PREZZEMOLO CONTRO ARAFAT

Il tuttologo "ex", Predrag Matvejevic, anche detto "professor
Prezzemolo", e' stato invitato su Radio Popolare (Milano) lo scorso 4
novembre, la mattina attorno alle 10, a sentenziare sulla situazione in
Palestina e segnatamente su di sondaggio in base al quale la
maggioranza degli europei considerano la politica del governo
israeliano una minaccia per la pace mondiale.
Ecco alcune delle dichiarazioni di Matvejevic:

<< Questo sondaggio è tendenzioso... D'altra parte criticare Sharon non
è gravissimo, tanti Ebrei lo criticano.

Sono stato 2 volte in Israele... per la presentazioni dei miei libri.
La prima volta ho visto nei giovani la decisione di non vivere in
ansia... La seconda volta ho visto la paura. >>

[parlando del "problemi dei coloni":]
<<Questo non può giustificare questo che fa l'armata israeliana. Mi
ricordo però anche quello che diceva Nasser 40 anni fa: "Questi cani di
israeliani bisogna buttarli in mare…"

Trovano pretesti per attaccare Israele anche lì dove si tratta di
legittima difesa.>>

<< Mi sembra che Arafat è solo una persona del passato, che vive la sua
leggenda che ogni giorno diventa più piccola. >>


[annotato da Ivana, che ringraziamo.
Sulla personalita' spiccatamente opportunistica di Prezzemolo si veda
anche, ad esempio:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2775
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2753
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2655
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2600 )

This text in english:
http://www.icdsm.org/milosevic/kosovo.htm
Questo testo in italiano:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2593
Cette texte en francais:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/milo1989fr.txt


Govor Slobodana Milosevica na Gazimestanu

Vidovdan 1989


Na ovom mestu u srcu Srbije, na Kosovu Polju, pre sest vekova, pre
punih 600-na godina dogodila se jedna od najvecih bitaka onoga doba.
Kao i sve velike dogadjaje i taj prate mnoga pitanja i tajne, on je
predmet neprekidnog naucnog istrazivanja i obicne narodne radoznalosti.
Sticajem drustvenih okolnosti ovaj veliki seststogodisnji
jubilej Kosovske bitke dogodio se u godini u kojoj je Srbija, posle
mnogo godina, posle mnogo decenija, povratila svoj drzavni, nacionalni
i duhovni integritet. Nije nam, prema tome danas, tesko da odgovorimo
na ono staro pitanje: - sa cim cemo pred Milosa. Igrom istorije i
zivota izgleda kao da je Srbija bas ove 1989. godine povratila svoju
drzavu i svoje dostojanstvo da bi tako proslavila istorijski dogadjaj
iz daleke proslosti koji je imao veliki istorijski i simbolicki znacaj
za njenu buducnost.
Danas je tesko reci sta je u Kosovskoj bitci istorijska
istina, a sta legenda. Danas to vise nije ni vazno. Narod je pamtio i
zaboravljao pritisnut bolom i ispunjen nadom. Kao uostalom i svaki
narod na svetu.
Stideo se izdajstva, velicao junastvo. Zato je danas tesko reci da li
je Kosovska bitka poraz ili pobeda Srpskog naroda, da li smo
zahvaljujuci njoj pali u ropstvo, ili smo zahvaljujuci njoj u tom
ropstvu preziveli.
Odgovore na ta pitanja trazice nauka i narod neprekidno. Ono
sto je izvesno, kroz sve ove vekove iza nas, je da nas je na Kosovu pre
600 godina zadesila nesloga. Ako smo izgubili butku, onda to nije bio
samo rezultat drustvene superiornosti i oruzane prednosti Osmanlijskog
carstva, vec i tragicne nesloge u vrhu sprske drzave. Tada, te daleke
1389.
Osmanlijsko carstvo nije samo bilo jace od Srpskog, ono je bilo i
srecnije od Srpskog carstva.
Nesloga i izdaja na Kosovu pratice dalje srpski narod kao zla
kob kroz citavu njegovu istoriju. I u poslednjem ratu ta nesloga i ta
izdaja uveli su srpski narod i Srbiju u agoniju cije su posledice u
istorijskom i moralnom smislu prevazilazile fastisticku agresiju.
Pa i kasnije kada je formirana Socijalisticka Jugoslavija,
srpski vrh je u toj novoj zemlji ostao podeljen, sklon kompromisima na
stetu sopstvenog naroda. Ustupke koje su mnogi srpski rukovodioci
pravili na racun svog naroda, ni istorijski, ni eticki, ne bi mogao da
prihvati ni jedan narod na svetu. Pogotovo sto Srbi kroz citavu svoju
istoriju nisu nikada
osvajali i eksploatisali druge. Njihovo nacionalno i istorijsko bice
kroz citavu istoriju i kroz dva svetska rata kao i danas je -
oslobodilacko.
Oslobadjali su vecito sebe i kad su bili u prilici, pomagali su drugima
da se oslobode. A to sto su u ovim prostorima veliki narod, nije
nikakav srpski greh, ni sramota. To je prednost, koju oni nisu
koristili protiv drugih. Ali moram da kazem ovde na ovom velikom,
legendarnom polju Kosovu, da Srbi tu prednost sto su veliki, nisu
nikada koristili ni za sebe.
Zaslugom svojih vodja i politicara i njihovog vazalnog
mentaliteta cak su se zbog toga osecali krivim pred drugima, pa i pred
sobom. Tako je bilo decenijama, godinama. Evo nas danas na Kosovu Polju
da kazemo - da vise nije tako.
Nesloga srpskih politicara unazadjivala je Srbiju, a njihova
inferiornost ponizavala je Srbiju. Nema zato u Srbiji pogodnijeg mesta
od Kosova Polja da se to kaze. I nema zato u Srbiji pogodnijeg mesta,
od Kosova Polja, da se kaze da ce sloga u Srbiji omoguciti prosperitet
i srpskom narodu i Srbiji i svakom njenom gradjaninu, bez obzira na
nacionalnu ili versku pripadnost.
Srbija je danas jedinstvena, ravnopravna sa drugim
republikama i spremna da ucini sve da poboljsa materijalni i drustveni
zivot svih svojih gradjana. Ako bude sloge, saradnje i ozbiljnosti, ona
ce u tome i uspeti.
Zato je optimizam koji je danas u prilicnoj meri prisutan u Srbiji u
pogledu buducih dana, realan utoliko, sto se zasniva na slobodi koja
omougcava svim ljudima da izraze svoje pozitivne, stvaralacke, humane
sposobnosti za unapredjenje drustvenog i sopstvenog zivota.
U Srbiji nikada nisu ziveli samo Srbi. Danas u njoj vise nego
pre, zive gradjani drugih naroda i narodnosti. To nije hendikep za
Srbiju. Iskreno sam uveren da je to njena prednost. U tom smislu se
menja nacionalni sastav gotovo svih, a narocito razvijenih zemalja
savremenog sveta. Sve vise i sve uspesnije zajedno zive gradjani raznih
nacionalnosti, raznih vera i rasa.
Socijalizam kao progresivno i pravedno demokratsko drustvo,
pogotovo ne bi smelo da dopusti da se ljudi dele nacionalno i verski.
Jedine razlike koje se u socijalizmu mogu da dopuste i treba da dopuste
su izmedju radnih i neradnih, izmedju postenih i nepostenih. Zato su
svi koji u Srbiji zive od svog rada, posteno, postujuci druge ljude i
druge narode, - u svojoj Republici.
Uostalom, na tim osnovama treba da bude uredjena citava nasa
zemlja. Jugoslavija je visenacionalna zajednica i ona moze da opstane
samo u uslovima potpune ravnopravnosti svih nacija koje u njoj zive.
Kriza koja je pogodila Jugoslaviju dovela je do nacionalnih,
ali i do socijalnih, kulturnih, verskih i mnogih drugih manje vaznih
podela. Medju svim tim podelama, kao najdramaticnije su se pokazale
nacionalne podele.
Njihovo otklanjanje olaksace otklanjanje drugih podela i ublaziti
posledice koje su te druge podele izazvale.
Otkad postoje visenacionalne zajednice, njihova slaba tacka
su odnosi koji se izmedju razlicitih nacija uspostavljaju. Kao mac nad
njihovim glavama, prisutna je neprekidna pretnja da se jednog dana
pokrene pitanje ugrozenosti jedne nacije od drugih i time pokrene talas
sumnji, optuzbi i netrpeljivosti koji po pravilu raste i tesko se
zaustavlja. To unutrasnji i spoljni neprijatelji takvih zajednica znaju
i zato svoju aktivnost protiv
visenacionalnih drustava uglavnom organizuju na podsticanje nacionalnih
sukoba. U ovom trenutku, mi u Jugoslaviji se ponasamo kao da nam to
iskustvo uopste nije poznato. I kao da u sopstvenoj, i daljoj i blizoj
proslosti nismo iskusili svu tragicnost nacionalnih sukoba, koje jedno
drustvo moze da
dozivi, a da ipak opstane.
Ravnopravni i slozeni odnosi medju jugoslovenskim narodima su
neophodan uslov za opstanak Jugoslavije, za njen izlazak iz krize, i
pogotovo neophodan uslov za njen ekonomski i drustveni prosperitet.
Time se Jugoslavija ne izdvaja iz socijalnog ambijenta savremenog, a
pogotovo
razvijenog sveta. Taj svet sve vise obelezava nacionalna trpeljivost,
nacionalna saradnja, pa cak i nacionalna ravnopravnost. Savremeni
ekonomski i tehnoloski, ali i politicki i kulturni razvoj upucuje razne
narode jedne na druge, cini ih medjusobno zavisnim i sve vise i
medjusobno ravnopravnim.
U civilizaciju ka kojoj se krece covecanstvo, mogu zakoraciti pre svega
ravnopravni i ujedinjeni ljudi. Ako ne mozemo da budemo na celu puta u
takvu civilizaciju, ne treba sigurno da budemo ni na njegovom zacelju.
U vreme kada se odigrala ova znamenita istorijska bitka na
Kosovu, ljudi su bili zagledani u zvezde cekajuci od njih pomoc. Danas,
sest vekova kasnije, ponovo su zagledani u zvezde, cekajuci da ih
osvoje. Prvi put su mogli da dopuste sebi razjedinjenost, mrznju,
izdaju, jer su ziveli u manjim, medjusobno slabo povezanim svetovima.
Danas kao stanovnici planete, razjedinjeni, ne mogu osvojiti ni svoju
planetu, a kamoli druge planete, ukoliko ne budu medjusobno slozni i
solidarni.
Zato mozda nigde na tlu nase domovine nemaju toliko smisla
reci posvecene slozi, solidarnosti i saradnji medju ljudima koliko
imaju ovde, na Kosovu Polju, koje je simbol nesloge i izdaje.
U pamcenju sprskog naroda ta nesloga je bila presudna za
gubitak bitke i za zlu sudbinu koju je Srbija podnela punih pet vekova.
Pa cak i ako sa istorijske tacke gledista ne bi bilo tako,
ostaje izvesnost da je narod svoju neslogu doziveo kao svoju najvecu
nesrecu. I obaveza naroda je zato da je sam otkloni da bi sebe ubuduce
zastitio od poraza, neuspeha i stagnacija.
Srpski narod je ove godine postao svestan nuznosti svoje
medjusobne sloge kao neophodnog uslova za svoj sadasnji zivot i dalji
razvoj.
Uveren sam da ce ta svest o slozi i jedinstvu omoguciti
Srbiji ne samo da funkcionise kao drzava, vec da funkcionise kao
uspesna drzava. Zato i mislim da to ima smisla reci bas ovde na Kosovu
gde je nesloga jednom tragicno i za vekove unazadila i ugrozila Srbiju
i gde obnovljena sloga moze da je unapredi i da joj vrati dostojanstvo.
A takva svest o medjusobnim odnosima predstavlja elementarnu nuznost i
za Jugoslaviju. - Jer se njena sudbina nalazi u zdruzenim rukama svih
njenih naroda.
Kosovska bitka sadrzi u sebi jos jedan veliki simbol. To je
simbol junastva. Njemu su posvecene pesme, igre, literatura i istorija.
Kosovsko junastvo vec sest vekova inspirise nase
stvaralastvo, hrani nas ponos, ne da nam da zaboravimo da smo jednom
bili vojska velika, hrabra i ponosita, jedna od retkih koja je u
gubitku ostala neporazena.
Sest vekova kasnije, danas, opet smo u bitkama, i pred
bitkama. One nisu oruzane, mada i takve jos nisu iskljucene. Ali bez
obzira kakve da su, ove bitke se ne mogu dobiti bez odlucnosti,
hrabrosti i pozrtvovanosti. Bez tih dobrih osobina koje su onda davno
bile prisutne na Kosovu Polju. Nasa glavna bitka danas odnosi se na
ostvarenje ekonomskog, politickog, kulturnog i uopste drustvenog
prosperiteta. Za brze i uspesnije priblizavanje civilizaciji u kojoj ce
ziveti ljudi u XXI veku. Za tu nam je bitku pogotovo potrebno
junastvo. Razume se nesto dlrugacije. Ali ona srcanost bez koje nista
na svetu, ozbiljno i veliko, ne moze da se postigne, ostaje
nepromenjena. Ostaje vecno potrebna.
Pre sest vekova Srbija je ovde, na Kosovu Polju, junacki
branila sebe. Ali je branila i Evropu. Ona se tada nalazila na njenom
bedemu koji je stitio evropsku kulturu, religiju, evropsko drustvo u
celini. Zato danas izgleda ne samo nepravedno vec i neistorijski i
sasvim apsurdno razgovarati o pripadnosti Srbije Evropi. Ona je u njoj
neprekidno, danas kao i pre. Razume se, na svoj nacin. Ali takav koji
je u istorijskom smislu nije nikad lisio dostojanstva. U tom duhu mi
danas nastojimo da gradimo drustvo - bogato i demokratsko. I da tako
doprinesemo prosperitetu svoje lepe, i u ovom trenutku nepravedno
napacene zemlje. Ali i da tako doprinesemo
naporima svih progresivnih ljudi naseg doba, koje oni cine za jedan
novi, lepsi svet.

Neka vecno zivi uspomena na kosovsko junastvo!
Neka zivi Srbija!
Neka zivi Jugoslavija!
Neka zivi mir i bratstvo medju narodima!


---

MEDJUNARODNE DEMONSTRACIJE

u Hagu, 8. novembra 2003.

14:00-15:00 Protestni miting u centru Haga («Plein»)

15:00-16:00 Mars do zatvora u Scheveningenu

16:00-17:00 Protestni miting ispred zatvora

Tokom demonstracija, nase delegacije ce uruciti protestna pisma
tribunalu, MIP-u Holandije i ambasadama stalnih clanica Saveta
bezbednosti UN: SAD, Velike Britanije, Francuske, Rusije i Kine. Bice
uruceno i pismo podrske Slobodanu Milosevicu.

RADI BUDUCNOSTI NASE DECE,

RADI OPSTANKA SRPSKOG NARODA,

RADI SLOBODE, ISTINE I PRAVDE!

Na demonstracijama za slobodu i dostojanstvo srpskog naroda, protiv
okupacije i kolonizacije Balkana, protiv agresije i porobljavanja
naroda sveta, protiv pokusaja agresora da sude borcima za slobodu i
svojimzrtvama, zasad su potvrdile ucesce grupe Srba, Jugoslovena, Grka
i drugih casnih ljudi iz Nemacke, Francuske,Svajcarske, Austrije,
Britanije, Holandije, Srbije i mnoge ugledne licnosti, medju kojima
Klaus Hartman (Nemacka), Fulvio Grimaldi (Italija), Luj Delma
(Francuska), Dzon Katalinoto (SAD), Misel Kolon (Belgija), Ian Dzonson
(Britanija), Dzon Dzefris (Irska), Prof. dr Aldo Bernardini (Italija),
Vil van der Klift (Holandija), Misa Gavrilovic (Britanija), dr Sima
Mraovic (Francuska), dr Ljiljana Verner (Nemacka), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Jugoslavija) i mnogi drugi.

SPASIMO ZIVOT PREDSEDNIKA MILOSEVICA!

Z A U S T A V I M O HASKU INKVIZICIJU!

   Demonstracijama i borbi za ove ciljeve potrebna je finansijska pomoc.

    Posaljite cek na nasu adresu: «SLOBODA», Rajiceva 16, 11000 Beograd

www.sloboda.org.yu                                                      
www.icdsm.org

Demonstration in Den Haag, 8.11.2003

1. "Aggressoren werden nicht die Geschichte schreiben!"

A u f z u r D e m o n a c h D e n H a a g -- 8.11.2003 --
und P E T I T I O N der Teilnehmer der Demo

2. PROZESS GEGEN MILOSEVIC: EIN NEUER FALL DIMITROFF? Interview Velko
Valkanov, Gründer und Vorsitzender des ICDSM
("junge Welt" vom 30.10.2003)

3. LYNCHJUSTIZ - DREI MONATE VORBEREITUNGSZEIT FÜR DIE VERTEIDIGUNG
(Von Tiphaine Dickson, "junge Welt" vom 14.10.2003)

4. MILOSEVIC-VERTEIDIGUNG OHNE GELD:GILT »PATRIOT ACT« AUCH IN DER
BRD? Interview mit Klaus Hartmann, Sprecher der Deutschen Sektion des
ICDSMs
("junge Welt" vom 17.10.2003)

5. Kuhhandel in Den Haag.
Anklage gegen serbische Generäle steht offenbar im Zusammenhang mit
Milosevic-Prozeß
(Cathrin Schütz, "junge Welt" vom 23. Oktober 2003)

6. Owen: Milosevic wollte bereits 1993 kein "Großserbien" mehr (AFP)


---

Diese Artikeln wurden uns am meisten von der Anti-Imperialistischen
Korrespondenz geschickt:
AIK, Redaktion: Klaus von Raussendorff
Postfach 210172, 53156 Bonn; Tel.&Fax: 0228 - 34.68.50;
Email: redaktion@...
AIK-Infos können auf der Seite der AIK http://www.aikor.de
unter "Info-Dienst der AIK" runtergeladen werden
Webmaster: Dieter Vogel, Email: webmaster@...

Mehr Informationen unten : http://www.free-slobo.de/


=== 1 ===


A u f z u r D e m o n a c h D e n H a a g :

Die Demonstration wird aus zwei Kundgebungen und einem Protestmarsch
von Den Haag nach Scheveningen bestehen. Bei der ersten Kundgebung in
Den Haag auf dem "Plein" (von 14:00 bis 14:30) sprechen MISHA
GAVRILOVICH (Großbritannien); WIL VAN DER KLIFT (Niederlande) und
KLAUS HARTMANN (Deutschland). Bei der zweiten Kundgebung in
Scheveningen vor dem Gefängnis (von 16:00 bis 17:00) sprechen FULVIO
GRIMALDI (Italien); DR LJILJANA
VERNER (Deutschland); JOHN CATALINOTTO (USA); MILUTIN MRKONJIC
(Serbien); LOUIS DALMAS (Frankreich); VLADIMIR KRSLJANIN (Serbien);
IAN JOHNSON (Großbritannien); DR SIMA MRAOVIC (Frankreich); JOHN
JEFFERIES (Irland) und MICHEL COLLON (Belgien);

---

PETITION VON SERBEN UND ANDEREN ANSTÄNDIGEN MENSCHEN AUS EUROPA UND
NORDAMERIKA, DEN TEILNEHMERN DER INTERNATIONALEN DEMONSTRATION IN DEN
HAAG
AM SAMSTAG, DEN 8. NOVEMBER, 2003.

An die Regierung des Königreichs der Niederlande;
An die Regierungen der Französischen Republik, der Volksrepublik China,
der Russischen Föderation, des Vereinigten Königreichs von
Großbritannien und
Nordirland, der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika
(durch ihre Botschaften in Den Haag);
An das Internationale Straftribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien
(ICTY).

Die Bevölkerung von Serbien und Jugoslawien wurde das Opfer
unverantwortlichen, verbrecherischen Handelns von ausländischen
Mächten, vor allem der USA und anderer führender NATO-Regierungen.
Diese Mächte provozierten das Auseinanderbrechen Jugoslawiens und
führten im Bündnis mit
Terroristen und Neofaschisten gegen Jugoslawien den ersten
Angriffskrieg auf europäischem Boden seit 1945. Bis jetzt wurde nicht
einer der Verantwortlichen dieser Länder für diese Verbrechen zur
Verantwortung gezogen.
Stattdessen wurden der jugoslawische Präsident Slobodan Milosevic und
nahezu alle politischen und militärischen Führer des serbischen Volkes,
die sich der Zerstörung ihres Landes widersetzten, vor das
Internationale
Straftribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien gestellt, welches unter
Verletzung der Charta der Vereinten Nationen eingerichtet wurde. Nicht
als ein legitimes Gericht geschaffen, hat das ICTY außerdem bewiesen,
dass es kein Gerichtshof der ordentlichen Rechtsprechung ist. Das ICTY
ist direkt oder indirekt verantwortlich für den Verlust von sieben
Menschenleben. Sein Mangel an Fairness, seine Befangenheit und seine
Verstöße gegen universelle und europäische Konventionen zum Schutz der
Menschenrechte sowie gegen
allgemein anerkannte Rechtsgrundsätze verpflichten die höchst
verantwortlichen Mitglieder der Weltorganisation, diesen bösartigen und
verfehlten Versuch der Schaffung eines ad hoc-Tribunals auf rein
politischer Basis zu verwerfen. Das ICTY löst keine Probleme auf dem
Balkan, es verschärft sie.
Die Verfahrenregeln und das Vorgehen des ICTY begünstigen die Anklage
und gehen von der Schuld der Angeklagten aus. Die Verfahren werden so
geführt, das der Geschichtsfälschung Vorschub geleistet wird, indem der
ganzen serbischen Nation angebliche Verbrechen zur Last gelegt werden,
was eine Art von Rassismus darstellt, den man in Europa für immer
überwunden glaubte. Die Serben und alle anderen anständigen Menschen in
Europa werden den
Aggressoren nicht gestatten, Geschichte zu schreiben!
Ein erschreckendes Panorama verzerrter und abwegiger Ansichten über
die Geschichte des Balkan wird in den drei Anklageschriften gegen
Präsident Milosevic dargeboten, der unter Missachtung von drei Urteilen
des Jugoslawischen Verfassungsgerichts seit über zwei Jahren illegal in
Haft gehalten wird. Unterstützt von den freiheitsliebenden Menschen
seines Landes und des Auslandes, hat Präsident Milosevic mutig und
erfolgreich die Wahrheit verteidigt, und dies trotz seiner schlechten
Gesundheit, der Befangenheit der Richter und seiner Isolation von der
Familie, den Mitarbeitern und den Medien.
Man verweigert Präsident Milosevic die elementarsten Bedingungen der
Vorbereitung seiner Verteidigung, die nötige Zeit und die
erforderlichen Hilfsmittel. Um sich auf eine Auseinandersetzung mit all
dem vorzubereiten, was das Tribunal in zehn Jahren fabriziert oder
zusammen getragen hat, was allein den UN-Haushalt 700 Millionen Dollar
kostete, wozu die Anklage zwei Jahre und Millionen Seiten an
Prozessunterlagen brauchte, wurden Präsident Milosevic nur sechs Wochen
Zeit zugestanden. Und dabei muss er in seiner
Gefängniszelle verbleiben! Sollte dabei diese Art von Druck auf ihn
anhalten, können sein bedrohlicher Bluthochdruck und sein krankes Herz,
verschlimmert durch die Art der Verfahrensführung, die rüden
Haftbedingungen und das Fehlen einer durch Spezialisten zu
gewährleistenden medizinischen Betreuung, jeden Augenblick einen
Infarkt oder Herzschlag verursachen. Nur in Freiheit ist es möglich,
die bestehende Gefahr für sein Leben zu bannen und seine Gesundheit
einigermaßen wieder herzustellen.

