnjoj izbornoj
kampanji, on je rekao: čime god pokušavali da zavaraju narod, oni će
nastaviti da vode dosadašnju katastrofalnu politiku. To je politika
"medjunarodne zajednice" za čije sprovodjenje su oni bili dovedeni na
vlast, sa čime ponovo računaju.
Rade Drobac je istakao da iza političkih promena u Srbiji 2000. godine
stoji direktna politička, finansijska, medijska i logistička podrška
Zapada, pre svega anglo-saksonskog faktora, kao i da je njihov uticaj
na aktuelna zbivanja u našoj zemlji presudan i danas. Od lustracije,
edukacije, urušavanja državnih organa, slabljenja privrede, obračuna sa
političkim neistomišljenicima, pa sve do kreiranja ustavnih i zakonskih
kao i kadrovskih i drugih rešenja.
Odgovarajući na jedno od pitanja o kampanji za povratak monarhije, Rade
Drobac je istakao da je to inspirisano iz Londona. Pretendent na presto
je britanski državljanin i oficir njihove vojske. Ta kampanja, uoči
izbora, ima za cilj i da pomogne rojalističke stranke kako bi se razbio
patriotski blok i stvorili uslovi da jedna od varijanti DOS - a, - DS,
DSS ili G 17-plus - ipak zadrži vlast i time se zaštite interesi Zapada
u našoj zemlji.
Na pitanje koji strani faktor ima dominantan uticaj na zbivanja u
zemqi, Živadin Jovanović je, ogradjujući se od rizika
pojednostavljivanja, izneo lični stav da je to nesumnjivo
anglo-američki faktor koji, pored ostalog, dominira u vojsci i
policiji. Na drugom mestu je Nemačka i na trećem Francuska. Rusija,
preokupirana unutrašnjim problemima, pre svega ekspanzijom islamskog
fundamentalizma i terorizma - manje je politički prisutna, a ekonomska
saradnja sa zemljama u razvoju je zapostavljena iako nova tržišta nisu
pronadjena.
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
11000 Beograd, Mišarska 6/II, Jugoslavija
tel/Fax: (++381 11) 3245601
E-Mail: beoforum@...
www.belgrade-forum.org
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-12-18.html
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
Beograd, 12.12..2003.
UKIDANJE DRŽAVE
Zajedničku državu Srbije i Crne Gore ukinuli su Vojislav Koštunica,
Miroljub Labus, pokojni Zoran Djindjić, Milo Djukanović, Filip
Vujanović i Havijer Solana svojim potpisima na tzv. "Polazne osnove" od
14. marta 2002. godine. Kasnije je to formalizovano usvajanjem Ustavne
povelje u Saveznoj skupštini kojom je predsedavao Dragoljub Mićunović.
Danas smo bez zajedničke države, bez zajedničke strategije, sa urušenom
privredom, novim ogromnim dugovima, novim nabujalim separatizmima i
novom armijom nezaposlenih. To što su domaći političari time izvršavali
naloge Solane i štitili njegove interese ne smanjuje, već povećava
njihovu odgovornost.
Ovo je, pored ostalog, rečeno na promociji knjige "Ukidanje države"
Živadina Jovanovića u Srpskom kulturnom centru "Sveti Sava" u Subotici.
U prisustvu velikog broja Subotičana, o knjizi su govorili članovi
Beogradskog foruma za svet ravnopravnih prof. Oskar Kovač, koji je
recenzent i pisac predgovora, Rade Drobac, publicista i
spoljnopolitički komentator i autor knjige.
Prof. Oskar Kovač, govoreći o stanju u zemlji u protekle tri godine,
rekao je: bivši DOS koji je na vlast došao uz pomoć"medjunarodne
zajednice" odgovoran je za eskalaciju krize u svim oblastima života u
zamlji. Krizu u državi nisu rešili ali su zato ukinuli državu! To je
lek gori od bolesti! Odgovarajući na pitanje iz publike: koliko je
verovati minhauzenskim obećanjima ostatka DOS u sadašnjoj izbornoj
kampanji, on je rekao: čime god pokušavali da zavaraju narod, oni će
nastaviti da vode dosadašnju katastrofalnu politiku. To je politika
"medjunarodne zajednice" za čije sprovodjenje su oni bili dovedeni na
vlast, sa čime ponovo računaju.
Rade Drobac je istakao da iza političkih promena u Srbiji 2000. godine
stoji direktna politička, finansijska, medijska i logistička podrška
Zapada, pre svega anglo-saksonskog faktora, kao i da je njihov uticaj
na aktuelna zbivanja u našoj zemlji presudan i danas. Od lustracije,
edukacije, urušavanja državnih organa, slabljenja privrede, obračuna sa
političkim neistomišljenicima, pa sve do kreiranja ustavnih i zakonskih
kao i kadrovskih i drugih rešenja.
Odgovarajući na jedno od pitanja o kampanji za povratak monarhije, Rade
Drobac je istakao da je to inspirisano iz Londona. Pretendent na presto
je britanski državljanin i oficir njihove vojske. Ta kampanja, uoči
izbora, ima za cilj i da pomogne rojalističke stranke kako bi se razbio
patriotski blok i stvorili uslovi da jedna od varijanti DOS - a, - DS,
DSS ili G 17-plus - ipak zadrži vlast i time se zaštite interesi Zapada
u našoj zemlji.
Na pitanje koji strani faktor ima dominantan uticaj na zbivanja u
zemqi, Živadin Jovanović je, ogradjujući se od rizika
pojednostavljivanja, izneo lični stav da je to nesumnjivo
anglo-američki faktor koji, pored ostalog, dominira u vojsci i
policiji. Na drugom mestu je Nemačka i na trećem Francuska. Rusija,
preokupirana unutrašnjim problemima, pre svega ekspanzijom islamskog
fundamentalizma i terorizma - manje je politički prisutna, a ekonomska
saradnja sa zemljama u razvoju je zapostavljena iako nova tržišta nisu
pronadjena.
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
11000 Beograd, Mišarska 6/II, Jugoslavija
tel/Fax: (++381 11) 3245601
E-Mail: beoforum@...
www.belgrade-forum.org
SERBIA OGGI: IN PARLAMENTO VOTA ANCHE CHI NON C'E'
Dacic says Tadic will be key witness against Micic
Tanjug - December 16, 2003
10:52 JAGODINA , Dec 16 (Tanjug) - Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) Main
Board President Ivica Dacic has said that after admitting that Neda
Arneric, MP, was on holiday and not at parliament during the vote for
a new National Bank of Serbia governor, ranking Democratic Party
official Boris Tadic "might be the key witness at the trial of Natasa
Micic, who was sued by the SPS for rigging the vote at the Serbian
parliament."
"We expect Tadic to admit that parliament member Novakovic was in
Thessaloniki and that there were other rigging cases," Dacic said in
Jagodina, where he took part in an SPS election rally.
Copyright 2003 Tanjug News Agency
Posted for Fair Use only.
Dacic says Tadic will be key witness against Micic
Tanjug - December 16, 2003
10:52 JAGODINA , Dec 16 (Tanjug) - Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) Main
Board President Ivica Dacic has said that after admitting that Neda
Arneric, MP, was on holiday and not at parliament during the vote for
a new National Bank of Serbia governor, ranking Democratic Party
official Boris Tadic "might be the key witness at the trial of Natasa
Micic, who was sued by the SPS for rigging the vote at the Serbian
parliament."
"We expect Tadic to admit that parliament member Novakovic was in
Thessaloniki and that there were other rigging cases," Dacic said in
Jagodina, where he took part in an SPS election rally.
Copyright 2003 Tanjug News Agency
Posted for Fair Use only.
See also:
Mr. Clark Goes To The Hague (by Nebojsa Malic)
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mer 17 Dic 2003 17:51:26 Europe/Rome
A: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
PEOPLE AND ICDSM AT THE HAGUE 15 December 2003
NEW ON www.icdsm.org
Demonstrations and ICDSM press conference at The Hague - picture report
http://www.icdsm.org/more/hague151203.htm
ICDSM attorney Tiphaine Dickson on ban of all communication with
President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/gagorder.htm
ICDSM attorney Tiphaine Dickson on Wesley Clark testimony
http://www.icdsm.org/more/deposition.htm
ICDSM statements - open letters:
- by Professor Velko Valkanov
http://www.icdsm.org/more/velkoclark.htm
- by Christopher Black
http://www.icdsm.org/more/chrisreg.htm
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY TORONTO LAWYERS
http://www.icdsm.org/more/toronto.htm
What are you hiding, general Clark? - gallery
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
---
Picket in New York City:
JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
NYC, 16 December 2003
US National Section of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic organized and hold a picket in front of the presidential
campaign headquarters of General Wesley Clark. His office was presented
with the formal indictment drawn up by Attorney Christopher Black and
others for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia along with the charges
made by Amnesty International and others. ICDSM-US press release was
also presented and hundreds of leaflets were handed out, protesting the
conditions of the secret testimony of Wesley Clark at the ICTY, the
ICTY itself, and the treatment of President Milosevic.
The leaflets also contained a long list of violations by Wesley Clark
as well as by the ICTY, including the most recent one regarding the
violation of the inalienable right of the Serbian people to choose
their own government, violated by the ICTY in their effort to thwart
the election of Slobodan Milosevic to a seat in the Serbian
parliamentary elections Dec. 28th. The leaflets were well received and
caused many supportive discussions.
A 30 foot banner was unfurled on the sidewalk in front of the Wesley
Clark’s offices. The picket was lively and lasted for 45 minutes.
People shouted slogans like "Jail Wesley
Clark! Free Milosevic!" A cable TV program in NYC covered the event.
---
ICDSM-US
U.S. National Section of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic
Press Release
#3
Email: info@...
December 16,
2003
Website: www.icdsm-us.org
Telephone:
212-726-1260
Yahoo group: icdsm-us
For Immediate Release:
PRESS CONFERENCE AND DEMONSTRATION SCHEDULED TODAY IN NEW YORK TO
PROTEST THE SECRET TESTIMONY OF GEN. WESLEY CLARK AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
- GEN. WESLEY CLARK TO BE SERVED WITH INDICTMENTS FOR WAR CRIMES
December 16, 2003
Today the U.S. National Section of the International Committee for the
Defense of Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) will hold a press conference and
demonstration at the presidential campaign offices of Gen. Wesley Clark
at 40 West 25th Street in New York City at 1 PM to protest his wrongful
and outrageous secret testimony on behalf of the prosecution at the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Representatives of the ICDSM-US, will serve indictments for war crimes
on Gen. Wesley Clark at his presidential campaign headquarters. Today’s
event will coincide with a similar protest and press conference
organized at The Hague with other national sections of the ICDSM
yesterday.
We accuse Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and current U.S.
presidential candidate, of war crimes against the people of Yugoslavia
during the 78-day bombing of that country in the spring of 1999. As
commander of that war Gen. Clark is guilty of directing thousands of
bombings of civilian targets in Yugoslavia resulting in the deaths of
several thousand civilians.
As a war criminal Gen. Clark is unfit to testify as a prosecution
witness. Moreover, his secret testimony is an improper and unlawful
manipulation of judicial practice, making a mockery of any claims by
the ICTY at The Hague to uphold standards of justice or international
law. While the ICTY purports to be concerned with war crimes committed
in Yugoslavia, it has refused to indict a single NATO government
official. But by allowing the U.S. government to screen, censor and
control the conditions of Gen. Clark’s testimony, the ICTY has
completely destroyed any legitimacy to these proceedings.
As NATO commander of the 78-day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in the
spring of 1999:
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, the Geneva Convention and United Nations
Resolutions of 1950 regarding crimes against peace.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the Helsinki Accords of
1975. In seeking to detach Kosovo from Serbia, Clark violated the
guarantees undertaken by all signatories that the territorial frontiers
of the states of Europe would not be altered by force.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated articles 48-58 of the 1977
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the
protection of the civilian population.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the 1954 Hague Convention
for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
by ordering the destruction of Serbian religious and historical sites.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the 1980 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. By seeking to bully Yugoslavia into accepting
the so-called Rambouillet agreement, Clark was guilty of violating
Articles 51 and 52 of that treaty.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated NATO's own charter which
claims that it is a defensive organization that will only resort to
force if one of its members is attacked.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985, UNEP), the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992).
· Gen. Wesley Clark is directly responsible for the atrocities
committed at the Grdelica Gorge where a civilian train with 56
passengers was incinerated.
· Gen. Wesley Clark is directly responsible for war crimes
relating to the targeting of the Serbian Radio and Television
headquarters in Belgrade where 16 journalists and staff were murdered.
· Gen. Wesley Clark is responsible for numerous other acts in
violation of international law and for war crimes relating to the
targeting and deaths of civilians in Yugoslavia.
Today’s demonstration also protests the outrageous actions by the ICTY
banning most if not all contact and communications by President
Milosevic and fellow prisoner Vojislav Seselj with the outside world.
This purpose of this decision, taken on Dec. 12, is openly admitted as
prevention of the elections of President Milosevic and Dr. Seselj to
seats in the upcoming Serbian parliamentary elections of Dec. 28. This
attempt by the powers running the ICTY to suppress the right of the
Serbian people to choose their own government is a violation of the
inalienable natural rights of the Serbian people to freely elect their
own representatives.
The U.S. Section of the ICDSM rejects the legitimacy of this trial and
that of the ICTY itself. But at the same time we cannot stand by
without protesting the gross violations of fundamental legal,
democratic and human rights visited upon Slobodan Milosevic by this
court. We view this trial as an act of political warfare against the
people of Serbia and against the basic democratic rights of the whole
of humanity that cannot be allowed to succeed.
---
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.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)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Mr. Clark Goes To The Hague (by Nebojsa Malic)
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mer 17 Dic 2003 17:51:26 Europe/Rome
A: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
PEOPLE AND ICDSM AT THE HAGUE 15 December 2003
NEW ON www.icdsm.org
Demonstrations and ICDSM press conference at The Hague - picture report
http://www.icdsm.org/more/hague151203.htm
ICDSM attorney Tiphaine Dickson on ban of all communication with
President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/gagorder.htm
ICDSM attorney Tiphaine Dickson on Wesley Clark testimony
http://www.icdsm.org/more/deposition.htm
ICDSM statements - open letters:
- by Professor Velko Valkanov
http://www.icdsm.org/more/velkoclark.htm
- by Christopher Black
http://www.icdsm.org/more/chrisreg.htm
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY TORONTO LAWYERS
http://www.icdsm.org/more/toronto.htm
What are you hiding, general Clark? - gallery
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
---
Picket in New York City:
JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
NYC, 16 December 2003
US National Section of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic organized and hold a picket in front of the presidential
campaign headquarters of General Wesley Clark. His office was presented
with the formal indictment drawn up by Attorney Christopher Black and
others for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia along with the charges
made by Amnesty International and others. ICDSM-US press release was
also presented and hundreds of leaflets were handed out, protesting the
conditions of the secret testimony of Wesley Clark at the ICTY, the
ICTY itself, and the treatment of President Milosevic.
The leaflets also contained a long list of violations by Wesley Clark
as well as by the ICTY, including the most recent one regarding the
violation of the inalienable right of the Serbian people to choose
their own government, violated by the ICTY in their effort to thwart
the election of Slobodan Milosevic to a seat in the Serbian
parliamentary elections Dec. 28th. The leaflets were well received and
caused many supportive discussions.
A 30 foot banner was unfurled on the sidewalk in front of the Wesley
Clark’s offices. The picket was lively and lasted for 45 minutes.
People shouted slogans like "Jail Wesley
Clark! Free Milosevic!" A cable TV program in NYC covered the event.
---
ICDSM-US
U.S. National Section of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic
Press Release
#3
Email: info@...
December 16,
2003
Website: www.icdsm-us.org
Telephone:
212-726-1260
Yahoo group: icdsm-us
For Immediate Release:
PRESS CONFERENCE AND DEMONSTRATION SCHEDULED TODAY IN NEW YORK TO
PROTEST THE SECRET TESTIMONY OF GEN. WESLEY CLARK AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
- GEN. WESLEY CLARK TO BE SERVED WITH INDICTMENTS FOR WAR CRIMES
December 16, 2003
Today the U.S. National Section of the International Committee for the
Defense of Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) will hold a press conference and
demonstration at the presidential campaign offices of Gen. Wesley Clark
at 40 West 25th Street in New York City at 1 PM to protest his wrongful
and outrageous secret testimony on behalf of the prosecution at the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Representatives of the ICDSM-US, will serve indictments for war crimes
on Gen. Wesley Clark at his presidential campaign headquarters. Today’s
event will coincide with a similar protest and press conference
organized at The Hague with other national sections of the ICDSM
yesterday.
We accuse Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and current U.S.
presidential candidate, of war crimes against the people of Yugoslavia
during the 78-day bombing of that country in the spring of 1999. As
commander of that war Gen. Clark is guilty of directing thousands of
bombings of civilian targets in Yugoslavia resulting in the deaths of
several thousand civilians.
As a war criminal Gen. Clark is unfit to testify as a prosecution
witness. Moreover, his secret testimony is an improper and unlawful
manipulation of judicial practice, making a mockery of any claims by
the ICTY at The Hague to uphold standards of justice or international
law. While the ICTY purports to be concerned with war crimes committed
in Yugoslavia, it has refused to indict a single NATO government
official. But by allowing the U.S. government to screen, censor and
control the conditions of Gen. Clark’s testimony, the ICTY has
completely destroyed any legitimacy to these proceedings.
As NATO commander of the 78-day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in the
spring of 1999:
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, the Geneva Convention and United Nations
Resolutions of 1950 regarding crimes against peace.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the Helsinki Accords of
1975. In seeking to detach Kosovo from Serbia, Clark violated the
guarantees undertaken by all signatories that the territorial frontiers
of the states of Europe would not be altered by force.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated articles 48-58 of the 1977
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the
protection of the civilian population.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the 1954 Hague Convention
for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
by ordering the destruction of Serbian religious and historical sites.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the 1980 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. By seeking to bully Yugoslavia into accepting
the so-called Rambouillet agreement, Clark was guilty of violating
Articles 51 and 52 of that treaty.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated NATO's own charter which
claims that it is a defensive organization that will only resort to
force if one of its members is attacked.
· Gen. Wesley Clark willfully violated the Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985, UNEP), the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992).
· Gen. Wesley Clark is directly responsible for the atrocities
committed at the Grdelica Gorge where a civilian train with 56
passengers was incinerated.
· Gen. Wesley Clark is directly responsible for war crimes
relating to the targeting of the Serbian Radio and Television
headquarters in Belgrade where 16 journalists and staff were murdered.
· Gen. Wesley Clark is responsible for numerous other acts in
violation of international law and for war crimes relating to the
targeting and deaths of civilians in Yugoslavia.
Today’s demonstration also protests the outrageous actions by the ICTY
banning most if not all contact and communications by President
Milosevic and fellow prisoner Vojislav Seselj with the outside world.
This purpose of this decision, taken on Dec. 12, is openly admitted as
prevention of the elections of President Milosevic and Dr. Seselj to
seats in the upcoming Serbian parliamentary elections of Dec. 28. This
attempt by the powers running the ICTY to suppress the right of the
Serbian people to choose their own government is a violation of the
inalienable natural rights of the Serbian people to freely elect their
own representatives.
The U.S. Section of the ICDSM rejects the legitimacy of this trial and
that of the ICTY itself. But at the same time we cannot stand by
without protesting the gross violations of fundamental legal,
democratic and human rights visited upon Slobodan Milosevic by this
court. We view this trial as an act of political warfare against the
people of Serbia and against the basic democratic rights of the whole
of humanity that cannot be allowed to succeed.
---
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.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)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mer 17 Dic 2003 13:54:57 Europe/Rome
A: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
War Propaganda and the Criminalization of Justice:
The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
by Michael Parenti
www.michaelParenti.org , December 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 17 December 2003
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAR312A.html
U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five
decades, democratically elected governments---guilty of introducing
redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent
courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free
market system---have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national
security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were
overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by
the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back
the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to
foreign corporate investors.
The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing
covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks
against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the
1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji
Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica,
Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria,
South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq
(under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as
an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).
The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is
not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently
predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and
psychologically flawed. They are labeled power hungry demagogues,
mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler
himself. The countries in question are designated as "terrorist" or
"rogue" states, guilty of being "anti-American" and "anti-West." Some
choice few are even condemned as members of an "evil axis." When
targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are
assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and
former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion
that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious
damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all
in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.
There is no better example of this than the tireless demonization of
democratically-elected President Slobodan Milosevic and the
U.S.-supported wars against Yugoslavia. Louis Sell, a former U.S.
Foreign Service officer, has authored a book (Slobodan Milosevic and
the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Duke University Press, 2002) that is a
hit piece on Milosevic, loaded with all the usual prefabricated images
and policy presumptions of the U.S. national security state. Sell's
Milosevic is a caricature, a cunning power seeker and maddened fool,
who turns on trusted comrades and plays upon divisions within the party.
This Milosevic is both an "orthodox socialist" and an "opportunistic
Serbian nationalist," a demagogic power-hungry "second Tito" who
simultaneously wants dictatorial power over all of Yugoslavia while
eagerly pursuing polices that "destroy the state that Tito created."
The author does not demonstrate by reference to specific policies and
programs that Milosevic is responsible for the dismemberment of
Yugoslavia, he just tells us so again and again. One would think that
the Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Macedonian, and Kosovo
Albanian secessionists and U.S./NATO interventionists might have had
something to do with it.
In my opinion, Milosevic's real sin was that he resisted the
dismemberment of Yugoslavia and opposed a U.S. imposed hegemony. He
also attempted to spare Yugoslavia the worst of the merciless
privatizations and rollbacks that have afflicted other former communist
countries. Yugoslavia was the only nation in Europe that did not apply
for entry into the European Union or NATO or OSCE.
For some left intellectuals, the former Yugoslavia did not qualify as a
socialist state because it had allowed too much penetration by private
corporations and the IMF. But U.S. policymakers are notorious for not
seeing the world the way purist left intellectuals do. For them
Yugoslavia was socialist enough with its developed human services
sector and an economy that was over 75 percent publicly owned. Sell
makes it clear that Yugoslavia's public ownership and Milosevic's
defense of that economy were a central consideration in Washington's
war against Yugoslavia. Milosevic, Sell complains, had a "commitment to
orthodox socialism." He "portrayed public ownership of the means of
production and a continued emphasis on [state] commodity production as
the best guarantees for prosperity." He had to go.
To make his case against Milosevic, Sell repeatedly falls back on the
usual ad hominem labeling. Thus we read that in his childhood Milosevic
was "something of a prig" and of course "by nature a loner," a weird
kind of kid because he was "uninterested in sports or other physical
activities," and he "spurned childhood pranks in favor of his books."
The author quotes an anonymous former classmate who reports that
Slobodan's mother "dressed him funny and kept him soft." Worse still,
Slobodan would never join in when other boys stole from orchards---no
doubt a sure sign of childhood pathology.
Sell further describes Milosevic as "moody," "reclusive," and given to
"mulish fatalism." But Sell's own data---when he pauses in his negative
labeling and gets down to specifics---contradicts the maladjusted
"moody loner" stereotype. He acknowledges that young Slobodan worked
well with other youth when it came to political activities. Far from
being unable to form close relations, Slobodan met a girl, his future
wife, and they enjoyed an enduring lifelong attachment. In his early
career when heading the Beogradska Banka, Milosevic was reportedly
"communicative, caring about people at the bank, and popular with his
staff." Other friends describe him as getting on well with people,
"communal and relaxed," a faithful husband to his wife, and a proud and
devoted father to his children. And Sell allows that Milosevic was at
times "confident," "outgoing," and "charismatic." But the negative
stereotype is so firmly established by repetitious pronouncement (and
by years of propagation by Western media and officialdom) that Sell can
simply slide over contradictory evidence---even when such evidence is
provided by himself.
Sell refers to anonymous "U.S. psychiatrists, who have studied
Milosevic closely." By "closely" he must mean from afar, since no U.S.
psychiatrist has ever treated or even interviewed Milosevic. These
uncited and unnamed psychiatrists supposedly diagnosed the Yugoslav
leader as a "malignant narcissistic" personality. Sell tells us that
such malignant narcissism fills Milosevic with self-deception and
leaves him with a "chore personality" that is a "sham." "People with
Milosevic's type of personality frequently either cannot or will not
recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception
of the way the world is or should be." How does Dr. Sigmund Sell know
all this? He seems to find proof in the fact that Milosevic dared to
have charted a course that differed from the one emanating from
Washington. Surely only personal pathology can explain such "anti-West"
obstinacy. Furthermore, we are told that Milosevic suffered from a
"blind spot" in that he was never comfortable with the notion of
private property. If this isn't evidence of malignant narcissism, what
is? Sell never considers the possibility that he himself, and the
global interventionists who think like him, cannot or will not
"recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception
of the way the world is or should be."
Milosevic, we are repeatedly told, fell under the growing influence of
his wife, Mirjana Markovic, "the real power behind the throne." Sell
actually calls her "Lady Macbeth" on one occasion. He portrays Markovic
as a complete wacko, given to uncontrollable anger; her eyes "vibrated
like a scared animal"; "she suffers from severe schizophrenia" with "a
tenuous grasp on reality," and is a hopeless "hypochondriac." In
addition, she has a "mousy" appearance and a "dreamy" and "traumatized"
personality. And like her husband, with whom she shares a "very
abnormal relationship," she has "an autistic relation with the world."
Worse still, she holds "hardline marxist views." We are left to wonder
how the autistic dysfunctional Markovic was able to work as a popular
university professor, organize and lead a new political party, and play
an active role in the popular resistance against Western
interventionism.
In this book, whenever Milosevic or others in his camp are quoted as
saying something, they "snarl," "gush," "hiss," and "crow." In
contrast, political players who win Sell's approval, "observe,"
"state," "note," and "conclude." When one of Milosevic's superiors
voices his discomfort about "noisy Kosovo Serbs" (as Sell calls them)
who were demonstrating against the mistreatment they suffered at the
hands of Kosovo Albanian secessionists, Milosevic "hisses," "Why are
you so afraid of the street and the people?" Some of us might think
this is a pretty good question to hiss at a government leader, but Sell
treats it as proof of Milosevic's demagoguery.
Whenever Milosevic did anything that aided the common citizenry, as
when he taxed the interest earned on foreign currency accounts---a
policy that was unpopular with Serbian elites but appreciated by the
poorer strata---he is dismissed as manipulatively currying popular
favor. Thus we must accept Sell's word that Milosevic never wanted the
power to prevent hunger but only hungered for power. The author
operates from a nonfalsefiable paradigm. If the targeted leader is
unresponsive to the people, this is proof of his dictatorial
proclivity. If he is responsive to them, this demonstrates his
demagogic opportunism.
In keeping with U.S. officialdom's view of the world, Sell labels
"Milosevic and his minions" as "hardliners," "conservatives," and
"ideologues"; they are "anti-West," and bound up in "socialist dogma."
In contrast, Croatian, Bosnian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists who
worked hard to dismember Yugoslavia and deliver their respective
republics to the tender mercies of neoliberal rollback are identified
as "economic reformers," "the liberal leadership," and "pro-West"
(read, pro-transnational corporate capitalist). Sell treats
"Western-style democracy" and "a modern market economy" as necessary
correlates. He has nothing to say about the dismal plight of the
Eastern European countries that abandoned their deficient but endurable
planned economies for the merciless exactions of laissez-faire
capitalism.
Sell's sensitivity to demagoguery does not extend to Franco Tudjman,
the crypto-fascist anti-Semite Croat who had nice things to say about
Hitler, and who imposed his harsh autocratic rule on the newly
independent Croatia. Tudjman dismissed the Holocaust as an
exaggeration, and openly hailed the Croatian Ustashe Nazi collaborators
of World War II. He even employed a few aging Ustashe leaders in his
government. Sell says not a word about all this, and treats Tudjman as
just a good old Croatian nationalist. Likewise, he has not a critical
word about the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic. He comments
laconically that Izetbegovic "was sentenced to three years imprisonment
in 1946 for belonging to a group called the Young Muslims." One is left
with the impression that the Yugoslav communist government had
suppressed a devout Muslim. What Sell leaves unmentioned is that the
Young Muslims actively recruited Muslim units for the Nazi SS during
World War II; these units perpetrated horrid atrocities against the
resistance movement and the Jewish population in Yugoslavia.
Izetbegovic got off rather lightly with a three-year sentence.
Little is made in this book of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against
the Serbs by U.S.-supported leaders like Tudjman and Izetbegovic during
and after the U.S.-sponsored wars. Conversely, no mention is made of
the ethnic tolerance and diversity that existed in President
Milosevic's Yugoslavia. By 1999, all that was left of Yugoslavia was
Montenegro and Serbia. Readers are never told that this rump nation was
the only remaining multi-ethnic society among the various former
Yugoslav republics, the only place where Serbs, Albanians, Croats,
Gorani, Jews, Egyptians, Hungarians, Roma, and numerous other ethnic
groups could live together with some measure of security and tolerance.
The relentless demonization of Milosevic spills over onto the Serbian
people in general. In Sell's book, the Serbs are aggrandizing
nationalists. Kosovo Serbs demonstrating against mistreatment by
Albanian nationalists are described as having their "bloodlust up." And
Serb workers demonstrating to defend their rights and hard won gains
are dismissed by Sell as "the lowest instruments of the mob." The Serbs
who had lived in Krajina and other parts of Croatia for centuries are
dismissed as colonial occupiers. In contrast, the Slovenian, Croatian,
and Bosnian Muslim nationalist secessionists, and Kosovo Albanian
irredentists are simply seeking "independence," "self-determination,"
and "cultural distinctiveness and sovereignty." In this book, the
Albanian KLA gunmen are not big-time drug dealers, terrorists, and
ethnic cleansers, but guerrilla fighters and patriots.
Military actions allegedly taken by the Serbs, described in the vaguest
terms, are repeatedly labeled "brutal," while assaults and atrocities
delivered upon the Serbs by other national groups are more usually
accepted as retaliatory and defensive, or are dismissed by Sell as
"untrue," "highly exaggerated," and "hyperventilated." Milosevic, Sell
says, disseminated "vicious propaganda" against the Croats, but he does
not give us any specifics. Sell does provide one or two instances of
how Serb villages were pillaged and their inhabitants raped and
murdered by Albanian secessionists. From this he grudgingly allows that
"some of the Serb charges . . . had a core of truth." But he makes
nothing more of it.