WIR FORDERN DAHER

1. die unverzügliche Freilassung von Präsident Milosevic und die
Unterbrechung des Verfahrens gegen ihn für mindestens zwei Jahre;

2. die Abschaffung des ICTY, eines verbrecherischen Instruments gegen
Jugoslawien, das eine Verhöhnung des Rechts und der Rechtsprechung
darstellt.


=== 2 ===


junge Welt vom 30.10.2003
http://www.jungewelt.de/2003/10-30/017.php


PROZESS GEGEN MILOSEVIC: EIN NEUER FALL DIMITROFF?

jW sprach mit Velko Valkanov, Gründer und Vorsitzender des
Internationalen Komitees zur Verteidigung von Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM)

Interview: Cathrin Schütz

* Der ehemalige Abgeordnete des bulgarischen Parlaments Velko Valkanov
ist Professor für Rechtswissenschaften und Präsident der
Antifaschistischen Union seines Heimatlandes Bulgarien.

F: Das von Ihnen geleitete Internationale Komitee zur Verteidigung von
Slobodan Milosevic ruft für den 8. November zu einer internationalen
Demonstration gegen das Den Haager Tribunal auf. Der Ankündigung ist zu
entnehmen, daß Sie eine Parallele zwischen dem Prozeß gegen Ihren
Landsmann
Georgi Dimitroff vor 70 Jahren und dem Prozeß gegen den ehemaligen
jugoslawischen Staatschef Milosevic ziehen.

In der Tat bestehen bedeutsame Parallelen zwischen dem Prozeß gegen
Dimitroff 1933 und dem Prozeß gegen Milosevic heute. Dimitroff war ein
Opfer des deutschen Faschismus. Milosevic ist ein Opfer des
USA-Globalismus, der eine neue Form des Faschismus darstellt. Dimitroff
verteidigte nicht nur
seine eigene Freiheit und Ehre, sondern die Freiheit und die Ehre aller
Menschen. Auch Milosevic verteidigt nicht nur seine eigene Freiheit und
Ehre. Er verteidigt die Freiheit, Ehre und Würde seines Volkes und
dadurch die Freiheit, Ehre und Würde aller Völker. Dimitroff hat dem
deutschen Faschismus einen vernichtenden Schlag versetzt. Auch
Milosevic wird, das
zeigt sich schon jetzt, in der Anklagezeit, dem US-amerikanischen
Globalismus einen vernichtenden Schlag versetzen.

F: Dimitroff genoß weltweit volle Unterstützung.

Ja, in dieser Richtung ist leider keine Parallele zu verzeichnen.
Dimitroff bekam große Unterstützung, vorwiegend aus der Sowjetunion.
Heute existiert die Sowjetunion nicht mehr; die Welt wird von den USA
und der NATO dominiert. Ihnen sind auch die Weltmedien untergeordnet.
Dadurch herrscht die Lüge. Milosevic hat die Unterstützung vieler
ehrlicher Menschen, aber ihre Verteidigungsmöglichkeiten sind sehr
begrenzt. Trotzdem haben sie ihre Chance, da sie die Wahrheit auf ihrer
Seite haben.

F: Der angesehene holländische Völkerrechtler Paul de Waart hat
kürzlich geäußert, daß die Verhandlungen allein aus formaljuristischen
Gründen, aus Mangel an Beweisen, bereits einen Monat nach Beginn hätten
eingestellt werden müssen.

Ich stimme mit Herrn de Waart vollkommen überein. Der Prozeß gegen
Milosevic besitzt keinerlei juristische Grundlage. Das Haager Tribunal
wurde durch einen Beschluß des UNO-Sicherheitsrates errichtet. Der
Sicherheitsrat hat jedoch keine Befugnis, rechtsprechende Organe zu
schaffen. Laut Artikel 29
der Charta der Vereinten Nationen kann der Sicherheitsrat nur
Hilfsorgane bilden, die seine eigenen Funktionen bedienen. Wie ein
Internationales Strafgericht etabliert werden kann, zeigt uns die
Gründung des neuen Internationalen Strafgerichthofes durch das Statut
von Rom von 1998. Nachdem das Statut von den Vertretern der Staaten
unterzeichnet wurde, mußte es in den entsprechenden Staaten ratifiziert
werden. Nur so wird es für den jeweiligen Staat rechtswirksam.

F: Die Richter des Tribunals haben Slobodan Milosevic nur drei Monate
zur Vorbereitung seiner Verteidigung genehmigt, während sich die
Anklageseite viele Jahre vorbereiten konnte.

Es ist keineswegs überraschend, daß die Richter Herrn Milosevic eine so
geringe Zeit zur Vorbereitung seiner Verteidigung gewährt haben. Sie
sind keine wirklichen Richter. Wenn das Tribunal kein legitimes Gericht
ist, wie können diese Leute wahre Richter sein? Sie haben eine
politische Aufgabe zu erfüllen. Sie sind die ausführenden Organe einer
politischen Rache – einer Rache an jenen, die den Mut hatten, den
Weltmachthabern zu widersprechen.
Die angeblichen Richter von den Haag sind eigentlich Helfershelfer der
Verbrecher der NATO. Die Art und Weise ihres Benehmens im Prozeß
beweist ihre anti-juristische Natur.

* Infos unter www.icdsm.org


=== 3 ===


junge Welt vom 14.10.2003
http://www.jungewelt.de/2003/10-14/004.php

LYNCHJUSTIZ - DREI MONATE VORBEREITUNGSZEIT FÜR DIE VERTEIDIGUNG IM
»PROZESS DES JAHRHUNDERTS«.
EIN VERSUCH, IM FALL MILOSEVIC DIE WAHRHEIT TOTZUSCHWEIGEN

Von Tiphaine Dickson

* Tiphaine Dickson ist Rechtsanwältin und Mitglied der kanadischen
Sektion des Internationalen Komitees für die Verteidigung von Slobodan
Milosevic (ICDSM). Der ehemalige Präsident Serbiens (1989 bis 1997) und
der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien (1997 bis zum 6. Oktober 2000) wurde am
27. Mai
1999 – inmitten des NATO-Krieges gegen Jugoslawien – von Chefanklägerin
Carla del Ponte u.a. wegen Kriegsverbrechen und Völkermords vor dem
Internationalen Straftribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien angeklagt.
Die USA setzten im Juni 1999 ein Kopfgeld von fünf Millionen US-Dollar
auf seine
Ergreifung aus. Am 1. April 2001 wurde Milosevic verhaftet und am 28.
Juni 2001 von der serbischen Regierung nach Den Haag überstellt.

Es ist ein Skandal, daß das Internationale Straftribunal für das
ehemalige Jugoslawien (ICTY) entschieden hat, Präsident Slobodan
Milosevic nur drei Monate Zeit zu gewähren, um seine Verteidigung in
einem »Fall« vorzubereiten, der auf einer zynischen Fälschung der
turbulentesten zehn Jahre der Geschichte Jugoslawiens aufgebaut ist.

Die Entscheidung zeigt ein weiteres Mal, wie dieser »Internationale
Gerichtshof« die elementarsten internationalen Normen des Rechts und
die Rechte von Gefangenen mißachtet. Sie ist auch ein deutliches
Signal, daß diese Institution, die unter dem Druck der Regierung der
USA geschaffen wurde, kein geeignetes Instrument für die Durchführung
eines ordentlichen Verfahrens ist. Der Prozeß versucht lediglich, von
einem genaueren Nachforschen nach der Verantwortung des Westens für die
Zerstörung einer
Nation abzulenken. Konfrontiert mit der Weigerung von Präsident
Milosevic, die politischen Machenschaften von Den Haag hinzunehmen, mit
seiner prinzipienfesten Verteidigung seines Volkes und seiner
Geschichte und mit seinem erfolgreichen Auftreten im Gerichtssaal,
versucht der Gerichtshof nun, ihn daran zu hindern, seine Sicht des
Falles darzulegen. Dies ist Lynchjustiz, wie der bekannte kanadische
Strafrechtler Edward Greenspan sagte.

Recht auf Selbstverteidigung

Am 4. April 2003 erkannte das ICTY das Recht Slobodan Milosevics an,
sich selbst zu verteidigen, und verwarf einen Antrag der Anklage, für
ihn gegen seinen Willen einen Anwalt zu bestellen. Dieses Recht auf
Selbstverteidigung ist von grundlegender Bedeutung. Der Supreme Court
der USA befand, daß es für die Bestellung eines Anwalts für einen damit
nicht einverstandenen Angeklagten keinen Präzedenzfall gibt, abgesehen
von der für politische Prozesse geschaffenen Sternkammer. Die Anklage
versucht nun, diese Angelegenheit erneut aufzubringen und wird die
Bestellung eines Anwalts
gegen den Willen von Präsident Milosevic beantragen, ungeachtet der
Tatsache, daß schon ein solcher Antrag den politischen Charakter des
Prozesses verrät.

Das ICTY stellt in seiner Entscheidung, Slobodan Milosevic zu
gestatten, sich selbst zu vertreten, unter Bezugnahme auf Artikel 21
des Statuts des ICTY fest, daß es »in der Tat der Verpflichtung
nachkommen muß, daß ein Verfahren fair und zügig erfolgt; insofern die
Gesundheit des Angeklagten eine Rolle spielt, hat diese Verpflichtung
eine besondere Bedeutung«.
Artikel 21 bestimmt, daß die Kammer dieser Verpflichtung »in völliger
Achtung der Rechte des Angeklagten« nachkommen muß.

Die Entscheidung der Kammer, Herrn Milosevic drei Monate Zeit zu geben,
um seine Verteidigung vorzubereiten, steht in völligem Gegensatz zu der
von ihr bekundeten Sorge, ein faires Verfahren zu gewährleisten, sowie
zur Achtung der Rechte des Angeklagten. Es handelt sich um eine
gänzlich unrealistische Vorbereitungszeit für ein Verfahren dieser
Größenordnung, insbesondere weil Herr Milosevic sich in Haft verteidigt.

Ferner hat die Kammer Herrn Milosevic ein weiteres Erschwernis
auferlegt, indem sie ihn anwies, innerhalb von sechs Wochen nach
Abschluß der Anklage eine ausführliche Liste der von ihm benannten
Zeugen vorzulegen, einschließlich einer Zusammenfassung der
Sachverhalte, zu denen jeder Zeuge aussagen wird, und einem Hinweis, ob
der Zeuge persönlich aussagen wird oder durch schriftliche
Stellungnahme oder mittels eines Aussageprotokolls aus
anderen Verfahren vor dem Tribunal. Er muß ferner die Beweisstücke
auflisten, die er in das Verfahren einzubringen beabsichtigt, und der
Anklagevertretung davon Kopien zur Verfügung stellen. Die Kammer kann
nicht einmal garantieren, daß Herr Milosevic die »Erlaubnis« erhält,
jeden Zeugen seiner Wahl aufzurufen, da die Entscheidung besagt, daß
die Kammer eine »Verteidigungsvorverhandlung« (»Pre-Defence
Conference«) durchführen wird, um die Zeugenliste zwecks Genehmigung zu
überprüfen und die Zeit festzulegen, die ihm für die Darstellung seiner
Position gestattet wird.

Keine Waffengleichheit

Zahlreiche internationale Konventionen bekräftigen das Recht eines
jeden, der eines Verbrechens angeklagt ist, auf angemessene Zeit und
Mittel, seine Verteidigung vorzubereiten. Dieses Recht ist ein
wichtiger Aspekt des
fundamentalen Prinzips der »Gleichheit der Waffen«, demzufolge die
Verteidigung und die Anklage so zu behandeln sind, daß sichergestellt
ist, daß beide Parteien die gleiche Möglichkeit haben, ihre Position
vorzubereiten und im Laufe des Verfahrens darzustellen. Das Tribunal
hat die Anerkennung dieses Prinzips in seinem Statut bekundet, welches
bestimmt, daß der oder die Angeklagte das Recht hat, »die Zeugen gegen
ihn oder sie zu befragen und die Anwesenheit und Befragung von für ihn
oder sie auftretenden
Zeugen unter denselben Bedingungen zu erwirken wie die Zeugen gegen ihn
oder sie«.

Der vom Tribunal bekundete Respekt für die »Gleichheit der Waffen« wird
Lügen gestraft, denn für die Anklage fehlen jegliche Beschränkungen,
die für die Verteidigung von Herrn Milosevic errichtet wurden. Dieser
hatte es im Verlauf von über 250 Verhandlungstagen von seiten der
Anklage mit fast 300
Zeugen zu tun und erhielt über 500 000 Seiten Material zum Verfahren
zur Durchsicht zugestellt. Allein die Last der Vorbereitung der
Kreuzverhöre so vieler Zeugen in einer Gefängniszelle ist erschreckend.
Und jetzt hat er gerade mal drei Monate, um diese Masse an
Zeugenaussagen und Dokumenten durchzugehen und die Protokolle
durchzusehen. Er hat sechs Wochen, um Zeugen der Verteidigung zu
identifizieren, zu treffen und zu interviewen sowie
Schlüsseldokumente der Verteidigung auszuwählen und anzubieten. Beim
Durchsehen der 500000 Seiten an Mitteilungen würde nur das Lesen allein
347 Tage à vierundzwanzig Stunden in Anspruch nehmen. Das macht mehr
als zehn Monate, nicht drei. Im Gegensatz dazu hat das ICTY seine
»Kosovo-Anklage« vor viereinhalb Jahren erhoben und hatte eine
zweijährige Vorbereitungszeit für seine zusätzlichen Anklagen im Jahre
2001 mit Bezug auf die Konflikte in Kroatien und Bosnien-Herzegowina.
Die Anklage hatte acht Jahre Zeit, um Beweismaterial zu Srebrenica zu
sammeln.

Die Entscheidung, nur drei Monate Vorbereitungszeit und nur sechs
Wochen für die Vorlage der Zeugenliste nebst Zusammenfassung ihrer
Stellungnahmen zu gewähren, läßt den Gesundheitszustand von Präsident
Milosevic gänzlich
unberücksichtigt. Durch die wiederholten Unterbrechungen des Verfahrens
mußte das Gericht zur Kenntnis nehmen, daß die UN-Ärzte recht hatten,
als sie berichteten, daß das Leben von Präsident Milosevic wegen der
Intensität des Verfahrens in Gefahr ist. Die Gewährung von nur drei
Monaten Vorbereitungszeit verschärft die Streßsituation und kann zu
erhöhtem Blutdruck, Schlaganfall und Tod führen.

Im November letzten Jahres stellte das Internationale Komitee für die
Verteidigung von Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) Antrag auf Gehör vor der
Kammer, um zu begründen, daß der gesundheitliche Zustand von Slobodan
Milosevic eine sofortige spezialisierte medizinische Betreuung
erfordert, daß er aus der Haft entlassen, ihm ausreichend Zeit für
seine Rekonvaleszenz gegeben und ihm erlaubt werden muß, seine
Verteidigung unter Nichthaftbedingungen vorzubereiten. Das ICTY hat
diesem Antrag nicht stattgegeben, hat ihn aber auch nicht abgelehnt.
Das »Tribunal« hat ihn einfach ignoriert.

Eingeschränkte Kontakte

Zusätzlich zu dem Umstand, nur drei Monate zur Vorbereitung seine
Verteidigung zu haben, muß Herr Milosevic dies aus einer Gefängniszelle
heraus unter erschreckenden Bedingungen tun. Gegenwärtig kann Herr
Milosevic nicht mit seiner Frau und seiner Familie zusammentreffen.
Seine engsten Mitstreiter und Freunde sind für ihn unzugänglich, da der
Registrar *) des Tribunals den Kontakt mit seiner Partei, der
Sozialistischen Partei Serbiens (SPS), und »assoziierten Einheiten«
verboten hat. »Sloboda«, die federführende Vereinigung zur Verteidigung
von Präsident Milosevic, wurde
als verbotene Gruppe aufgelistet. Der Registrar verhängte diese
Maßnahme aufgrund des Verdachts, daß zwei SPS-Mitglieder mit der Presse
gesprochen haben sollen. Die Vorbereitung der Verteidigung von
Präsident Milosevic erfordert, daß er mit Zeugen und sachlich
kompetenten Personen zusammentrifft, was nun für viele von ihnen
verboten ist. »Assoziierte Einheiten«, das kann jeder sein; der
Registrar bestimmt darüber nach Gutdünken. »Sloboda« hat das Verbot aus
Rechtsgründen angefochten. Eine Antwort des ICTY läßt auf sich warten.

Der Registrar hat nicht nur die Kontakte von Präsident Milosevic mit
seinen engsten Beratern gravierend eingeschränkt, er hat ihm auch nur
unzureichende technische Möglichkeiten zur Vorbereitung seiner
Verteidigung zur Verfügung gestellt. Ihm wurde der kontrollierte Zugang
zu einigen rudimentären Möglichkeiten der elektronischen und gedruckten
Kommunikation erlaubt (Telefon, Fax, ein Computer in seiner Zelle, ein
VCR zur Ansicht von Prozeß-Filmmaterial), aber die Häufigkeit und Dauer
von Besuchen seiner rechtlichen Berater sind eng begrenzt, belaufen
sich, wenn überhaupt, auf wenige Stunden in der Woche und sind in
Wirklichkeit auf die Tage beschränkt, wenn die Verhandlung früh beendet
ist.

Ebenso bezeichnend ist es, diese Bedingungen und technischen
Möglichkeiten, die einem Mann erlaubt werden, der sich gegen die
weltweit denkbar schwersten Beschuldigungen allein verteidigt, mit den
gewaltigen Hilfsmitteln zu kontrastieren, die dem Büro der
Staatsanwaltschaft zur Verfügung stehen, sowie mit den unbeschränkten
Vorrechten der Staatsanwaltschaft, mit ihren Ermittlern, Assistenten
und Forschern und verschiedenen anderen Mitgliedern ihres weit größeren
Teams zu konferieren.
Die Sprecherin der Anklage ist bei gemeinsamen Pressekonferenzen mit
dem Sprecher des ICTY anwesend, während Slobodan Milosevic nicht mit
Mitgliedern
seiner Partei und undefinierten »assoziierten Einheiten«
zusammentreffen kann, weil zwei einzelne Personen verdächtigt werden,
mit Medienvertretern über ihre Begegnung mit ihm gesprochen zu haben.

Ein öffentliches Verfahren?

Artikel 11 der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten
Nationen bekräftigt die Unschuldsvermutung und das Recht des
Angeklagten auf Öffentlichkeit des Verfahrens. Aber das »Verfahren« von
Slobodan Milosevic ist oft nicht öffentlich und gegen den prüfenden
Blick der internationalen
Öffentlichkeit abgeschirmt. Sicherheitsbelange werden systematisch
angeführt, um die zahlreichen geschlossenen Sitzungen zu rechtfertigen,
die Anonymität der Zeugen sowie »Ex parte«-Anträge der Anklage,
Anträge, deren Inhalt Herr Milosevic nicht berechtigt ist zu
überprüfen. In den letzten sechs Monaten hat die Kammer sieben
Entscheidungen aufgrund von Ex parte-Anträgen gefällt. Ein weiteres
Grundrecht ist es, beim eigenen Prozeß anwesend zu sein. Wenn Herr
Milosevic die Vorlagen der Anklagevertretung an
die Richter nicht lesen, geschweige denn auf sie antworten kann, kann
dann behauptet werden, daß er bei seinem Verfahren tatsächlich anwesend
ist?

Diese Vorgänge zeugen von einem Prozeß, der mehr zügig als fair ist,
und veranlassen die Sektion Quebec und Kanada des ICDSM, noch einmal
die Forderung des ICDSM nach einer zweijährigen Unterbrechung des
Prozesses zu wiederholen, um Slobodan Milosevic zu ermöglichen, seine
Verteidigung
vorzubereiten, die Einschränkung seiner Besuchsrechte zu beenden und
sich durch einen Arzt seiner Wahl behandeln zu lassen. Er muß aus der
Untersuchungshaft entlassen werden. Anders zu verfahren hieße nur die
schändliche Verhöhnung der Rechtsprechung in Den Haag fortzusetzen.
Allerdings ist das gründlichste Heilmittel zur Beendigung dieses
Justizzirkus – ein Heilmittel, das wir unterstützen – die vollständige
Auflösung dieses unheilbar politisierten »Gerichts« und die Entlassung
aller seiner Gefangenen.

*) Verwaltungschef des Tribunals mit teilweise richterlicher Befugnis,
insbesondere was Haftangelegenheiten angeht

(Aus dem Englischen von Klaus von Raussendorff)


=== 4 ===


junge Welt vom 17.10.2003
http://www.jungewelt.de/2003/10-17/017.php

MILOSEVIC-VERTEIDIGUNG OHNE GELD:
GILT »PATRIOT ACT« AUCH IN DER BRD?

jW fragte Klaus Hartmann, Sprecher der Deutschen Sektion
des »Internationalen Komitees für die Verteidigung von Slobodan
Milosevic«

Interview: Rüdiger Göbel

F: Die Darmstädter Volksbank hat Ihr Spendenkonto zur Verteidigung von
Slobodan Milosevic gesperrt. Welche Begründung gab die Bank für diesen
außergewöhnlichen Schritt?

Zuerst erfuhr unser Finanzbeauftragter Peter Betscher durch den Einzug
der Bankkarten von der Aktion, auf Nachfrage teilte ein
Bankangestellter mit, daß gegen Betscher »wegen Spendensammlungen für
Slobodan Milosevic ermittelt« werde. Damit wurde suggeriert, daß die
Kontensperrung durch die
Staatsanwaltschaft gefordert worden war, aber das war eine Ausrede.
Bisher wurde keine Aktion der Staatsanwaltschaft ruchbar. Danach redete
sich die Bank heraus, die Angelegenheit werde von der Bundesbank
geprüft, und deren
Abteilung »Finanzsanktionen« müsse das Konto freigeben. Wieder gelogen:
Ein Anruf bei der Bundesbank ergab, daß Freigabe oder Sperrung völlig
in der Entscheidung der örtlichen Bank liegen. Und noch ein weiteres
Konto wurde
gesperrt: Die Sparkasse Wetterau sperrte das Privatkonto einer
Unterstützerin des Verteidigungskomitees und kündigte ihre Kreditkarten.