The well-timed, well-engineered story about a Serbian massacre of
unarmed Albanians in the village of Racak, hyped by U.S. diplomat and
veteran disinformationist William Walker, is wholeheartedly embraced by
Sell, who ignores all the contrary evidence. An Associated Press TV
crew had actually filmed the battle that took place in Racak the
previous day in which Serbian police killed a number of KLA fighters. A
French journalist who went through Racak later that day found evidence
of a battle but no evidence of a massacre of unarmed civilians, nor did
Walker's own Kosovo Verification Mission monitors. All the forensic
reports reveal that almost all of the forty-four persons killed had
previously been using fire arms, and all had perished in combat. Sell
simply ignores this evidence.
The media-hyped story of how the Serbs allegedly killed 7,000 Muslims
in Srebrenica is uncritically accepted by Sell, even though the most
thorough investigations have uncovered not more than 2,000 bodies of
undetermined nationality. The earlier massacres carried out by Muslims,
their razing of some fifty Serbian villages around Srebrenica, as
reported by two British correspondents and others, are ignored. The
complete failure of Western forensic teams to locate the 250,000 or
100,000 or 50,000 or 10,000 bodies (the numbers kept changing) of
Albanians supposedly murdered by the Serbs in Kosovo also goes
unnoticed.
Sell's rendition of what happened at Rambouillet leaves much to be
desired. Under Rambouillet, Kosovo would have been turned into a NATO
colony. Milosevic might have reluctantly agreed to that, so desperate
was he to avoid a full-scale NATO onslaught on the rest of Yugoslavia.
To be certain that war could not be avoided, however, the U.S.
delegation added a remarkable stipulation, demanding that NATO forces
and personnel were to have unrestrained access to all of Yugoslavia,
unfettered use of its airports, rails, ports, telecommunication
services, and airwaves, all free of cost and immune from any
jurisdiction by Yugoslav authorities. NATO would also have the option
to modify for its own use all of Yugoslavia's infrastructure including
roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. In effect, not
just Kosovo but all of Yugoslavia was to be subjected to an
extraterritoriality tantamount to outright colonial occupation.
Sell does not mention these particulars. Instead he assures us that the
request for NATO's unimpeded access to Yugoslavia was just a pro forma
protocol inserted "largely for legal reasons." A similar though less
sweeping agreement was part of the Dayton package, he says. Indeed, and
the Dayton agreement reduced Bosnia to a Western colony. But if there
was nothing wrong with the Rambouillet ultimatum, why then did
Milosevic reject it? Sell ascribes Milosevic's resistance to his
perverse "bunker mentality" and his need to defy the world.
There is not a descriptive word in this book of the 78 days of
around-the-clock massive NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, no mention of how
it caused the loss of thousands of lives, injured and maimed thousands
more, contaminated much of the land and water with depleted uranium,
and destroyed much of the country's public sector industries and
infrastructure-while leaving all the private Western corporate
structures perfectly intact.
The sources that Sell relies on share U.S. officialdom's view of the
Balkans struggle. Observers who offer a more independently critical
perspective, such as Sean Gervassi, Diana Johnstone, Gregory Elich,
Nicholas Stavrous, Michel Collon, Raju Thomas, and Michel Chossudovsky
are left untouched and uncited. Important Western sources I reference
in my book on Yugoslavia offer evidence, testimony, and documentation
that do not fit Sell's conclusions, including sources from within the
European Union, the European Community's Commission on Women's Rights,
the OSCE and its Kosovo Verification Mission, the UN War Crimes
Commission, and various other UN commissions, various State Department
reports, the German Foreign Office and German Defense Ministry reports,
and the International Red Cross. Sell does not touch these sources.
Also ignored by him are the testimonies and statements of members of
the U.S. Congress who visited the Balkans, a former State Department
official under the Bush administration, a former deputy commander of
the U.S. European command, several UN and NATO generals and
international negotiators, Spanish air force pilots, forensic teams
from various countries, and UN monitors who offer revelations that
contradict the picture drawn by Sell and other apologists of U.S.
officialdom.
In sum, Sell's book is packed with discombobulated insider details,
unsupported charges, unexamined presumptions, and ideologically loaded
labeling. As mainstream disinformation goes, it is a job well done.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their
entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long
as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must
be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
at www.globalresearch.ca . The active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly
displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the
original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites,
contact: editor@... .
Michael Parenti's recent books are To Kill a Nation: The Attack on
Yugoslavia (Verso), and The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond
(City Lights). His latest work, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A
People's History of Ancient Rome has been nominated for a Pulitzer
Prize. © Copyright M Parenti 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Data: Mer 17 Dic 2003 13:54:57 Europe/Rome
A: Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
War Propaganda and the Criminalization of Justice:
The Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic
by Michael Parenti
www.michaelParenti.org , December 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 17 December 2003
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAR312A.html
U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five
decades, democratically elected governments---guilty of introducing
redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent
courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free
market system---have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national
security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were
overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by
the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back
the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to
foreign corporate investors.
The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing
covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks
against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the
1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji
Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica,
Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria,
South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq
(under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as
an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).
The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is
not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently
predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and
psychologically flawed. They are labeled power hungry demagogues,
mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler
himself. The countries in question are designated as "terrorist" or
"rogue" states, guilty of being "anti-American" and "anti-West." Some
choice few are even condemned as members of an "evil axis." When
targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are
assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and
former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion
that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious
damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all
in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.
There is no better example of this than the tireless demonization of
democratically-elected President Slobodan Milosevic and the
U.S.-supported wars against Yugoslavia. Louis Sell, a former U.S.
Foreign Service officer, has authored a book (Slobodan Milosevic and
the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Duke University Press, 2002) that is a
hit piece on Milosevic, loaded with all the usual prefabricated images
and policy presumptions of the U.S. national security state. Sell's
Milosevic is a caricature, a cunning power seeker and maddened fool,
who turns on trusted comrades and plays upon divisions within the party.
This Milosevic is both an "orthodox socialist" and an "opportunistic
Serbian nationalist," a demagogic power-hungry "second Tito" who
simultaneously wants dictatorial power over all of Yugoslavia while
eagerly pursuing polices that "destroy the state that Tito created."
The author does not demonstrate by reference to specific policies and
programs that Milosevic is responsible for the dismemberment of
Yugoslavia, he just tells us so again and again. One would think that
the Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Macedonian, and Kosovo
Albanian secessionists and U.S./NATO interventionists might have had
something to do with it.
In my opinion, Milosevic's real sin was that he resisted the
dismemberment of Yugoslavia and opposed a U.S. imposed hegemony. He
also attempted to spare Yugoslavia the worst of the merciless
privatizations and rollbacks that have afflicted other former communist
countries. Yugoslavia was the only nation in Europe that did not apply
for entry into the European Union or NATO or OSCE.
For some left intellectuals, the former Yugoslavia did not qualify as a
socialist state because it had allowed too much penetration by private
corporations and the IMF. But U.S. policymakers are notorious for not
seeing the world the way purist left intellectuals do. For them
Yugoslavia was socialist enough with its developed human services
sector and an economy that was over 75 percent publicly owned. Sell
makes it clear that Yugoslavia's public ownership and Milosevic's
defense of that economy were a central consideration in Washington's
war against Yugoslavia. Milosevic, Sell complains, had a "commitment to
orthodox socialism." He "portrayed public ownership of the means of
production and a continued emphasis on [state] commodity production as
the best guarantees for prosperity." He had to go.
To make his case against Milosevic, Sell repeatedly falls back on the
usual ad hominem labeling. Thus we read that in his childhood Milosevic
was "something of a prig" and of course "by nature a loner," a weird
kind of kid because he was "uninterested in sports or other physical
activities," and he "spurned childhood pranks in favor of his books."
The author quotes an anonymous former classmate who reports that
Slobodan's mother "dressed him funny and kept him soft." Worse still,
Slobodan would never join in when other boys stole from orchards---no
doubt a sure sign of childhood pathology.
Sell further describes Milosevic as "moody," "reclusive," and given to
"mulish fatalism." But Sell's own data---when he pauses in his negative
labeling and gets down to specifics---contradicts the maladjusted
"moody loner" stereotype. He acknowledges that young Slobodan worked
well with other youth when it came to political activities. Far from
being unable to form close relations, Slobodan met a girl, his future
wife, and they enjoyed an enduring lifelong attachment. In his early
career when heading the Beogradska Banka, Milosevic was reportedly
"communicative, caring about people at the bank, and popular with his
staff." Other friends describe him as getting on well with people,
"communal and relaxed," a faithful husband to his wife, and a proud and
devoted father to his children. And Sell allows that Milosevic was at
times "confident," "outgoing," and "charismatic." But the negative
stereotype is so firmly established by repetitious pronouncement (and
by years of propagation by Western media and officialdom) that Sell can
simply slide over contradictory evidence---even when such evidence is
provided by himself.
Sell refers to anonymous "U.S. psychiatrists, who have studied
Milosevic closely." By "closely" he must mean from afar, since no U.S.
psychiatrist has ever treated or even interviewed Milosevic. These
uncited and unnamed psychiatrists supposedly diagnosed the Yugoslav
leader as a "malignant narcissistic" personality. Sell tells us that
such malignant narcissism fills Milosevic with self-deception and
leaves him with a "chore personality" that is a "sham." "People with
Milosevic's type of personality frequently either cannot or will not
recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception
of the way the world is or should be." How does Dr. Sigmund Sell know
all this? He seems to find proof in the fact that Milosevic dared to
have charted a course that differed from the one emanating from
Washington. Surely only personal pathology can explain such "anti-West"
obstinacy. Furthermore, we are told that Milosevic suffered from a
"blind spot" in that he was never comfortable with the notion of
private property. If this isn't evidence of malignant narcissism, what
is? Sell never considers the possibility that he himself, and the
global interventionists who think like him, cannot or will not
"recognize the reality of facts that diverge from their own perception
of the way the world is or should be."
Milosevic, we are repeatedly told, fell under the growing influence of
his wife, Mirjana Markovic, "the real power behind the throne." Sell
actually calls her "Lady Macbeth" on one occasion. He portrays Markovic
as a complete wacko, given to uncontrollable anger; her eyes "vibrated
like a scared animal"; "she suffers from severe schizophrenia" with "a
tenuous grasp on reality," and is a hopeless "hypochondriac." In
addition, she has a "mousy" appearance and a "dreamy" and "traumatized"
personality. And like her husband, with whom she shares a "very
abnormal relationship," she has "an autistic relation with the world."
Worse still, she holds "hardline marxist views." We are left to wonder
how the autistic dysfunctional Markovic was able to work as a popular
university professor, organize and lead a new political party, and play
an active role in the popular resistance against Western
interventionism.
In this book, whenever Milosevic or others in his camp are quoted as
saying something, they "snarl," "gush," "hiss," and "crow." In
contrast, political players who win Sell's approval, "observe,"
"state," "note," and "conclude." When one of Milosevic's superiors
voices his discomfort about "noisy Kosovo Serbs" (as Sell calls them)
who were demonstrating against the mistreatment they suffered at the
hands of Kosovo Albanian secessionists, Milosevic "hisses," "Why are
you so afraid of the street and the people?" Some of us might think
this is a pretty good question to hiss at a government leader, but Sell
treats it as proof of Milosevic's demagoguery.
Whenever Milosevic did anything that aided the common citizenry, as
when he taxed the interest earned on foreign currency accounts---a
policy that was unpopular with Serbian elites but appreciated by the
poorer strata---he is dismissed as manipulatively currying popular
favor. Thus we must accept Sell's word that Milosevic never wanted the
power to prevent hunger but only hungered for power. The author
operates from a nonfalsefiable paradigm. If the targeted leader is
unresponsive to the people, this is proof of his dictatorial
proclivity. If he is responsive to them, this demonstrates his
demagogic opportunism.
In keeping with U.S. officialdom's view of the world, Sell labels
"Milosevic and his minions" as "hardliners," "conservatives," and
"ideologues"; they are "anti-West," and bound up in "socialist dogma."
In contrast, Croatian, Bosnian, and Kosovo Albanian secessionists who
worked hard to dismember Yugoslavia and deliver their respective
republics to the tender mercies of neoliberal rollback are identified
as "economic reformers," "the liberal leadership," and "pro-West"
(read, pro-transnational corporate capitalist). Sell treats
"Western-style democracy" and "a modern market economy" as necessary
correlates. He has nothing to say about the dismal plight of the
Eastern European countries that abandoned their deficient but endurable
planned economies for the merciless exactions of laissez-faire
capitalism.
Sell's sensitivity to demagoguery does not extend to Franco Tudjman,
the crypto-fascist anti-Semite Croat who had nice things to say about
Hitler, and who imposed his harsh autocratic rule on the newly
independent Croatia. Tudjman dismissed the Holocaust as an
exaggeration, and openly hailed the Croatian Ustashe Nazi collaborators
of World War II. He even employed a few aging Ustashe leaders in his
government. Sell says not a word about all this, and treats Tudjman as
just a good old Croatian nationalist. Likewise, he has not a critical
word about the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic. He comments
laconically that Izetbegovic "was sentenced to three years imprisonment
in 1946 for belonging to a group called the Young Muslims." One is left
with the impression that the Yugoslav communist government had
suppressed a devout Muslim. What Sell leaves unmentioned is that the
Young Muslims actively recruited Muslim units for the Nazi SS during
World War II; these units perpetrated horrid atrocities against the
resistance movement and the Jewish population in Yugoslavia.
Izetbegovic got off rather lightly with a three-year sentence.
Little is made in this book of the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against
the Serbs by U.S.-supported leaders like Tudjman and Izetbegovic during
and after the U.S.-sponsored wars. Conversely, no mention is made of
the ethnic tolerance and diversity that existed in President
Milosevic's Yugoslavia. By 1999, all that was left of Yugoslavia was
Montenegro and Serbia. Readers are never told that this rump nation was
the only remaining multi-ethnic society among the various former
Yugoslav republics, the only place where Serbs, Albanians, Croats,
Gorani, Jews, Egyptians, Hungarians, Roma, and numerous other ethnic
groups could live together with some measure of security and tolerance.
The relentless demonization of Milosevic spills over onto the Serbian
people in general. In Sell's book, the Serbs are aggrandizing
nationalists. Kosovo Serbs demonstrating against mistreatment by
Albanian nationalists are described as having their "bloodlust up." And
Serb workers demonstrating to defend their rights and hard won gains
are dismissed by Sell as "the lowest instruments of the mob." The Serbs
who had lived in Krajina and other parts of Croatia for centuries are
dismissed as colonial occupiers. In contrast, the Slovenian, Croatian,
and Bosnian Muslim nationalist secessionists, and Kosovo Albanian
irredentists are simply seeking "independence," "self-determination,"
and "cultural distinctiveness and sovereignty." In this book, the
Albanian KLA gunmen are not big-time drug dealers, terrorists, and
ethnic cleansers, but guerrilla fighters and patriots.
Military actions allegedly taken by the Serbs, described in the vaguest
terms, are repeatedly labeled "brutal," while assaults and atrocities
delivered upon the Serbs by other national groups are more usually
accepted as retaliatory and defensive, or are dismissed by Sell as
"untrue," "highly exaggerated," and "hyperventilated." Milosevic, Sell
says, disseminated "vicious propaganda" against the Croats, but he does
not give us any specifics. Sell does provide one or two instances of
how Serb villages were pillaged and their inhabitants raped and
murdered by Albanian secessionists. From this he grudgingly allows that
"some of the Serb charges . . . had a core of truth." But he makes
nothing more of it.