F: Aber welche Gründe für »Finanzsanktionen« soll es geben?

Angeblich eine Verordnung der EU-Kommission vom 19.Juni 2001: Danach
sind »alle Gelder (…), die Herrn Milosevic und Personen seines Umfelds
gehören, einzufrieren«. Aber diese politisch motivierte Verordnung der
antijugoslawischen Kriegspartei paßt nicht auf unseren Fall, außer für
juristische Analphabeten: Wir sammeln nicht für Milosevic persönlich,
sondern für die Verteidigungskosten vor dem Haager »Tribunal«. Sich
gegen Anklagen zu verteidigen ist ein elementares Grundrecht.

F: Sie sehen hinter den Aktionen der hessischen Banken die NATO am
Werk. Eine neue Verschwörungstheorie?

Exakt einen Tag nach der Kontensperrung heben plötzlich in Belgrader
Medien Spekulationen über »finanzielle Sorgen Milosevics« an. Der
Wiener Standard titelt scheinheilig »Geht Milosevic das Geld aus?«. In
Belgrad stellt sich bei Vladimir Krsljanin, Sekretär des dortigen
Verteidigungskomitees, ein
Mann vor: Er komme vom deutschen »Staatsradio« (!), und wolle wissen,
was an den Geldproblemen für die Milosevic-Verteidigung dran sei. Viele
Zufälle in eineinhalb Tagen. Entweder wurden deutsche Geheimdienstler
auf Veranlassung
ihrer US-Kollegen aktiv, oder aber die CIA trat direkt an die Banken
heran.
Man ist nicht aufs Spekulieren angewiesen, sondern kann in einem
US-Gesetz nachlesen, wie das funktioniert: Wenige Tage nach den
Anschlägen in New York, am 19. September 2001, hatte die
US-Administration ihren »Patriot Act« präsentiert, ein Gesetzespaket
zur Demontage demokratischer Rechte, und nicht nur der US-Bürger.
Danach müssen ausländische Banken mit US-Ermittlern kooperieren, wenn
die »verdächtige Konten« entdecken, bei Kooperationsverweigerung kann
der Schatzminister Sanktionen gegen die Banken verhängen. Das
Einfrieren »fragwürdiger« Konten ist eine ausdrücklich erwähnte
Maßnahme. Aber stellen Sie sich vor: Schon ein Anruf der
Schnüffler, vielleicht die Andeutung »geschäftsschädigender
Empfehlungen« an US-Bürger, dürfte genügen, um Vorstände einer
Provinzbank zum Erzittern zu bringen.

F: Wie können Spender fortan die Verteidigung von Slobodan Milosevic
mitfinanzieren?

Wir werden in Kürze ein neues Konto eröffnen, bei Bankern, die sich
nicht als Geheimdienst-Handlanger verstehen. Trotzdem sollten Linke aus
dem Vorfall lernen: Nicht nur auf technische Annehmlichkeiten wie
bargeldlosen Zahlungsverkehr setzen, das erleichtert auch den
Schnüfflern das Leben. Spenden kommen am besten in Form von Barschecks
in die bewährten Hände von
Peter Betscher, Holzhofallee 28, 64295 Darmstadt.


=== 5 ===


http://www.jungewelt.de/

junge Welt vom 23. Oktober 2003

Kuhhandel in Den Haag

Anklage gegen serbische Generäle steht offenbar im Zusammenhang mit
Milosevic-Prozeß

Die Belgrader Regierung reagiert mit Protest auf die in dieser Woche
durch das »Kriegsverbrechertribunal« in Den Haag (ICTY) öffentlich
gemachten Anklagen gegen vier serbische Armee- und Polizei-Generäle,
die während der NATO-Aggression 1999 eine Schlüsselrolle spielten. Die
Haager Anklage unter Carla del Ponte beschuldigt sie, gemeinsam mit dem
ehemaligen jugoslawischen Präsidenten Slobodan Milosevic eine
»systematische Kampagne der Gewalt gegen kosovo-albanische Zivilisten
angeordnet« zu haben.

Der serbische Premier Zoran Zivkovic beklagte mit Verweis auf die
anhaltende Krise der prowestlichen Regierung in Serbien vor allem den
Zeitpunkt der Bekanntmachung der Anklagen gegen die Generäle Vladimir
Lazarevic, Nebojsa Pavkovic, Sreten Lukic und Vlastimir Djordjevic.

Pavkovic, während des Krieges zuständig für Südserbien und Kosovo,
wurde später zum Oberkommandierenden der jugoslawischen Armee
befördert. Im Oktober 2000 entzog er dem gegen Vojislav Kostunica
kandidierenden Milosevic die Unterstützung und behielt im Gegenzug
unter dem neuen Regime seinen Posten. Offenbar aus Furcht vor einer
Anklage stellte er sich dann hinter den mit mehr Macht ausgestatteten
Premier Zoran Djindjic, worauf Kostunica ihn in den Ruhestand schickte.
In den ersten gescheiterten serbischen Präsidentschaftswahlen Ende 2002
kandidierte Pavkovic auf Drängen Djindjics, der hoffte, damit die
Stimmen für den von Milosevic unterstützen Kandidaten Vojislav Seselj
zu reduzieren. Pavkovic scheiterte kläglich und sah sich gezwungen,
sich den Fragen der Haager Ankläger zu stellen. Offenbar weil er nicht
die gewünschte Aussage machte, wurde er während des Ausnahmezustandes
im Frühjahr inhaftiert.

Schon im April hatten Regierungsvertreter ihre Schwierigkeiten bei der
befohlenen Kooperation mit dem Tribunal beklagt. Mit Blick auf Lukic,
der 1999 die Polizeieinheiten im Kosovo kommandierte, hatten sie den
Schutz der Schlüsselfiguren bei der Durchführung des nach Ermordung
Djindjics verhängten Ausnahmezustandes gesucht. Die Anklage des nach
dem Sturz Milosevics 2000 zum zweiten Mann hinter dem Innenminister
beförderten Polizeichefs sorgt daher für heftigen Protest.

Die Anklagen stehen offensichtlich im Zusammenhang mit dem Prozeß gegen
Milosevic. Der Anklage bleiben nur noch etwa 30 Tage, um Beweise
vorzubringen. Im Zuge seiner Selbstverteidigung konnte der Expräsident
die gegen ihn erhobenen Vorwürfe entkräften. Nachdem del Ponte kürzlich
ankündigte, am Ende der Anklagehalbzeit hochkarätige Offizielle der
Milosevic-Regierung zu laden, scheint auch im Falle der Generäle ein
Handel »Belastungsaussage gegen Milosevic für eigene Strafmilderung«
vorgesehen.

Sollte sich Belgrad auf einen von den USA angebotenen Deal einlassen
und statt der Generäle den bosnischen Serbenführer Ratko Mladic an das
Tribunal ausliefern, wird es in der Bevölkerung zu starkem Widerstand
kommen. Für Haag ist es einerlei, ob die serbischen Generäle oder
Mladic zur Konstruktion eines »Beweises« gegen Milosevic herhalten –
nur Eile ist geboten.

Cathrin Schütz


=== 6 ===


Owen: Milosevic wollte bereits 1993 kein "Großserbien" mehr

Den Haag (AFP) - Der jugoslawische Ex-Präsident Slobodan Milosevic hat
die Idee eines "Großserbien" nach Ansicht des damaligen
EU-Sondergesandten David Owen bereits zwei Jahre vor Ende des
Bosnienkriegs aufgegeben. Aus pragmatischen Erwägungen habe Milosevic
ab April 1993 nicht mehr darauf hingearbeitet, den serbischen Teil
Bosnien-Herzegowinas an Serbien und Montenegro angliedern wollen, sagte
Owen am Dienstag bei seiner Befragung durch den Angeklagten vor dem
UN-Kriegsverbrechertribunal für Ex-Jugoslawien in Den Haag. Allerdings
habe der ehemalige jugoslawische Staatschef es versäumt, militärischen
und wirtschaftlichen Druck auf die bosnischen Serben auszuüben, um den
Frieden herbeizuführen, den er schon ab Frühjahr 1993 gewollt habe.

Quelle:
http://www.echo-online.de/users/afp/ticker/031104131805.hmg4owla.html

Protests and political crisis in Serbia

(italiano / english / french / deutsch )


1. L'unica cosa disponibile in lingua italiana... Perche' della Serbia
oggi si vergognano (giustamente) di scrivere

2. Les métallos serbes en grève contre US Steel
(Le Marxiste-Léniniste Quotidien)

3. 100 mal betrogen
Straßenkampf in Belgrad. Die serbische Arbeiterbewegung fordert den
Rücktritt der Regierung (von J. Elsaesser)

4. Belgrade: Serbian workers clash with police

5. More agencies:
SPS: Law on discontinuation of cooperation with Hague should be passed
/ Government crisis reaches climax / British firm buys into fourth
Serbian dairy / Elections to be called when premier returns from China


-> Vedi anche / See also:

Interview with Branko V., a Union Activist (by Jared Israel)
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/workers.htm

I lavoratori in piazza a Smederevo e Belgrado (30/10/2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2907

Strike At (Now) US-Owned Serbian Steel Plants (16/10/2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2869

US Steel to buy Serbia's Sartid steel plant (31/7/2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2680


*** LE DONAZIONI PER GLI OPERAI DELLE ACCIAIERIE DI SMEDEREVO IN
SCIOPERO VANNO VERSATE SUL CONTO DEI SINDACATI DI AMBURGO:
Kragujevac/J. Bergmann,
Hamburger Sparkasse (BLZ 200 505 50)
Konto-Nummer 1230 499 335
CAUSALE: Smederevo ***


=== 1 ===


http://www.ansa.it/balcani/serbiamontenegro/serbiamontenegro.shtml

SERBIA: MANIFESTAZIONE SINDACATI, SCONTRI CON POLIZIA

(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 30 OTT - Un migliaio di manifestanti dell'Alleanza
dei sindacati serbi ha tentato stamane, durante un corteo, di entrare
nel palazzo del parlamento repubblicano, provocando l'intervento della
polizia. Gli agenti hanno usato scudi e manganelli, con un bilancio
di alcuni contusi medicati in un vicino ospedale. I deputati -
riuniti in sessione per un dibattito sulla fiducia al governo - hanno
promesso di incontrare i dimostranti al termine dei lavori della
mattinata. L'Alleanza dei sindacati - un tempo vicina al regime di
Slobodan Milosevic, e oggi su posizioni nostalgiche - manifesta da
ieri per elezioni politiche anticipate e il congelamento delle
privatizzazioni. In parlamento, e' in discussione per la seconda
settimana consecutiva una mozione di sfiducia nei confronti del
governo presentatata dalle opposizioni democratiche con il sostegno
dei partiti nostalgici. Gli osservatori serbi non si attendono
comunque un voto sulla fiducia al governo prima delle elezioni
presidenziali del 16 novembre: fra le richieste della mozione c'e'
anche il siluramento della presidente del parlamento e presidente ad
interim del paese Natasa Micic, che se approvato potrebbe lasciare la
presidenza ad interim della Serbia a un socialista del partito di
Milosevic, Ljubisa Maravic, in quanto deputato piu' anziano.
(ANSA). OT
30/10/2003 14:31


=== 2 ===


Les métallos serbes en grève contre US Steel


Neuf mille métallos d'un énorme complexe sidérurgique de Smederevo, en
Serbie, près de Belgrade, sont en grève contre les nouveaux
propriétaires américains. US Steel de Pittsburg, en Pennsylvanie, a
acquis les ateliers de sidérurgie yougoslaves en faillite le 12
septembre. La saisie de l'aciérie par le monopole américain fait partie
du partage du butin de la guerre, les impérialistes américains ayant
réussi, à la tête des troupes  de l'OTAN, à démembrer l'ex-Yougoslavie

Les métallos serbes veulent être payés 55 dinars l'heure (moins que
1$US), la réintégration de 450 camarades et le renvoi du directeur
américain Thomas Kelly, qu'ils accusent d'arrogance et d'inflexibilité.
Kelly s'est contenté de dire que la grève est "illégale" et a demandé
au ministère du Travail de Serbie d'imposer un retour au travail et de
lui permettre de congédier les 450 travailleurs et de maintenir les
salaires.

La saisie des ateliers de sidérurgie serbes est le deuxième coup de US
Steel dans l'ex-Yougoslavie. Il y a trois ans, après que les forces de
l'OTAN, incluant des soldats canadiens, aient capturé l'ex-république
yougoslave de Slovénie pour le compte des capitalistes monopolistes, US
Steel s'est vu remettre les aciéries nationales de la Slovénie et en a
depuis tiré des profits faramineux. Le vol d'avoirs nationaux comme les
aciéries et les gisements pétrolifères au terme d'une conquête
militaire outre-mer est la méthode préférée des monopoles américains,
européens et japonais pour maintenir leurs profits élevés et se faire
concurrence l'un l'autre sur le marché mondial.

US Steel espère répéter le même scénario en s'emparant de l'énorme
complexe sidérurgique de la Serbie. Il aurait obtenu le produit social
fixe des aciéries serbes et le droit d'exploiter les 9 000 métallos
pour la somme risible de 23 millions $. L'étroite collaboration entre
l'armée américaine et US Steel outre-mer est évidente dans la grande
considération accordée aux dirigeants de US Steel par l'ex-commandant
militaire et maintenant secrétaire d'État Colin Powell. Ce dernier a
récemment remis au président de US Steel, Thomas J. Usher, le Prix de
l'excellence en affaires du département d'État américain, citant "ses
pratiques exemplaires d'entreprise citoyenne" en épublique de Slovénie.
La saisie de propriété outre-mer

Les monopoles américains et canadiens de l'acier se plaignent des bas
prix de l'acier étranger et pourtant un des plus grands monopoles
américains est fortement impliqué dans l'exploitation et la production
d'acier à bon marché en Europe. L'acier bon marché produite en Slovénie
sous contrôle américain se retrouve- t-il sur les marchés canadiens et
américains? Cette campagne pour des tarifs sur l'acier que mènent les
monopoles américains est- elle une manoeuvre pour détourner les
métallos de la riposte à la défense de leurs intérêts vitaux face à la
restructuration et au chantage à propos de la faillite?

Les métallos américains et canadiens doivent bien réfléchir à la
signification de la saisie d'aciéries outre-mer par des monopoles
américains au terme de la conquête militaire. L'armée canadienne est
très impliquée dans des aventures outre-mer. Elle joue un rôle
significatif au sein de l'OTAN, elle a joué un rôle dans le
démembrement de la Yougoslavie et elle est maintenant participante à la
guerre internationale sans limite des États- Unis pour s'emparer de
territoires.

Les mêmes vautours capitalistes détruisent la production de l'acier au
Canada et aux États-Unis et restructurent tout en s'emparant de la
production de l'acier et en exploitant les travailleurs étrangers. Un
changement de direction et de pensée s'impose pour les travailleurs et
leurs syndicats. Les propriétaires du capital n'ont qu'un intérêt
étroit dans leurs propres monopoles et il tient uniquement au taux de
profit. Ils s'intéressent à l'existence d'une industrie nationale de
l'acier uniquement dans la mesure où cela sert leur monopole
particulier. Ils déménagent allègrement leurs capitaux ailleurs si le
taux de profit est plus élevé. Les métallos doivent saisir ce fait de
la vie économique: les détenteurs du capital n'ont qu'un intérêt
étroit, momentané, dans la propriété industrielle et encore plus étroit
et momentané dans l'existence d'une industrie nationale.

(....)  US Steel a été impitoyable envers ses travailleurs américains
dans sa campagne de restructuration antiouvrière. Une enquête devrait
être établie pour déterminer si l'acier bon marché provenant des
aciéries contrôlées par US Steel en Slovénie est en partie responsable
de l'effondrement des prix de l'acier au Canada et aux États-Unis. Les
monopoles américains ont réussi à saper la riposte des métallos à la
restructuration en utilisant une partie considérable des ressources et
des énergies des syndicats pour une campagne en faveur de tarifs pour
contrer l'importation de l'acier bon marché. Bon nombre d'observateurs
prétendent que la campagne pour les tarifs est une manoeuvre pour saper
la riposte des métallos à la défense de leurs intérêts vitaux et d'une
véritable industrie nationale de l'acier au service de l'économie
nationale.

Source : Le Marxiste-Léniniste Quotidien
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/
article_lai.phtml?section=A1ABBBACBA&object_id=21653
or
http://www.cpcml.ca/francais/lmlq/Q33119.htm#4


=== 3 ===


http://www.artel.co.yu/de/izbor/jugoslavija/2003-11-04_1.html

Junge Welt - BU: 30. Oktober: Gewerkschafter durchbrechen den
Polizeikordon vor dem Parlamentsgebäude in Belgrad.

Jürgen Elsässer

100 mal betrogen

"Wir haben hundert mal mit der Regierung zu verhandeln versucht, und
wir wurden hundert mal betrogen. Deswegen sind die Arbeiter auf der
Straße." Mit diesen Worten begründete Milenko Smiljanic, Führer der
Unabhängigen Serbischen Gewerkschaften, warum es letzte Woche zu den
größten Protesten seit dem Sturz von Slobodan Milosevic im Herbst 2000
gekommen ist. Das Besondere an den Demonstrationen war der
Schulterschluß zwischen Smiljanics Syndikat, das ursprünglich dem heute
in Serbien regierenden DOS-Parteienbündnis nahestand, mit den alten
Links-Gewerkschaften. "Als wir die Herren an der Macht damals gewählt
und unterstützt haben, haben wir nicht geglaubt, daß die ihre
Gerechtigkeit und ihre Demokratie auf dem Rücken der Arbeiter errichten
würden", entrüsteten sich die Kohle-Kumpel der Kolubara-Mine in einer
Presseerklärung. Spätestens bei diesem Statement muß im Büro von
Premier Zoran Zivkovic die Alarmstufe rot ausgerufen worden sein: Der
Streik in Kolubara Ende September 2000 war das unmittelbare Vorspiel
zum Marsch auf Belgrad gewesen, der dem am 5. Oktober die
sozialistische Regierung hinweggefegt hatte.

Damit der DOS-Herrschaft nicht ähnliches widerfuhr, versetzte
Polizeiminister Dusan Mihajlovic seine Truppen in Alarmbereitschaft.
Als am vergangenen Mittwoch Gewerkschafter aus dem ganzen Land nach
Belgrad aufbrachen, war die Hauptstadt bereits weiträumig abgesperrt.
Viele wurden an den Checkpoints gestoppt und mußten umkehren. Trotzdem
versammelten sich schließlich 10 - 12.000 Kolleginnen und Kollegen vor
der Skupstina, dem serbischen Parlament. Die Fraktionen der
Sozialistischen und der Radikalen Partei sowie Abgeordnete der
Demokratischen Partei Serbiens (DSS) des letzten jugoslawischen
Präsidenten Vojislav Kostunica verließen den Plenarsaal und schlossen
sich den Arbeitern an.

Bei der Fortsetzung der Proteste am nächsten Tag forderten 3 - 5000
Menschen Zugang zum Parlament. Dabei kam es zum bisher schwersten
Polizeieinsatz seit der sogenannten Oktoberrevolution 2000. In
Tränengasausrüstung, mit Schilden und Knüppeln trieben die
Ordnungshüter die Menge auseinander. Mindestens sieben Gewerkschafter,
darunter drei Frauen, wurden verletzt. "Es gab keinen exzessiven
Einsatz von Gewalt, und es wird auch keinen geben, solange diese
Regierung im Amt ist, und das heißt für die nächsten Jahrzehnte",
rechtfertigte sich Zivkovic später. Die Kohlekumpel in Kolubara sahen
das ganz anders und verlangten eine persönliche Entschuldigung des
Regierungschefs. "Wir dachten, daß der Polizeiknüppel ein Instrument
der Vergangenheit sei", heißt es in ihrer Presseklärung.

Am Freitag gingen die Demonstrationen am dritten Tag in Folge weiter.
Zwar waren in Belgrad nur noch einige hundert auf der Straße, dafür
aber in Krusevac über 3000. Drei der am Vortag Verletzten waren aus
dieser mittelserbischen Stadt gekommen. Parallel wurde der Streik im
größten serbischen Stahlwerk in Smederevo fortgesetzt, wo die 10.000
Beschäftigten seit über zwei Wochen eine Lohnerhöhung von 33 auf 55
Dinar (knapp ein Euro) fordern (vgl. jW, 28. Oktober). Von der passiven
Arbeitsniederlegung gingen die Kollegen zu aktiven Kampfmaßnahmen über
und blockierten den Abtransport von Halbfertigprodukten.

Ziel der landesweiten Proteste ist nicht nur der Rücktritt der
Regierung, sondern auch der Stopp der Privatisierung. Der Hintergrund
der zweiten Forderung ist die Verschleuderung des Staats- und
Gesellschaftseigentums, was sich am Beispiel von Smederevo gut
illustrieren läßt: In den Aufbau und die Modernisierung des Stahlwerkes
hat Jugoslawien in den letzten Jahrzehnten umgerechnet über 20
Milliarden US-Dollar investiert. Die gesamte Anlage inclusive
Zweigwerken und einem angeschlossenen Donauhafen ging im Sommer für
ungefähr ein Prozent dieses Wertes, nämlich für 23 Millionen US-Dollar,
in den Besitz von U.S. Steel über.

Die Gewerkschaften haben für diese Woche eine Fortsetzung der
Kampfmaßnahmen angekündigt. Parallel sieht sich die Regierung mit einer
Vertrauensabstimmung im Parlament konfrontiert. Nach dem die
DOS-Koalition schon den Abfall der Kostunica-Partei DSS und der
neoliberalen, aber mafiakritischen G-17 verkraften mußte, besitzt sie
nur noch eine hauchdünne Mehrheit. Zum Zünglein an der Waage könnten
die Stimmen der bisher DOS-loyalen Sozialdemokraten werden, die eine
Unterstützung des Mißtrauensvotums angekündigt haben. Es wird wieder
spannend in Serbien.

* Spenden für die streikenden Stahlarbeiter in Serbien sind auf
folgendes Konto Hamburger Gewerkschafter zu überweisen:
Zahlungsempfänger: Kragujevac/J. Bergmann, Hamburger Sparkasse (BLZ 200
505 50), Konto-Nummer 1230 499 335, Kennwort Smederevo.