The well-timed, well-engineered story about a Serbian massacre of
unarmed Albanians in the village of Racak, hyped by U.S. diplomat and
veteran disinformationist William Walker, is wholeheartedly embraced by
Sell, who ignores all the contrary evidence. An Associated Press TV
crew had actually filmed the battle that took place in Racak the
previous day in which Serbian police killed a number of KLA fighters. A
French journalist who went through Racak later that day found evidence
of a battle but no evidence of a massacre of unarmed civilians, nor did
Walker's own Kosovo Verification Mission monitors. All the forensic
reports reveal that almost all of the forty-four persons killed had
previously been using fire arms, and all had perished in combat. Sell
simply ignores this evidence.
The media-hyped story of how the Serbs allegedly killed 7,000 Muslims
in Srebrenica is uncritically accepted by Sell, even though the most
thorough investigations have uncovered not more than 2,000 bodies of
undetermined nationality. The earlier massacres carried out by Muslims,
their razing of some fifty Serbian villages around Srebrenica, as
reported by two British correspondents and others, are ignored. The
complete failure of Western forensic teams to locate the 250,000 or
100,000 or 50,000 or 10,000 bodies (the numbers kept changing) of
Albanians supposedly murdered by the Serbs in Kosovo also goes
unnoticed.
Sell's rendition of what happened at Rambouillet leaves much to be
desired. Under Rambouillet, Kosovo would have been turned into a NATO
colony. Milosevic might have reluctantly agreed to that, so desperate
was he to avoid a full-scale NATO onslaught on the rest of Yugoslavia.
To be certain that war could not be avoided, however, the U.S.
delegation added a remarkable stipulation, demanding that NATO forces
and personnel were to have unrestrained access to all of Yugoslavia,
unfettered use of its airports, rails, ports, telecommunication
services, and airwaves, all free of cost and immune from any
jurisdiction by Yugoslav authorities. NATO would also have the option
to modify for its own use all of Yugoslavia's infrastructure including
roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. In effect, not
just Kosovo but all of Yugoslavia was to be subjected to an
extraterritoriality tantamount to outright colonial occupation.
Sell does not mention these particulars. Instead he assures us that the
request for NATO's unimpeded access to Yugoslavia was just a pro forma
protocol inserted "largely for legal reasons." A similar though less
sweeping agreement was part of the Dayton package, he says. Indeed, and
the Dayton agreement reduced Bosnia to a Western colony. But if there
was nothing wrong with the Rambouillet ultimatum, why then did
Milosevic reject it? Sell ascribes Milosevic's resistance to his
perverse "bunker mentality" and his need to defy the world.
There is not a descriptive word in this book of the 78 days of
around-the-clock massive NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, no mention of how
it caused the loss of thousands of lives, injured and maimed thousands
more, contaminated much of the land and water with depleted uranium,
and destroyed much of the country's public sector industries and
infrastructure-while leaving all the private Western corporate
structures perfectly intact.
The sources that Sell relies on share U.S. officialdom's view of the
Balkans struggle. Observers who offer a more independently critical
perspective, such as Sean Gervassi, Diana Johnstone, Gregory Elich,
Nicholas Stavrous, Michel Collon, Raju Thomas, and Michel Chossudovsky
are left untouched and uncited. Important Western sources I reference
in my book on Yugoslavia offer evidence, testimony, and documentation
that do not fit Sell's conclusions, including sources from within the
European Union, the European Community's Commission on Women's Rights,
the OSCE and its Kosovo Verification Mission, the UN War Crimes
Commission, and various other UN commissions, various State Department
reports, the German Foreign Office and German Defense Ministry reports,
and the International Red Cross. Sell does not touch these sources.
Also ignored by him are the testimonies and statements of members of
the U.S. Congress who visited the Balkans, a former State Department
official under the Bush administration, a former deputy commander of
the U.S. European command, several UN and NATO generals and
international negotiators, Spanish air force pilots, forensic teams
from various countries, and UN monitors who offer revelations that
contradict the picture drawn by Sell and other apologists of U.S.
officialdom.
In sum, Sell's book is packed with discombobulated insider details,
unsupported charges, unexamined presumptions, and ideologically loaded
labeling. As mainstream disinformation goes, it is a job well done.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their
entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long
as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must
be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
at www.globalresearch.ca . The active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly
displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the
original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites,
contact: editor@... .
Michael Parenti's recent books are To Kill a Nation: The Attack on
Yugoslavia (Verso), and The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond
(City Lights). His latest work, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A
People's History of Ancient Rome has been nominated for a Pulitzer
Prize. © Copyright M Parenti 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Intellettuali di servizio: Bernard Henri LEVY
---
Per le puntate precedenti su Monsieur Levy si veda:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1434
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1500
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1538
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2564
---
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: « Romanquete » ou mauvaise enquete ?
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:45:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Le Monde diplomatique <info-diplo@...>
To: Le Monde diplomatique <info-diplo@...>
« QUI A TUÉ DANIEL PEARL ? »
« Romanquête » ou mauvaise enquête ?
(11 décembre 2003)
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/bhl/
Peu après la guerre du Kosovo, Daniel Pearl enquêta au
Kosovo avec son camarade Robert Block. Leur enquête fut
publiée à la « une » du Wall Street Journal le 31
décembre 1999. Contredisant le parti pris éditorial des
responsables du quotidien américain, très favorable à la
guerre de l'OTAN et assuré de l'existence d'un génocide,
cette enquête établissait que si les forces yougoslaves
avaient bien « expulsé des centaines de milliers de
Kosovars albanais, brûlant des maisons et se livrant à
des exécutions sommaires, d'autres allégations - meurtres
de masse indiscriminés, camps de viols, mutilation des
morts - n'ont pas été confirmées. (...) Des militants
kosovars albanais, des organisations humanitaires, l'OTAN
et les médias se sont alimentés les uns les autres pour
donner une crédibilité aux rumeurs de génocide. » En
parlant avec insistance de « wagons plombés » opérant
« dans le brouillard », Bernard-Henri Lévy fut l'un des
plus grands propagateurs en France de ces « rumeurs de
génocide ». Une telle erreur est peut-être excusable.
Mais elle ne faisait pas forcément de lui le meilleur
biographe de Daniel Pearl, journaliste exemplaire
atrocement assassiné.
Le système BHL opère depuis plus de vingt-cinq ans.
Presque rien ne lui échappe. Ni dans le domaine du
politique (où les amitiés du philosophe vont de Nicolas
Sarkozy à Dominique Strauss-Kahn). Ni dans celui de
l'économie (il a prononcé l'hommage funèbre du père
d'Arnaud Lagardère, François Pinault parle de lui comme
d'un fils). Ni dans celui des médias (ceux que possèdent
les industriels précités... et la plupart des autres). Ce
système constitue-t-il un des éléments de l'« exception
française », du « retard » qu'un pays trop provincial
aurait pris sur le grand large des idées, d'une certaine
frivolité parisienne ? Fournit-il plutôt la preuve du non
renouvellement des élites hexagonales et de la connivence
qui les lie, au risque d'aiguiser un soupçon de sclérose
intellectuelle ? Depuis un quart de siècle, en tout cas,
Bernard-Henri Lévy fait beaucoup de choses dont il est
presque impossible d'ignorer une seule. Sans doute
sont-elles trop nombreuses, sur des terrains trop divers,
pour être vraiment bien faites.
Philosophe (inconnu des philosophes), réalisateur de
films (de facture incertaine), dramaturge, essayiste,
romancier, reporter, envoyé spécial du président de la
République, homme de télévision et des magazines people,
ami des industriels, Grand Commentateur de Tout, en
particulier de chacune de ses interventions : c'est
assurément beaucoup pour une seule personne.
Bernard-Henri Lévy s'est donc engagé plus d'une fois au
service des causes les plus discutables. Et il s'est
beaucoup trompé. En mars 1985, une résistance attire son
attention, elle obtient son appui. Très mauvaise pioche :
il s'agit en effet de la « contra » du Nicaragua, un
groupe de combattants opérant à coup d'actions
terroristes contre le régime légal du pays, reconnu par
la communauté des Etats. Cette guérilla opère grâce à la
CIA et avec le concours de l'extrême droite locale. Quand
le Congrès des Etats-Unis décide de cesser de financer
cette « sale guerre », Bernard-Henri Lévy intervient avec
quelques autres pour supplier les parlementaires
américains de « reconduire l'aide à la résistance
nicaragayenne. Le Monde Libre attend votre réponse. Ses
ennemis aussi ». D'autres guérillas, que Ronald Reagan ne
soutenait pas, trouvèrent en Bernard-Henri Lévy un avocat
moins attentionné...
Quoi qu'il fasse, l'homme n'est jamais dépourvu d'appuis.
Il opère d'ailleurs à découvert. Il suffit de lire son
« bloc-notes » du Point pour comprendre qui sont ses
alliés et qui sont ses adversaires. Il loue les premiers,
fustige les autres. A charge de revanche. (Lire Dans
les cuisines du Bernard-Henri Lévisme et, dans Le Monde
diplomatique de décembre 2003, « Cela dure depuis
vingt-cing ans »). En 1997, son film Le Jour et la Nuit
réalise une forme d'exploit : un budget impressionnant,
Alain Delon et Karl Zéro au générique, la couverture de
plusieurs magazines (en particulier quand ils
appartiennent aux amis du philosophe et aux producteurs
du film, comme François Pinault et Jean-Luc Lagardère).
Pourtant, à l'arrivée le fiasco commercial est terrible
(70 000 entrées pour un film qui a coûté 53 millions de
francs...) Une aide de 3,5 millions de francs (530 000
euros) du Centre national de la cinématographie, sans
doute ému par les efforts d'un jeune réalisateur
désargenté et sans entregent, n'y fera rien : les
critiques vont saluer la performance artistique d'un
éclat de rire un peu humiliant. Bernard-Henri Lévy passe
à autre chose.
Le 15 février 2002, « à la demande conjointe du président
de la République et du premier ministre », M. Hubert
Védrine, ministre français des affaires étrangères,
confie à Bernard-Henri Lévy « la mission de se rendre en
Afghanistan et d'y étudier les modalités d'une
contribution française à la reconstruction de ce pays
meurtri ». L'enquête est rondement menée. Quelques
semaines après son départ à Kaboul, Bernard-Henri Lévy
revient, rapport bouclé. Il sera publié par La
Documentation française, qui dépend directement du
Premier ministre. Le recueil ne contient qu'une annexe :
le texte d'un discours de Bernard-Henri Lévy à Kaboul...
Quelques mois plus tard, l'intelligentsia afghane hérite
d'un mensuel lui permettant, enfin, de lire en deux
langues un éditorial de Bernard-Henri Lévy sur l'affaire
Papon.
Dès 1977, le philosophe Gilles Deleuze résumait ainsi
l'oeuvre des « nouveaux philosophes » et le formidable
« marketing littéraire » qui leur servait déjà de caisse
de résonance : « Je crois que leur pensée est nulle. Je
vois deux raisons possibles à cette nullité. D'abord ils
procèdent par gros concepts, aussi gros que des dents
creuses, LA loi, LE pouvoir, LE maître, LE monde, LA
rébellion, LA foi, etc. Ils peuvent faire ainsi des
mélanges grotesques, des dualismes sommaires, la loi et
le rebelle, le pouvoir et l'ange. Plus le contenu de
pensée est faible, plus le penseur prend d'importance,
plus le sujet d'énonciation se donne de l'importance par
rapport aux énoncés vides. » (A propos des nouveaux
philosophes et d'un problème plus général, éditions de
Minuit, 2003.) Les choses ont-elles changé vingt-cinq ans
plus tard ? Bernard-Henri Lévy a répondu à sa manière au
moment de la sortie de Qui a tué Daniel Pearl ? : « Je
suis le même, il me semble. Avec le même souci, la même
obsession et la même question inlassable, posée de livre
en livre, qui est la question du mal. Que ce soit dans
mes romans, dans mes essais politiques, ou que ce soit
dans ce livre enquête, je tourne autour de la même
hypothèse théorique : à savoir qu'un système, mais aussi
une société ou un monde se jugent en fonction de leur
part d'ombre et de leur envers davantage que parce qu'ils
montrent ou rendent visible. Je ne suis jamais sorti de
cela : ce qui est intéressant, c'est la part maudite des
sociétés humaines. La part du diable, en quelque
sorte. » (Livres Hebdo, 30 mai 2003.)
Il n'est pas établi qu'un tel fil conducteur, une telle
« hypothèse théorique », ait toujours servi le
journalisme ou l'histoire. Dès 1981, dans un commentaire
cinglant de L'idéologie française, essai de Bernard-Henri
Lévy sur la Collaboration, Raymond Aron notait dans
L'Express : « Un auteur qui emploie volontiers les
adjectifs infâme ou obscène pour qualifier les hommes et
les idées invite le critique à lui rendre la pareille. Je
résisterai autant que possible à la tentation, bien que
le livre de Bernard-Henri Lévy présente quelques-uns des
défauts qui m'horripilent : la boursouflure du style, la
prétention à trancher des mérites et des démérites des
vivants et des morts, l'ambition de rappeler à un peuple
amnésique la part engloutie de son passé, les citations
détachées de leur contexte et interprétées
arbitrairement. » A l'époque, on lisait les livres du
nouveau philosophe avant de se prosterner aux pieds de
leur auteur. Les défauts qui horripilaient Raymond Aron
n'ont pas disparu quand Bernard-Henri Lévy est passé de
l'essai à l'enquête. Qu'il s'agisse de l'Algérie (lire
Les généraux d'Alger préfèrent un reportage de BHL à
une enquête internationale), de l'Afghanistan (lire
BHL en Afghanistan ou Tintin au Congo ? ), de la
Colombie (lire La Colombie selon Bernard-Henri Lévy)
ou, à présent, du Pakistan, plusieurs enquêtes de
Bernard-Henri Lévy ont suscité une volée de bois vert
administrée par ceux qui connaissaient bien les sujets et
les pays en question.
Avec Qui a tué Daniel Pearl ?, il s'agissait d'un
« romanquête », autrement dit d'un mélange des genres
permettant à la fois de constater ce que le romancier
n'aurait pas su imaginer et d'imaginer ce que l'enquêteur
n'aurait pas pu constater. A charge pour le lecteur de
démêler l'un de l'autre. Autant dire que l'ambition était
immense. Dans ses nombreux entretiens, l'auteur a par
exemple répété que les services secrets pakistanais
pourraient avoir procuré les secrets de la bombe atomique
à Al-Qaida ? Une « hypothèse » en passant... Mais
n'est-elle trop sérieuse, trop peu « théorique » pour
être avancée, innocemment, sur des plateaux de
télévision comme si la commercialisation d'un livre était
dorénavant devenue raison suffisante pour lancer
n'importe quelle campagne d'affolement ? Toutefois, la
panique n'eût pas lieu, preuve peut-être que, pour le
public, vingt-cinq ans d'expérience de Bernard-Henri Lévy
n'ont pas été sans effet. Et puis, comment prendre tout à
fait au sérieux un auteur qui, en s'appuyant sur une
citation tronquée de Raymond Aron, qualifia un jour
Pierre Bourdieu de « sociologue ambitieux » d'« aide de
camp peu doué », de « soldat de plomb » à l'« âpreté
désolée » et au « ressentiment visible » ?