=== 4 ===


http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=25277&style=headlines
Beta, October 29, 2003

Union protests to resume tomorrow

BELGRADE -- Wednesday – The Alliance of Independent
Serbian Unions will resume its street protests in
Belgrade tomorrow.
The Alliance is calling for early parliamentary
elections and a moratorium on the privatisation of
state companies.
Union representatives told media this evening that
they will assemble in central Belgrade tomorrow at
noon.
Union leader Milenko Smiljanic said that the
government’s deadline to meet union demands had passed
and that if no results were achieved from protests in
Belgrade, the unions will take more radical measures.


http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=25286&order=priority&style=headlines
Beta, October 30, 2003

Workers breach police cordon around parliament

BELGRADE -- Thursday – Thousands of angry workers have
broken through a heavily armed police cordon
surrounding the Serbian parliament building in
Belgrade.
The cordon had been holding the crowds back some 50
metres from the building, where a no confidence debate
in the government is currently underway.
Studio B reports that the situation is calm, and that
the police have managed to clear the workers from in
front of the building.
The workers are members of the Alliance of Independent
Serbian Unions. 10,000 attended a rally yesterday in
downtown Belgrade, calling for the dismissal of the
government and a moratorium on the process of
privatisation.


http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug, October 30, 2003

Union protest participants clashed with police

15:07 BELGRADE , Oct 30 (Tanjug) - Several hundred
members of the Alliance of Independent Trade Unions of
Serbia (SSSS) and the police guarding the Serbian
Assembly clashed on Thursday when union members tried
to come closer to the Assembly building, where debates
about confidence to the Government are underway.
Several protest participants were injured, according
to the first, unconfirmed information, but the
severity of their injuries is not yet known.


http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/bx/Qserbia-politics-demo.RtGb_DOU.html
Agence France-Presse, October 30, 2003

Protesters, police clash as Serbian government battles
in parliament - Katarina Subasic

BELGRADE, Oct 30 (AFP) - Three protesters were injured
Thursday in clashes with Serbian police on the second
day of demonstrations against the government, which is
battling to survive a no-confidence debate in
parliament.
Scuffles broke out as scores of armed riot police
marched on trade unionists who were threatening to
break into the parliament and interrupt the debate, an
AFP reporter at the scene said.
The incident was immediately seized upon by opposition
politicians inside the assembly, where the government
is struggling to avoid early elections amid confusion
about whether it has a majority or not.
Bojan Pajtic, a member of the ruling coalition,
confirmed that three protesters had been hospitalised
in a "minor" scuffle with police.
The workers are demanding early elections and the
resignation of the government in response to sweeping
economic reforms [sic] introduced after the ouster of
former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic three years
ago.
"Our request is for early elections and the fall of
the government. A government which is not creating an
environment in which you can work and live normally is
no good," union leader Milenko Smiljanic told AFP.
"That's why the workers are on the streets. We've
tried to negotiate with the government 100 times and
we've been tricked 100 times."
Several thousand workers earlier marched to the
parliament in downtown Belgrade to the strains of a
dulcet satirical song condemning the government's
failures.
By late afternoon their numbers had dwindled but their
threats to invade the building apparently prompted the
police action.
Inside the building MPs were debating a no-confidence
motion which could precipitate early elections in what
is seen as the worst political crisis in Serbia since
Milosevic's ouster.
Prime Minister Zoran Zivkovic said economic hardship
was "normal" in a country making the transition from
communism and autocracy, and accused his opponents of
creating the mess in the first place.
"If you thought that we were going to defend ourselves
today and in the days ahead then you were wrong,
because we are honoured to have been part of the
project called the normalisation of the Serbian
state," Zivkovic said.
"If we do not have majority in the parliament, we will
call for elections."
Disunity is rife within the group of 17 parties which
form the ruling DOS coalition and the popular
enthusiasm for change which swept the country as
Milosevic was toppled in October 2000 has all but
evaporated.
The government suffered a heavy blow in March this
year when former prime minister Zoran Djindjic, an
unpopular but highly motivated leader, was
assassinated by a mafia sniper.
It has been beset by corruption scandals as well as
increasingly effective attacks from opposition groups
ranging from radical nationalists to liberal
reformers.
Unemployment stands at around 30 percent and many
workers are concerned that they will lose their jobs
as the government sells off thousands of communist-era
businesses to private investors.


http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=25292&order=priority&style=headlines
Beta, October 30, 2003

Police sweep demonstrators from Parliament forecourt

BELGRADE -- Thursday – Three demonstrators were taken
to hospital this afternoon after armed police troops
today drove back protesting workers from the front of
the Serbian Parliament building.
The protesters were injured as they were forced a
hundred metres away the building, where they were held
in place by a cordon of police in full riot gear.
Today’s protest began in nearby Nikola Pasic Square
where about two thousand members of the Alliance of
Independent Serbian Unions began a march on the
parliament.
In a scene reminiscent of protests against the
Milosevic regime, riot police used their shields to
force the marchers off their course.
The Otpor people’s movement told media after today’s
clash that their members had seen a protester being
beaten with a wooden baton by plainclothes police.
Union leader Vlada Andric said this afternoon that the
demonstrators, who had earlier broken through a police
cordon, only wanted to meet political leaders and were
not insisting on entering the parliament.
He added that the breach of the cordon had happened
spontaneously.
Alliance president Milenko Smiljanic told media that
he had asked the parliament to take a short recess in
order to allow marchers to pass the building without
violating a law which bans protests outside the
parliament when it is in session.


http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=25299&style=headlines
Beta, October 31, 2003

Seven injured in protests

BELGRADE -- Thursday – Seven protesters were admitted
to the Belgrade Emergency Centre with injuries
suffered in today’s clash between union demonstrators
and special police squads.
One woman has been kept in hospital under observation
because of possible complications arriving from her
injuries.
Riot police intervened twice during today’s
demonstrations: first pushing workers back from the
parliament building at about 1.00 p.m. then three
hours later when protesters attempted to break through
a cordon in Kralj Milan Street.


http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - October 30, 2003

Another five injured protesters examined at Emergency Clinic

19:02 BELGRADE - Five people, who were injured in clashes with police
outside the Serbian parliament on Thursday afternoon, were examined at
the Emergency Clinic, head of the Emergency Clinic team on duty Dr
Djordje Bajec told Tanjug.
He said that seven citizens who had taken part in the Independent Trade
Union strike had been admitted in this institution - two of them were
admitted by 4 p.m. (1500 GMT) and the other five later.


http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=25298&order=priority&style=headlines
Beta, October 30, 2003

Union lashes out at “undemocratic behaviour”

BELGRADE -- Thursday – The Alliance of Independent
Serbian Unions has accused the Serbian authorities of
displaying a lack of democracy in today’s violent
clash between union members and police in front of the
Serbian Parliament building.
Union leader Milenko Smiljanic told journalists that
all parliamentary caucuses had condemned the police
reaction and protested against the brutal break-up of
a peaceful demonstration.
He said that the protest would resume tomorrow, but
would not give details except to say that it would
“extended to the whole of Serbia”.
Smiljanic accused the head of the parliament’s
Security Committee, Dragan Sutanovac, of misleading
MPs about the number of injured protesters and denied
his claim that the workers were drunk and drugged.


http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EEconomy.htm#Trade%20union%20protests%20would%20stop%20only%20if%20early
%20parliamentary%20elections%20were%20called
Tanjug, November 5, 2003

Trade union protests would stop only if early
parliamentary elections were called

20:12 BELGRADE , Nov 4 (Tanjug) - President of the
Association of Independent Trade Unions of Serbia
Milenko Smiljanic said on Tuesday that this trade
union would stop protesting if early parliamentary
elections were called.
This would fulfil the demands of the Association,
Smiljanic said and added that if the Serbian
parliament decided that the Serbian government remain
in office, the Association would continue protests
throughout Serbia, with the final rally in Belgrade,
probably with the participation of the trade union
members of the Kolubara coal mine and Electric Power
Industry of Serbia.


=== 5 ===


LAW ON DISCONTINUATION OF COOPERATION
WITH HAGUE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE PASSED – BAJATOVIC

Tanjug - October 29, 2003 - NOVI SAD, Oct 29 (Tanjug) - Socialist Party
of Serbia (SPS) Main Board Vice-President Dusan Bajatovic on Wednesday
called on the authorities in Serbia to pass a law on a discontinuation
of cooperation with the Hague Tribunal.
After the statements made by top state officials on the latest
indictments issued by the Hague Tribunal, the authorities in Serbia
should, if they are really concerned with the country's dignity, draft
a law on a discontinuation of cooperation with the Tribunal, Bajatovic
told a news conference. "This is something we would all understand," he
said.
 

GOVERNMENT CRISIS REACHES CLIMAX

Beta - October 30, 2003 - BELGRADE - Thursday - Parliament begins
discussing an opposition motion of no confidence in the Serbian
government today.
The debate was scheduled to begin this morning, and could last several
days.
MPs yesterday completed a no confidence debate in Parliament Speaker
Natasa Micic. A vote on whether to dismiss Micic will be held after the
debate on the government.
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Zivkovic is expected to attend today's
sitting, where he will submit a report the first 1,000 days of the
government.

 
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=25285&order=priority&style=headlines
B92, October 30, 2003

British firm buys into fourth Serbian dairy

NOVI SAD -- Thursday – British firm Salford is to buy
a controlling stake in Serbian dairy Novosadska
Mlekara for nine million euros, Novi Sad daily Dnevnik
reports.
The dairy’s financial manager, Vladimir Hromis, said
the purchase of a 50.5 per cent share in the company
would have to be approved by the Serbian Securities
Commission. Salford has already bought three larger
dairies in Serbia and has shown interest in Suboticka
Mlekara.
Dnevnik reports that the money from the sale will be
spent on new equipment and on boosting production.
Hromis said the move would help create a system of
local dairies in preparation for increased competition
when Serbia finally joins the European Union.
Salford has its headquarters in the Virgin Islands,
and offices in London, Moscow, Amsterdam and Belgrade.


Elections to be called when premier returns from China - Serbian deputy
premier

Tanjug - November 5, 2003 - 17:51 BELGRADE - The date for calling early
parliamentary elections has not been set yet, but they will certainly
be held, Serbian Deputy Premier Zarko Korac said Wednesday.
The elections will be called when Premier Zoran Zivkovic returns from
his visit to China, Korac said, adding that he cannot say whether they
will be scheduled by the end of this year or later.

Kosovo, with compliments

1. Kosovo: Training Ground For New 'CIA Hi-Tech Hitmen' Operation

2. Gay kosovars flirt with danger


=== 1 ===


http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/4003.html
The Herald (Scotland) - November 6, 2003

Spotlight on war in the shadows

IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent

News of the death of a corporal from the UK's Special
Boat Service north of Mosul was a rare snapshot of the
savage shadow war which has been raging unabated and
unreported inside Iraq for the past seven months.
The Ministry of Defence announcement on Tuesday brings
the British death toll since the war started to 52.
Hundreds of British, US, and Australian special
forces, plus the CIA's "special affairs division" of
hi-tech hitmen have been operating in small teams
throughout the country, hunting the last fugitives
from the ousted regime and the new leaders of the
growing insurrection.
The biggest prize of all, Saddam Hussein, is the
intended prey of Task Force 20, a composite group
composed of US Delta troopers, members of Devgru – the
unit formerly known as US Navy Seals – and picked
squads from Britain's SAS and SBS.
The force operates in small surveillance teams trained
to lie up for days at a time in "hides" near suspected
enemy sanctuaries, watching for the movement of "known
players" and logging those who come and go in the
villages dotted throughout the Sunni Triangle area
north and west of Baghdad.
It is lonely, dangerous work. Despite their
state-of-the-art communications equipment, the
watchers know they would be overrun and wiped out long
before help could arrive if their presence was
detected.
Corporal Ian Plank, the British soldier killed in a
firefight last Friday, belonged to the SBS, the Royal
Marines' equivalent of the Army's SAS. It is an
organisation which lives up to its motto – "Not by
strength, but by guile" – and shuns publicity to
preserve security.
Candidates wishing to serve in its ranks must have
been members of one of the three regular Royal Marine
commando battalion groups for a minimum of two years.
They must also pass a selection course veterans claim
is tougher than that for the better-known SAS.
In the opening days of the invasion of Iraq this year,
a 10-man SBS patrol was ambushed by Iraqi troops near
Mosul.
Forced to abandon its specially adapted Land Rovers in
the face of vastly superior numbers and enemy tanks,
the patrol fought its way clear and evaded pursuit
until its men could be extracted by helicopter.
Britain's special forces exert an influence far out of
proportion to their manpower. There are four, 72-man
sabre squadrons in the SAS – fewer than 300 fighting
troopers – based at Hereford. The SBS has only 232
officers and men in its headquarters at Poole in
Dorset.
Both groups, commanded by an officer known as
"director, special forces" who answers directly to the
government's Cobra emergency cabinet committee, have
been heavily involved in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone,
the Balkans and Iraq.
Perhaps the ultimate secret of the undercover war in
Iraq is an organisation known to insiders as "The
Activity" and to others by the codename "Grey Fox".
A US military intelligence group established during
the 1999 Kosovo campaign because the Pentagon felt it
was not being supplied with immediate tactical
information by either the CIA or the National Security
Agency, its operations were originally hidden from
even the scrutiny of the US Congress.
It has since evolved into the nerve-centre for covert
US action abroad, running its own human agents where
even the CIA hesitates to venture. Drawing on the
resources of the US special forces' community, it now
has its own "shooters" to act promptly on real-time
intelligence.


=== 2 ===


IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 433, May 30, 2003

GAY KOSOVARS FLIRT WITH DANGER

Fierce homophobia forces members of Kosovo's gay community to lead
double lives.

By Tanja Matic in Pristina

Veton is at ease amongst the well-groomed, watchful young men who
frequent the more flamboyant bars of London's Soho district.
The 27-year-old left Kosovo ten years ago. Sitting in a Soho bar on a
Sunday afternoon, he says he has no intention of going back to a
violent, prejudiced society where he would be regarded as a criminal.
However, unlike most Albanians living in London, Veton is not a victim
of ethnic conflict.
Nor is he part of the minority involved in the vice trade - the
Albanian gangs which, London police say, now dominate the capital's
underworld.
The reason Veton prefers Soho to Kosovo is his sexuality - he is openly
gay.
"I cannot live there because my lifestyle with my partner would be seen
as shocking and abhorrent. No one's harassing us here," said Veton,
whose name has been changed at his request.
Homosexual relationships, though technically not illegal, have always
been a matter of shame and taboo in Kosovo. Gay men who do not want to
become the pariahs of this fiercely patriarchial society make sure they
keep their relationships secret.
Gay rights activists say the situation has not improved, despite the
post-war influx of western money and values. They receive regular
reports of men being beaten up or intimidated on suspicion of being
gay, while homophobic views are routinely published in Kosovo's
newspapers.
But they say the problem has failed to attract the attention of human
rights groups in the area because fear of being "outed" stops most gays
from reporting hate crime to the authorities.
Kosovo ombudsman, Marek Nowitzki, told IWPR he had not been informed of
any such attacks during the past two years, but added "there are cases
which are not usually reported to the police".
"We are dealing with a very traditional society here... there is no
tolerance for homosexuals at all," said Nowitzki.
Kosovo's gays are at a critical point in their struggle for acceptance
- encouraged, on the one hand, to be bolder by their exposure to
western media and values, while on the other hand, still bound by the
expectations of a fiercely conservative society.
Experts have tried to explain Kosovo's antipathy towards gays by
looking to the Code of Leka Dukagjini, the law that has guided Albanian
clans since the 15th century. Although the code makes no direct mention
of homosexuals, it heavily emphasises masculine honour. To this day,
men who deviate from their customary role as husbands and fathers are
accused of bringing shame and stigma upon the entire family, if not the
clan.
"Men are expected to act as real men - strong and macho," said Martin
Berisha, president of Kosovo's first gay and lesbian association,
Elysium and Sappho. "That is why the Kosovo Albanian community will not
accept someone who does not behave as a man in the way the patriarchial
society thinks he should," said Berisha.
While Kosovo's gays try to keep a low profile, their enemies have
become increasingly brazen.
The daily newspaper Zeri recently produced an article backed by
comments from various academics and religious leaders, putting forward
the view that homosexuality was unnatural.
Kosovo's top imam, Sabri Bajgora, caused particular offence in gay
circles by warning that Islamic law regarded homosexuality "as a
disease which needed to be healed and prevented".
The article also claimed that the leading human rights group in Kosovo,
the Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms, had no clear
stance on the matter. A spokesman for the council, Ibrahim Makolli,
confirmed to IWPR that they did not "have any defined attitude" towards
the subject.
Martin Berisha said the council's neglect was disappointing, adding,
"If they, as human rights activists, don't have a clear stance on this
issue, then what can we expect from religious extremists or even the
common folk?"
Observers say attitudes towards homosexuals within Kosovar society may
also have hardened because of the recent conflict with Serbia, during
which machismo was held up as a patriotic virtue.
Worryingly, some Albanian conservatives believe this virtue is once
again facing an external threat - not from the Serbs, but from the
westerners who now live and work in Kosovo.
In an article published last September, the daily newspaper Epoka E
Re spoke of the "dangerous ways and behaviour brought by the
foreigners", before naming a restaurant near the university in Pristina
as a popular meeting place for homosexuals.
According to the OSCE's media advisor in Kosovo, Willem Houwen, three
members of Kosovo's gay and lesbian association were beaten up
immediately after the article was published.
Houwen, who helped the association to become registered in Kosovo, told
IWPR that when one victim reported the assault to local police, he was
mocked and verbally abused. No action was taken against the
perpetrators.
As Kosovo has no hate crimes law that distinguishes between an attack
on a homosexual and an ordinary assault, gays are loathe to report
homophobic attacks to the police. But whether such legislation were
introduced or not, society would immediately seize upon any such
complaint as an admission of homosexuality - a disaster for the many
gays who lead dangerous double-lives as devoted husbands, fathers and
sons.
At a private party in Pristina, such men are happy to discuss and
discard their disguises.
A 25-year-old man from northern Kosovo speaks of how he lies to his
parents every time they ask him why he hasn't found himself a girl to
marry. His boyfriend, an American, adds that his partner is deeply
paranoid of being discovered.
A 40-year-old from Presevo in southern Serbia spends every weekend with
his lover in Pristina after telling his family he has left town on
business.
Another young man kisses his lover and says, "Doing this in our office
or anywhere outside would be suicide."

Tanja Matic is an IWPR associate in Pristina.

www.iwpr.net

ISSN: 1477-7932 Copyright (c) 2003 The Institute for War & Peace
Reporting

BALKAN CRISIS REPORT No. 433

Goran Cvetic:
KOSOVO I METOHIJA: SLOM RAVNOPRAVNOSTI I LJUDSKIH PRAVA

http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-07-16_1.html

BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
konferencija za stampu na temu "Kosovo i Metohija: Opasnosti i moguci
izlazi"
U Beogradu, 11.7.2003. godine
Medija centar - Beograd
Izlaganje Gorana Cvetica


Brojke su zastrašujuce i neumoljive: od dolaska UNMIKA-a i KFOR-a na
Kosovo pre cetiri godine 250.000 ljudi, Srba i drugog nealbanskog
stanovništva je proterano, etnicki ocišceno, 1.300 lica je nestalo,
30.000 srpskih kuca spaljeno, a 75.000 ustanova i kuca uzurpirano; 112
srpskih manastira - svetinja - uništeno, a sa njima i 4.000 ikona,
preko 200 srpskih grobalja je sravnjeno, tako da ni živica nije ostala,
a sa njima 5.000 nadgrobnih spomenika. Deca u škole, a srpski poslanici
u kosovsku Skupštinu idu u pranji blindiranih vozila. Takva kršenja
ljudskih prava, slobodno se može reci, teško da postoje bilo gde u
svetu u ovom trenutku. Hrišcanstvo u jednom kutku Evrope kao da se gasi
i to pred ocima celog civilizovanog sveta koje ljudskim pravima pridaje
veoma veliki znacaj. Uprkos tome, nedavna svirepa likvidacija porodice
Stolic u Obilicu je teška povreda svega što se naziva civilizovanim.

Ono što se ne sme ispustiti iz vida je da 62% teritorije Kosova i
Metohije, po katastru, pripada Srbima. Neki kažu da je taj procenat
sada nešto manji zbog prodaje imovine Albancima. Ali, neka je taj
procenat i 50% sada. Svaki pregovori o statusu Kosova tu cinjenicu
moraju imati na dnevnom redu. Situacija je slicna onoj koja je
postojala u Bosni i Hercegovini, pa je politicki svet celu BiH u jednom
trenutku "gurao" u ruke Izetbegovicu.

Nadam se da je ta lekcija sa naše strane dobro naucena i da stare
greške medjunarodna zajednica nece praviti. Pregovori, ali o cemu? O
Kosovu u okviru Srbije, pri cemu navedeni procenat u vlasništvu
nepokretnosti u tim pregovorima mora igrati važnu ulogu. Kosovo nije ni
bilo, niti je sada, kolonija, a iz ove cinjenice ce svako ko poznaje
medjunarodno pravo izvesti svoj zakljucak o buducem statusu.

Medjutim, ono što je utkano u tkivo Ujedinjenih nacija, što je utkano u
tkivo medjunarodnog prava jesu - ljudska prava. Analiza Evropske
konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda vrlo jasno
pokazuje totalan slom poštovanja tih prava na KiM. Ovom konvencijom
garantovano je pravo na život (cl.2), pravo na slobodu i sigurnost
(cl.5.), pravo na pošteno sudjenje (cl. 6.), pravo veroispovesti
(cl.9.), sloboda okupljanja i udruživanja (cl. 11.), odsustvo svake
diskriminacije (cl.14.), sloboda vlasništva (Protokol 1. cl. 1.),
sloboda kretanja (Protokol 4. cl. 2.), kao i zabrana proterivanja
vlastitih državljana (Protokol 4. cl. 3.).

Sva ova prava srpskog stanovništva na Kosovu su ugorožena, ako ne i
nepostojeca. Mihael Štajner, "dobro-otišavši" šef UNMIK-a, je nedavno
izjavio da je uglavnom zadovoljan svojim ucinkom. Ova izjava se u
svetlu iznetih cinjenica teško može komentarisati bez izvesne doze
cinizma, jer niti je Štajner obezbedio sprovodjenje Rezolucije SB UN
1244, niti je uspeo da nealbanskom stanovništvu obezbedi uživanje
minimuma ljudskih prava. Kršenja ljudskih prava na KiM su masovna, i
pravi izraz za to je na engleskom jeziku i glasi: gross and massive
violations of human rights.