Tant qu'à citer Raymond Aron, Bernard-Henri Lévy,
aujourd'hui embarqué avec d'autres dans une chasse à la
« nouvelle judéophobie » trop souvent dépourvue de
discernement pour être convaincante ou même utile, aurait
gagné à rappeler ce que Raymond Aron lui opposa dès
1981 : « Nombre de Juifs, en France, se sentent à nouveau
guettés par l'antisémitisme et, comme des êtres
" choqués ", ils amplifient par leurs réactions le danger
plus ou moins illusoire qu'ils affrontent. Que leur dit
ce livre [L'Idéologie française, de Bernard-Henri Lévy,
ndlr], Que le péril est partout, que l'idéologie
française les condamne à un combat de chaque instant
contre un ennemi installé dans l'inconscient de millions
de leurs concitoyens. Des Français non juifs en
concluront que les juifs sont encore plus différents des
autres Français qu'ils ne l'imaginaient, puisqu'un auteur
acclamé par les organisations juives se révèle incapable
de comprendre tant d'expressions de la pensée française,
au point de les mettre au ban de la France. Il nous
annonce la vérité pour que la nation française connaisse
et surmonte son passé, il jette du sel sur toutes les
plaies mal cicatrisées. Par son hystérie, il va nourrir
l'hystérie d'une fraction de la communauté juive, déjà
portée aux actes du délire. » (L'Express, 7 février
1981.)
Au fond, une succession de reportages déficients ou
calamiteux, de propos à l'emporte-pièce, pose un problème
qui va très au-delà du seul Bernard-Henri Lévy,
épiphénomène exemplaire de ce que Pierre Bourdieu,
justement, appelait l' « intellectuel négatif ». C'est
celui du court-circuit entre les règles qui gouvernent la
vie intellectuelle, le monde des idées, et les techniques
qui régissent l'univers des stars, les lois de la
célébrité. En publiant une contre-enquête au
« romanquête », la New York Review of Books (lire Le
Monde diplomatique, décembre 2003) aura peut-être
contribué à imposer quelques exigences méconnues aux
éditeurs et aux journalistes français. Eux qui présentent
si souvent les Etats-Unis comme un modèle...
Mais dès lors qu'il est peu vraisemblable que, cette
fois, le modèle les inspire, l'affaire Bernard-Henri Lévy
risque de se reproduire très bientôt. Comment ne pas
remarquer déjà que l'article de la New York Review of
Books n'a eu aucun écho dans les médias. Des médias qui
pourtant, il y a six mois, encensaient presque unanimes
Qui a tué Daniel Pearl ?
Un article inédit de SERGE HALIMI.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/bhl/
« Le Monde diplomatique »
- La Colombie selon Bernard-Henri Lévy, par Maurice
Lemoine, juin 2001.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/ameriquelatine/tintin
« Bibliographie »
- BHL en Afghanistan ou Tintin au Congo ? , par Gilles
Dorronsoro, octobre 1998.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/documents/bhl/afghanistan
- Les généraux d'Alger préfèrent un reportage de BHL à
une enquête internationale, par Nicolas Beau, janvier 1998
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/documents/bhl/algerie
- Dans les cuisines du Bernard-Henri Lévisme , par
Nicolas Beau, janvier 1994.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/documents/bhl/cuisine/
- « A propos des nouveaux philosophes et d'un problème
plus général », Gilles Deleuze, Deux régimes de fous -
Textes et entretiens (1975-1995), Editions de Minuit,
Paris.
« Sur la Toile »
- Murder in Karachi, par William Dalrymple, New York
Review of Books, décembre 2003.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16823
___________________________________________________
ÉGALEMENT SUR NOTRE SITE
Soutenez notre service Internet en prenant, pour vous ou
pour un ami, un abonnement au Monde diplomatique
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/abo/
Enfin des génériques antisida pour l'Afrique
subsaharienne , par Philippe Rivière.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/generiques/
Les archives de septembre en texte intégral
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/09/
____________________________________________________
COMMENT GÉRER VOTRE INSCRIPTION À LA LISTE 'info-diplo' ?
Un formulaire permet de vous inscrire ou de vous désabonner
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/forum/info-diplo/
EN CAS DE CHANGEMENT D'ADRESSE...
Pour modifier votre adresse d'inscription, veuillez
quitter la liste à partir de votre ancienne adresse,
puis vous inscrire avec votre nouvelle adresse.
____________________________________________________
---
Per le puntate precedenti su Monsieur Levy si veda:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1434
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1500
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1538
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2564
---
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: « Romanquete » ou mauvaise enquete ?
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:45:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Le Monde diplomatique <info-diplo@...>
To: Le Monde diplomatique <info-diplo@...>
« QUI A TUÉ DANIEL PEARL ? »
« Romanquête » ou mauvaise enquête ?
(11 décembre 2003)
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/bhl/
Peu après la guerre du Kosovo, Daniel Pearl enquêta au
Kosovo avec son camarade Robert Block. Leur enquête fut
publiée à la « une » du Wall Street Journal le 31
décembre 1999. Contredisant le parti pris éditorial des
responsables du quotidien américain, très favorable à la
guerre de l'OTAN et assuré de l'existence d'un génocide,
cette enquête établissait que si les forces yougoslaves
avaient bien « expulsé des centaines de milliers de
Kosovars albanais, brûlant des maisons et se livrant à
des exécutions sommaires, d'autres allégations - meurtres
de masse indiscriminés, camps de viols, mutilation des
morts - n'ont pas été confirmées. (...) Des militants
kosovars albanais, des organisations humanitaires, l'OTAN
et les médias se sont alimentés les uns les autres pour
donner une crédibilité aux rumeurs de génocide. » En
parlant avec insistance de « wagons plombés » opérant
« dans le brouillard », Bernard-Henri Lévy fut l'un des
plus grands propagateurs en France de ces « rumeurs de
génocide ». Une telle erreur est peut-être excusable.
Mais elle ne faisait pas forcément de lui le meilleur
biographe de Daniel Pearl, journaliste exemplaire
atrocement assassiné.
Le système BHL opère depuis plus de vingt-cinq ans.
Presque rien ne lui échappe. Ni dans le domaine du
politique (où les amitiés du philosophe vont de Nicolas
Sarkozy à Dominique Strauss-Kahn). Ni dans celui de
l'économie (il a prononcé l'hommage funèbre du père
d'Arnaud Lagardère, François Pinault parle de lui comme
d'un fils). Ni dans celui des médias (ceux que possèdent
les industriels précités... et la plupart des autres). Ce
système constitue-t-il un des éléments de l'« exception
française », du « retard » qu'un pays trop provincial
aurait pris sur le grand large des idées, d'une certaine
frivolité parisienne ? Fournit-il plutôt la preuve du non
renouvellement des élites hexagonales et de la connivence
qui les lie, au risque d'aiguiser un soupçon de sclérose
intellectuelle ? Depuis un quart de siècle, en tout cas,
Bernard-Henri Lévy fait beaucoup de choses dont il est
presque impossible d'ignorer une seule. Sans doute
sont-elles trop nombreuses, sur des terrains trop divers,
pour être vraiment bien faites.
Philosophe (inconnu des philosophes), réalisateur de
films (de facture incertaine), dramaturge, essayiste,
romancier, reporter, envoyé spécial du président de la
République, homme de télévision et des magazines people,
ami des industriels, Grand Commentateur de Tout, en
particulier de chacune de ses interventions : c'est
assurément beaucoup pour une seule personne.
Bernard-Henri Lévy s'est donc engagé plus d'une fois au
service des causes les plus discutables. Et il s'est
beaucoup trompé. En mars 1985, une résistance attire son
attention, elle obtient son appui. Très mauvaise pioche :
il s'agit en effet de la « contra » du Nicaragua, un
groupe de combattants opérant à coup d'actions
terroristes contre le régime légal du pays, reconnu par
la communauté des Etats. Cette guérilla opère grâce à la
CIA et avec le concours de l'extrême droite locale. Quand
le Congrès des Etats-Unis décide de cesser de financer
cette « sale guerre », Bernard-Henri Lévy intervient avec
quelques autres pour supplier les parlementaires
américains de « reconduire l'aide à la résistance
nicaragayenne. Le Monde Libre attend votre réponse. Ses
ennemis aussi ». D'autres guérillas, que Ronald Reagan ne
soutenait pas, trouvèrent en Bernard-Henri Lévy un avocat
moins attentionné...
Quoi qu'il fasse, l'homme n'est jamais dépourvu d'appuis.
Il opère d'ailleurs à découvert. Il suffit de lire son
« bloc-notes » du Point pour comprendre qui sont ses
alliés et qui sont ses adversaires. Il loue les premiers,
fustige les autres. A charge de revanche. (Lire Dans
les cuisines du Bernard-Henri Lévisme et, dans Le Monde
diplomatique de décembre 2003, « Cela dure depuis
vingt-cing ans »). En 1997, son film Le Jour et la Nuit
réalise une forme d'exploit : un budget impressionnant,
Alain Delon et Karl Zéro au générique, la couverture de
plusieurs magazines (en particulier quand ils
appartiennent aux amis du philosophe et aux producteurs
du film, comme François Pinault et Jean-Luc Lagardère).
Pourtant, à l'arrivée le fiasco commercial est terrible
(70 000 entrées pour un film qui a coûté 53 millions de
francs...) Une aide de 3,5 millions de francs (530 000
euros) du Centre national de la cinématographie, sans
doute ému par les efforts d'un jeune réalisateur
désargenté et sans entregent, n'y fera rien : les
critiques vont saluer la performance artistique d'un
éclat de rire un peu humiliant. Bernard-Henri Lévy passe
à autre chose.
Le 15 février 2002, « à la demande conjointe du président
de la République et du premier ministre », M. Hubert
Védrine, ministre français des affaires étrangères,
confie à Bernard-Henri Lévy « la mission de se rendre en
Afghanistan et d'y étudier les modalités d'une
contribution française à la reconstruction de ce pays
meurtri ». L'enquête est rondement menée. Quelques
semaines après son départ à Kaboul, Bernard-Henri Lévy
revient, rapport bouclé. Il sera publié par La
Documentation française, qui dépend directement du
Premier ministre. Le recueil ne contient qu'une annexe :
le texte d'un discours de Bernard-Henri Lévy à Kaboul...
Quelques mois plus tard, l'intelligentsia afghane hérite
d'un mensuel lui permettant, enfin, de lire en deux
langues un éditorial de Bernard-Henri Lévy sur l'affaire
Papon.
Dès 1977, le philosophe Gilles Deleuze résumait ainsi
l'oeuvre des « nouveaux philosophes » et le formidable
« marketing littéraire » qui leur servait déjà de caisse
de résonance : « Je crois que leur pensée est nulle. Je
vois deux raisons possibles à cette nullité. D'abord ils
procèdent par gros concepts, aussi gros que des dents
creuses, LA loi, LE pouvoir, LE maître, LE monde, LA
rébellion, LA foi, etc. Ils peuvent faire ainsi des
mélanges grotesques, des dualismes sommaires, la loi et
le rebelle, le pouvoir et l'ange. Plus le contenu de
pensée est faible, plus le penseur prend d'importance,
plus le sujet d'énonciation se donne de l'importance par
rapport aux énoncés vides. » (A propos des nouveaux
philosophes et d'un problème plus général, éditions de
Minuit, 2003.) Les choses ont-elles changé vingt-cinq ans
plus tard ? Bernard-Henri Lévy a répondu à sa manière au
moment de la sortie de Qui a tué Daniel Pearl ? : « Je
suis le même, il me semble. Avec le même souci, la même
obsession et la même question inlassable, posée de livre
en livre, qui est la question du mal. Que ce soit dans
mes romans, dans mes essais politiques, ou que ce soit
dans ce livre enquête, je tourne autour de la même
hypothèse théorique : à savoir qu'un système, mais aussi
une société ou un monde se jugent en fonction de leur
part d'ombre et de leur envers davantage que parce qu'ils
montrent ou rendent visible. Je ne suis jamais sorti de
cela : ce qui est intéressant, c'est la part maudite des
sociétés humaines. La part du diable, en quelque
sorte. » (Livres Hebdo, 30 mai 2003.)
Il n'est pas établi qu'un tel fil conducteur, une telle
« hypothèse théorique », ait toujours servi le
journalisme ou l'histoire. Dès 1981, dans un commentaire
cinglant de L'idéologie française, essai de Bernard-Henri
Lévy sur la Collaboration, Raymond Aron notait dans
L'Express : « Un auteur qui emploie volontiers les
adjectifs infâme ou obscène pour qualifier les hommes et
les idées invite le critique à lui rendre la pareille. Je
résisterai autant que possible à la tentation, bien que
le livre de Bernard-Henri Lévy présente quelques-uns des
défauts qui m'horripilent : la boursouflure du style, la
prétention à trancher des mérites et des démérites des
vivants et des morts, l'ambition de rappeler à un peuple
amnésique la part engloutie de son passé, les citations
détachées de leur contexte et interprétées
arbitrairement. » A l'époque, on lisait les livres du
nouveau philosophe avant de se prosterner aux pieds de
leur auteur. Les défauts qui horripilaient Raymond Aron
n'ont pas disparu quand Bernard-Henri Lévy est passé de
l'essai à l'enquête. Qu'il s'agisse de l'Algérie (lire
Les généraux d'Alger préfèrent un reportage de BHL à
une enquête internationale), de l'Afghanistan (lire
BHL en Afghanistan ou Tintin au Congo ? ), de la
Colombie (lire La Colombie selon Bernard-Henri Lévy)
ou, à présent, du Pakistan, plusieurs enquêtes de
Bernard-Henri Lévy ont suscité une volée de bois vert
administrée par ceux qui connaissaient bien les sujets et
les pays en question.
Avec Qui a tué Daniel Pearl ?, il s'agissait d'un
« romanquête », autrement dit d'un mélange des genres
permettant à la fois de constater ce que le romancier
n'aurait pas su imaginer et d'imaginer ce que l'enquêteur
n'aurait pas pu constater. A charge pour le lecteur de
démêler l'un de l'autre. Autant dire que l'ambition était
immense. Dans ses nombreux entretiens, l'auteur a par
exemple répété que les services secrets pakistanais
pourraient avoir procuré les secrets de la bombe atomique
à Al-Qaida ? Une « hypothèse » en passant... Mais
n'est-elle trop sérieuse, trop peu « théorique » pour
être avancée, innocemment, sur des plateaux de
télévision comme si la commercialisation d'un livre était
dorénavant devenue raison suffisante pour lancer
n'importe quelle campagne d'affolement ? Toutefois, la
panique n'eût pas lieu, preuve peut-être que, pour le
public, vingt-cinq ans d'expérience de Bernard-Henri Lévy
n'ont pas été sans effet. Et puis, comment prendre tout à
fait au sérieux un auteur qui, en s'appuyant sur une
citation tronquée de Raymond Aron, qualifia un jour
Pierre Bourdieu de « sociologue ambitieux » d'« aide de
camp peu doué », de « soldat de plomb » à l'« âpreté
désolée » et au « ressentiment visible » ?
Tant qu'à citer Raymond Aron, Bernard-Henri Lévy,
aujourd'hui embarqué avec d'autres dans une chasse à la
« nouvelle judéophobie » trop souvent dépourvue de
discernement pour être convaincante ou même utile, aurait
gagné à rappeler ce que Raymond Aron lui opposa dès
1981 : « Nombre de Juifs, en France, se sentent à nouveau
guettés par l'antisémitisme et, comme des êtres
" choqués ", ils amplifient par leurs réactions le danger
plus ou moins illusoire qu'ils affrontent. Que leur dit
ce livre [L'Idéologie française, de Bernard-Henri Lévy,
ndlr], Que le péril est partout, que l'idéologie
française les condamne à un combat de chaque instant
contre un ennemi installé dans l'inconscient de millions
de leurs concitoyens. Des Français non juifs en
concluront que les juifs sont encore plus différents des
autres Français qu'ils ne l'imaginaient, puisqu'un auteur
acclamé par les organisations juives se révèle incapable
de comprendre tant d'expressions de la pensée française,
au point de les mettre au ban de la France. Il nous
annonce la vérité pour que la nation française connaisse
et surmonte son passé, il jette du sel sur toutes les
plaies mal cicatrisées. Par son hystérie, il va nourrir
l'hystérie d'une fraction de la communauté juive, déjà
portée aux actes du délire. » (L'Express, 7 février
1981.)