Postavlja se pitanje: može li biti bilo kakvog dijaloga izmedju dve
strane pre nego što se obezbedi poštovanje ljudskih prava za sve na
Kosovu? Odgovor mora biti negativan. Ali ne u skladu sa nekakvom
srpskom nepopustljivošcu ili inatom, vec stoga što se trenutno stanje
ne može legalizovati. Pored toga, takav odgovor je u potpunosti u
skladu sa osnovnim medjunarodno-pravnim principima poštovanja ljudskih
prava.

Ipak, razgovore o povracaju u predašnje stanje i vladavini prava na
Kosovu i Metohiji ne treba odbacivati. Naprotiv!

Jugoslavija je bombardovana u intervenciji koja je nazvana
"humanitarnom", upravo sa pretekstom kršenja ljudskih prava Albanaca.
Da li je cilj te agresije bio stanje kakvo je ono danas na Kosovu? Ko
ce sada da bombarduje UNMIK i KFOR za najteža moguca kršenja ljudskih
prava nealbanskog življa na Kosovu?

Sve receno je bazirano na cinjenicama i bolnim faktima, na analizi
relevantnih clanova Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava.
Potrebno je otvoriti oci svetu. Jer, ako u našoj zemlji ima umornih,
onda u svetu ima onih koji to nisu ili koji su daleko manje umorni. Sve
organizacije za zaštitiu ljudski prava, kod nas, ali pre svega u svetu,
moraju dici svoj glas i zaštititi ljudska prava Srba i drugih na KiM.
Kažem, pre svega u svetu, jer je pasivnost naših organizacija koje bi
mogle štititi ljudska prava - notorna. Nedavno je organizacija Amnesty
International stidljivo digla svoj glas. Neka to bude samo pocetak.
Ljudska prava za sve, ali za Srbe na Kosovu pre svih u ovom trenutku.
Duplih standarda je bilo dosta. Ovaj narod nece doživeti katarzu
konstantnim samookrivljivanjem i stalnim osecanjem krivice. Srbi ce
doživeti procišcenje onda kada knedla nepravde ne bude više u njihovim
grudima. Zdrav samokriticki odnos - da, ali konstantno osecanje krivice
posle svega što se dogodilo i u svetlu onoga što se sada na Kosovu
dogadja, ne može doneti ništa dobro ovom narodu, ni na
kolektivno-psihološkom planu, ni na planu istine i pravde. Jer, Srbi
nisu teroristi, niti su organizovali teroristicke organizacije, niti su
ikada osvajali tudje. Tako je i sada.

Državna zajednica SCG je postala clanica Saveta Evrope i samim tim po
ratifikaciji potpisane Evropske konvencije za ljudska prava njeni
gradjani ce biti u mogucnosti da se obracaju Sudu za ljudska prava u
Strazburu. Jedno prakticno pitanje je kome ce to Srbi sa KiM moci da se
obracaju, odnosno koga ce moci da tuže za kršenje svojih ljudskih prava
na Kosovu? Da li da tuže Srbiju i Crnu Goru, koja se lako može
ekskulpirati pred tim Sudom navodeci da ona nema ingerencije na KiM? Da
li da tuže države koje imaju odredjene sektore na Kosovu, kao na primer
Britaniju, Nemacku ili Italiju? Odista, koga jedan Srbin sa Kosova da
tuži za, na primer, nemogucnost ostvarenja svoga prava na imovinu, tj.
spaljenu kucu, kada naš Zakon o parnicnom postupku u tim slucajevima
predvidja iskljucivu nadležnost suda na cijem podrucju se nepokretnost
nalazi? Da tuži na Kosovu on ne može. Ko ce pronaci krivca? Ocito -
niko. Zato je naš praktican savet onima koji žele da idu po pravdu u
Strazbur da tuže i SCG i zemlju koja ima odredjeni zaštini sektor na
KiM: na primer, da tuže i SCG i Britaniju i u tom slucaju eskulpacije
ne može biti. Pozdravljamo predlog poslanika Evropskog Parlamenta sa
Kipra da se pri Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava ustanovi tužilac koji
bi imao ulogu zaštitnika ljudskih prava upravo na kriznim podrucjima
kakvo je Kosovo.

Na kraju, upucujem apel vama novinarima da ono što je danas receno o
kršenju ljudskih prava na KiM prenesete što dalje, u svet, jer ovaj
apel nema veze sa politikom i dnevno politickim prepucavanjima koja
crpe dragocenu enrgiju ovoga naroda. Ovo je apel svim organizacijama za
ljudska prava da ustanu i ostvare svrhu svog postojanja, a to je
zaštita ljudskih prava na svakom kutku planete zemlje. Srbi sa Kosova
ne zaslužuju da budu prepušteni sami sebi u ostvarivanju svog osnovnog
ljudskog prava, da žive tamo gde su rodjeni.

Da: andrea
Data: Gio 6 Nov 2003 15:58:38 Europe/Rome
A: backtalk@...
Oggetto: [ita-jug] An Edifice of Lies -- Malic


Very shortly, just to tell you that I completely disagree with the sort
of comparison you still try to make between what you call "the Empire"
(i.e. imperialism) and Communism (N. Malic: "An Edifice of Lies", at
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m110603.html).

Against all evidence, and in spite of all sense of ridicolous, you
continue criticizing Tito for a crisis and a war which exploded well
after his death.
Under Tito, Yugoslavia was a modern and prosperous country in which all
"peoples" and cultures lived together in peace. Moreover, Tito was the
leader of a victorious struggle for national liberation of all
Yugoslavs, first of all the Serbs, the ones who actually and rightfully
took most advantage from that by liberating themselves - as Tito's
partisans - from nazifascism, ustashe, Balli Kombetar... and from
western imperialism itself, for decades!!!

The resourgence of all those historical enemies (nazifascism, ustashe,
Balli Kombetar, western imperialism) has nothing to do with Tito, but
rather with Tito's death and with the treason by many, including some
serb quislings.

Your considering Tito as "anti-Serb" or even anti-Yugoslav is such a
blatant paradox that not seeing it only means to have been completely
blended by a very rough, indeed fully american anticommunism.

Andrea (Italy/France)

Haski "sud"

1. DEMONSTRACIJE u Hagu, 8. novembra 2003.

2. HAG: ZAVRŠENO SVEDOČENJE LORDA OVENA


=== 1 ===


Dragi prijatelji,
Dodjite 8. novembra u Hag.
Zlocin i nepravda se nece zaustaviti dok svi bez straha ne ustanemo i
progovorimo.
Obavestite sve prijatelje, sve casne ljude, sve progresivne partije i
organizacije, udruzenja i klubove. Objavite oglas u novinama, na
radiju, delite letke.

MEDJUNARODNE DEMONSTRACIJE

u Hagu, 8. novembra 2003.

14:00-15:00 Protestni miting u centru Haga («Plein»)

15:00-16:00 Mars do zatvora u Scheveningenu

16:00-17:00 Protestni miting ispred zatvora

Tokom demonstracija, nase delegacije ce uruciti protestna pisma
tribunalu, MIP-u Holandije i ambasadama stalnih clanica Saveta
bezbednosti UN: SAD, Velike Britanije, Francuske, Rusije i Kine. Bice
uruceno i pismo podrske Slobodanu Milosevicu.

RADI BUDUCNOSTI NASE DECE,

RADI OPSTANKA SRPSKOG NARODA,

RADI SLOBODE, ISTINE I PRAVDE!

Na demonstracijama za slobodu i dostojanstvo srpskog naroda, protiv
okupacije i kolonizacije Balkana, protiv agresije i porobljavanja
naroda sveta, protiv pokusaja agresora da sude borcima za slobodu i
svojimzrtvama, zasad su potvrdile ucesce grupe Srba, Jugoslovena, Grka
i drugih casnih ljudi iz Nemacke, Francuske,Svajcarske, Austrije,
Britanije, Holandije, Srbije i mnoge ugledne licnosti, medju kojima
Klaus Hartman (Nemacka), Fulvio Grimaldi (Italija), Luj Delma
(Francuska), Dzon Katalinoto (SAD), Misel Kolon (Belgija), Ian Dzonson
(Britanija), Dzon Dzefris (Irska), Prof. dr Aldo Bernardini (Italija),
Vil van der Klift (Holandija), Misa Gavrilovic (Britanija), dr Sima
Mraovic (Francuska), dr Ljiljana Verner (Nemacka), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Jugoslavija) i mnogi drugi.

SPASIMO ZIVOT PREDSEDNIKA MILOSEVICA!

Z A U S T A V I M O HASKU INKVIZICIJU!

   Demonstracijama i borbi za ove ciljeve potrebna je finansijska pomoc.

    Posaljite cek na nasu adresu: «SLOBODA», Rajiceva 16, 11000 Beograd

www.sloboda.org.yu                                                      
                     www.icdsm.org

 ---

NE DOZVOLIMO AGRESORU DA NAM PISE ISTORIJU!

Podignimo svoj glas za odbranu nacionalnog identiteta

"Terorom i tiranijom pokusavaju da sprece, ili bar umanje, ocigledan
fijasko laznog tribunala, koji sluzi kao sredstvo rata protiv nase
zemlje i naroda. Nista novo! Kako je jos 1742. rekao Monteskje - ''nema
svirepije tiranije od one koja se sprovodi pod stitom zakona i u ime
pravde''."

- "Tribunal" u Hagu nije pravosudna institucija vec instrument agresije
i rata;
- "Trubunal" u Hagu se bavi falsifikovanjem nase istorije, odmazdom nad
borcima za slobodu i zastitom nosilaca politike rata i kolonizacije,
koju osudjuje citav svet;
- "Tribunal" u Hagu pokusava da terorom nad srpskim narodom i
Predsednikom Milosevicem, kao i progonom njegove porodice i saradnika,
spreci da se cuje istina;
- Sud koji poput "tribunala" u Hagu masovno krsi ljudska prava ne bi
smeo da postoji ni u jednoj demokratskoj i civilizovanoj zemlji;
- Za postojanje ovakvog "tribunala" najodgovornije su vlade SAD i
Velike Britanije, ali i ostalih stalnih clanica Saveta bezbednosti UN;
- U jesen pre 70 godina, "Treci Rajh" je "sudio" Dimitrovu. Pre 65
godina, 8. novembra, izvrsen je jedan od najvecih nacistickih zlocina -
"kristalna noc" pogroma. Vise nikada se ne smeju ubijati narodi!

---

Pozivi na demonstracije na:

http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/

HagNov8-2.doc
Drugi Poziv za Hag - 8.11.2003

HagNov8-2LAT.doc
Drugi Poziv za Hag - latinicom - 8.11.2003

HagueNov8-2.doc
New leaflet for The Hague - Nov. 8th, 2003


=== 2 ===


http://www.politika.co.yu/2003/1105/01_03.htm

HAG: ZAVRŠENO SVEDOČENJE LORDA OVENA

Dejtonske zasluge

Odgovornost i greške međunarodne zajednice i Miloševićev mirovni
angažman

(Od našeg specijalnog izveštača)
Hag, 4. novembra

Za Srebrenicu, najsramniju pojedinačnu epizodu u ratu u Bosni i
Hercegovini, krive su članice Saveta bezbednosti, koje su donele
odluku o zaštićenim zonama iako su i tada bile svesne da neće poslati
dovoljno trupa kako bi ove teritorije zaista bile sigurne.

Ovo je, između ostalog, rekao lord Oven danas, drugog dana u haškoj
sudnici, otvarajući zajedno sa optuženim Miloševićem temu o ulozi
međunarodne zajednice u ratovima u Jugoslaviji i o odgovornosti za
tragediju i krvoproliće, pa i za masakr u Srebrenici.

Preuranjena priznanja

To je tema koja je do sada tek ovlašno dodirnuta na mamutskom procesu
Slobodanu Miloševiću i koju je sudija Mej uporno ostavljao na stranu,
kad god bi je optuženi nametao u unakrsnom ispitivanju. Kao pregovarač
i dobar poznavalac prilika na Balkanu, o čemu je napisao i knjigu
"Balkanska odiseja", lord Oven je u sudnicu uveo ovu temu lako, sa
crvenim poljskim cvetom u reveru (što je britanski običaj u znak
sećanja na vojsku koja je oslobodila Flandriju), sa sebi svojstvenom
intelektualnom distancom i nepristrasnošću. Ukazujući neuobičajeno
poštovanje optuženom Miloševiću, kvalifikujući njegova pitanja kao
"inteligentna", Oven je rado "obradio" temu odgovornosti međunarodne
zajednice za ratove u Bosni i Hercegovini i u drugim delovima bivše
Jugoslavije.

Osim odgovornosti za Srebrenicu, koja je po odluci Saveta bezbednosti
neosnovano proglašena za zaštićenu zonu, svedok smatra da je
priznavanje Slovenije i Hrvatske bilo preuranjeno i da je međunarodna
zajednica takođe pogrešila u stavu da unutrašnje avnojske granice ne
smeju da se menjaju.

Posebno je bilo reči o Vens–Ovenovom planu kada se, na iznenađenje
sudija, i lord Oven složio sa Miloševićem da je, s jedne strane,
traženo da ovaj plan Beograd podrži, što je optuženi i učinio, a da su
isti plan minirale SAD, pa i Evropa posle njih.

Beogradski Don Kihot

"Mi u Beogradu izigravali smo Don Kihota, koji se bori za plan dok ga
podriva međunarodna zajednica", rekao je Milošević, dok je lord Oven
odmah odgovorio: "Ima u tome mnogo istine".

Ohrabren neuobičajenim saglasjem sa svedokom, Milošević je pokušao da
od nekih optužbi odbrani i Karadžića i Mladića (najtraženije
optuženike haškog tribunala), na šta je samo uzalud potrošio vreme,
jer je lord Oven tu bio izričit. "Vaša braća Srbi u Bosni nisu uopšte
doprineli reputaciji Srba", rekao je Oven podsećajući Miloševića na
Karadžića i Krajišnika, njihovu prevrtljivost i izigravanje svih
međunarodnih dogovora.

A kada je Milošević citirao generala Morijona, koji je u francuskom
parlamentu rekao da ne veruje da je Mladić naredio masakr u
Srebrenici, Oven se prvi i jedini put potpuno suprotstavio optuženom:
"Ne delim vaš stav o generalu Mladiću. On je rasista i imao je mnogo
iracionalnih pogleda na muslimansko stanovništvo. Ali jasno sam dao do
znanja da ste vi bili od velike pomoći jer ste 1993. sprečili Mladića
da zauzme Srebrenicu. Bili ste svesni negativne slike o Srbima kojoj
bi samo falilo još jedno krvoproliće".

"Oluj(i)no" etničko čišćenje

Izgleda da je pristup lorda Ovena optuženom Miloševiću neobično
prijao, pa je i sam ispričao kako je vodio bitku sa liderima bosanskih
Srba. Pre nego što je krenuo u Dejton, a poučen gorkim iskustvom koje
je sa njima imao u Atini i na Palama oko Vens – Ovenovog plana,
Milošević je, kako se ispovedio, napravio sporazum koji su potpisali
svi lideri Srba iz Bosne: "Tako sam se osigurao od onih opasnosti
kakvim smo prisustvovali na Palama".

Ali, u Dejtonu je napravljen sporazum koji je zaštitio interese sva
tri naroda, rekao je Milošević. On je dodao da je Srbija najzaslužnija
što je sporazum u Dejtonu potpisan, što je Dejvid Oven bez ikakvog
okolišenja potvrdio.

Da li se lord kao uticajni posrednik i pregovarač sada pred haškim
tribunalom izvinjava istoriji ili samo želi da javno još jednom ukaže
na neke nepravde, tek on je našao za shodno da u hašku sudnicu ubaci
ocenu da je akcijom "Oluja" napravljen "jedan od najvećih talasa
etničkog čišćenja na celom Balkanu".

Lord Oven je, međutim, bio oštar i prema liderima Srba u Hrvatskoj, za
koje je rekao da uprkos tome što je Milošević pokušao da za njih
obezbedi ravnopravnost "oni sami sebi nisu hteli da pomognu".

Posle ovog svedoka, vrhunskog međunarodnog diplomatskog autoriteta,
koji se, kako se čulo i danas, "bezbroj puta" od 1992. do 1995. sastao
sa Miloševićem u mirotvornim naporima, tužilaštvo bi moralo da pronađe
bar nekoliko jakih ličnosti iz sveta međunarodne politike koji bi
opovrgli lorda Ovena. Inače, kako dalje tvrditi da je Milošević kriv
za genocid u Bosni.

Zorana Šuvaković

THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL AND THE FUTURE OF SERBIA

Vladimir Krsljanin, Sloboda/Freedom Association, Belgrade

 
(writen: May 2003 / updated and translated from Serbian: October 2003)

 
George Soros, one of the main sponsors of The Hague Tribunal and of the
currently ruling clique in Serbia, received with the full honours paid
to him by this clique, demanded recently on theSerbian soil the
“independence for Kosovo”. An international conference on Bosnia &
Herzegovina is being prepared, supposedly to abolish RepublikaSrpska.
What would be the “legal basis” of such acts? “Organized expulsion of
the Albanians” from Kosovo & Metohija, as well as “genocide that
founded” Republika Srpska. Who creates this "legal basis"? The Hague
Tribunal.

- If you knew what you don’t know, would it be in favour or to the
detriment of the Accused?

- Certainly, it would be to his detriment.

Approximately thus ran the dialogue between the Prosecutor and a
certain de la Brosse who had accepted, although he doesn’t speak a word
of Serbian, to appear before the Tribunal as an expert witness, i.e. an
expert on the media in Serbia and in the SlobodanMilosevic trial, no
less. If an institution of that class is allowed to judge our modern
history without being resisted in an organized manner, we are to lose
our state, billions of dollars and any respect from others, as well as
the right to consider ourselves a civilized nation. 

Just on its inglorious tenth anniversary, the Tribunal took another
Serbian life – that of General Momir Talic.Earlier on, The Hague
detention had accelerated the endof Slavko Dokmanovic, Dr Milan
Kovacevic, General Djordje Djukic. Simo Drljaca and Dragan Gagovic were
killed while being arrested, and Vlajko Stojiljkovic committed suicide
in protest.

The reminder of the inglorious balance of the «first ten years» of the
Tribunal is the following: 45 indictments have been brought in against
the Serbs, 12 against the Croats, 5 against the Muslims, one against
the Albanians, andnone against the Americans and their NATO allies.
Among those sentenced were 13 Serbs, fourCroats and three Muslims.
Three Croats and two Muslims were acquitted. These statistics alone
speak of bias and the political character of the Tribunal.

 

1. THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL IS ILLEGAL

 

Experts from 87 countries, including Professor Smilja Avramov,
participated at a meeting organized by the UN on the eve of the
adoption of the Statute, or rather before the formal establishingof the
Tribunal. None of these experts have pronounced themselves in favour of
this new creation.Nevertheless, the Security Council Resolution No. 827
was adopted unanimously on 25 May 1993.The motion to adopt this
Resolution was tabled by France. Russia was also among the authors of
the Draft Resolution. The “original idea” to establish an international
criminal court based upon the Chapter VII of the UN Charter, rather
than upon a treaty, is believed to belong to the former UN
Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Even the establishing of the
Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals had been based upon treaties. In this
case, the law was overridden by a political argument – that such a
procedure would take too much time. Article 24 of the UN Charter
assigns the Security Council “primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security”, while Articles 41 and
42 (of Chapter VII) enable it to impose sanctions against
countries. However, the only crime outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
is the very crime against peace, and the Tribunal itself doesn’t try
states at all, but only individuals. The establishing of the Tribunal
draws upon theArticle 29, which stipulates the right of the Security
Council to establish “subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the
performance of its functions”. However, since the Security Council has
no judicial function (within the UN system only the International Court
of Justice does), it cannot be delegated to a subsidiary organ,
either.  

           The Tribunal conducts trials involving acts of grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Most of them relate to
international conflicts. However, temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal
was assumed on 1 January 1991, namely seven months prior to the
unilateral secession or rather the declaration of independence of
Slovenia and Croatia (and two and a half years prior to the
establishing of the Tribunal itself). Thus the retroactive application
of the principles of criminal lawis being introduced, a deviation from
the generally accepted.This is because the Tribunal in practice either
treats all conflicts as international without proving it, or imposes
the application of international norms on conflicts other than
international as well. However, this can relate only to the application
of these norms by national courts. (N.A. Zverev: Prestupleniya i
nakazaniya, Nezavisimaya gazeta, 26 maya 2003g).   

           The exemption of natural persons from a national
jurisdiction is possible only if a state has committed an international
crime (something which has not been determined by the International
Court of Justice, and which is beyond the competence of The Hague
Tribunal to determine), or if a state voluntarily agrees to it, by
entering into a treaty.Moreover, The Hague Tribunal has only recently
started to shyly accept the right of any state to put its citizens on
trial for war crimes or crimes against humanity.       

           When ad hoc tribunals are concerned, the absence of
universality or rather of equality as one of the basic legal principles
is contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of states as well.At
the last Security Council session discussing the work of The Hague
Tribunal, held in November last year, which was closed to the public,
the representative of Russia pointed out the illogical situation of the
simultaneous existence of both the International Criminal Court (whose
Statute has not been ratified by Russia either, by the way) and the ad
hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the lack of the permanent
International Criminal Court had been one of the key arguments for
their establishing). In his words, the way out of this situation might
be sought in the fact that all the states of the former Yugoslavia have
ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court.Unfortunately,
this clear diplomatic signal found no response from the Belgrade
authorities.

           In the situation when nobody has yet initiated the procedure
for providing an advisory opinion from the International Court of
Justice on the legality of the decision to establish the Tribunal, the
unofficial judgement was passed by Professor Mohammed Bedjaoui, former
President of the International Court of Justice, in his book “The New
World Order and the Security Council: Testing the Legality of Its
Acts”, by including the Resolution No. 827 and the one that preceded
it, No. 808, among those legally most contentious and the first that
should be subject to test. 

           As a result, the Resolutions No. 808 and 827 do not create
legally binding obligations, particularly in view of the Article 25 of
the UN Charter, which explicitly states: “The Members of the UN agree
to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in
accordance with the present Charter”. By its advisory opinion of 21
June 1971, the International Court of Justice also confirmed that the
Member States are not obligated to carry out the Security Council
decisions that are not in accordance with the Charter.

 

2. THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL IS A POLITICAL COURT

 

           The statements from the former Prosecutor Louise Arbour, US
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (“mother of the Tribunal”), NATO
spokesman Jamie Shea and others, testify tothe direct dependence of the
Tribunal on the US Administration and the NATO Alliance. At the time of
the kidnapping of President Milosevic, the conspicuous link to the NATO
Alliance web sitedisappeared from the Tribunal’s homepage, and that was
the only other link there, in addition to the link to the UN website.  

           The Tribunal that should be independent from all governments
shows unacceptable bias also in its financing, to which the Government
of Saudi Arabia and George Soros contributed or still contribute, in
addition to large sums from the UN budget, as well as in recruiting its
personnel from the intelligence services of the countries that waged
the war against Yugoslavia.   

           The Indictment against President Milosevic and other highest
officials of Serbia and the FRY was initiated in the midst of NATO
aggression upon our country. There are many examples of a direct
connection between the work of the Tribunal and political
circumstances. Thefirst Indictment against Karadzic and Mladic was
initiated immediately after the attack on Srebrenica had begun, and the
second one after NATO bombardment of the Republika Srpska. The
Indictments against Slobodan Milosevic covering Croatia and B&H were
initiated only after the Tribunal had taken hold of him. The liability
of individuals for the crimes against the international law cannot be
separated from the liability of states for these crimes. However, The
Hague Tribunal conducts trials of individuals, while the liability of
states is not determined. 

           On the other hand, the Tribunal’s Prosecution dismissed the
motion to indict NATO leaders for war crimes committed during the
aggression upon Yugoslavia, by appointing as thepresenterthe former
legal adviser to the Ministry of Defence of Canada.Naturally,
thepresenterconcluded there was no probable cause to initiate
investigation.

           The position of the US Administration on the jurisdiction of
international courts over its own citizens can be instructive to us as
well, at least to such an extent that one of the methods of ourdefence
against biased Tribunal might be to initiate as many proceedings as
possible against the US citizens whose liability for the war crimes in
Yugoslavia is undeniable. 

 

3. THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL MASSIVELY VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS

 

           The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the practice of the European Court of
Human Rights lay down the standards in the area of the judiciary, from
which the rules and practice of The Hague Tribunalundoubtedly and
drastically deviate. Unfortunately, and unfortunately not by accident,
the situation with human rights in Serbia has been recently taking a
similar shape as well.

           As listed in their detailed and well-argued “Motion to
Appear Before the Trial Chambers as Amicus Curiae” (tabled as early as
September 2001), but naturally completely ignored by the Tribunal, a
group of 12 professors from the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, headed by
Professor Kosta Cavoski, DSc, the work of the Tribunal shows the
following drastic deviations from the aforesaid documents, as well as
from its own regulations: 

1. Combination of legislative and judicial functions;

2. Combination of prosecuting function and the function of the
judiciary;

3. Violation of the principle of a two-instance court procedure;

4. Violation of the right to liberty under the rules and practices for
detention;

5. Retroactive application of the principles of criminal law and the
illegality of sanctions;

6. Violation of the right to defence by treating the elements relevant
for defence as confidential;

7. Disproportion in working conditions between the Prosecution and the
Defence;

8. Violation of the procedural principle by accepting media accounts as
common facts;

9. Lack of expertise of the judges to conduct a trial due to their
unfamiliarity with the historical, political and civilizational
context; 

10. Disregard for the presumption of innocence, or rather the
establishment of the presumption of guilt;

11. Violation of human rights during the arrest and extradition,
failure to employ habeas corpus;

12. Additional violations of rights in the atypical circumstances of
the trial of Slobodan Milosevic (who does not recognize the Tribunal).

           The principle adopted by international judicial practice is
the prohibition on extradition of the citizens (even when there is a
formal legal basis for it) to a country or a legal system in which the
judiciary violates human rights. This is another strong point in
protecting the rights of our state and our citizens.

           It is also necessary to activate all the mechanisms for the
protection of human rights, both within the UN system (including the
personal responsibility of the Secretary-General and the High
Commissioner on Human Rights in relation to the Charter), within the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and within the
European institutions.

           What kind of reputation could such an institution have is
well illustrated by the information that while electing, in February
2003, 18 judges for the International Criminal Court (out of 43
candidates), when 85 countries participated in voting, the former
President of the Tribunal French Judge Claude Jorda was the last one to
be elected, not until the 33rd round of voting!

 

4. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEFENCE OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

             

           The Hague Tribunal apparatus, amounting to 1,300 employees,
is not only unsuccessfully attempting to justify and prolong its
existence with the trial of President Milosevic, but is also becoming a
controlling factor of the internal political circumstances in Serbia,
thanks to its huge intelligence potential (probably the highest
concentration of intelligence personnel and experts in the
world,dealing exclusively with one country), which has been provenby
the events related to the assassination of the Prime Minister Djindjic,
illegally imposed state of emergency in the country and the abuses
thereof.

           The fact that many of those arrested during the state of
emergency were previously making statements to the Prosecution in The
Hague, as well as the timing and the manner in which the Tribunal
presented to the public the video showing a ceremonial visit of
President Milosevic to theSpecial Operations Unit base in Kula, provide
the basis for suspicion of the Prosecution’s involvement in the latest
events. This has been further supported by the manner of distributing
to the public the insinuations as proved facts, allegedly resulting
from the police questioning of detainees, on the involvement of
President Milosevic and members of his family in crimes that had caused
political damage to nobody but him, by the way. The Prosecution, whose
presentation of evidence leaves a general impression that the Accused
is innocent, and the Government that lost the confidence of the
citizens, are doing the same job and in an obvious coordination. After
the unilateral withdrawal of the counterclaim against B&H and the
abandonment of the work on the counterclaim against Croatia before the
International Court of Justice, this Government is preparing to
formally renounce any legal action against NATO Member States, after
the unsuccessful amateurish attempt to compel the court to dismiss the
charges against NATO bythe futile arguing that we have no right to be a
party to a litigation since we were not a UN Member.  

           After the short-lived and limited media effects in Serbia,
this whole campaign resulted in preventing contacts of Slobodan
Milosevic with the members of his own family, which is a form of
psychological pressure on a prisoner, that we recollect only from the
times of the Otomans and the Nazis.

           When Slobodan Milosevic is concerned, the magnitude of the
violation of human rights isdirectly proportional to the significance
attributed to this trial by the Tribunal. We will list only the most
remarkable examples. The extradition without a valid court decision, in
addition to a gross violation of the Constitution, which was
adjudicated upon by the Federal Constitutional Court on tree different
occasions. The majority of witnesses have no direct knowledge of the
events they testify about. The violation of the presumption of
innocence by proving certain criminal acts through the existence of
other criminal acts, not determined in court proceedings as committed.
Experts basing their “expert analyses and opinions” on the allegations
from the Indictment itself, used as a starting point for their
analyses. Witnesses and experts employed by the Prosecution. Cross
examination limited in time and in subject. Unjust and increasingly
frequent barring of the public from the trial. Violation of the right
to defence and of the principle of “equality of arms” by the
Prosecution that has a huge team and vast material resources, by
producing huge quantities of material, impossible even to read in
several years’ time and finally practical abolishment of the rifght to
defense by granting the defendant only three months (in fact six weeks)
to prepare his case while in detention. Conditions in detention and the
pace of the trial that amounts to torture of the defendant, who suffers
from malignant hypertension and coronary insufficiency, which in
addition to the lack of the adequate medical care endangers even the
very right to life and health.

           Under all these conditions, even with the fact that he has
been deprived of his rights more than any other detainee both in regard
to the absence of help from his own state and to the material
conditions for the preparation of defence (due to his refusal to
recognize the Tribunal, his legal assistants are without fabulous fees
provided to all other counsels before the Tribunal), and recently
banned from the visits of his other co-workers and associates, Slobodan
Milosevic has generously decided to demand only a provisional release
to improve the state of his health and adequately prepare the case for
the Defendant. 

           The defence of President Milosevic is significant for a
number of reasons.   

           In the legal, historical and moral sense, it amounts to the
defence of the state and thepeople from the looming catastrophic
consequences of the violation of sovereignty and breach of security of
the country, as well as from the double loss as concerns war
reparations. One should beparticularly aware here that the Indictments
against Slobodan Milosevic include a distorted surveyof the entire
10-year history of our country and people. Estimating that period,
Slobodan Milosevic said in The Hague courtroom on 26 September 2002: 

           “Waged in this territory were not wars, but only one war,
the war against Yugoslavia. This war had been instigated and directed
by the greatest powers of the modern world, relying on their internal
allies, cadres of nationalism and separatism, with a dominant presence
of those forces defeated in the Second World War. This war was waged by
all possible means, by media, politically, economically, militarily.
This war was at first waged through a decade-long media campaign that
abused the monopoly over the global communications, then through a
foreign policy intervention, aimed at creating independent states out
of the Yugoslav republics, and then through the cruellest multi-year
economic campaign and sanctions against the FR of Yugoslavia, that
could only be qualified asgenocide, and finally – through military
aggression.  Namely, in 1995 against Republika Srpska and in the
Operation “Storm”, with NATO forces participating in the largest ethnic
cleansing ever recorded, and in 1999 – against the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.”  

           In the political sense, this defence is the factor of
preservation of national dignity, after allthe troubles that had
happened to our peoples and our region. Its content and scope reflect
the existence of support and of willingness to help the defence, coming
from all the structures of our society.

           As concerns resisting the mechanisms of aggression and
pressure that include the Tribunal itself, with the refusal to
recognize such a tribunal by the first head of state on trial before an
international body and with the major success in defending himself from
the indictments that are a fabrication of the joint intelligence
services of the US and certain NATO countries, opportunity arose only
for President Milosevic of all the people indicted in The Hague to
weaken and even to destroy this institution.  

           For all these reasons, the defence of Slobodan Milosevic
amounts to a project of national importance.

 

5. FUTURE WITHOUT THE HAGUE

 

           Without an organized resistance to The Hague Tribunal, our
country and our nation have no future.

           The only organization that vigorously and continually
develops such an activity within the country is FREEDOM Association.

           In a situation when not only the activity of the state in
that sense is lacking, but also with attempts within Serbia to
discredit and even to prevent through threats and blackmail a serious
organizing within the non-governmental sector, the Serbian Diaspora has
a great opportunity but also a responsibility to ensure both
institutionally and materially a required activity and to allow
vastpotentials existing within the country to be fully activatedin
defence of the truth andinputting an end to the unjust pressures on our
country. 

           This activity could take several directions:

           Organizing of expert teams consisting of domestic and
international jurists, who would help activate all the protective
mechanisms of the international law. 

           Creating an ambitious “truth foundation”, whose Council
would include the greatest names of our science and creativity, and
which would invest in projects of national significance related to the
affirmation of the truth, in defence at The Hague and against The Hague.

           Supporting the unification into a broad political front of
all democratic and creative forces within the country, all patriotic
civil initiatives, in order to create a strong alternative to the
cloning of The Hague within Serbia, which is carried out by the current
regime and to restore democracy, sovereignty and national dignity, so
that Serbia could take its deserved place within the European family.

           Life-treathening situation of President Milosevic and of the
truth should be defeated by serious mobilizations of creative forces
and by mass mobilizations of people. Only this way we can restore our
freedom, sovereignty, democracy and self- esteem.

---

AGGRESSORS SHALL NOT WRITE OUR HISTORY!

FREEDOM FOR PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC!

INTERNATIONAL DEMOS OF SERBIAN DIASPORA AND ALL PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE

THE HAGUE, 8 NOVEMBER 2003

14:00 – 15:00 Protest Rally at The Plein (City Center)

15:00 – 16:00 Protest March from The Plein to the Scheveningen Prison

16:00 – 17:00 Protest Rally in front of the Scheveningen Prison

---
 
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)

Milosevic "trial" synopsis, October 16-30, 2003:
ANTE MARKOVIC APPEARS AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL

from the site: http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/


---

http://slobodan-milosevic.ihostsites.net/news/smorg101603.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 16, 2003

The 245th day of the so-called “trial” of Slobodan Milosevic began
today in the Hague with the continuation of the secret witness known
simply as “B-1445.” If you remember from yesterday B-1445 was one of
the founders of Alija Izetbegovic’s SDA, and was an MP from Doboj in
northern Bosnia Herzegovina.

B-1445, even though he is a Muslim, claimed to have no idea how the
Muslims managed to arm themselves. This however didn’t stop him from
claiming to know all about how the Serbs were armed. According to
B-1445 Slobodan Milosevic was the one arming the Bosnian Serbs. Of
course B-1445 didn’t produce any evidence that President Milosevic was
doing this, he just made the claim without providing any basis for
doing so.

B-1445 didn’t know anything about the Muslim paramilitary formation
known as Patriotic League either. B-1445 claimed that when the war
broke out the Patriotic League didn’t exist. This was a mistake for
B-1445 because President Milosevic had a document issued by the
Command of the 2nd Corps of the Patriotic League inviting people to
attend the 1st Anniversary celebration of the Patriotic League at a
hotel in Tuzla on November 28, 1992. This of course means that the
Patriotic League was formed on November 28, 1991 – one year before
it’s 1 year anniversary – in other words the Patriotic League was
formed in 1991, well before the outbreak of war.

President Milosevic didn’t stop there either; he had another document
proving that the Patriotic League existed before the war. The document
was dated February 25, 1992 and was issued by the Patriotic League
commander Sefer Halilovic and it stated that the Patriotic League was
already formed into platoons and detachments and had a fighting force
of more than 150,000 men already in February 1992 – again before the
war.

Of course B-1445 tried to claim that the Muslims were unarmed and that
the Serbs attacked Doboj for no reason. President Milosevic, again
with documents, demonstrated that the Muslims in Doboj were armed and
were using their weapons to attack the Serbs with.

President Milosevic even had one document from the B-H Army stating
that 7 Serb tanks, and 3 APC’s were destroyed and that heavy losses
were inflicted on the Serbs precisely in Doboj. But according to
B-1445 the only weapons that the Muslims had were hunting rifles. So
how is it that the Muslims managed to destroy tanks and APC’s with
hunting rifles?

Seeing that President Milosevic was getting the better of him,
“B-1445” resorted to the old “Greater Serbia” rhetoric. Of course
B-1445 couldn’t point to any concrete example where he heard Serbs
discussing the formation of “Greater Serbia,” but he did talk about
how Serbs would express a desire to live in one state. Of course
President Milosevic pointed out that Yugoslavia was one state and that
the Serbs had been living in one state for 70 years, and for that
matter so had the Muslims and the Croats. Therefore, the Serbs were
talking about preserving and remaining in Yugoslavia, and not about
forming any “Greater Serbia.”

To prove his point President Milosevic pulled out a document that was
submitted by the prosecution as an exhibit. It was a statement from
the SDS expressing the sense that Yugoslavia was a state of free and
equal people, and pledging the loyalty of the SDS membership to the
Yugoslav state. Not to any “greater Serbia,” but to Yugoslavia as a
state of free and equal people.

President Milosevic wondered what crime that the prosecution is trying
to prove with such a document; he wondered if it was considered a
crime to express loyalty to one’s country? With that the testimony of
B-1445 ended.

The “tribunal” then asked the parties how much time they all needed to
examine Lord Owen, who will testify as a court witness, but not as a
prosecution witness. The Prosecution asked for two hours, the Amicus
asked for one hour, and President Milosevic asked for one day.

The next witness was Sejo Omeragic a former war reporter for the
Sarajevo daily Slobodna Bosna. Mr. Omeragic traveled from Sarajevo
to Bijelina with Fikret Abdic and Biljana Plavsic on April 4, 1992.

According to Omeragic, when they arrived in Bijelina it was under the
control of Arkan’s Tigers, and the women and children were scared and
seeking shelter at the JNA barracks.

Omeragic’s claim was that both Ms. Plavsic, and the JNA Generals that
were in the area, acted as if they were suborned to Arkan. What he saw
was Ms. Plavsic kissing Arkan, and thanking him for saving the Serbs
in Bijelina and 2 JNA generals greeting Arkan, and this is what was
supposed to prove their subordination to Arkan.

The purpose of the trip was to attend a meeting in Bijelina.
Apparently the meeting was held because the JNA wanted Arkan to leave
Bijelina. The JNA had representatives at the meeting, Arkan was at the
meeting, Ms. Plavsic was at the meeting, and Fikret Abdic attended the
meeting. The witness however, was not allowed to enter the meeting.

The only thing that the witness saw was the parties greeting each
other before the meeting and saying goodbye to each other after the
meeting. He didn’t know how everybody interacted during the meeting
because he wasn’t there.

The main point of Mr. Omeragic’s testimony was not to talk about the
meeting that he didn’t attend it was to smear Fikret Abdic. For those
of you who don’t know Fikret Abdic got the most votes in the 1990
presidential elections in Bosnia, and by all rights he should have
been president instead of Alija Izetbegovic.

Fikret Abdic, was a moderate Muslim and got along well with the Serbs.
He was not a fundamentalist like Izetbegovic, and he didn’t attack the
Serbs like Izetbegovic did. In fact in the 1990 elections many Serbs
voted for him.

Fikret Abdic went on to govern Cazinska Krajina a predominantly
Muslim region around Velika Kladusa in the northwest corner of Bosnia.
Because of Izetbegovic’s warmongering policies Abdic proclaimed
declared the Cazinska Krajina enclave an autonomous republic, and
successfully co-existed there along with the Serbs.

Fikret Abdic is the best proof that the Serbs were not committing any
sort of genocide against Muslims in Bosnia. If the Serbs were
committing genocide then they would have attacked Abdic and the
Cazinska Krajina enclave, but they didn’t, because Abdic wasn’t
attacking them.

It was in fact Izetbegovic who on June 10, 1994 attacked the Cazinska
Krajina enclave and drove Abdic and his Muslim followers out of
Bosnia, because they refused to wage his fascist Jihad against the
Serbs.

Abdic and his followers were driven, by Izetbegovic’s forces, into the
Serbian Krajina in Croatia, and were given refuge there by the Serbs,
until the Croats launched their operation Storm and cleansed Croatia
of practically every last Serb.

Today Fikret Abdic is locked-up in a Croat jail accused of war crimes,
simply because he got along well with the Serbs.

Slobodan Milosevic calls Fikret Abdic “a man of peace.” Mr. Omeragic,
on the other hand, tried to make it sound like Fikret Abdic was a
coward and a quisling who betrayed the Muslims. It was a really
obscene display, but that is what I have come to expect from the Hague
Tribunal.

The final witness was another secret witness. This witness was called
“B-1453.” He was a Muslim traffic cop working for the Serbian police
in Bijelina. The prosecution heavily relied on Rule 89(F) and so I
don’t know what they were trying to prove with this witness.

Slobodan Milosevic, on the other hand, did make some useful points
with this witness. First of all according to B-1453 Arkan was only in
Bijelina because the local population hired him and paid him to come
there. In other words he wasn’t sent there by anybody from Serbia, he
was invited to come there by the locals.

The next useful point was that as a Muslim working for the Serbian
police in Bijelnia, B-1453 didn’t suffer any discrimination. According
to B-1453 there were 12 Muslim traffic police and 25 Muslim regular
police working in the Serbian police department in Bijelina and none
of them was discriminated against.

B-1453 also confirmed that there were Muslims who responded to the VRS
call-up, and joined the Bosnian Serb Army.

The witness concluded and the “court” adjourned for the day. The next
hearing will take place next Tuesday.

---

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102103.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 21, 2003

Written by: Andy Wilcoxson

The Hague "Tribunal" heard from 2 witnesses today. A secret witness
codenamed "B-1122," and Ms. Dobrila Gajic-Glisic.

B-1122 was a prominent member of the SDA in Gacko, which the witness
described as a small town in eastern Herzegovina. B-1122 alleged that
there was cooperation between the JNA and units of the White Eagles in
Gacko.

Under cross-examination B-1122 claimed that the SDS had organized the
White Eagle unit that was allegedly in Gacko, and that its ranks were
made-up of local Serbs, with the exception of one man who was called
"Ljubo," who according to a song that the witness heard had been born
in Serbia, the question of whether or not Ljubo had been living in
Bosnia before the war remains unanswered, apparently the song didn't
say.

Of course, like all SDA members, B-1122 complained that the JNA was
dominated by the Serbs. The hypocrisy of the SDA's position here is
amazing. This same witness who complained that the JNA was "a Serb
army," admitted under cross-examination that when the JNA mobilized it
sent call-ups to all citizens of Yugoslavia, but that the SDA
instructed the Muslims not to respond to the call-ups.

Unlike the Muslims, the Serbs carried out their obligation to their
country and joined the JNA when it mobilized. So of course the JNA had
more Serbs in it than Muslims, and for a Muslim SDA member (like
B-1122) to complain that the JNA had too many Serbs in it is really
stupid and hypocritical.

B-1122 had lots of stupid things to say. For example, B-1122 claimed
that more crimes were committed by the Serb (Allied) side than the
Muslim (Nazi) side during the 2nd World War. B-1122 also claimed that
reading Vuk Karadzic's books, singing folk songs, and playing the gusle
(a Serbian musical instrument) incited hatred and nationalism among
the Serbs.

B-1122 claims to have knowledge about a meeting that Gen. Momcilo
Perisic (on behalf of the JNA) attended in Gacko. According to B-1122
Perisic pledged to protect the civilians, pledged to eliminate
paramilitaries, and wanted to form joint patrols in Gacko each made-up
of 1 Serb, 1 Muslim, and 1 JNA soldier.

According to B-1122, after the meeting with Gen. Perisic this alleged
White Eagle unit left Gacko, but allegedly returned a week later.

All in all B-1122 is just another witness whose so-called "evidence"
has nothing to do with Milosevic, nothing to do with Serbia, and is
just a pointless waste of time.

After B-1122 finished, Ms. Dobrila Gajic-Glisic was called. Her
examination-in-chief was incomplete. Mr. Nice would not allow her to
fully answer the questions that he put to her. When she tried to
elaborate and explain how things were he would cut her off and wouldn't
let her give her evidence. Can you imagine what "Judge" May's reaction
would be if President Milosevic ever cut-off a witness and refused to
let them answer the questions? I can hear him now, "Let the witness
answer!" he would say, but today he just sat there like some retarded
bump on a log.  

From what I could gather Ms. Gajic-Glisic wrote newspaper articles for
the Serbian daily NIN, and in 1992 she published a book in Serbia
called "Srpska Vojska; Iz Kabineta Ministra Vojnoga" [The Serbian
Army; From the Minister of Defense's Office]. She was the cabinet
chief for the then Serbian defense minister, Mr. Tomislav Simovic. She
was tasked with keeping official notes for the Serbian Ministry of
Defense, she advised the Serbian information minister and was a liaison
to the media.

She was played a tape-recording of an intercepted telephone
conversation between herself, Radovan Karadzic, and Tomislav Simovic.
The interesting thing is that she didn't remember the conversation, nor
did she have any record of it in her notes. Therefore, the possibility
is raised that this intercept is a forgery, and that of course calls
into question all of the intercepts that the prosecutor has produced.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic's appears to be the next insider witness who will
damage the prosecutor's case. Mr. Nice probably knew that he was in
trouble when he heard his witness say, "Comrade Slobodan Milosevic
saved my life, and I wish to take this opportunity to express my
gratitude to him."

Ms. Gajic-Glisic's examination-in-chief will be concluded tomorrow,
and President Milosevic will then have the opportunity to
cross-examine her and clarify all of the points that Mr. Nice has been
endeavoring to obscure and manipulate.

---

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102203.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 22, 2003

Written by: Andy Wilcoxson

Ms. Dobrila Gajic-Glisic was cross-examined by President Milosevic
today, and a number of useful points were established, although there
were also some contentious points.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic worked in the Serbian Ministry of Defense from 25
September 1991 until 1 June 1992 and during that time she served as
Gen. Tomislav Simovic's Cabinet Chief for the 2 1/2 months that he
served as Serbia's Minister of Defense, and that is the time period
that she was testifying about.

She wrote a book called "Srpska Vojska; Iz Kabineta Ministra Vojnoga"
[The Serbian Army; From the Minister of Defense's Office], and she
published her notes in the Serbian newspaper "NIN". Most of her
testimony is already public domain and was published in Serbia in back
in 1992.

The first thing that was established was the difference between
paramilitaries and volunteers. Volunteers were suborned to the JNA and
the T.O. in the areas that they were serving in. Paramilitaries were
outside of the system and were not suborned to any legal authority.

According to Ms. Gajic-Glisic the Serbian government only had sketchy
information about paramilitaries. They had information that
paramilitaries were committing crimes in the combat areas, but the
information was incomplete, and so it was difficult to prosecute these
crimes. However, when complete information was available the Serbian
government would undertake legal proceedings against the members of
those illegal paramilitary formations whenever it could.

According to Ms. Gajic-Glisic the Serbian Ministry of Defense only
provided training and logistical support to legal volunteers and not
to any paramilitary formations. In fact the Republic of Serbia took
steps to force the party armies that were raised by the Serbian
Radical Party (SRS) and the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) to suborn
themselves to the command of the JNA, and the local T.O. units in the
areas that they were deployed. It is useful to observe that the SRS
and the SPO were Slobodan Milosevic's political opposition, and that
they had a view to overthrowing him. It should also be noted here that
President Milosevic's party, the SPS, never formed any sort of party
army.

The actions of the Serbian Ministry of Defense were always in
conformity with the laws of the Republic of Serbia, and with the laws
of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). President
Milosevic exhibited the laws on admitting volunteers to the T.O. and
the laws on admitting volunteers to the JNA. These laws included such
things as background checks and security screenings for potential
volunteers. Ms. Gajic-Glisic confirmed that these were in fact the
laws and that the Serbian Ministry of Defense did in fact follow these
laws to the letter.

The JNA and the T.O. were the legally recognized armed forces on the
territory of the SFRY, and the volunteers that were trained and
supported by the Serbian Ministry of Defense were suborned precisely to
those legally recognized institutions. Nothing illegal was afoot
there. Ms. Gajic-Glisic testified that volunteers who came from Serbia
were integrated into the ranks of the JNA and the T.O. and were
treated by their commanders in the same way as the locals who were
serving in their own municipalities.

A lot of time was spent by Ms. Gajic-Glisic talking about some alleged
plan of Simovic's to form a so-called "Serbian Army." Long story short
- no such army was ever established, and so the whole issue is a mute
point.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic had interviewed Gen. Simovic in 1984 and he told her
at that point that if there was ever a war in Yugoslavia it would not
be the result of an attack from a foreign aggressor but that it would
be a conflict between the JNA and the largely mono-ethnic units of the
T.O.. In Slovenia and Croatia Simovic was proven to be correct,
because national armies were in fact formed out of the T.O. units
there, and they did attack the JNA.

In Serbia the T.O. was never transformed into any sort of "Serbian
army," and no "Serbian army" ever was established. The JNA became
predominantly Serb, because the Croats, the Muslims, the Slovenes,
etc... abandoned it and encouraged others to follow suit, nobody
chased them out. They wanted to destroy Yugoslavia, and so they left
its army.

It was established by Ms. Gajic-Glisic that Slobodan Milosevic did not
command the JNA, nor did Defense Minister Simovic. The JNA was
suborned to the SFRY presidency, and not to the president or to the
organs of the Republic of Serbia.

Even though it has nothing to do with President Milosevic, it should
still be noted that the JNA performed admirably. The JNA sought to
separate the warring parties so that conditions could be created for a
political settlement. It was also established by Ms. Gajic-Glisic that
the Republican Staff of the T.O. was appointed by the SFRY presidency.

So it is established that Slobodan Milosevic didn't command the JNA,
he didn't command the T.O. outside of Serbia, he didn't even appoint
the Republican Staff of the T.O. inside of Serbia. The volunteers that
were trained and supported by the Serbian Ministry of Defense were sent
to JNA and to T.O. units outside of Serbia where they were suborned to
the command of those JNA and T.O. units - not to any sort of special
command coming from the Republic of Serbia.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic confirmed that Serbia was in favor of finding a
peaceful solution to all of the Yugoslav conflicts. She confirmed that
it was President Milosevic's position from the outset that the Vance
Plan should be adopted so that UN peacekeepers could come into Croatia
and separate the warring parties there. She even claimed that
President Milosevic exerted pressure on Milan Babic to get him to
accept the Vance Plan.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic went on to state that there were never any plans to
create any sort of "greater Serbia" that it was in fact Serbia and
President Milosevic's position that Yugoslavia should be preserved.
She stated categorically that no plans were ever made in the Serbian
Ministry of Defense, nor did she know of any plans by the Government
of Serbia to persecute non-Serbs. In fact she claimed that there were
non-Serbs employed in the Serbian Ministry of Defense.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic claimed that it was in fact Croatia who was attacking
the Serbs and not the other way around. She claimed that after Tudjman
came to power that Serbs were, killed, mutilated, and expelled from
Croatia. She explained that those Serbian refugees came to Serbia and
sought shelter even though Serbia had inadequate means to take care of
them.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic explained that Croatia brought itself into conflict
with the JNA by attacking and blockading the JNA barracks in Croatia.
She even said that Croatia shelled the town of Sid, which is inside of
the borders of the Republic of Serbia.

Ms. Gajic-Glisic is a writer, and in 1983 she wrote a book that was
banned by the SFRY authorities. Ms. Gajic-Glisic had previously met
with some businessmen who were close to the American President Ronald
Reagan and they told her that a plan existed whereby Yugoslavia would
be knee deep in blood, greater-Albania would be formed and that the
Serbian people would be attacked and dispersed. She didn't believe
these men at the time, but thought that their story would make a good
book, a work of fiction, and so she wrote the book.

She submitted the book to a Yugoslav publisher in 1983 and when the
publisher called her to come in to the publishing house she found the
the state security service there. They confiscated the manuscript and
she was told never to speak of the book or its contents again.

If this intrigues you, I have to say that it intrigues me too, but the
so-called "Judge" May wouldn't let this topic be discussed, and so I
am sorry that I don't have any more specific information.

---

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102303.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - OCTOBER 23, 2003: ANTE MARKOVIC APPEARS
AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL

Written by: Andy Wilcoxson

Ante Markovic, the former Prime Minister of the SFRY, testified at
against Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague "Tribunal" on Thursday.

While he was being examined by Mr. Nice, Markovic was perfectly
content to hurl lies and accusations at Slobodan Milosevic; while
making himself sound like the most courageous man who ever lived. He
told a story about how he refused to have bodyguards and only
protected himself by sleeping with a pistol under his pillow.

But when cross-examination started the tables were quickly turned on
Markovic. President Milosevic had the transcripts from the August 21,
1991 SFRY presidency session, and in those transcripts it was shown
that it was Markovic who exercised control of the JNA.

The transcript showed Markovic himself talking about how * he * sent
JNA into Slovenia to take back the border posts that had been taken
over by the Slovenian T.O. The transcript also showed Slobodan
Milosevic and the Slovene President Milan Kucan taking about how Prime
Minister Markovic had engaged the JNA in Slovenia.

It was clear from the transcripts that it was Markovic who was issuing
orders to the JNA, and it is precisely Markovic who was in charge when
the Yugoslav Federation began to collapse and the events took place in
Dubrovnik and Vukovar.

Markovic couldn't even last 5 minutes under cross-examination before
he was begging "judge" May for protection. He said "I'm not the one on
trial here, I'm the witness!" and "The accused is trying to turn the
indictment against him into an indictment against me, and I ask you to
protect me." Mr. Markovic's courage quickly evaporated and he came off
looking like a little girl hiding behind mommy's skirts.

Markovic was instantly on the defensive - he was trying to say that he
didn't have any power that he was impotent that the JNA wasn't under
his command. So here we have the federal prime minister, the president
of the Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia saying that he didn't
have any control over the Yugoslav People's Army that it was really
the president of one of the republics who controlled the army through
some friendship that he had with the Federal Defense Minister.

Markovic was quickly exposed as a liar. He testified about a meeting
that he had with Slobodan Milosevic in December of 1991, but what he
didn't know was that President Milosevic had acquired his daily agenda
book that was kept by his cabinet. This agenda book had all of
Markovic's meetings listed in it, who he spoke with on the phone, who
he had lunch with, etc...

The agenda book proved that the meeting that he had testified about
never happened - he was making it up. Even though Markovic was clearly
caught in a lie, he tried to say that it was some sort of a secret
meeting - that he as the Federal Prime Minister sneaked away from his
cabinet and met with the President of Serbia without telling anybody.

His daily agenda also proves that he was not as unimportant as he
professed to be. He frequently met with high level officials both from
inside and outside of Yugoslavia.

Ante Markovic could dish it out, but he couldn't take it. Actually -
he couldn't even dish it out very well. He accused Slobodan Milosevic
of being a dictator. He said that Milosevic had complete and total
control over everything. After he made his speech "judge" May asked
Markovic to give a specific example demonstrating that Milosevic had
this sort of control. Markovic couldn't think of even one example, so
Mr. Nice arranged it so that they could come back to the question
after Markovic had a chance to think for a while.

Mr. Nice did in deed ask the question again, and even after a 20
minute recess had taken place and he had had lots of time to think
about it, Markovic still couldn't think of even one example he could
use to prove his baseless charge that Milosevic was a dictator. That
fool couldn't even think of a good lie.

Mr. Markovic will be back to finish his cross-examination at a later
date at which time Slobo can humiliate him some more.

---

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102803.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 28, 2003

Michelle Renée, a correspondent of the French TV channel "Arte,"
testified against Slobodan Milosevic today. Mr. René was on assignment
in Hungary when he met up with some refugees who were from Kozluk.
They told him some stories, and so he decided to go to Kozluk to see if
what they were saying was true.

Mr. Renée went to Belgrade to get press credentials so that he could
film in Bosnia. Of course they couldn't give him the proper
credentials in Belgrade, so the people at the Tanjug agency told him
to go to Pale and get his accreditation there from the SRNA agency.

On July 20, 1992 Mr. Renée crossed the Drina River near Zvornik, where
the VRS provided him a military escort and sent him on to Pale. When
he got to Pale he received his accreditation, and was then free to
film anything he wished with no restrictions and no escort.

After receiving his accreditation papers he went to a bar in Pale that
was owned by a Muslim in order to eat some dinner. At this bar he and
his cameraman met two members of the paramilitary formation called the
"White Eagles." He talked to them for 2 hours but didn't get their
names. So in "court" he called one "the man with the pistol" and the
other one "the man with the knife." Both men had been drinking and
they were drunk - "the man with the knife" was apparently more drunk
than "the man with the pistol."

According to Mr. Renée the drunk "man with the knife" said that they
had killed all the Muslims in Kosluk. Of course none of what the drunk
man allegedly said in the bar was on the video tape and so all we have
is Renée's word on this. But none the less it should be obvious how
desperate the Hague Tribunal must be for "evidence" since it is
admitting hearsay about what some unidentified drunk men told some
Frenchman in a bar.

Then according to Renée, after he finished eating, he went to the
White Eagle's base in Pale. He did film this and on the video tape you
could see a bunch of young men fooling around in front of the camera,
and not much else. Then they went on a bus ride, and he filmed this
too. They came back to the base, and then went on another bus ride.
Nobody fired a shot and nobody shot at them. Nothing happened, and Mr.
Renée got that on tape.

The next day Mr. Renée went to Sarajevo and attempted to film the city
from the top of a hill that overlooked the city. While standing on the
top of the hill (which was in Serb territory) Muslim snipers from
inside of Sarajevo fired shots at him, and this is the only footage he
had of actual shots being fired.

On his trip to Bosnia Mr. Renée saw one dead body, a Serb who had been
killed somewhere near Zvornik. He didn't see any dead Muslims. While
he was in Pale he filmed the ruins of some buildings on Serb territory
that the Muslims had destroyed over the course of the fighting.

Mr. Renée never did go to Kozluk, and so he never did verify if what
he was being told by the refugees was true, but what this witness says
doesn't matter anyway since other witnesses have testified about that.

While on his Bosnian adventure, this witness saw a dead Serb, saw some
Serb buildings that had been destroyed, went for a couple of bus rides
with the White Eagles, ate had dinner at bar in Pale that was owned by
a Muslim, and ultimately got shot at by Muslim snipers in Sarajevo. How
any of this is evidence against President Milosevic I'll never know.

The next witness was a secret witness who testified under the
pseudonym of "B-1345." B-1345 was a sad case, he was from Sarajevo, he
lived near the frontlines and he lost his wife and his father in the
war there. He didn't actually see them getting killed and so he is
really a witness to nothing, but he has a sad story to tell and so
that is probably why he was called to testify. Undoubtedly, forcing
this man to relive such tragic events as the loss of his closest
family members can produce some good propaganda for the prosecution,
even if their is no evidentiary value to his testimony.

B-1345 lost his wife in the explosion at the Markale market, but he
wasn't there, and never saw the shell. He also lost his father but
didn't arrive on the scene until an hour after he was already dead.
His situation is certainly a sad one, but since he wasn't there he
isn't actually any sort of witness.

President Milosevic attempted to make some use out of B-1345. He asked
him if he knew about the investigations that had been conducted
regarding Markale, but "judge" May said he couldn't ask about that.

President Milosevic then produced a map of the showing the ethnic
make-up of Sarajevo that was based on the 1981 census of the SFRY. The
map was color coded and showed the areas where Serbs were the
majority, where Muslims were the majority, and where Croats were the
majority.

The witness, who had served in the ABiH, was unable to read the map,
and so President Milosevic couldn't ask him about the map. But the
point that was being made with the map was that the Serbs weren't
laying any sort of siege on Sarajevo. Serbs had always lived in
Sarajevo they weren't occupiers - they lived there, and the fighting
was primarily along the lines where the various ethnic communities
were divided.

The witness did confirm that the ABiH was in Sarajevo and that there
were innocent casualties on both sides, but he couldn't identify where
the opposing parties had their positions at.

The "trial" ended 15 minutes early today.

---

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102903.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 29, 2003

Today at The Hague “Tribunal” a young lady from the town of Bruska,
Croatia came to testify against Slobodan Milosevic. She was the victim
of a shooting that claimed the lives of nine Croats and one Serb.

She was wounded and was given treatment by Serbian doctors at a
hospital that was on Serbian territory.

She had no idea who shot her. She never saw the perpetrator(s). She is
another witness who is certainly the victim of a crime and has a sad
story to tell, but her testimony had no evidentiary value.

President Milosevic observed that the Serbian authorities in Krajina
condemned this crime, and carried out an investigation, but since the
witness didn’t know anything about the results of the investigation
she was unable to answer any questions about it.

President Milosevic informed her that the investigation had revealed
that it was a lone gunman who had opened fire on these people. But
that the identity of the perpetrator was never known.

The next witness was a secret witness testifying under the pseudonym
of “B-1780.” Allegedly, B-1780 was kidnapped by local Serbs in
Zvornik, taken to the Ekonomija factory farm, and beaten senseless
there by every Serbian paramilitary formation in Bosnia.

He told tall tales about his 4 day stay at the Ekonomija farm. He
claimed that “the Serbs” were cutting Muslim heads off and kicking
them about the room, how they were cutting off hands, how they were
carrying out mass-executions of 7 men at a time, how they would use
knives to cut the skin between people’s fingers and then lick the blood
off of their knives with their tongues. He even said that 15 to 20 men
jumped on him all at once. He was laying it on pretty thick. Of course
he couldn’t identify any of the perpetrators. And neither of the 2
victims that he enumerated has been examined to see if they died in
the manner he described.

B-1780 claimed that he was told by a guard that he had been sentenced
to death by torture. Obviously they didn’t torture him to death,
because he is still alive today.

Eventually B-1780 went to a Serbian hospital and was given medical
treatment, but he said that it was a trick. He said that he was being
given medical treatment by the Serbs because they were trying to kill
him. I know that doesn’t make any sense but that’s what he said.

He was in the Hospital for 4 days, and apparently the trick didn’t
work because B-1780 lived. On the 4th day he told his doctor that he
was feeling OK and the doctor told him that he could go home, so he
went home.

After he got home he said that he could see, from his house, the Serbs
digging a mass grave and putting dead Muslims into it. Of course no
mass grave has been exhumed there, and so we are just expected to take
his word that this happened.

Finally B-1780 left Zvornik and went to a refugee camp at Subotica in
northern Serbia. At the Subotica refugee camp he was given food and
accommodation by the government of Serbia.

The refugees at the camp were issued Yugoslav passports and were free
to go anywhere they wished. This witness and a number of other
refugees went to Vienna.

Apparently B-1780 was engaged in politics somehow, but that couldn’t
be discussed in open session.

President Milosevic used his cross-examination to essentially give the
witness the rope and then he just let the witness him hang himself
with it. After President Milosevic was finished letting the witness
humiliate himself; Mr. Tapuskovic made some useful observations. Mr.
Tapuskovic pointed out that the prosecutor hadn’t provided a stitch of
proof to back-up what the witness was saying. There was no forensic
evidence, and undoubtedly some could have been found had it existed at
all.

Mr. Tapuskovic produced a statement that the witness had given to the
B-H authorities in 1992 about what had happened to him, and in that
statement there were differences between what he told them and what he
said at the tribunal.

For example, at the tribunal he said that the JNA was present at the
Ekonomija farm, but in his 27 December 1992 statement to the B-H
authorities he never mentioned the JNA. Some of the dates were
different. At the tribunal he said that 9 men on a truck had all been
killed, but in his statement to the B-H authorities he said that he
didn’t know what had happened to those 9 men.

B-1780 is a liar. Something probably happened to him, but it was
abundantly clear from watching him that he wasn’t telling the truth.
He was making up stories.

The next witness was another secret witness, a so-called “B-1448.”
B-1448 was a member of some sort of Muslim paramilitary formation in
Brcko. B-1448’s unit killed a Bosnian-Serbian soldier on May 16, 1992,
and B-1448 claimed to have taken some documents off of this soldier’s
corpse.

The documents he took were an identification card, which has since
disappeared, and some receipts. One of the receipts showed that the
soldier had rented a Yugo and driven it to Belgrade a couple of times,
and another one of the receipts was allegedly for some weapons that
were acquired from the armory in Belgrade on June 20, 1992.

President Milosevic spotted the problem right off the bat. The soldier
was killed on May 16, 1992, but the receipt for the weapons was from
June 20, 1992. So how did this dead soldier manage to acquire a
receipt from the future? As far as I know Yugos aren’t time machines.
They can’t transport you to the future and back again.

So much for B-1448’s “evidence,” however a new practice was employed
by the so-called “trial chamber” with this witness. They had what they
called a “limited cross-examination” which meant that President
Milosevic could only ask questions about the dead soldier and the
documents, not about this paramilitary group that the witness belonged
to, and not about the situation in Brcko.

When President Milosevic objected to this new invention, this
so-called “limited cross-examination,” Mr. Kwon tried to console him
by saying that “limited cross-examination is better than no
cross-examination at all.”

Apparently President Milosevic is supposed to just be happy that the
let him cross-examine any of the witnesses at all. After all as Mr.
Kwon has illustrated limited rights are better than none at all.

---

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg103003.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 30, 2003

Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
 
There was an abbreviated hearing today at The Hague. The prosecution
didn’t have any witnesses that it could call, so it resorted to
calling itself to testify. The Deputy Prosecutor, Graham Blewitt
testified as a witness for (big surprise) the prosecution.

Mr. Nice presented some of the OTP’s documents to Mr. Belwitt and Mr.
Blewitt confirmed that these documents had been sent by the
prosecution to Belgrade.

Mr. Nice made a special point to ask about the objectivity of the
prosecution, and Mr. Blewitt confirmed that the OTP was indeed
objective and impartial.

Then it came time for cross-examination, and Mr. May announced that
this would be another so-called “limited cross-examination.” Mr. May
prohibited President Milosevic from asking any important questions.

Mr. May the so-called “judge” told President Milosevic, “You will ask
the questions that we order you to ask or else you won’t be able to
ask any questions at all.”

President Milosevic denounced the proceedings as a farce, which they
clearly are, but it was even worse than usual today.

The scope of the cross-examination was limited exclusively to the
documents that Mr. Nice exhibited. Therefore we have the prosecution
essentially placing the limits on the scope of cross-examination by
the defense.

President Milosevic had other documents from the prosecution that
refuted what was in the documents exhibited by Mr. Nice, but he was
prohibited from asking any questions about those other documents.

President Milosevic was prohibited from asking any questions that
could call into question the objectivity of the prosecution, even
though that was a major topic that was discussed by Mr. Nice during
the examination-in-chief.

NATO openly bombed maternity wards, passenger trains, private homes,
civilian office buildings, bridges, television stations, market
places, and all other manner of civilian infrastructure. NATO’s
criminal aggression killed thousands of innocent people throughout
Yugoslavia.

NATO bombed more civilian hospitals than it did Yugoslav Army tanks.
NATO carried out it’s aggression in contravention of all international
law. NATO had no resolution from the UN Security Council to launch its
criminal attack, and NATO was not threatened by Yugoslavia at all.
NATO’s war was pure aggression – every bomb it dropped and every act
of war that it perpetrated against Yugoslavia is a war crime.

Every head of state, and every defense minister, from every NATO
country that participated in that terrorist aggression is a war
criminal. With that aggression NATO transformed itself from a
defensive alliance into a terrorist organization.

What happened today was a total scandal. That false tribunal revealed
its ugly face to the world today. The ICTY is a NATO propaganda
tribunal. Its sole aim is to demonize the Serbian people, and to
protect the criminals who destroyed Yugoslavia.

The fact that the ICTY attacks President Milosevic for executing his
duty as the legally elected head of state, to protect his citizens
from terrorists, while simultaneously refusing to prosecute any of the
crimes committed by NATO proves that this so-called “tribunal” is
nothing more than a propaganda apparatus that exists only to serve
it’s masters in Washington and Brussels.

Of course “limited cross examination” means that no questions can be
asked that call into question the omnipotent wisdom of the so-called
“trial chamber” or the unquestionable objectivity and integrity of the
so-called “prosecution.”

President Milosevic joked with the so-called “judge” May (who is from
England) that he could understand why he was so sensitive to questions
about NATO’s war crimes and the double standard that is applied by the
so-called prosecutor on that score.

The documents brought forward by Mr. Nice concerned requests made by
the OTP that were sent to the authorities in Belgrade, requesting that
they be allowed to come to Kosovo and carry out investigations. These
requests were denied by the FRY authorities because the Hague Tribunal
is illegal, and because Yugoslavia had a functioning judicial system
that was perfectly willing and capable of investigating crimes and
prosecuting criminals on its own.

Because the cross-examination was so severely limited no questions
could be asked about the legality of the tribunal, even though the
legality of the tribunal was mentioned in the documents that Mr. Nice
introduced. As “judge” May explained; the tribunal has already ruled
itself to be legal therefore there is no point in challenging its
legality.

So what we have here is a court that was illegally established by an
organ that has no legal right to establish it, and when it’s legality
is challenged it simply rules it self to be legal, and therefore you
should consider it to be legal too. That is how the Hague Tribunal
works.

Mr. Nice can introduce documents that deal with the legality of the
tribunal, and Mr. Nice can assert that the prosecution is objective.
Mr. Nice can deal with those all of those topics, but President
Milosevic, the man who is supposed to be on “trial,” is prohibited
from asking any questions about the very topics that the prosecutor
himself brings up.

After Blewitt was done with his so-called “testimony” some
administrative matters were dealt with.  Mr. Nice proudly announced
that at only 2 years into the prosecution case that the witness list
was finalized, although there were still some changes that they had to
make. So in other words it really isn’t finalized and President
Milosevic still doesn’t know who is going to be testifying against
him, and with that they adjourned.

Domani 4/11/2003 su "Voce jugoslava": Malraux e il Kosovo


Ieri, oggi, domani: date da ricordare

3 novembre 1901

Nasce André Malraux, scrittore e uomo politico francese. Partecipò alla
Guerra civile di Spagna. Fu uno dei più noti comandanti del Movimento
di resistenza francese. Nel 1959 diventa ministro alla Cultura. Muore
nel 1976.
E' sepolto nel Panteon a Parigi.


André Malraux e il Kosovo

A suo tempo [nel 1974, N.d.t.] André Malraux seppe che Isidora Sekulic,
scrittrice e critica letteraria, conosciutissima in Serbia, aveva
scritto un articolo sul suo romanzo "La voie royale" per una rivista
letteraria. Quando ricevette la traduzione in francese esclamò con
entusiasmo:

"E' quasi incredibile! Questo romanzo è passato pressoché inosservato
presso la critica francese - io stesso fino al premio Goncourt non ero
famoso - e una donna di Belgrado riflette meglio di me su che cosa
avessi voluto dire in quel periodo col mio libro. Sarei stato contento
se avessi letto questa critica 40 anni fa, adesso la sento come
un’ulteriore scoperta, molto importante per me. Peccato, per me è già
tardi per cominciare a conoscere più in dettaglio la vostra
letteratura. Tuttavia sarei contento se potessi almeno riuscire ad
approfondire meglio il vostro Medioevo. Gli affreschi in Serbia del
XIII secolo sono un importantissimo momento ed un grande contributo
all’arte europea…"

Tutt'a un tratto l’uomo politico prese il sopravvento sullo scrittore:

"Nel vostro paese succede qualcosa non del tutto buona. Il pericolo
principale vi viene dall’Albania. Attenti a ciò che vi dico! Da lì può
venirvi il peggio. (...) Mi sorprende che voi jugoslavi non riusciate a
capire.
Lo sapete che l'unica frontiera aperta in Europa e' quella tra
l'Albania e la Jugoslavia? E' una pazzia!... Fra due Stati con rapporti
bilaterali tra i peggiori su tutto il continente, si circola da un
territorio all'altro come se non ci fosse nessuna frontiera. (...)
Avete concepito letteralmente il vostro Stato multietnico come uno
Stato multinazionale, e dove vi porterà tutto questo? Tutti gli Stati
europei hanno fondamentalmente una politica centralizzatrice, tranne la
Jugoslavia. Che cosa vi dice questo? La cittadinanza può sostituire la
nazionalità in uno Stato, senza minacciare un sentimento valido quale è
quello nazionale... Una tale deviazione in senso nazionale non mi è
affatto chiara! In quale paese non vi sono antagonismi e rivalità
nazionali, perfino nell’ambito di uno stesso popolo? L’intolleranza è
un fatto mentale della psicologia collettiva...
Se non lo sono già, i vostri nazionalismi possono essere manipolati,
provocati, studiati fino a spezzarvi. Un paese più piccolo, l’Albania,
già sta approfittando di questa eccezione e, temo, in un senso nefasto
per voi. Che dire poi delle grandi potenze che mettono il naso
dappertutto? Ho sentito anche di certi calcoli che possono significare
una spartizione della Jugoslavia a metà...
Adesso comprenderete che un mio eventuale viaggio in Jugoslavia non è
dettato solo da motivi di studio del Medioevo o per i miei libri..."

Qualche mese più tardi, nell’estate del 1975, da Verrier, dove abitava
Malraux , ci chiamarono per venire a prendere il manoscritto che lo
scrittore aveva preparato come omaggio per la Biblioteca Nazionale di
Belgrado.
Giunsi a casa sua con il libro "Gli affreschi bizantini in Jugoslavia".
A caso aprì la pagina con il ritratto di re Milutin, il fondatore del
monastero di Gracanica, ed esclamo':

"Questo è il Trecento!"

e chiese di mostrargli sulla carta, nel libro, dove si trovasse il
monastero. Quando gli dissi che si trova nel Campo dei Merli, egli
volle che gli ripetessi il nome in originale (Kosovo Polje), e ad un
tratto, come scosso da qualcosa, esclamò:

"E già Albania! Vedrete, ve lo assicuro!"

e continuò, non badando al mio stupore:

"Non siete normali, avete permesso al vostro popolo e agli albanesi di
creare l’inferno. Qualcuno vi ci ha spinto, sicuramente. Dovete aprire
gli occhi davanti alla tragedia che si avvicina. L’odio non è solo
cecità bensì ricatto. (...)
Auguro al vostro paese tutto il bene, ma in verità non lo vedo. La
vostra Algeria non è dall’altra parte del mare, bensì nel vostro
Orleans – questo lo so. Il Kosovo non è solo il paese della vostra
storia, esiste nel cuore della vostra cultura e la cultura, quando si
tratta del valore più alto che hai, non è mai il passato! Questa è più
una mia sensazione che la comprensione dell’intero problema. A parte la
risolutezza, bisogna avere il coraggio per delle soluzioni razionali
che non significano però soluzioni tenere, cedevoli. È stupido, sembra
che dia consigli, parlo soltanto come un’amico..."


(Testimonianza di Zivorad Stojkovic, su: "Rivista di Studi Slavi",
Parigi 1984. L’articolo tradotto è stato pubblicato nel "Dossier
Kosovo" de "La Nuova Unità", maggio 1997; uno stralcio anche su
"Visnjica broj 39":
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/814)


"Voce Jugoslava" / "Jugoslavenski glas"


Ogni martedì dalle ore 14,00 alle 14,30,  
VOCE JUGOSLAVA  

su Radio Città Aperta, FM 88.9 per il Lazio. Si può seguire, come del
resto anche le altre trasmissioni della Radio,  via Internet
all'indirizzo:
http://www.radiocittaperta.it
La trasmissione è bilingue (a seconda del tempo disponibile e della
necessità). La trasmissione è in diretta. Brevi interventi
allo 064393512. Sostenete questa voce libera e indipendente acquistando
video cassette, libri, bollettini a nostra disposizione. Sono possibili
adozioni a distanza (borse di studio).
Scriveteci via email: jugocoord@... ; tel/fax 06 4828957.


Svakog utorka, od 14,00 do 14,30 sati, na Radio Città Aperta, i valu FM
88.9 za regiju "Lazio",
JUGOSLAVENSKI GLAS. 

Emisija je u direktnom prijenosu. Moze se pratiti  i preko  Interneta:
http://www.radiocittaperta.it
Kratke intervencije na telefon (0039) 06 4393512.  Emisija je
dvojezicna,  po potrebi i vremenu na raspolaganju.
Podrzite taj slobodni i nezavisni glas, kupujuci knjige, video kazete,
brosure, koje imamo na raspolaganju.
Pisite nam na: jugocoord@..., ili fax  +39 06 4828957.
Trazimo zainteresirane za usvajanje na daljinu, t.j. djacke stipendije
za djecu prognanika.
 

Milosevic antwortet

(versione italiana:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2741
english version:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/engleski/slobaE170803.htm or
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2729
verzija na srpskohrvatskom:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2725 )


Milosevic antwortet

(Junge Welt, 4/10/2003)

Der frühere jugoslawische Präsident muß sich nun nicht nur in Den Haag,
sondern auch in Serbien selbst gegen Anklagen verteidigen, die ihm
schwere Verbrechen zur Last legen


Da der Prozeß vor dem UN-Tribunal in Den Haag nicht zur Zufriedenheit
der Strafverfolger verläuft, wurde der ehemalige jugoslawische
Präsident Slobodan Milosevic am 24. September auch in Serbien selbst
angeklagt. Milosevic wird der Anstiftung zur Ermordung des früheren
serbischen Präsidenten Ivan Stambolic und des fehlgeschlagenen
Attentats auf den ehemaligen Oppositionsführer Vuk Draskovic
beschuldigt.

Vorwürfe, Milosevic habe Stambolic ermorden lassen, waren sofort nach
dessen unaufgeklärtem Verschwinden im August 2000 laut geworden. Der
damalige Präsident in Belgrad, so sagen seine Kritiker, sei mit
Stambolic seit den achtziger Jahren verfeindet gewesen, als beide um
den Vorsitz der Kommunisten in Serbien rivalisierten und Milosevic
schließlich seinen politischen Ziehvater nach einem harten Machtkampf
verdrängen konnte.

Nach dem Fund der Leiche des früheren Spitzenpolitikers im März dieses
Jahres hatte die neue Regierung in Belgrad ein strafrechtliches
Vorgehen gegen Milosevic angekündigt. Als zusätzliches Indiz wurde nun
angeführt, Milosevic habe die Entführungs- und Mordaktion angeordnet,
um einen gefährlichen Rivalen für die Präsidentschaftswahlen im
September 2000 zu beseitigen. Dieses Argument war allerdings von Anfang
an nicht plausibel, da zum Zeitpunkt des Verschwindens Stambolics
bereits der spätere Wahlsieger Vojislav Kostunica seine Kandidatur
angemeldet hatte. Hätte Milosevic sein Wahlchancen verbessern wollen,
hätte er diesen beseitigen lassen müssen.

Vermutlich deswegen wird in der nun veröffentlichten Anklageschrift
Milosevic auch nicht mehr beschuldigt, die Bluttaten „befohlen“ oder
„angeordnet“ zu haben. Stattdessen heißt es nur noch vage, Milosevic
habe die unmittelbaren Täter „beeinflußt“, die Taten zu begehen. Seine
Frau Mirja Markovic, die Innenminister Dusan Mihaijlovic im Frühjahr
ebenfalls der Verwicklung in den Stambolic-Mord bezichtigt hatte und
die nach Veröffentlichung eines Haftbefehls außer Landes floh, ist
überraschender Weise nicht einmal als Inspiratorin des Verbrechens
angeklagt. Die Ausführung der Mordaktionen wird dem früheren
Befehlshaber der Sondereinheit der Roten Barette, Milorad Lukovic,
genannt Legija, und fünf seiner damaligen Untergebenen zur Last gelegt.
Als Mittäter, so die Sonderstaatsanwaltschaft, würden auch der damalige
Generalstabschef Nebojsa Pavkovic und der damalige
Staatssicherheitschef Radomir Markovic angeklagt.

Der Hauptangeklagte Legija gilt gleichzeitig als Kopf des Zemun-Clans,
einer wichtigen Mafia-Organisation, und soll laut Staatsanwaltschaft
auch Drahtzieher beim Mord am serbischen Premier Zoran Djindjic am 12.
März dieses Jahres gewesen sein. Um die Verbindung zwischen Legija und
Milosevic zu beweisen, wird gerne ein Video aus dem Jahr 1997 gezeigt,
das den Präsidenten vor einer Formation der Roten Barette in Kula
zeigt, wie er mit deren damaligem Kommandeur Legija einen Händedruck
austauscht. Die Absprachen zwischen Djindjic und Legija am Vorabend des
5. Oktober 2000, die der Opposition den Sturm auf Belgrad und den Sturz
Milosevics ermöglichten, werden in diesem Zusammenhang seltener erwähnt.

Zu den Vorwürfen hat der Haager Häftling bereits ausführlich Stellung
genommen, nachdem ihn Belgrader Ermittler – vor der förmlichen
Klageerhebung - in seiner Zelle dazu befragt hatten. Sein Schreiben
wurde am 24. August in der auflagenstarken serbischen Tageszeitung
„Vecernje novosti“ vollständig veröffentlicht, aber in den deutschen
Medien nicht zitiert. Junge Welt veröffentlicht den Brief leicht
gekürzt, mit erklärenden Zwischenüberschriften und Zwischenbemerkungen.
(je)


Milosevics Brief

Im März 2001 wurde ich imaginärer Verbrechen beschuldigt, auf dieser
Grundlage konnte ich verhaftet und nach Den Haag ausgeliefert werden.

Die neuen Anschuldigungen im Jahre 2003 haben denselben Zweck: Den
Haag. Nur besteht dieses Mal ihr Ziel darin, das Fiasko des falschen
Tribunals, das als Kriegswaffe gegen unser Land und unser Volk dient,
abzuwenden oder zumindest zu minimieren. Dieses Mal haben sie auch,
anders als 2001, damit begonnen, meine Familie zu terrorisieren und
meine Frau und meinen Sohn teuflisch zu verfolgen. Die verbrecherische
Kampagne gegen meine Frau und meinen Sohn wird ausschließlich deswegen
angestrengt, um meinen Kampf hier zu treffen.

Es ist absurd und beschämend, daß sie eine Frau jagen, die Gattin eines
langjährigen Staatsoberhauptes ist, aber auch Universitätsprofessorin
und Autorin von zehn Büchern, die in 30 Sprachen übersetzt und weltweit
verbreitet wurden. Ihre (in diesen Büchern abgedruckten, Anm. JE)
wöchentlichen Zeugnisse über die jugoslawische Krise wird man nicht
zerstören oder unterdrücken können. Ihr Wert hat sich mit der Zeit
bestätigt, das ist Miras Ehre und unser Stolz. Kein anderer
Geistesmensch hat seine Stimme stärker gegen Krieg, Gewalt,
Primitivität, Ausbeutung und Sklaverei und für Frieden, Freiheit und
Gleichberechtigung erhoben.

Sie jagen einen jungen Mann, der sich freien Mutes zu einem
unabhängigen Leben auf der Grundlage seiner eignen Arbeit, Intelligenz
und Fähigkeiten entschlossen hat und gleichzeitig alles dafür getan
hat, anderen zu helfen und seine Stadt schöner und menschlicher zu
machen.

(...)
Die Helfer des Zemun-Clans

Weder ich noch jemand aus meiner Umgebung hatte jemals irgendwelche
Verbindung mit kriminellen Gruppen. Ein „Zemun-Clan“ existierte nicht,
als ich noch Präsident war. Er ist vielmehr das direkte Ergebnis des
Verhaltens der jetzigen Regierung, der Rolle bestimmter Gruppen und
Individuen beim Umsturz am 5. Oktober 2000 und ihrer gegenseitigen
Abmachungen.

Mein Besuch in Kula geschah anläßlich einer Feierlichkeit, eine Geste
der Anerkennung für den Sicherheitschef Jovica Stanisic ... Daß alles
dort für mich neu war, sollte für jeden offensichtlich sein, der sich
das ganze Videoband aufmerksam anschaut. Der Offizier, der mir bei der
Parade rapportierte, war mir nicht bekannt. Nun weiß ich, daß sein Name
Lukovic „Legija“ ist ... Übrigens kann ich mich heute keines einzigen
Namens von Offizieren erinnern, die mir bei verschiedenen Gelegenheiten
vor der angetretenen Ehrengarde rapportierten. Das gilt sogar für die
Kommandeure der jugoslawischen Armeeinheiten.

Das erste Mal, als ich mit Lukovic-Legija sprach, war, als er am 31.
März 2001 kam, um mich zu verhaften. Vorher hatte ich niemals Kontakt
mit ihm, und er lief mir auch nicht über den Weg; das einzige, was ich
ihm je hätte „befehlen“ können, wäre also meine eigene Verhaftung
gewesen.
Klar ist, daß diejenigen, die Mitglieder der Roten Barette (und andere,
die mit Strümpfen über dem Kopf über den Zaun meiner Residenz sprangen)
dazu benutzen, mich zu verhaften, sie auch vorher und danach benutzt
haben. Klar ist, daß mir das nicht möglich war.

(...)
Der Mord an Stambolic

Ich war viele Jahre ein Freund von Ivan Stambolic. Unsere Wege trennten
sich auf dem 8. ZK-Plenum der serbischen Kommunisten im Jahre 1987.
Persönlich hatten wir keinen Streit. Nach seiner Abwahl kam er zu mir
und bat um einen (unserer gemeinsamen Meinung nach) der besten Jobs im
sozialistischen Jugoslawien: Präsident der Jugoslawischen Bank für
Internationale Wirtschaftsbeziehungen. Und er bekam ihn und blieb zehn
Jahre lang auf diesem Posten bis zu seiner Pensionierung, obwohl die
Rotation in Führungspositionen damals übliche Praxis war (...) Als
Politiker war er schon seit Jahren vergessen. Deswegen ist die
Geschichte, er habe eine potentielle Bedrohung bei der Wahl (im
September 2000, Anm. JE) dargestellt, eine eklatante Lüge, er war nie
im Rennen. Er war noch nicht einmal Kandidat. Ist übrigens in jenen
zehn Jahren irgendeinem Kandidaten irgend etwas passiert? (....) Ivan
Stambolic war ein vergessener Politiker, und zum Zeitpunkt seines
Verschwindens war er auch ein vergessener Bankier. Jahrelang hatte ihn
niemand im politischen Apparat erwähnt. (...) Das soll keine
Beleidigung sein, aber niemand scherte sich mehr um Ivan Stambolic. Es
gab auch keine Verfolgung jener, die seinen Standpunkt auf dem 8.
Plenum unterstützt hatten. (Milosevic nennt dann einige Beispiele,
welche Positionen frühere Stambolic-Freunde – und damit
Milosevic-Gegner – in den neunziger Jahren bekleideten – Anm. JE).

Attentat in Montenegro

Da der Ermittler ... meine angebliche Verwicklung in den „versuchten
Mordanschlag auf Vuk Draskovic“ (im Juni 2000, Anm. JE) erwähnten,
möchte ich darüber auch einige Worte sagen.

Ich habe niemals daran geglaubt, daß das, was in Budva passiert ist,
ein echter Mordversuch war, denn es erscheint unwahrscheinlich, daß
jemand sein ganzes Magazin in einem kleinen Raum verfeuern kann und mit
keiner Kugel trifft. Nicht einmal Vuk Draskovic mit seinem
Schauspieltalent hätte sich in eine Fliege oder ein Moskito verwandeln
können. Ich glaubte, daß ihn entweder jemand einschüchtern wollte, oder
daß er selbst den ganzen Vorfall inszeniert hat, um Aufmerksamkeit zu
bekommen und in der Rolle des „Regimeopfers“ zu posieren. Es ist
unschwer zu sehen, wer von einem solchen Vorfall hätte profitieren
können, und es ist überaus klar, daß er der Regierung nicht nützte.
Tatsächlich war genau das Gegenteil der Fall.

Mir ist nicht bekannt, daß der serbische Staatssicherheitsdienst in
Montenegro über die Beobachtung des Zigarettenschmuggels nach Serbien
hinaus aktiv war ... Ich sprach niemals mit (Generalstabschef, Anm. JE)
Pavkovic über den Abtransport von „Attentätern“ und „Agenten“ aus
Montenegro. Es ist unglaubwürdig, daß der Oberkommandierende in das
Verschicken angeblicher Geheimagenten verwickelt war ...
(Staatssicherheitschef, Anm. JE) Rade Markovic bezeugte sowohl hier
(gemeint: in Den Haag – Anm. JE) als auch gegenüber zwei
Parlamentskommissionen, daß man auf ungesetzliche Weise versucht hat,
ihn zu belastenden Aussagen gegen mich zu zwingen.

(...)
Ich verlangte sowohl vom Ermittler wie vom Ankläger, daß meine
Befragung öffentlich sein soll, sie hätten sogar eine offene
Telefonleitung installieren können, so daß mich jeder hätte fragen
können, was er will. Sie sagten, daß dies gesetzlich nicht erlaubt sei,
solange die Ermittlungen andauerten. Ich akzeptierte, aber verlangte,
daß die Aufzeichnungen nach Abschluß der Untersuchung öffentlich
gemacht wurden – dann gäbe es keine Gefahr einer möglichen Einflußnahme
mehr. Auch das wiesen sie zurück, obwohl sie die gesetzliche Vollmacht
hatten, es zu genehmigen. (...)

Heutzutage benutzt die Regierung das Gesetz als Entschuldigung für
Gesetzlosigkeit und Tyrannei. Nichts Neues!

Montesquieu schrieb schon 1742: „Es gibt keine grausamere Tyrannei als
jene, die unter dem Schild des Gesetzes und im Namen der Gerechtigkeit
ausgeübt wird.“

Bei dieser ganzen schmutzigen Operation, den ungesetzlichen Haager
Gerichtshof vor dem Fiasko zu retten, ist die Verfolgung meiner Frau
und meines Sohnes am beschämendsten. Ich sagte dem
Untersuchungsrichter, daß seine Untersuchung auch die
Phantomgoldbarren, die Devisenreserven, die Villen in der Schweiz und
was immer sonst einschließen solle, denn diese Dinge waren alle in
verschiedenen Stellungnahmen und großen Zeitungsartikeln schon erwähnt
worden, nur um später „vergessen“ zu werden.

Ich fragte ihn: „Schämen Sie sich nicht?“ Er antwortete nicht.

Meiner Frau und meinem Sohn, Mira und Marko, die auf die abscheulichste
Weise von mir getrennt wurden, möchte ich sagen: „Das Leben ist zu
kurz, um Euch für Eure Güte zu danken.“

Übersetzung und Bearbeitung: Jürgen Elsässer


---
BEFREIT DIE WELT VON “TRIBUNALEN” À LA DEN HAAG!
FREIHEIT FÜR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC!
FREIHEIT FÜR SERBIEN UND JUGOSLAWIEN!
Aufruf zur internationalen Demonstration in Den Haag
am Samstag, 8. November 2003
Siehe:
http://www.icdsm.org/ (Internationales Komitee für die Verteidigung von
Slobodan Milosevic - ICDSM - )
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (Deutsche Sektion des ICDSM)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/
(Aufruf zur Demo)