Au fond, une succession de reportages déficients ou
calamiteux, de propos à l'emporte-pièce, pose un problème
qui va très au-delà du seul Bernard-Henri Lévy,
épiphénomène exemplaire de ce que Pierre Bourdieu,
justement, appelait l' « intellectuel négatif ». C'est
celui du court-circuit entre les règles qui gouvernent la
vie intellectuelle, le monde des idées, et les techniques
qui régissent l'univers des stars, les lois de la
célébrité. En publiant une contre-enquête au
« romanquête », la New York Review of Books (lire Le
Monde diplomatique, décembre 2003) aura peut-être
contribué à imposer quelques exigences méconnues aux
éditeurs et aux journalistes français. Eux qui présentent
si souvent les Etats-Unis comme un modèle...
Mais dès lors qu'il est peu vraisemblable que, cette
fois, le modèle les inspire, l'affaire Bernard-Henri Lévy
risque de se reproduire très bientôt. Comment ne pas
remarquer déjà que l'article de la New York Review of
Books n'a eu aucun écho dans les médias. Des médias qui
pourtant, il y a six mois, encensaient presque unanimes
Qui a tué Daniel Pearl ?
Un article inédit de SERGE HALIMI.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/bhl/
« Le Monde diplomatique »
- La Colombie selon Bernard-Henri Lévy, par Maurice
Lemoine, juin 2001.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/ameriquelatine/tintin
« Bibliographie »
- BHL en Afghanistan ou Tintin au Congo ? , par Gilles
Dorronsoro, octobre 1998.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/documents/bhl/afghanistan
- Les généraux d'Alger préfèrent un reportage de BHL à
une enquête internationale, par Nicolas Beau, janvier 1998
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/documents/bhl/algerie
- Dans les cuisines du Bernard-Henri Lévisme , par
Nicolas Beau, janvier 1994.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/documents/bhl/cuisine/
- « A propos des nouveaux philosophes et d'un problème
plus général », Gilles Deleuze, Deux régimes de fous -
Textes et entretiens (1975-1995), Editions de Minuit,
Paris.
« Sur la Toile »
- Murder in Karachi, par William Dalrymple, New York
Review of Books, décembre 2003.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16823
___________________________________________________
ÉGALEMENT SUR NOTRE SITE
Soutenez notre service Internet en prenant, pour vous ou
pour un ami, un abonnement au Monde diplomatique
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/abo/
Enfin des génériques antisida pour l'Afrique
subsaharienne , par Philippe Rivière.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/generiques/
Les archives de septembre en texte intégral
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/09/
____________________________________________________
COMMENT GÉRER VOTRE INSCRIPTION À LA LISTE 'info-diplo' ?
Un formulaire permet de vous inscrire ou de vous désabonner
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/forum/info-diplo/
EN CAS DE CHANGEMENT D'ADRESSE...
Pour modifier votre adresse d'inscription, veuillez
quitter la liste à partir de votre ancienne adresse,
puis vous inscrire avec votre nouvelle adresse.
____________________________________________________
Milosevic "Trial" Synopsis, Dec. 5--16 , 2003
1. News: Jovanovic refused to plea guilty or not guilty before Hague
tribunal / "Trial" Session cancelled on Dec. 9th
2. PHONY INTERCEPTS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
3. HAGUE "TRIBUNAL" BANS PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC FROM SPEAKING TO THE
OUTSIDE WORLD
THE SHAME OF WESLEY CLARK'S SECRET TESTIMONY:
4. Protest set to greet Gen. Clark at the Hague tribunal
5. STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET - Statement
of the International Action Center 12/15/03
=== 1 ===
Jovanovic refused to plea guilty or not guilty before Hague tribunal
Tanjug - December 5, 2003
17:31 THE HAGUE , Dec 5 (Tanjug) - Editor-in-chief of the Podgorica
daily Dan Dusko Jovanovic, who had been accused of disrespect of The
Hague-based International War Crimes Tribunal, on Friday faced the
hearing of The Hague tribunal court council, but refused to plea
guilty or not guilty.
In my case, there is an objective responsibility having in mind my post
(of editor-in-chief), but I had no intention of making any offence to
The Hague tribunal, said Jovanovic who, according to the tribunal's
regulations, has another 30 days to plea guilty or not guilty.
---
Press Advisory . Avis pour information
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)
The Hague, 8 December 2003
P.I.S./PA146
MILOSEVIC CASE:
Please be informed that the Milosevic Trial is cancelled for tomorrow,
Tuesday 9 December, and will commence on Wednesday 10 December at 9am
in Courtroom I, due to Judge Robinson’s absence for medical reasons.
For further information please call: +31 (70) 512-5343 or 512-5356.
Copyright 2003 ICTY P.I.S.
Posted for Fair Use only.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121003.htm
PHONY INTERCEPTS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL: MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" DECEMBER 10,
2003
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 10, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
In its only hearing this week the so-called “tribunal” sat for an
extended period, and over the course of the day 2 secret witnesses and
one open witness were heard from.
Before I deal with the witnesses I would like to discuss the matter of
intercepts which was discussed today.
At this so-called “trial” the prosecution has exhibited 245
intercepts. The origins of the intercepts are unclear although it was
revealed today that they came from the intelligence services of
unnamed governments that are hostile towards Serbia.
It was also revealed that no steps have been taken to authenticate the
intercepts. No technicians have been charged with the task of
verifying the integrity or the authenticity of the recordings. The
“tribunal” isn’t even following its own rules here. Rule 89(E)
requires the authentication of evidence.
Neither President Milosevic nor his associates has been given access
to the original recordings. In fact, all the OTP has are copies. The
intelligence services maintain possession of the originals.
President Milosevic contends that the intercepts are forgeries. He
says that the tapes have been doctored by the same hostile governments
that produced them for the prosecution. He says that these governments
forged the tapes in order to justify their own actions and policies
against Serbia.
President Milosevic’s assertion is not beyond the realm of
possibility. I have heard some of these intercepts played in “court.” I
am a technician at a television station, and I have some experience
with audio mixing, and it is very possible that these tapes are forged.
First of all, on every intercept I’ve heard, the background noise
[http://www.webref.org/acoustics/b/background_noise.htm%5d is very high,
and the audio quality is quite degraded. This could be the result of
generation loss [http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_generation_loss.html%5d.
Intentionally re-copying the same tape over and over again will
degrade the sound quality and it can help to cover-up the subtle
details that a technician would have to look for in order to determine
the authenticity of a recording.
The excessive background noise may be artificial, intentionally added
using a mixer [http://www.webref.org/acoustics/m/mixer.htm%5d to mask
[http://www.webref.org/acoustics/m/masking.htm%5d the original background
noise. A tell tale sign of a forged tape is subtle changes in the
background noise. Different recordings will have a different noise
floor [http://www.webref.org/acoustics/n/noise_floor.htm%5d. If a single
recording is spliced together from multiple recordings, then you
should be able to detect small changes in the amount of background
noise, because of the changes in the noise floor generated by the
recording equipment, and the amount of ambient noise
[http://www.webref.org/acoustics/a/ambient_noise.htm%5d that may be
present on the different recordings.
If you add artificial background noise to a recording you can cover-up
the original background noise provided that the artificial background
noise is at a sufficiently high level to mask the original background
noise. Thus, the artificial background noise will be consistent and
evidence of splicing of different recordings can be eliminated.
In my view, the extremely poor sound quality of the intercepts raises
the distinct possibility that they are forged, and given the hostile
nature of the sources the tapes come from it is clear that no such
tapes can be treated as any sort of evidence.
Recordings of such poor sound quality as these intercepts are can not
be conclusively authenticated by a legitimate technician. In spite of
this fact I would still suggest that technicians analyze the
intercepts. A technician can prove a forgery, but he can not provide
authentication, and if a forgery is proved then it can indicate a
malicious intent by the prosecution.
Enough with the technical explanations though. The first witness to
testify was a secret witness codenamed “B-1011.” B-1011 professed to
be a Muslim from Brcko.
According to B-1011 Serb forces attacked Brcko on April 31, 1992.
Obviously, nobody consulted a calendar because there is no such date as
April 31st, but this is a minor point.
B-1011 claims to have been arrested by Captain Dragan. B-1011
described Captain Dragan as being tall thin man with brown hair.
Unfortunately for the witness, Captain Dragan is a short man with gray
hair.
B-1011 claimed that Captain Dragan spoke with an English accent, and
in particular B-1011 identified it as being an Australian accent.
B-1011 does not speak English, so how he could manage to identify an
Australian accent is rather a mystery.
Captain Dragan doesn’t even speak English with an Australian accent.
You can see Captain Dragan speaking in both English and Serbian for
yourself by watching the first segment of this Dutch television
documentary
[http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/
index.shtml?7738514+7738518+7738520+14130404]. Captain Dragan is the
short gray haired man who appears at approximately the 5 minute mark.
In spite of what he claimed in court, B-1011 was obviously not
arrested by Captain Dragan. B-1011 claimed that “Captain Dragan” was
wearing sunglasses, blue jeans, and a military shirt, and that
“captain Dragan” was going around Brcko carrying out arrests along
with 30 other men, none of whom were wearing the same uniform.
B-1011 claimed that he was taken to a hotel in Brcko, and that it was
guarded by Captain Dragan’s men. At this point B-1011 claimed that
Captain Dragan’s men all wore dark blue uniforms.
If we believe B-1011 then the only one among Captain Dragan’s men who
didn’t have a proper uniform was Captain Dragan himself.
While at the Hotel, B-1011 claimed that he saw four dead bodies when
he went to use the toilet. He was at the hotel for 40 minutes before
he went to the toilet, but he didn’t hear any shots, nonetheless he
concluded that the men had been shot recently since there was steam
emanating from the corpses.
This is the 4th of May, it is spring time, and we are supposed to
believe that it was cold enough outside for dead bodies to be
emanating steam.
In his statement B-1011 claimed that a Serbian commander named Goran
Jelisic was upset because some of his men had been killed by the
Muslims. When Milosevic asked if these bodies could have been precisely
those dead Serbs, B-1011, in spite of the fact that he couldn’t
identify the bodies, said that they most certainly were not the bodies
of those dead Serbs.
The next witness to testify was Mehmed Mojsic, a Muslim from the
Sarajevo municipality of Hajici. He claims to have been captured by the
Bosnian Serbs on June 20, 1992 and held in custody until November 5,
1992 when he was exchanged.
While in custody Mojsic alleged that he was the victim of some
mistreatment. He gave three statements about the mistreatment that he
allegedly suffered.
He gave his first statement to the B-H authorities in April 1993, he
gave his next statement to the ICTY investigators in June of 1997, and
he gave his last statement to the B-H Authorities in February 1998.
Mojsic’s testimony ran into two problems. Mr. Kwon asked a question
that should be asked about each witness. Mr. Kwon asked the prosecutor,
Ms. Pack: “What relevance does this witness’s evidence have to the
indictment?” Ms. Pack was at a loss for an answer, and so she
confessed that there was no relevance.
The next problem was that Mojsic had made these three statements and
they didn’t jive with one another.
Mojsic explained that he had given the statements by the process of
recounting events as he remembered them, not by the process of
answering questions which nicely eliminated the “they never asked me”
excuse.
In subsequent statements Mr. Mojsic claimed that he was mistreated by
the members of the Red Berets, the JNA, and by Arkan’s men. In his
first statement of April 1993 he never mentions the Red Berets, the JNA
or Arkan’s men at all.
When President Milosevic confronted Mojsic on this point the witness
became irate. First he tried to accuse President Milosevic of lying,
but that didn’t work because Milosevic challenged the witness to show
him where in the first statement he mentions the JNA, Arkan’s men, or
the Red Berets.
Mojsic replied by telling President Milosevic to find those references
for himself. To which Milosevic replied “I can’t find them, which is
why I am asking you to find them.”
Of course President Milosevic was right and no mention ever was found
of the JNA, Arkan’s men, or the Red Berets in Mojsic’s first statement.
Another “minor detail” that never made it into Mojsic’s first
statement was the death of his own brother. In subsequent statements he
said that his brother was killed in a JNA detention facility, and that
he was forced to carry his own dead brother through an obstacle course
where JNA soldiers along with Arkan’s men shot at them.
Maybe this is something that he just forgot. I imagine that a “minor
detail” like being shot at while carrying your dead brother is an easy
thing to forget. When Mr. Tapuskovic asked Mr. Mojsic why he didn’t
mention any of this in his first statement, he angrily snapped back
saying “What have I got to explain to you?”
Maybe I misunderstand the purpose behind a witness appearing in a
court. I thought that they come to court to answer questions and
explain things. But what the Hell? This isn’t a real court it’s the
Hague Tribunal, and besides by Ms. Pack’s own admission this witness’s
testimony is completely irrelevant to the indictment anyway.
Ms. Pack’s re-examination was a comical display indeed. She only asked
one question. She said that President Milosevic and Mr. Tapuskovic had
indicated that Mr. Mojsic was making events up, because he didn’t
mention them in his first statement and only came up with them five
years later in his subsequent statements. Based on this premise she
asked him the following question, “Did you tell us the truth, or have
you been making things up?”
Of course Mojsic said that he was telling the truth, and perish the
thought that he would lie. With that Ms. Pack’s re-examination was
over with.
The final witness was a secret witness codenamed “B-1770.” B-1770 was
caught swimming across the Drina River into Serbia.
He was trying to sneak into Serbia illegally, but he wasn’t sneaky
enough. The VJ was waiting for him on the other bank and he was
arrested and sent to the Mitrovica detention facility where a Muslim
brigade was being held after they had fled from Bosnian territory.
Although, B-1770 claims that he was not part of the brigade.
B-1770 said that he ran away from Bosnia, leaving his wife and
children behind, because he wanted to get away from the Serbs. Of
course he went to the most logical place that anybody seeking to get
away from the Serbs would go. He went to Serbia.
B-1770 claims that he was mistreated in Serbia. He admits that he was
monitored by the International Red Cross, and the UNHCR throughout the
time he was in Serbia. He has no medical records to prove that he was
mistreated, and he can’t identify the perpetrators of his alleged
mistreatment.
The Red Cross, who monitored the detention facility on a regular
basis, did not even file one report that there was mistreatment, and by
the witness’s own admission they saw him twice a week.
He claimed that he lost a lot of weight while in custody, but
apparently on his passport that was issued right after his release, but
which we can’t see because he is a secret witness; it says that he is
a healthy weight and in his picture he doesn’t look emaciated at all.
B-1770 tried to explain that away by saying that they “fattened him
up” before his release.
Of course what B-1770 is saying is absurd. The media and the
diplomatic corps visited that facility all the time. Nobody was being
beaten there, not the witness, and not anybody else.
B-1770 was the last witness of the day, and the so-called “tribunal”
adjourned until next Monday. I will not be able to provide you with
any details about next Monday or Tuesday’s proceedings because the
Perfumed Prince, Wesley Clark, will be occupying the witness stand,
and he gets to testify in secret, and after his secret testimony the
U.S. Government will censor the transcripts.
I suppose it’s no great loss that we can’t see Clark testify. All
he’ll do is lie anyway. The unfortunate thing is that we won’t get the
pleasure of watching Slobo expose Wesley Clark for the lying terrorist
that he is.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121203.htm
HAGUE "TRIBUNAL" BANS PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC FROM SPEAKING TO THE OUTSIDE
WORLD
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 12, 2003
The Hague Tribunal has made a decision
[http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ictymilosevicban121203.htm%5d to
essentially cut President Milosevic off from the outside world because
he made a speech which allegedly threatened peace and security in the
Former Yugoslavia.
President Milosevic's speech
[http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/milosevic120303.htm%5d did not
threaten anybody's peace and security. This communication ban that the
so-called "tribunal" has imposed comes at an interesting time. It
comes right before Wesley Clark is due to testify.
Under the decision the following restrictions will be imposed on
President Milosevic by the registrar of the ICTY:
(i) Prohibit communication, via telephone between the Accused with
any person(s) (particularly with the media), such prohibition shall
not apply to telephone communication with his immediate family,
legal counsel (where applicable), diplomatic or consular
representatives on condition that this facility shall not be used in
any manner to contact the media;
(ii) All authorised telephone conversations, except for
communications with recognised legal representatives (if any) and
diplomatic or consular representatives, shall be monitored, in
accordance with current Detention Unit practices;
(iii) Prohibit all visits between the Accused with any person(s)
(particularly with the media), such prohibition shall not apply to
visits with his immediate family, legal counsel (where applicable),
diplomatic or consular representatives;
(iv) All authorised visits shall be supervised by the Commanding
Officer of the Detention Unit or an official he designates.
(v) The aforesaid restrictions will not apply to written
communications wherein the current practices shall be maintained and
the Detention Unit’s regulations concerning the import and export of
mail shall be adhered to.
See how afraid this so-called "tribunal" is. Look at how keen they are
to control the information that the media gets. The prosecutor is
allowed to speak to the media, in fact the ICTY provides facilities
that the prosecutor can use to call press conferences. But, the person
who is being accused by the "tribunal" can't even use the telephone if
it is thought that a reporter could hear about the contents of the
telephone conversation.
The Hague "tribunal" regularly conducts closed-door hearings, in spite
of President Milosevic's vehement objections. They also conceal the
identity of many of their witnesses. According to an ICTY press
release dated December 2, 2003 only 60% of ICTY witnesses testify
openly, which means that 40% of the witnesses are heard behind closed
doors, or else their identity is kept a secret.
The witnesses don't even write their own witness statements. The
prosecutor writes them, and then turns around and submits their
version of what the witness said as "evidence" under their Rule 89(F).
As if that wasn't bad enough President Milosevic isn't even allowed to
cross-examine all of the witnesses who's testimony is being used
against him. Under Rule 92-bis testimony from other "trials" can be
used against him, and he has no right to cross-examine.
Now with Wesley Clark the so-called "tribunal" has decided that
President Milosevic must apply to the American Government in advance
about which topics and questions he will ask. The testimony will take
place behind closed doors, out of the public view. After Clark
testifies the U.S. Government will get 48 hours to redact the
transcripts and edit the video of the testimony, and only then will
the public be allowed to see what went on. Unfortunately, it will only
be the version of events that the U.S. Government censors allow you to
see.
It is beyond belief that anybody could take the verdicts of the Hague
Tribunal seriously. The Hague Tribunal is a kangaroo court. The sole
purpose of the Hague Tribunal is to retroactively legitimize Western
aggression against Yugoslavia, and to silence the voice of anybody who
is in a position to expose the nature of that aggression.
The ICTY is a propaganda tool that acts on the whims of bureaucrats in
Washington and Brussels. The "trials" are conducted in a secretive
manner because the verdicts are pre-fabricated to meet the propaganda
needs of NATO. The information coming out of the "tribunal" is strictly
controlled so that only the prosecutor's voice is heard by the public.
God forbid that some reporter, after speaking with someone who is on
"trial", would report something that was unfriendly to the propaganda
goals of NATO. That right there is why it is so important to the
"tribunal" that persons who are on "trial" not be allowed to speak to
the media.
This decision to restrict President Milosevic's ability to communicate
with the outside world has nothing to do with any concern for the
peace and security of the former Yugoslavia, and everything to do with
NATO's desire to manipulate the public and hide the truth about their
criminal aggression against Yugoslavia.
=== 4 ===
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/milosevic1218.php
Protest set to greet Gen. Clark at the Hague tribunal
By John Catalinotto
Organizations in the Netherlands and around the world plan to protest
the appearance of Gen. Wesley Clark before the tribunal in The Hague on
Dec. 15. He is scheduled to be a prosecution witness in the trial of
former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
Clark was commander of NATO when, beginning on March 24, 1999, it waged
a 78-day bombing campaign against Yugo slavia. The current U.S.
presidential candidate was himself tried and convicted in Belgrade of
war crimes. On June 10, 2000, right here in the United States, a
people's tribunal found General Clark, along with then-President Bill
Clinton and other U.S. and NATO leaders, guilty of war crimes.
A call for the protest distributed by the International Committee for
the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) expressed outrage over how
the trial is being conducted:
"More clearly than ever before now the direct influence of the U.S.
regime comes to the surface. It is the U.S. that literally dictated to
the tribunal the terms under which Wesley Clark will testify. Following
the direct conditions from Washington, no public and no media will be
allowed inside. The only people who will observe the proceedings will
be two representatives of the U.S. government. And not only this: the
U.S. government has the authority to decide which parts of the
testimony will remain secret. The other parts will be presented to the
U.S. government, which will then have a time period of 48 hours to
censor also this part."
The New Communist Party of the Netherlands has organized a protest for
8 a.m. in front of the tribunal building. At 9 a.m. there will be a
press conference of the ICDSM in the Hotel Bel Air next to the
tribunal. Canadian attorney Tiphaine Dickson, lawyer for the ICDSM,
will speak to the media.
ICDSM chapters in other countries are also protesting General Clark's
secret testimony. For information on the activity of the U.S. section,
see www.icdsm-us.org.
Reprinted from the Dec. 18, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@.... Subscribe
wwnews-on@.... Unsubscribe wwnews-off@.... Support
independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
=== 5 ===
STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK
FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET
Statement of the International Action Center 12/15/03
The International Action Center (IAC) protests the appearance
before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) of U.S. General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander
and current presidential candidate.
The IAC especially protests the acquiescence of the ICTY to
Washington’s demands that General Clark’s testimony be given in
secret. We would ask, “What are they hiding?” but we already know the
answer. General Clark is a war criminal and both he and the U.S.
government fear being exposed as such.
General Clark commanded the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. During that campaign, which was
directed mainly against civilian targets in Serbia, killed several
thousand Serbian civilians, destroyed or damaged schools and hospitals
as well as much of the industrial infrastructure of the country,
General Clark was responsible for ordering war crimes.
Indeed, General Clark admitted in his book, “Fighting Modern War,”
that the NATO powers opted for warfare as a political weapon. The
Kosovo war, he writes, "was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed
forces to impose the political will of the NATO nations on the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia. The NATO
nations voluntarily undertook this war." This means General Clark
collaborated in a crime against peace, the most serious of all war
crimes.
According to the public record, General Clark argued for bombing
civilian targets in order to force the Yugoslav leadership to
retreat and allow NATO troops to occupy Kosovo. This is a war crime.
At least three initiatives recognized General Clark’s
responsibility for these crimes by naming him along with other
NATO political and military leaders in war crimes indictments.
In 1999 a group of lawyers and legal academics, including Toronto
Professors Michael Mandel and David Jacobs, drafted a Request that
the Prosecutor for the ICTY investigate and indict named persons
including General Clark for war crimes in connection with the attack on
Yugoslavia. They presented what they called “overwhelming evidence
that the attack was unlawful and that the conduct of the attack on
civilian objects,” breaching the Geneva Conventions. The
Prosecution has laid no charges to date and has refused to indict
any U.S. forces for crimes committed during the war on Yugoslavia.
On June 10, 2000, a People’s Tribunal organized by the
International Action Center and others held its final hearing in
New York and found the same NATO leaders, including General Clark,
guilty of war crimes. Individuals from about 20 countries
presented evidence to prove a thorough indictment prepared a year
before by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark accusing
Wesley Clark and others of crimes against peace, war crimes and
crimes against humanity.
In a major war-crimes case, a Belgrade court found him and the
other leaders guilty on Sept. 22, 2000.
Considering the skill Slobodan Milosevic has shown in
cross-examining witnesses during almost two years of defending
himself before the ICTY, the Yugoslav leader could easily expose
General Wesley Clark as a war criminal of the worst sort. That,
and not the phony “national interests” excuse from Washington, is
why the U.S. government has demanded secrecy.
According to a Nov. 19 ICTY announcement, the public gallery of
the ICTY will be closed during the course of Clark's testimony. In
addition, "the broadcast of the testimony [will] be delayed for a
period of 48 hours to enable the U.S. government to review the
transcript and make representations as to whether evidence given
in open session should be redacted in order to protect the
national interests of the U.S."
That the ICTY has acquiesced in this matter to U.S. demands is the
final proof, if any was needed, that this court is a U.S. tool
created as part of the overall U.S. and NATO campaign to destroy
Yugoslavia.
Protests were reported to have been carried out at The Hague on
the morning of Dec. 15 against General Clark1s secret testimony
and there were other protests in different capitals.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
En Espanol: iac-cai@...
web: http://www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
To make a tax-deductible donation,
go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org
1. News: Jovanovic refused to plea guilty or not guilty before Hague
tribunal / "Trial" Session cancelled on Dec. 9th
2. PHONY INTERCEPTS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL
3. HAGUE "TRIBUNAL" BANS PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC FROM SPEAKING TO THE
OUTSIDE WORLD
THE SHAME OF WESLEY CLARK'S SECRET TESTIMONY:
4. Protest set to greet Gen. Clark at the Hague tribunal
5. STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET - Statement
of the International Action Center 12/15/03
=== 1 ===
Jovanovic refused to plea guilty or not guilty before Hague tribunal
Tanjug - December 5, 2003
17:31 THE HAGUE , Dec 5 (Tanjug) - Editor-in-chief of the Podgorica
daily Dan Dusko Jovanovic, who had been accused of disrespect of The
Hague-based International War Crimes Tribunal, on Friday faced the
hearing of The Hague tribunal court council, but refused to plea
guilty or not guilty.
In my case, there is an objective responsibility having in mind my post
(of editor-in-chief), but I had no intention of making any offence to
The Hague tribunal, said Jovanovic who, according to the tribunal's
regulations, has another 30 days to plea guilty or not guilty.
---
Press Advisory . Avis pour information
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)
The Hague, 8 December 2003
P.I.S./PA146
MILOSEVIC CASE:
Please be informed that the Milosevic Trial is cancelled for tomorrow,
Tuesday 9 December, and will commence on Wednesday 10 December at 9am
in Courtroom I, due to Judge Robinson’s absence for medical reasons.
For further information please call: +31 (70) 512-5343 or 512-5356.
Copyright 2003 ICTY P.I.S.
Posted for Fair Use only.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121003.htm
PHONY INTERCEPTS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL: MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" DECEMBER 10,
2003
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 10, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
In its only hearing this week the so-called “tribunal” sat for an
extended period, and over the course of the day 2 secret witnesses and
one open witness were heard from.
Before I deal with the witnesses I would like to discuss the matter of
intercepts which was discussed today.
At this so-called “trial” the prosecution has exhibited 245
intercepts. The origins of the intercepts are unclear although it was
revealed today that they came from the intelligence services of
unnamed governments that are hostile towards Serbia.
It was also revealed that no steps have been taken to authenticate the
intercepts. No technicians have been charged with the task of
verifying the integrity or the authenticity of the recordings. The
“tribunal” isn’t even following its own rules here. Rule 89(E)
requires the authentication of evidence.
Neither President Milosevic nor his associates has been given access
to the original recordings. In fact, all the OTP has are copies. The
intelligence services maintain possession of the originals.
President Milosevic contends that the intercepts are forgeries. He
says that the tapes have been doctored by the same hostile governments
that produced them for the prosecution. He says that these governments
forged the tapes in order to justify their own actions and policies
against Serbia.
President Milosevic’s assertion is not beyond the realm of
possibility. I have heard some of these intercepts played in “court.” I
am a technician at a television station, and I have some experience
with audio mixing, and it is very possible that these tapes are forged.
First of all, on every intercept I’ve heard, the background noise
[http://www.webref.org/acoustics/b/background_noise.htm%5d is very high,
and the audio quality is quite degraded. This could be the result of
generation loss [http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_generation_loss.html%5d.
Intentionally re-copying the same tape over and over again will
degrade the sound quality and it can help to cover-up the subtle
details that a technician would have to look for in order to determine
the authenticity of a recording.
The excessive background noise may be artificial, intentionally added
using a mixer [http://www.webref.org/acoustics/m/mixer.htm%5d to mask
[http://www.webref.org/acoustics/m/masking.htm%5d the original background
noise. A tell tale sign of a forged tape is subtle changes in the
background noise. Different recordings will have a different noise
floor [http://www.webref.org/acoustics/n/noise_floor.htm%5d. If a single
recording is spliced together from multiple recordings, then you
should be able to detect small changes in the amount of background
noise, because of the changes in the noise floor generated by the
recording equipment, and the amount of ambient noise
[http://www.webref.org/acoustics/a/ambient_noise.htm%5d that may be
present on the different recordings.
If you add artificial background noise to a recording you can cover-up
the original background noise provided that the artificial background
noise is at a sufficiently high level to mask the original background
noise. Thus, the artificial background noise will be consistent and
evidence of splicing of different recordings can be eliminated.
In my view, the extremely poor sound quality of the intercepts raises
the distinct possibility that they are forged, and given the hostile
nature of the sources the tapes come from it is clear that no such
tapes can be treated as any sort of evidence.
Recordings of such poor sound quality as these intercepts are can not
be conclusively authenticated by a legitimate technician. In spite of
this fact I would still suggest that technicians analyze the
intercepts. A technician can prove a forgery, but he can not provide
authentication, and if a forgery is proved then it can indicate a
malicious intent by the prosecution.
Enough with the technical explanations though. The first witness to
testify was a secret witness codenamed “B-1011.” B-1011 professed to
be a Muslim from Brcko.
According to B-1011 Serb forces attacked Brcko on April 31, 1992.
Obviously, nobody consulted a calendar because there is no such date as
April 31st, but this is a minor point.
B-1011 claims to have been arrested by Captain Dragan. B-1011
described Captain Dragan as being tall thin man with brown hair.
Unfortunately for the witness, Captain Dragan is a short man with gray
hair.
B-1011 claimed that Captain Dragan spoke with an English accent, and
in particular B-1011 identified it as being an Australian accent.
B-1011 does not speak English, so how he could manage to identify an
Australian accent is rather a mystery.
Captain Dragan doesn’t even speak English with an Australian accent.
You can see Captain Dragan speaking in both English and Serbian for
yourself by watching the first segment of this Dutch television
documentary
[http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/
index.shtml?7738514+7738518+7738520+14130404]. Captain Dragan is the
short gray haired man who appears at approximately the 5 minute mark.
In spite of what he claimed in court, B-1011 was obviously not
arrested by Captain Dragan. B-1011 claimed that “Captain Dragan” was
wearing sunglasses, blue jeans, and a military shirt, and that
“captain Dragan” was going around Brcko carrying out arrests along
with 30 other men, none of whom were wearing the same uniform.
B-1011 claimed that he was taken to a hotel in Brcko, and that it was
guarded by Captain Dragan’s men. At this point B-1011 claimed that
Captain Dragan’s men all wore dark blue uniforms.
If we believe B-1011 then the only one among Captain Dragan’s men who
didn’t have a proper uniform was Captain Dragan himself.
While at the Hotel, B-1011 claimed that he saw four dead bodies when
he went to use the toilet. He was at the hotel for 40 minutes before
he went to the toilet, but he didn’t hear any shots, nonetheless he
concluded that the men had been shot recently since there was steam
emanating from the corpses.
This is the 4th of May, it is spring time, and we are supposed to
believe that it was cold enough outside for dead bodies to be
emanating steam.
In his statement B-1011 claimed that a Serbian commander named Goran
Jelisic was upset because some of his men had been killed by the
Muslims. When Milosevic asked if these bodies could have been precisely
those dead Serbs, B-1011, in spite of the fact that he couldn’t
identify the bodies, said that they most certainly were not the bodies
of those dead Serbs.
The next witness to testify was Mehmed Mojsic, a Muslim from the
Sarajevo municipality of Hajici. He claims to have been captured by the
Bosnian Serbs on June 20, 1992 and held in custody until November 5,
1992 when he was exchanged.
While in custody Mojsic alleged that he was the victim of some
mistreatment. He gave three statements about the mistreatment that he
allegedly suffered.
He gave his first statement to the B-H authorities in April 1993, he
gave his next statement to the ICTY investigators in June of 1997, and
he gave his last statement to the B-H Authorities in February 1998.
Mojsic’s testimony ran into two problems. Mr. Kwon asked a question
that should be asked about each witness. Mr. Kwon asked the prosecutor,
Ms. Pack: “What relevance does this witness’s evidence have to the
indictment?” Ms. Pack was at a loss for an answer, and so she
confessed that there was no relevance.
The next problem was that Mojsic had made these three statements and
they didn’t jive with one another.
Mojsic explained that he had given the statements by the process of
recounting events as he remembered them, not by the process of
answering questions which nicely eliminated the “they never asked me”
excuse.
In subsequent statements Mr. Mojsic claimed that he was mistreated by
the members of the Red Berets, the JNA, and by Arkan’s men. In his
first statement of April 1993 he never mentions the Red Berets, the JNA
or Arkan’s men at all.
When President Milosevic confronted Mojsic on this point the witness
became irate. First he tried to accuse President Milosevic of lying,
but that didn’t work because Milosevic challenged the witness to show
him where in the first statement he mentions the JNA, Arkan’s men, or
the Red Berets.
Mojsic replied by telling President Milosevic to find those references
for himself. To which Milosevic replied “I can’t find them, which is
why I am asking you to find them.”
Of course President Milosevic was right and no mention ever was found
of the JNA, Arkan’s men, or the Red Berets in Mojsic’s first statement.
Another “minor detail” that never made it into Mojsic’s first
statement was the death of his own brother. In subsequent statements he
said that his brother was killed in a JNA detention facility, and that
he was forced to carry his own dead brother through an obstacle course
where JNA soldiers along with Arkan’s men shot at them.
Maybe this is something that he just forgot. I imagine that a “minor
detail” like being shot at while carrying your dead brother is an easy
thing to forget. When Mr. Tapuskovic asked Mr. Mojsic why he didn’t
mention any of this in his first statement, he angrily snapped back
saying “What have I got to explain to you?”
Maybe I misunderstand the purpose behind a witness appearing in a
court. I thought that they come to court to answer questions and
explain things. But what the Hell? This isn’t a real court it’s the
Hague Tribunal, and besides by Ms. Pack’s own admission this witness’s
testimony is completely irrelevant to the indictment anyway.
Ms. Pack’s re-examination was a comical display indeed. She only asked
one question. She said that President Milosevic and Mr. Tapuskovic had
indicated that Mr. Mojsic was making events up, because he didn’t
mention them in his first statement and only came up with them five
years later in his subsequent statements. Based on this premise she
asked him the following question, “Did you tell us the truth, or have
you been making things up?”
Of course Mojsic said that he was telling the truth, and perish the
thought that he would lie. With that Ms. Pack’s re-examination was
over with.
The final witness was a secret witness codenamed “B-1770.” B-1770 was
caught swimming across the Drina River into Serbia.
He was trying to sneak into Serbia illegally, but he wasn’t sneaky
enough. The VJ was waiting for him on the other bank and he was
arrested and sent to the Mitrovica detention facility where a Muslim
brigade was being held after they had fled from Bosnian territory.
Although, B-1770 claims that he was not part of the brigade.
B-1770 said that he ran away from Bosnia, leaving his wife and
children behind, because he wanted to get away from the Serbs. Of
course he went to the most logical place that anybody seeking to get
away from the Serbs would go. He went to Serbia.
B-1770 claims that he was mistreated in Serbia. He admits that he was
monitored by the International Red Cross, and the UNHCR throughout the
time he was in Serbia. He has no medical records to prove that he was
mistreated, and he can’t identify the perpetrators of his alleged
mistreatment.
The Red Cross, who monitored the detention facility on a regular
basis, did not even file one report that there was mistreatment, and by
the witness’s own admission they saw him twice a week.
He claimed that he lost a lot of weight while in custody, but
apparently on his passport that was issued right after his release, but
which we can’t see because he is a secret witness; it says that he is
a healthy weight and in his picture he doesn’t look emaciated at all.
B-1770 tried to explain that away by saying that they “fattened him
up” before his release.
Of course what B-1770 is saying is absurd. The media and the
diplomatic corps visited that facility all the time. Nobody was being
beaten there, not the witness, and not anybody else.
B-1770 was the last witness of the day, and the so-called “tribunal”
adjourned until next Monday. I will not be able to provide you with
any details about next Monday or Tuesday’s proceedings because the
Perfumed Prince, Wesley Clark, will be occupying the witness stand,
and he gets to testify in secret, and after his secret testimony the
U.S. Government will censor the transcripts.
I suppose it’s no great loss that we can’t see Clark testify. All
he’ll do is lie anyway. The unfortunate thing is that we won’t get the
pleasure of watching Slobo expose Wesley Clark for the lying terrorist
that he is.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121203.htm
HAGUE "TRIBUNAL" BANS PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC FROM SPEAKING TO THE OUTSIDE
WORLD
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 12, 2003
The Hague Tribunal has made a decision
[http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ictymilosevicban121203.htm%5d to
essentially cut President Milosevic off from the outside world because
he made a speech which allegedly threatened peace and security in the
Former Yugoslavia.
President Milosevic's speech
[http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/milosevic120303.htm%5d did not
threaten anybody's peace and security. This communication ban that the
so-called "tribunal" has imposed comes at an interesting time. It
comes right before Wesley Clark is due to testify.
Under the decision the following restrictions will be imposed on
President Milosevic by the registrar of the ICTY:
(i) Prohibit communication, via telephone between the Accused with
any person(s) (particularly with the media), such prohibition shall
not apply to telephone communication with his immediate family,
legal counsel (where applicable), diplomatic or consular
representatives on condition that this facility shall not be used in
any manner to contact the media;
(ii) All authorised telephone conversations, except for
communications with recognised legal representatives (if any) and
diplomatic or consular representatives, shall be monitored, in
accordance with current Detention Unit practices;
(iii) Prohibit all visits between the Accused with any person(s)
(particularly with the media), such prohibition shall not apply to
visits with his immediate family, legal counsel (where applicable),
diplomatic or consular representatives;
(iv) All authorised visits shall be supervised by the Commanding
Officer of the Detention Unit or an official he designates.
(v) The aforesaid restrictions will not apply to written
communications wherein the current practices shall be maintained and
the Detention Unit’s regulations concerning the import and export of
mail shall be adhered to.
See how afraid this so-called "tribunal" is. Look at how keen they are
to control the information that the media gets. The prosecutor is
allowed to speak to the media, in fact the ICTY provides facilities
that the prosecutor can use to call press conferences. But, the person
who is being accused by the "tribunal" can't even use the telephone if
it is thought that a reporter could hear about the contents of the
telephone conversation.
The Hague "tribunal" regularly conducts closed-door hearings, in spite
of President Milosevic's vehement objections. They also conceal the
identity of many of their witnesses. According to an ICTY press
release dated December 2, 2003 only 60% of ICTY witnesses testify
openly, which means that 40% of the witnesses are heard behind closed
doors, or else their identity is kept a secret.
The witnesses don't even write their own witness statements. The
prosecutor writes them, and then turns around and submits their
version of what the witness said as "evidence" under their Rule 89(F).
As if that wasn't bad enough President Milosevic isn't even allowed to
cross-examine all of the witnesses who's testimony is being used
against him. Under Rule 92-bis testimony from other "trials" can be
used against him, and he has no right to cross-examine.
Now with Wesley Clark the so-called "tribunal" has decided that
President Milosevic must apply to the American Government in advance
about which topics and questions he will ask. The testimony will take
place behind closed doors, out of the public view. After Clark
testifies the U.S. Government will get 48 hours to redact the
transcripts and edit the video of the testimony, and only then will
the public be allowed to see what went on. Unfortunately, it will only
be the version of events that the U.S. Government censors allow you to
see.
It is beyond belief that anybody could take the verdicts of the Hague
Tribunal seriously. The Hague Tribunal is a kangaroo court. The sole
purpose of the Hague Tribunal is to retroactively legitimize Western
aggression against Yugoslavia, and to silence the voice of anybody who
is in a position to expose the nature of that aggression.
The ICTY is a propaganda tool that acts on the whims of bureaucrats in
Washington and Brussels. The "trials" are conducted in a secretive
manner because the verdicts are pre-fabricated to meet the propaganda
needs of NATO. The information coming out of the "tribunal" is strictly
controlled so that only the prosecutor's voice is heard by the public.
God forbid that some reporter, after speaking with someone who is on
"trial", would report something that was unfriendly to the propaganda
goals of NATO. That right there is why it is so important to the
"tribunal" that persons who are on "trial" not be allowed to speak to
the media.
This decision to restrict President Milosevic's ability to communicate
with the outside world has nothing to do with any concern for the
peace and security of the former Yugoslavia, and everything to do with
NATO's desire to manipulate the public and hide the truth about their
criminal aggression against Yugoslavia.
=== 4 ===
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/milosevic1218.php
Protest set to greet Gen. Clark at the Hague tribunal
By John Catalinotto
Organizations in the Netherlands and around the world plan to protest
the appearance of Gen. Wesley Clark before the tribunal in The Hague on
Dec. 15. He is scheduled to be a prosecution witness in the trial of
former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
Clark was commander of NATO when, beginning on March 24, 1999, it waged
a 78-day bombing campaign against Yugo slavia. The current U.S.
presidential candidate was himself tried and convicted in Belgrade of
war crimes. On June 10, 2000, right here in the United States, a
people's tribunal found General Clark, along with then-President Bill
Clinton and other U.S. and NATO leaders, guilty of war crimes.
A call for the protest distributed by the International Committee for
the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) expressed outrage over how
the trial is being conducted:
"More clearly than ever before now the direct influence of the U.S.
regime comes to the surface. It is the U.S. that literally dictated to
the tribunal the terms under which Wesley Clark will testify. Following
the direct conditions from Washington, no public and no media will be
allowed inside. The only people who will observe the proceedings will
be two representatives of the U.S. government. And not only this: the
U.S. government has the authority to decide which parts of the
testimony will remain secret. The other parts will be presented to the
U.S. government, which will then have a time period of 48 hours to
censor also this part."
The New Communist Party of the Netherlands has organized a protest for
8 a.m. in front of the tribunal building. At 9 a.m. there will be a
press conference of the ICDSM in the Hotel Bel Air next to the
tribunal. Canadian attorney Tiphaine Dickson, lawyer for the ICDSM,
will speak to the media.
ICDSM chapters in other countries are also protesting General Clark's
secret testimony. For information on the activity of the U.S. section,
see www.icdsm-us.org.
Reprinted from the Dec. 18, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@.... Subscribe
wwnews-on@.... Unsubscribe wwnews-off@.... Support
independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
=== 5 ===
STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK
FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET
Statement of the International Action Center 12/15/03
The International Action Center (IAC) protests the appearance
before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) of U.S. General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander
and current presidential candidate.
The IAC especially protests the acquiescence of the ICTY to
Washington’s demands that General Clark’s testimony be given in
secret. We would ask, “What are they hiding?” but we already know the
answer. General Clark is a war criminal and both he and the U.S.
government fear being exposed as such.
General Clark commanded the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. During that campaign, which was
directed mainly against civilian targets in Serbia, killed several
thousand Serbian civilians, destroyed or damaged schools and hospitals
as well as much of the industrial infrastructure of the country,
General Clark was responsible for ordering war crimes.
Indeed, General Clark admitted in his book, “Fighting Modern War,”
that the NATO powers opted for warfare as a political weapon. The
Kosovo war, he writes, "was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed
forces to impose the political will of the NATO nations on the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia. The NATO
nations voluntarily undertook this war." This means General Clark
collaborated in a crime against peace, the most serious of all war
crimes.
According to the public record, General Clark argued for bombing
civilian targets in order to force the Yugoslav leadership to
retreat and allow NATO troops to occupy Kosovo. This is a war crime.
At least three initiatives recognized General Clark’s
responsibility for these crimes by naming him along with other
NATO political and military leaders in war crimes indictments.
In 1999 a group of lawyers and legal academics, including Toronto
Professors Michael Mandel and David Jacobs, drafted a Request that
the Prosecutor for the ICTY investigate and indict named persons
including General Clark for war crimes in connection with the attack on
Yugoslavia. They presented what they called “overwhelming evidence
that the attack was unlawful and that the conduct of the attack on
civilian objects,” breaching the Geneva Conventions. The
Prosecution has laid no charges to date and has refused to indict
any U.S. forces for crimes committed during the war on Yugoslavia.
On June 10, 2000, a People’s Tribunal organized by the
International Action Center and others held its final hearing in
New York and found the same NATO leaders, including General Clark,
guilty of war crimes. Individuals from about 20 countries
presented evidence to prove a thorough indictment prepared a year
before by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark accusing
Wesley Clark and others of crimes against peace, war crimes and
crimes against humanity.
In a major war-crimes case, a Belgrade court found him and the
other leaders guilty on Sept. 22, 2000.
Considering the skill Slobodan Milosevic has shown in
cross-examining witnesses during almost two years of defending
himself before the ICTY, the Yugoslav leader could easily expose
General Wesley Clark as a war criminal of the worst sort. That,
and not the phony “national interests” excuse from Washington, is
why the U.S. government has demanded secrecy.
According to a Nov. 19 ICTY announcement, the public gallery of
the ICTY will be closed during the course of Clark's testimony. In
addition, "the broadcast of the testimony [will] be delayed for a
period of 48 hours to enable the U.S. government to review the
transcript and make representations as to whether evidence given
in open session should be redacted in order to protect the
national interests of the U.S."
That the ICTY has acquiesced in this matter to U.S. demands is the
final proof, if any was needed, that this court is a U.S. tool
created as part of the overall U.S. and NATO campaign to destroy
Yugoslavia.
Protests were reported to have been carried out at The Hague on
the morning of Dec. 15 against General Clark1s secret testimony
and there were other protests in different capitals.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
En Espanol: iac-cai@...
web: http://www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
To make a tax-deductible donation,
go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook