Informazione
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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.
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.
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)
(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)
COMUNISTI SALDI, O SALDI COMUNISTI ?
Fulvio Grimaldi
(da MONDOCANE FUORI LINEA del 29/10/03)
Lutrario Guido è un ragazzo minuto, nervoso, un po’ anziano e pelatino,
di modi soffici e persuasivi, che, personaggio-guida del giro
Disobbedienti di Roma, si potrebbe definire un Casarini dal volto umano
e, con Wilma Mazza, vociferante e irosa pasionaria del movimento e
padrona dell’emittente disobbediente Radio Sherwood di Padova, il Trio
Lescano della musica new-global italiana diretta dal maestro
(pseudo)cattivo Tony Negri. Sono quelli, per intenderci, che per vedere
il bosco Impero non vedono il taglialegna Imperialismo USA. Lutrario
Guido, dirigente senza elezioni di un gruppo di forse 500 militanti più
qualche migliaio di credenti semplici, costituisce insieme al parimenti
mai votato Casarini, (quando tentò di farsi votare dalla gente,
Casarini rimediò il classico prefisso telefonico) la leadership
carismatica veneto-romana del più chiassoso e virulento aparat
nonviolento della scena politica italiana. Ora, Lutrario Guido,
essendogli apparso in sogno una vetrina con la scritta “Saldi di
comunisti”, ha diffuso e scritto un “documento” intitolato “Movimento o
partito?”, nel quale sollecita i Giovani Comunisti, organizzazione
giovanile di Rifondazione Comunista, a sciogliersi per confluire nella
sua società di Disobbedienti, in apnea di consensi numerici e, ancor
più, sociali. Incurante, peraltro, del fatto, che il fior fiore
dirigenziale dei G.C. tale scelta aveva già fatto, esibendosi e
presentandosi come Disobbedienti al pubblico, e solo in camera
caritatis partitica come anche Giovani Comunisti, mentre gli altri
restavano dov’erano, anche perché gli pareva incongruo stare con un
piede in un partito comunista e con l’altro in un contenitore
anti-partito e anticomunista.
Lutrario Guido, un po’ più irsuto, lo avevo conosciuto in un viaggio in
Chiapas, alcuni anni fa, quando lui e i suoi amici si chiamavano
soltanto “Ya Basta” e “Centri sociali del Nord-Est”. Virgulti della
piccola e media borghesia romano-veneta, più qualche residuale
fricchettone e una spruzzata di borgatari, avevano invaso il Chiapas
per portare agli indios della Realidad il progetto di una turbina ad
acqua che avrebbe fornito corrente alla comunità. Gli indios, pazienti,
ci accolsero con fazzoletto zapatista d’ordinanza sulla faccia, si
fecero fotografare e intervistare e non dissero nulla di sconveniente
quando videro per l’ennesima volta gli ospiti rovistare tra le sponde
di un ruscelletto per stabilire come e dove installare il prodigio
tecnologico (che verrà inaugurato ancora varie volte, prima che
un mulinello venisse posato tra le acque e accendesse qualche
lampadina).
Mancammo il sospirato incontro con il Sub. Marcos, disegnato da un
esperto dell’età evolutiva nei panni di Zorro, rintanato nella foresta
Lacandona (?), doveva essere intento, dopo aver spento, con la sua
insurrezione del 1.gennaio 1994, i numerosi fuochi endemici di
guerriglia che ardevano da decenni, a preparare quella lunga marcia a
Città del Messico che lo avrebbe portato dal neo-presidente amerikano
Fox, davanti al quale, ottenuta una leggina a protezione delle piume
dei copricapo indios, depose le armi e proclamò la nonviolenza
zapatista universale e il totale disinteresse dei “ribelli” per il
potere. Disinteresse che a molti di noi parve parente stretto di quello
che Marcos, riferimento intergalattico dei no-global, riservava a tutti
i movimenti di lotta latinoamericani, armati o pacifici, dai piqueteros
argentini, agli insorti di Chavez, a Cuba assediata e vincente, ai
guerriglieri indios e ai movimenti di lotta operai e contadini che
sempre più scuotono il Messico e tutto il cortile di casa degli USA, ma
anche alla tragedia palestinese, allo squartamento della Jugoslavia,
alla polverizzazione dell’Afganistan. Borbottò qualcosa sull’ Iraq, ma
solo perché lì l’ONU aveva nicchiato. Si rispense subito e non mandò
neanche un fazzoletto zapatista al vertice WTO di Cancun.
Finimmo poi in un villaggio, Taniperlas, che le autorità ci avevano
inibito bloccandoci i pulmini. Affrontammo 40 km di marcia sotto 45° a
piedi, molti collassarono, ma poi riapparvero miracolosamente i pulmini
e ci portarono fin là. Là porgemmo fiori e sorrisi alle donne
cattoliche e zapatiste di una manesca comunità inquinata dagli
evangelici USA, facemmo cordoni a loro protezione per mezz’ora e
ripartimmo, vedendo tra nuvole di polvere gli uni avventarsi sulle
altre. Per questa nostra azione rivoluzionaria, il governo messicano ci
bandì per qualche tempo dal paese. Ma molti e elogiativi furono gli
echi sulla stampa italiana, del resto curiosamente sempre assai
ospitale verso le imprese disobbedienti, con tanto di telecamere e
taccuini tempestivamente sul posto. Sai, quando fai caciara, ma te ne
fotti del Potere…
Ritrovai questi dinamici globetrotter due anni dopo dall’altra parte
del mondo, a stringere legami con l’altro loro polo di riferimento:
l’opposizione serba. Rimasti in puntiglioso silenzio durante le stragi
ed espulsioni di mezza popolazione serba da Croazia e Bosnia (e, più
tardi, dal Kosovo), divennero rumorosissimi allorché la Nato si avventò
sulla Jugoslavia per l’ultimo banchetto. Inventarono la sofisticata
linea politica cui diedi una fortunata denominazione: “il partito del
né-né”, né con la Nato né con Milosevic. La cosa costò nulla alla Nato
e, ovviamente, parecchio alla Jugoslavia, ai serbi e a Milosevic, al
punto che tutti costoro sono scomparsi dal palcoscenico. Alcuni
compagni che recavano una bandiera jugoslava al corteo di Aviano furono
centrosocialmente bastonati e derubati della bandiera. E’un vizio
recentemente ribadito a Venezia con il pestaggio di compagni di
Rifondazione che protestavano contro la glorificazione di “martiri del
comunismo” da parte di un prosindaco loro amico. In una sosta nel
viaggio di ritorno da Aviano incrociai Lutrario Guido e gli feci
presente la sconvenienza del comportamento del Casarini e squadristi
associati. Lui si inalberò, nella misura della sua statura e, meno
affabile del solito, inveì che un “Grande Compagno come Luca non va
diffamato!” A Belgrado i nordestini, benedetti da un Don Vitaliano,
strinsero forte e duratura amicizia con Otpor, una versatile
formazione che strombazzava dalla radio del circuito CIA “B-92”,
aggrediva operai in corteo, schierò bande di squadristi per scorribande
nelle città e l’incendio del Parlamento, in quel 5 ottobre della
cosiddetta (da “sinistra”) “rivoluzione democratica” di Belgrado, ma,
fino alla caduta di Milosevic, esibiva nel suo logo un pugno nero alla
parigina. Uno sdoppiamento ripraticato oggi da non pochi, tra filosofi
torinesi ed elmetti da scontro scenico umbri. Risultò subito che questi
ragazzi-bene della Serbia si erano attivati, non solo per il
rovesciamento del governo jugoslavo, ma per un programma politico che
prevedeva la cessione agli “investitori” stranieri del patrimonio
nazionale, della forza- lavoro serba (definita di “modico costo”) e del
welfare. Protezioni sociali fin lì garantite da un “dittatore”
ripetutamente eletto e che, peraltro, se la doveva vedere con 16
partiti nemici su 18 e con il 92% dei media avversi, tutti, compreso
Otpor, largamente finanziati da Washington. All’uopo, i quadri di Otpor
erano stati addestrati da un generale della CIA a Budapest e a Sofia.
Lo dissero loro, lo provarono la BBC, il New York Times, il “Diario” di
De Aglio e il sottoscritto, che per questo fu castigato dal suo
giornale al quale Otpor risultava “compagno di strada del movimento
no-global” (la resa dei conti definitiva verrà poi con Cuba). Otpor
venne a banchettare, convegnare e trasmettere in Italia e lo stesso
fecero dall’altra parte i compagni italiani.
Seguirono, nella storia di questo segmento del “popolo di Seattle”,
tutta una serie di tumulti, spesso concordati con la polizia, come da
loro ammesso, una caterva di botte a compagni di organizzazioni
antirazziste, di sinistra, antagoniste varie, che osavano invadere il
territorio loro sovrano, un discreto stipendio al sub-sub nazionale,
impegnatissimo nella difesa degli immigrati, da parte del ministro
autore di una odiosa legge anti-immigrati, nerborute scalate al
controllo del Movimento dei movimenti. Un episodio emblematico e che
più di altri mi colpì fu quello che vide Ya Basta lanciare contro
l’Intifada palestinese, il 9 novembre 2001, manifestazione nazionale
per la Palestina, una dura reprimenda per aver chiesto anche il popolo
palestinese uno Stato come tutti gli altri, con la conseguente
dissociazione dalla manifestazione di solidarietà. Forse, quella volta,
si accorsero dell’errore, perché rimasero soli come pitbull sotto
Sirchia. E allora ripararono avventandosi in massa sulla Palestina, ne
trassero un video nel quale si vedevano più casarini che kefieh e
presero a collocare poster di lanciasassi nei loro ambienti. Fu moto
breve, forse un altro errore uguale e contrario. Tant’è vero che se ora
chiedi a un Disobbediente cosa ne è della Palestina, o magari
dell’Iraq, ti risponderà di farla finita con questi nazionalismi e di
occuparti del WTO (mai di FMI, Banca Mondiale, Nato, o Bush, che hanno
l’attenuante di essere del tutto amerikani), tanto lì è facile
rivendicare vittorie conseguite piuttosto dai paesi poveri guidati da
Cina, Sudafrica, Brasile e Venezuela. E’ che gli espulsi ai
Disobbedienti piacciono in quanto individui in barca. Come nazioni sono
detestabili.
Tutto questa festa di colori, esodi, moltitudini, muncipalismi e
imperi, bilanci partecipativi ha fatto sì che il movimento e perfino
partiti vezzeggianti seppure schifati – ma mai votati – se ne siano
andati da un’altra parte e abbiano lasciato l’ideale municipalista e
antistatalista alla riserva teorica dei Disobbedienti, in ciò ormai
soli, seppure colmati di comprensione da Bossi e da Bush, che se ne
servono per disintegrare possibili blocchi di contrasto
antimperialista. Da questa profonda solitudine, si sprigiona il grido
di Lutrario Guido. Si chiede, Guido, “a che serve Rifondazione
Comunista?” E la domanda, in verità, potrebbe avere un qualche
fondamento, alla luce di certe ombre che avanzano alle spalle di un
D’Alema-Amato-Rutelli in congiunzione elittica con gli unici che
annoverano tra di loro ancora dei comunisti. Vedremo chi avrà più filo…
Ma, stia pur certo Lutrario, a tutto pensano i comunisti, con la loro
storia di oltre un secolo di battaglie contro il padrone e i suoi
collateralisti, fuorché rintanarsi nei buchi dell’autogestione
spinellara e birraiola, compatita dal potere finchè vi si rimane
invischiati,. Si chiede qual è il “contributo in avanti sul piano
dell’elaborazione teorica e quindi dell’innovazione delle pratiche che
i giovani comunisti hanno portato tra i disobbedienti, quale il
contributo che la loro tradizione di provenienza ha portato nel
movimento?” E ha ragione a rispondersi implicitamente: zero, se pensa a
coloro che hanno calzato sulla falce e sul martello la tutina dei
Disobbedienti, o la camicia nera di Otpor. Ma se invece si riferisce ai
giovani e comunisti che lottano con quelli nel mondo che, come Ebe de
Bonafini a Porto Alegre, a voraci ONG e a ambigui nonviolenti
partecipazionisti del campanile sbattono la porta in faccia e vanno a
fare la rivoluzione, Lutrario si è picconato i piedi. Vedi, Guido, per
psicologi e antropologi l’infanzia è giustamente l’età in cui si
disobbedisce e si ruba la marmellata; da ragazzi, poi, ci si ribella e
si marina la scuola. Se si riesce a crescere ancora – non è da tutti –
si diventa rivoluzionari e si cambia il mondo.
Dai, ancora uno sforzo, chè ce la fate, prima che vi cadano tutti i
capelli. Quanto ai saldi, quella vetrina ti aveva preso per il culo.
Fulvio Grimaldi
(da MONDOCANE FUORI LINEA del 29/10/03)
Lutrario Guido è un ragazzo minuto, nervoso, un po’ anziano e pelatino,
di modi soffici e persuasivi, che, personaggio-guida del giro
Disobbedienti di Roma, si potrebbe definire un Casarini dal volto umano
e, con Wilma Mazza, vociferante e irosa pasionaria del movimento e
padrona dell’emittente disobbediente Radio Sherwood di Padova, il Trio
Lescano della musica new-global italiana diretta dal maestro
(pseudo)cattivo Tony Negri. Sono quelli, per intenderci, che per vedere
il bosco Impero non vedono il taglialegna Imperialismo USA. Lutrario
Guido, dirigente senza elezioni di un gruppo di forse 500 militanti più
qualche migliaio di credenti semplici, costituisce insieme al parimenti
mai votato Casarini, (quando tentò di farsi votare dalla gente,
Casarini rimediò il classico prefisso telefonico) la leadership
carismatica veneto-romana del più chiassoso e virulento aparat
nonviolento della scena politica italiana. Ora, Lutrario Guido,
essendogli apparso in sogno una vetrina con la scritta “Saldi di
comunisti”, ha diffuso e scritto un “documento” intitolato “Movimento o
partito?”, nel quale sollecita i Giovani Comunisti, organizzazione
giovanile di Rifondazione Comunista, a sciogliersi per confluire nella
sua società di Disobbedienti, in apnea di consensi numerici e, ancor
più, sociali. Incurante, peraltro, del fatto, che il fior fiore
dirigenziale dei G.C. tale scelta aveva già fatto, esibendosi e
presentandosi come Disobbedienti al pubblico, e solo in camera
caritatis partitica come anche Giovani Comunisti, mentre gli altri
restavano dov’erano, anche perché gli pareva incongruo stare con un
piede in un partito comunista e con l’altro in un contenitore
anti-partito e anticomunista.
Lutrario Guido, un po’ più irsuto, lo avevo conosciuto in un viaggio in
Chiapas, alcuni anni fa, quando lui e i suoi amici si chiamavano
soltanto “Ya Basta” e “Centri sociali del Nord-Est”. Virgulti della
piccola e media borghesia romano-veneta, più qualche residuale
fricchettone e una spruzzata di borgatari, avevano invaso il Chiapas
per portare agli indios della Realidad il progetto di una turbina ad
acqua che avrebbe fornito corrente alla comunità. Gli indios, pazienti,
ci accolsero con fazzoletto zapatista d’ordinanza sulla faccia, si
fecero fotografare e intervistare e non dissero nulla di sconveniente
quando videro per l’ennesima volta gli ospiti rovistare tra le sponde
di un ruscelletto per stabilire come e dove installare il prodigio
tecnologico (che verrà inaugurato ancora varie volte, prima che
un mulinello venisse posato tra le acque e accendesse qualche
lampadina).
Mancammo il sospirato incontro con il Sub. Marcos, disegnato da un
esperto dell’età evolutiva nei panni di Zorro, rintanato nella foresta
Lacandona (?), doveva essere intento, dopo aver spento, con la sua
insurrezione del 1.gennaio 1994, i numerosi fuochi endemici di
guerriglia che ardevano da decenni, a preparare quella lunga marcia a
Città del Messico che lo avrebbe portato dal neo-presidente amerikano
Fox, davanti al quale, ottenuta una leggina a protezione delle piume
dei copricapo indios, depose le armi e proclamò la nonviolenza
zapatista universale e il totale disinteresse dei “ribelli” per il
potere. Disinteresse che a molti di noi parve parente stretto di quello
che Marcos, riferimento intergalattico dei no-global, riservava a tutti
i movimenti di lotta latinoamericani, armati o pacifici, dai piqueteros
argentini, agli insorti di Chavez, a Cuba assediata e vincente, ai
guerriglieri indios e ai movimenti di lotta operai e contadini che
sempre più scuotono il Messico e tutto il cortile di casa degli USA, ma
anche alla tragedia palestinese, allo squartamento della Jugoslavia,
alla polverizzazione dell’Afganistan. Borbottò qualcosa sull’ Iraq, ma
solo perché lì l’ONU aveva nicchiato. Si rispense subito e non mandò
neanche un fazzoletto zapatista al vertice WTO di Cancun.
Finimmo poi in un villaggio, Taniperlas, che le autorità ci avevano
inibito bloccandoci i pulmini. Affrontammo 40 km di marcia sotto 45° a
piedi, molti collassarono, ma poi riapparvero miracolosamente i pulmini
e ci portarono fin là. Là porgemmo fiori e sorrisi alle donne
cattoliche e zapatiste di una manesca comunità inquinata dagli
evangelici USA, facemmo cordoni a loro protezione per mezz’ora e
ripartimmo, vedendo tra nuvole di polvere gli uni avventarsi sulle
altre. Per questa nostra azione rivoluzionaria, il governo messicano ci
bandì per qualche tempo dal paese. Ma molti e elogiativi furono gli
echi sulla stampa italiana, del resto curiosamente sempre assai
ospitale verso le imprese disobbedienti, con tanto di telecamere e
taccuini tempestivamente sul posto. Sai, quando fai caciara, ma te ne
fotti del Potere…
Ritrovai questi dinamici globetrotter due anni dopo dall’altra parte
del mondo, a stringere legami con l’altro loro polo di riferimento:
l’opposizione serba. Rimasti in puntiglioso silenzio durante le stragi
ed espulsioni di mezza popolazione serba da Croazia e Bosnia (e, più
tardi, dal Kosovo), divennero rumorosissimi allorché la Nato si avventò
sulla Jugoslavia per l’ultimo banchetto. Inventarono la sofisticata
linea politica cui diedi una fortunata denominazione: “il partito del
né-né”, né con la Nato né con Milosevic. La cosa costò nulla alla Nato
e, ovviamente, parecchio alla Jugoslavia, ai serbi e a Milosevic, al
punto che tutti costoro sono scomparsi dal palcoscenico. Alcuni
compagni che recavano una bandiera jugoslava al corteo di Aviano furono
centrosocialmente bastonati e derubati della bandiera. E’un vizio
recentemente ribadito a Venezia con il pestaggio di compagni di
Rifondazione che protestavano contro la glorificazione di “martiri del
comunismo” da parte di un prosindaco loro amico. In una sosta nel
viaggio di ritorno da Aviano incrociai Lutrario Guido e gli feci
presente la sconvenienza del comportamento del Casarini e squadristi
associati. Lui si inalberò, nella misura della sua statura e, meno
affabile del solito, inveì che un “Grande Compagno come Luca non va
diffamato!” A Belgrado i nordestini, benedetti da un Don Vitaliano,
strinsero forte e duratura amicizia con Otpor, una versatile
formazione che strombazzava dalla radio del circuito CIA “B-92”,
aggrediva operai in corteo, schierò bande di squadristi per scorribande
nelle città e l’incendio del Parlamento, in quel 5 ottobre della
cosiddetta (da “sinistra”) “rivoluzione democratica” di Belgrado, ma,
fino alla caduta di Milosevic, esibiva nel suo logo un pugno nero alla
parigina. Uno sdoppiamento ripraticato oggi da non pochi, tra filosofi
torinesi ed elmetti da scontro scenico umbri. Risultò subito che questi
ragazzi-bene della Serbia si erano attivati, non solo per il
rovesciamento del governo jugoslavo, ma per un programma politico che
prevedeva la cessione agli “investitori” stranieri del patrimonio
nazionale, della forza- lavoro serba (definita di “modico costo”) e del
welfare. Protezioni sociali fin lì garantite da un “dittatore”
ripetutamente eletto e che, peraltro, se la doveva vedere con 16
partiti nemici su 18 e con il 92% dei media avversi, tutti, compreso
Otpor, largamente finanziati da Washington. All’uopo, i quadri di Otpor
erano stati addestrati da un generale della CIA a Budapest e a Sofia.
Lo dissero loro, lo provarono la BBC, il New York Times, il “Diario” di
De Aglio e il sottoscritto, che per questo fu castigato dal suo
giornale al quale Otpor risultava “compagno di strada del movimento
no-global” (la resa dei conti definitiva verrà poi con Cuba). Otpor
venne a banchettare, convegnare e trasmettere in Italia e lo stesso
fecero dall’altra parte i compagni italiani.
Seguirono, nella storia di questo segmento del “popolo di Seattle”,
tutta una serie di tumulti, spesso concordati con la polizia, come da
loro ammesso, una caterva di botte a compagni di organizzazioni
antirazziste, di sinistra, antagoniste varie, che osavano invadere il
territorio loro sovrano, un discreto stipendio al sub-sub nazionale,
impegnatissimo nella difesa degli immigrati, da parte del ministro
autore di una odiosa legge anti-immigrati, nerborute scalate al
controllo del Movimento dei movimenti. Un episodio emblematico e che
più di altri mi colpì fu quello che vide Ya Basta lanciare contro
l’Intifada palestinese, il 9 novembre 2001, manifestazione nazionale
per la Palestina, una dura reprimenda per aver chiesto anche il popolo
palestinese uno Stato come tutti gli altri, con la conseguente
dissociazione dalla manifestazione di solidarietà. Forse, quella volta,
si accorsero dell’errore, perché rimasero soli come pitbull sotto
Sirchia. E allora ripararono avventandosi in massa sulla Palestina, ne
trassero un video nel quale si vedevano più casarini che kefieh e
presero a collocare poster di lanciasassi nei loro ambienti. Fu moto
breve, forse un altro errore uguale e contrario. Tant’è vero che se ora
chiedi a un Disobbediente cosa ne è della Palestina, o magari
dell’Iraq, ti risponderà di farla finita con questi nazionalismi e di
occuparti del WTO (mai di FMI, Banca Mondiale, Nato, o Bush, che hanno
l’attenuante di essere del tutto amerikani), tanto lì è facile
rivendicare vittorie conseguite piuttosto dai paesi poveri guidati da
Cina, Sudafrica, Brasile e Venezuela. E’ che gli espulsi ai
Disobbedienti piacciono in quanto individui in barca. Come nazioni sono
detestabili.
Tutto questa festa di colori, esodi, moltitudini, muncipalismi e
imperi, bilanci partecipativi ha fatto sì che il movimento e perfino
partiti vezzeggianti seppure schifati – ma mai votati – se ne siano
andati da un’altra parte e abbiano lasciato l’ideale municipalista e
antistatalista alla riserva teorica dei Disobbedienti, in ciò ormai
soli, seppure colmati di comprensione da Bossi e da Bush, che se ne
servono per disintegrare possibili blocchi di contrasto
antimperialista. Da questa profonda solitudine, si sprigiona il grido
di Lutrario Guido. Si chiede, Guido, “a che serve Rifondazione
Comunista?” E la domanda, in verità, potrebbe avere un qualche
fondamento, alla luce di certe ombre che avanzano alle spalle di un
D’Alema-Amato-Rutelli in congiunzione elittica con gli unici che
annoverano tra di loro ancora dei comunisti. Vedremo chi avrà più filo…
Ma, stia pur certo Lutrario, a tutto pensano i comunisti, con la loro
storia di oltre un secolo di battaglie contro il padrone e i suoi
collateralisti, fuorché rintanarsi nei buchi dell’autogestione
spinellara e birraiola, compatita dal potere finchè vi si rimane
invischiati,. Si chiede qual è il “contributo in avanti sul piano
dell’elaborazione teorica e quindi dell’innovazione delle pratiche che
i giovani comunisti hanno portato tra i disobbedienti, quale il
contributo che la loro tradizione di provenienza ha portato nel
movimento?” E ha ragione a rispondersi implicitamente: zero, se pensa a
coloro che hanno calzato sulla falce e sul martello la tutina dei
Disobbedienti, o la camicia nera di Otpor. Ma se invece si riferisce ai
giovani e comunisti che lottano con quelli nel mondo che, come Ebe de
Bonafini a Porto Alegre, a voraci ONG e a ambigui nonviolenti
partecipazionisti del campanile sbattono la porta in faccia e vanno a
fare la rivoluzione, Lutrario si è picconato i piedi. Vedi, Guido, per
psicologi e antropologi l’infanzia è giustamente l’età in cui si
disobbedisce e si ruba la marmellata; da ragazzi, poi, ci si ribella e
si marina la scuola. Se si riesce a crescere ancora – non è da tutti –
si diventa rivoluzionari e si cambia il mondo.
Dai, ancora uno sforzo, chè ce la fate, prima che vi cadano tutti i
capelli. Quanto ai saldi, quella vetrina ti aveva preso per il culo.
AGGRESSORS SHALL NOT WRITE OUR HISTORY!
DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE HAGUE, NOV. 8TH 2003
In this message:
1. ICDSM Québec/ICDSM Canada in Solidarity with the Workers of Serbia
2. AGGRESSORS SHALL NOT WRITE OUR HISTORY!
International Demos of Serbian Diaspora and all progressive people -
THE HAGUE, 8 NOVEMBER 2003
3. AN OPEN LETTER which will be delivered by the demonstrators in The
Hague on November 8th
=== USEFUL LINKS ===
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
===
Dutch TV documentary on the Hague process, in two parts
http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+8048024
The broad tone of the documentary is the politized character of the
tribunal. The first part deals on how the prosecutions actions are
preliminary driven by the media picture develloped through the years. A
picture that was made and polished by PR firm to 'educate' the
American people. Several commentators say that the installation of the
ICTY was the result of an emotional reaction in the West to this
picture, so that it could be seen doing something. It asks the question
on how images and group thinking influence our perception of facts. The
ITN story features in the part were the demonisation of the serbs is
discussed and how this strategy developped. Thomas Deichmann is
interviewed on how he discovered the manipulation of the images (barb
wire on inside of poles, no barbed wire around the rest of the camp,
cars drving in and out the camp). The documentary shows unedited ITN
footage which supports the allegations of the manipulation. One of the
general conclusions is that the tribunal now has diffuclties in proving
the often over the top allegations and demonisations then made for
political purposes. Part 2 deals a large part with specific witnessess
and the troubles the prosecutions has making its case. It attacks the
use of protected witnessess and closed sessions. The documentary brings
into the open how witnessess (often war criminals) are promised money,
immunity and a new life in the West for their statement implicating
Milosevic. Captain Dragan gives an interesting interview from the golf
course. Even if you dont understand dutch large parts are in English,
German and Serbian.
Peter Varavejke, Belgium
(From: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milo_discuss.php
Monday September 29, 2003 at 12:36 pm)
===
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)
=== 1 ===
ICDSM Québec/ICDSM Canada in Solidarity with the Workers of Serbia
The fight for people’s sovereignty: in The Hague Star Chamber and on
the streets of Belgrade, it is one struggle!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC IS DEFENDING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY FOR ALL PEOPLE
President Milosevic warned of the loss of economic sovereignty,
privatization, and their consequences
In his address to the Yugoslav people on October 2nd, 2000, President
Slobodan Milosevic implored the citizens of Yugoslavia protect their
dignity and independence against the assault of foreign domination. He
said:
<<…All countries finding themselves with limited sovereignty and with
governments controlled by foreign powers, speedily become impoverished
in a way that destroys all hope for more just and humane social
relations.
A great division into a poor majority and a rich minority, this has
been the picture in Eastern Europe for some years now that we can all
see.
That picture would also include us. Under the control of the new owners
of our country we too would quickly have a tremendous majority of the
very poor, whose prospects of coming out of their poverty would be very
uncertain, very distant.
The rich minority would be made up of the black marketeering elite,
which would be allowed to stay rich only on condition that it was fully
loyal to the outside, controlling powers.
Public and social property would quickly be transformed into private
property, but its owners, as demonstrated by the experience of our
neighbors, would be foreigners. Among the few exceptions would be those
who would buy their right to own property by their loyalty and
submission, which would lead to the elimination of elementary national
and human dignity.
The greatest national assets in such circumstances become the property
of foreigners, and the people who used to manage them continue to do
so, but as employees of foreign companies in their own country. >>
National humiliation, state fragmentation and social misery would
necessarily lead to many forms of social pathology, of which crime
would be the first. This is not just a supposition, this is the
experience of all countries which have taken the path that we are
trying to avoid at any cost.
The capitals of European crime are no longer in the west, they were
moved to Eastern Europe a decade ago.
As the NATO powers pointed a gun to the heads of Yugoslavia’s
electorate, and drenched them with propaganda via their local
hirelings, President Milosevic appreciated that not everybody would
heed his warnings. He expressed the following hope: "Citizens, you
must make up your own minds whether to believe me or not. My only wish
is that they do not realize I am telling the truth when it is too late,
that they do not realize after it has become so much more difficult to
correct mistakes that some people have made, naively, superficially or
erroneously."
It is not too late
For five consecutive days, Belgrade has been at the heart of an
extraordinary upheaval. Workers have descended upon the Parliament, by
tens of thousands, demanding an end to privatization, and the
dissolution of the so-called “pro-democracy” government which, while
committing constitutional breaches and making a repressive mockery of
democratic norms, has created unimaginably desperate living conditions
for the people of Serbia. With an unemployment rate of at least 30%, it
is galling to read the smug, condescending rebukes of the mainstream
press, who claim workers are unhappy or “impatient” with the "painful
process" of privatization, and would prefer a "radical" improvement of
their quality of life. The indignities suffered by the people of
Yugoslavia are too many to mention. Since 1990, every attempt has been
made by the US and Western powers to defeat Yugoslavia’s sovereignty:
from IMF blackmail to cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and along the
way the fomenting of civil war, unrest, poverty, the financing and
encouragement of terrorism, the sowing and exacerbation of hatred,
fear, and hopelessness.
Today, Serbian steel workers, now employed by the giant multinational
US Steel, who purchased the Smederevo steel company – which used to
belong to the workers – for a measly $23 million as part of the DOS’s
"pro-democracy" fire-sale, are striking for the right to make a bit
less than one dollar an hour. Workers all over the country now reject
the humiliation of foreign domination and the immiseration of their
compatriots in this looting spree brought by NATO bayonets and the IMF
and bearing the cynical euphemism of “reforms.” They are demanding
respect for their dignity and a return of their sovereign rights. How
poignantly this principled struggle points up the prescience and wisdom
of President Milosevic’s warnings.
President Milosevic Defends the Ideals of Yugoslavia from a cell in The
Hague
For the past seventeen months, President Slobodan Milosevic has
defended the dignity of his fellow citizens in an ever-increasingly
secretive, unfair and illegal process. The International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), born of political pressure
from the US administration – which has institutionalized legal impunity
for its own crimes – does not intend to conduct a trial that would meet
international standards of justice. The show-trial of President
Milosevic provides "legal" cover for the US/NATO policy of regime
change in Yugoslavia. President Milosevic has never wavered in his
characterization of the ICTY as an illegal, illegitimate tool of the US
and NATO powers against the sovereignty of a nation they destroyed. He
has taken every opportunity to defend the dignity of his nation, and
reveal the perfidy that broke up Yugoslavia.
An unfair process
As the process wears on, the Trial Chamber's effort to stifle the
defendant have gone from outrageous to pathetic. First, the major media
pulled out of The Hague, complicit in the browning-out of President
Milosevic's articulate and effective defense. Then, without complaint,
he has weathered successively more transparent attempts to exhaust him
and has maintained remarkable poise in life-threatening conditions.
In November of last year, the ICDSM requested standing before the
Chamber to argue that Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition required
immediate specialized medical attention, and that his state of health
required he be released from custody, given adequate time for his
convalescence, and be allowed to prepare his defence in a non-custodial
setting. The ICTY has not granted this request, nor has it denied it.
The "Tribunal" has simply ignored it.
Gag order
In brazen complicity with the ICTY, the Belgrade regime persecutes the
family of President Milosevic, preventing him even from receiving
visits from his wife and son.
Slobodan Milosevic cannot meet with his closest associates and friends,
as the Registrar has banned him from contact with members of his party,
the SPS, (Socialist Party of Serbia) and "associated entities".
Sloboda, the leading association in defence of President Milosevic has
been listed as a banned group. The Registrar applied this measure
based on the suspicion that two SPS members who had visited him had
spoken to the press. "Associated entities" could be anyone -it is left
to the discretion of the Registrar. This is an attempt to silence
President Milosevic and interfere with the preparation of his defence.
Sloboda has challenged the ban on legal grounds. It has yet to hear
from the ICTY.
A public trial?
Article 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the
presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to a public
trial. But the "trial" of Slobodan Milosevic is often not public, and
shielded from international public scrutiny. Security concerns are
systematically invoked to justify the numerous closed sessions,
pseudonymous witnesses, and ex parte motions filed by the Prosecutor,
motions whose content Mr. Milosevic is not entitled to review. In the
past six months, the Chamber has handed down several decisions
following ex parte motions. Another fundamental right is to be present
for one's own trial. If Mr. Milosevic cannot read Prosecution
submissions to the judges, let alone respond to them, can it be said
that he is actually present at his trial?
Unintelligible
The ICTY has now authorized the admission into evidence of written
witness statements. It has become impossible to follow the trial.
Witnesses declare that their statements are true, and President
Milosevic is afforded a mere hour to cross-examine them. The public can
only try to speculate as to the content of the witness' evidence. At
least we can now say that this is no longer a "Show Trial", but
rather a strictly closed-circuit event.
Less time, fewer questions!
So effective has been Slobodan Milosevic in hammering home the message
of NATO's aggression against his nation, and the conspiracy to
dismember Yugoslavia, with consequences now being felt – and
courageously challenged – by the people of Serbia, that the ICTY is
determined to prevent him from continuing. Cross-examination has been
severely curtailed and he has been barred, with respect to certain
witnesses, from asking questions with respect to their credibility.
This is unheard of in any adversarial legal system, such as the ICTY
purports to be.
When President Milosevic attempted to question the Deputy Prosecutor
(who appeared as a witness!) about their position – namely, supine –
with respect to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, whether the Prosecutor
had acted "objectively" and "without bias" in summarily dismissing a
request to investigate a large number of egregious violations of
International Law, including the Geneva Conventions, Mr. Milosevic was
told by the President of the Chamber that it was "irrelevant". He was
told that if he did not ask questions "as ordered" he would not have
the right to ask questions at all. A question pointing up the
protection of Al Qaeda-supported terrorism in Kosovo by the ICTY and
its NATO sponsors met with a similar reaction. The "amicus curiae,"
friend of the court, appointed against President's Milosevic's will,
attempted to intervene but was browbeaten by a visibly angry President
of the Chamber.
What comes next?
President Milosevic has been afforded a mere three months to prepare
his defence, while the Prosecution has been accumulating evidence since
the ICTY was established in 1993. The Prosecution has stalled
throughout this case, and is still adding witnesses to its list, as
well as changing, at the last minute, the order in which they are to
appear. But the ICTY has ordered President Milosevic to provide a
witness list only six weeks after the close of the seemingly endless
Prosecution case. All the while, the Prosecution blames President
Milosevic for the delays. They blame his ill health – for which they
are responsible – and they blame him for "wasting the court's time" by
asking embarrassing questions.
He has received millions of pages of documents, as well as thousands of
tapes, exhibits and photos. Isolated from his closest associates, his
preparation of the defence phase – and the crucial matter of defence
witnesses – is severely impaired.
After twenty-one months of this process, nothing has been proven
against President Milosevic, and thanks to his unerring determination,
much has been proven about the ICTY's purely political nature. He could
very well invite the Chamber to take notice of the Prosecution's
failure to establish a single count of the Prosecution's fantastic
indictments. Only one indictment, the so-called "Kosovo" indictment,
has shown itself to be of any use – it served to isolate the leadership
and people of Serbia, to demonize them, and to justify a gruesome
78-day bombing campaign that barely lifted an eyebrow in the West, even
among so many who claim to be progressive.
What is more, it is not clear that this institution has the power to
compel witnesses to testify. The ICTY has claimed it is bound by
respect for the sovereignty of states – perhaps not that of Yugoslavia
– in that they respect the idea that states may decide whether or not
they choose to cooperate. In contrast, consequences are severe for
non-cooperation when requests are made to surrender those indicted.
It is true that sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law.
How can one explain the scores of decisions rendered by the
International Court of Justice – a truly legitimate UN body – against
the US that have never been complied with? Including the judgments
having found that US death sentences had been pronounced against
foreign nationals in violation of international law. The President of
the ICTY, Theodor Meron, represented the US in one such case, brought
by Germany, who won its suit before the world court. But the German
prisoners were executed nonetheless.
It is not clear that Slobodan Milosevic could call Bill Clinton as a
witness. The ICTY has left open the question as to whether there are
certain categories of State officials for whom immunity would
apply. Perhaps former Presidents will be protected by immunity from
testifying, to prevent other former Presidents from defending
themselves and their people. And this in contrast to the United States
itself, where Bill Clinton was compelled to provide a deposition when
accused of sexual harassment.
This concept of sovereignty, now threatening to prevent President
Milosevic from questioning those who destroyed Yugoslavia, is key. Loss
of sovereignty created the ICTY, as well as the miserable conditions
against which Serbia’s people are now rising, thus recalling President
Milosevic’s words: "All countries finding themselves with limited
sovereignty and with governments controlled by foreign powers, speedily
become impoverished in a way that destroys all hope for more just and
humane social relations."
This is the same struggle!
The large-scale protests in Belgrade demonstrate that the will of the
people to fight for their dignity will not be defeated. This has been
President Milosevic's struggle as well. A Committee of the Serbian
Diaspora, ICDSM, Sloboda and other progressive forces and individuals
are calling upon all honest and principled people to participate in the
international demonstration at The Hague on November 8th.
United for freedom in the same struggle, we shall all rise for freedom,
life and for the fundamental rights of the Serbian people and of their
defender, President Slobodan Milosevic. This kind of battle a united
people always wins. This fight against tyranny is a fight for the
dignity and prosperity of all peoples.
=== 2 ===
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
During the demonstrations, our delegations will deliver protest letters
to the Tribunal, Dutch Foreign Ministry and the Embassies of the UN
Security Council permanent members: USA, UK, France, Russia and China.
A letter of support will be delivered to President Milosevic.
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN,
FOR SURVIVAL OF THE SERBIAN PEOPLE,
FOR FREEDOM, TRUTH AND JUSTICE!
In the demonstrations for freedom and dignity of the Serbian people,
against the occupation and colonization of the Balkans, against the
aggression and enslaving of the peoples of the World, against the
attempt of the aggressor to try freedom fighters and victims, up to now
the participation has been confirmed by the groups of Serbs, Yugoslavs,
Greeks and other honest people from Germany, France, Switzerland,
Austria, Italy, UK, Holland, Serbia, among them Klaus Hartmann
(Germany), Fulvio Grimaldi (Italy), Louis Dalmas (France), John
Catalinotto (USA), Michel Collon (Belgium), Ian Johnson (UK), John
Jefferies (Ireland), Professor Aldo Bernardini (Italy), Wil van der
Klift (Holland), Misha Gavrilovich (UK), Dr Ljiljana Verner (Germany),
dr Sima Mraovitch (France), Vladimir Krsljanin (Yugoslavia) and many
others.
SAVE THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC!
S T O P THE HAGUE INQUISITION!
Useful files at:
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
=== 3 ===
To the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
To the Governments of the French Republic, People’s Republic of China,
Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America (via their Embassies at The Hague);
To the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
The people of Serbia and Yugoslavia have been victimized by the
criminal and irresponsible actions of foreign powers, primarily the
U.S. and other leading NATO governments. These powers provoked the
break-up of Yugoslavia and, in alliance with terrorists and
neo-fascists, waged the first war of aggression on European soil since
1945, against Yugoslavia. Until now no one responsible from these
countries has been held accountable for these crimes.
Instead, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and almost all
political and military leaders of the Serbian people who resisted the
destruction of their country have been forced to appear before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established
in violation of the UN Charter. Not being a legitimate court of law,
the ICTY has also proven to be no court of justice. Directly or
indirectly, the ICTY is responsible for the loss of seven human lives.
Its unfairness, bias and violation of both universal and European
conventions on the protection of human-rights, as well as of generally
accepted juridical principles, oblige all the most responsible members
of the World Organization to dismiss this malignant and failed attempt
to create an ad hoc court, which was done on a purely political basis.
The ICTY is not solving, but is deepening problems in the Balkans.
The rules and procedures of the ICTY favor the Prosecution and presume
the guilt of the defendants. The trials are being conducted so as to
allow the falsification of history, charging the entire Serbian nation
for alleged crimes, which is a kind of racism we believed was buried
forever in Europe. The Serbs and all other honest people of Europe
refuse to allow the aggressors to write history!
A terrifying panorama of distorted and perverse views on the history
of the Balkans was presented in the three indictments against President
Milosevic, who has been kept in illegal detention for more than two
years in spite of the three judgments of the Yugoslav Constitutional
Court. Supported by the freedom loving people in his country and
abroad, President Milosevic has heroically and successfully defended
the truth, in spite of his ill health, the bias of the judges and his
isolation from his family, associates and the media.
President Milosevic has been deprived of the basic conditions
necessary to prepare his case – time and facilities. To prepare to
confront what the tribunal has fabricated or collected in ten years,
while spending 700 million dollars from the UN budget alone, and what
took two years and millions of pages of disclosure for the Prosecution
to present, President Milosevic has been granted only six weeks, and he
must remain in his prison cell! At the same time, should this sort of
pressure on him continue, his malignant hypertension and damaged heart,
exacerbated by the way the trial is conducted, by the harsh prison
conditions and the absence of specialized medical care, can cause an
infarct or stroke any moment. Only in freedom is it possible to
diminish the threat to his life and allow the relative recuperation of
his health.
For all the above reasons, we
DEMAND:
1. The immediate release of President Milosevic and an adjournment of
the process against him for at least two years;
2. Abolition of the ICTY, as it is a criminal tool against Yugoslavia
and Serbian people and an insult to law and justice.
SERBS AND OTHER HONEST CITIZENS OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA GATHERED IN
THE INTERNATIONAL DEMONSTRATIONS AT THE HAGUE ON 8 NOVEMBER 2003
DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE HAGUE, NOV. 8TH 2003
In this message:
1. ICDSM Québec/ICDSM Canada in Solidarity with the Workers of Serbia
2. AGGRESSORS SHALL NOT WRITE OUR HISTORY!
International Demos of Serbian Diaspora and all progressive people -
THE HAGUE, 8 NOVEMBER 2003
3. AN OPEN LETTER which will be delivered by the demonstrators in The
Hague on November 8th
=== USEFUL LINKS ===
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
===
Dutch TV documentary on the Hague process, in two parts
http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+8048024
The broad tone of the documentary is the politized character of the
tribunal. The first part deals on how the prosecutions actions are
preliminary driven by the media picture develloped through the years. A
picture that was made and polished by PR firm to 'educate' the
American people. Several commentators say that the installation of the
ICTY was the result of an emotional reaction in the West to this
picture, so that it could be seen doing something. It asks the question
on how images and group thinking influence our perception of facts. The
ITN story features in the part were the demonisation of the serbs is
discussed and how this strategy developped. Thomas Deichmann is
interviewed on how he discovered the manipulation of the images (barb
wire on inside of poles, no barbed wire around the rest of the camp,
cars drving in and out the camp). The documentary shows unedited ITN
footage which supports the allegations of the manipulation. One of the
general conclusions is that the tribunal now has diffuclties in proving
the often over the top allegations and demonisations then made for
political purposes. Part 2 deals a large part with specific witnessess
and the troubles the prosecutions has making its case. It attacks the
use of protected witnessess and closed sessions. The documentary brings
into the open how witnessess (often war criminals) are promised money,
immunity and a new life in the West for their statement implicating
Milosevic. Captain Dragan gives an interesting interview from the golf
course. Even if you dont understand dutch large parts are in English,
German and Serbian.
Peter Varavejke, Belgium
(From: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milo_discuss.php
Monday September 29, 2003 at 12:36 pm)
===
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)
=== 1 ===
ICDSM Québec/ICDSM Canada in Solidarity with the Workers of Serbia
The fight for people’s sovereignty: in The Hague Star Chamber and on
the streets of Belgrade, it is one struggle!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC IS DEFENDING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY FOR ALL PEOPLE
President Milosevic warned of the loss of economic sovereignty,
privatization, and their consequences
In his address to the Yugoslav people on October 2nd, 2000, President
Slobodan Milosevic implored the citizens of Yugoslavia protect their
dignity and independence against the assault of foreign domination. He
said:
<<…All countries finding themselves with limited sovereignty and with
governments controlled by foreign powers, speedily become impoverished
in a way that destroys all hope for more just and humane social
relations.
A great division into a poor majority and a rich minority, this has
been the picture in Eastern Europe for some years now that we can all
see.
That picture would also include us. Under the control of the new owners
of our country we too would quickly have a tremendous majority of the
very poor, whose prospects of coming out of their poverty would be very
uncertain, very distant.
The rich minority would be made up of the black marketeering elite,
which would be allowed to stay rich only on condition that it was fully
loyal to the outside, controlling powers.
Public and social property would quickly be transformed into private
property, but its owners, as demonstrated by the experience of our
neighbors, would be foreigners. Among the few exceptions would be those
who would buy their right to own property by their loyalty and
submission, which would lead to the elimination of elementary national
and human dignity.
The greatest national assets in such circumstances become the property
of foreigners, and the people who used to manage them continue to do
so, but as employees of foreign companies in their own country. >>
National humiliation, state fragmentation and social misery would
necessarily lead to many forms of social pathology, of which crime
would be the first. This is not just a supposition, this is the
experience of all countries which have taken the path that we are
trying to avoid at any cost.
The capitals of European crime are no longer in the west, they were
moved to Eastern Europe a decade ago.
As the NATO powers pointed a gun to the heads of Yugoslavia’s
electorate, and drenched them with propaganda via their local
hirelings, President Milosevic appreciated that not everybody would
heed his warnings. He expressed the following hope: "Citizens, you
must make up your own minds whether to believe me or not. My only wish
is that they do not realize I am telling the truth when it is too late,
that they do not realize after it has become so much more difficult to
correct mistakes that some people have made, naively, superficially or
erroneously."
It is not too late
For five consecutive days, Belgrade has been at the heart of an
extraordinary upheaval. Workers have descended upon the Parliament, by
tens of thousands, demanding an end to privatization, and the
dissolution of the so-called “pro-democracy” government which, while
committing constitutional breaches and making a repressive mockery of
democratic norms, has created unimaginably desperate living conditions
for the people of Serbia. With an unemployment rate of at least 30%, it
is galling to read the smug, condescending rebukes of the mainstream
press, who claim workers are unhappy or “impatient” with the "painful
process" of privatization, and would prefer a "radical" improvement of
their quality of life. The indignities suffered by the people of
Yugoslavia are too many to mention. Since 1990, every attempt has been
made by the US and Western powers to defeat Yugoslavia’s sovereignty:
from IMF blackmail to cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and along the
way the fomenting of civil war, unrest, poverty, the financing and
encouragement of terrorism, the sowing and exacerbation of hatred,
fear, and hopelessness.
Today, Serbian steel workers, now employed by the giant multinational
US Steel, who purchased the Smederevo steel company – which used to
belong to the workers – for a measly $23 million as part of the DOS’s
"pro-democracy" fire-sale, are striking for the right to make a bit
less than one dollar an hour. Workers all over the country now reject
the humiliation of foreign domination and the immiseration of their
compatriots in this looting spree brought by NATO bayonets and the IMF
and bearing the cynical euphemism of “reforms.” They are demanding
respect for their dignity and a return of their sovereign rights. How
poignantly this principled struggle points up the prescience and wisdom
of President Milosevic’s warnings.
President Milosevic Defends the Ideals of Yugoslavia from a cell in The
Hague
For the past seventeen months, President Slobodan Milosevic has
defended the dignity of his fellow citizens in an ever-increasingly
secretive, unfair and illegal process. The International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), born of political pressure
from the US administration – which has institutionalized legal impunity
for its own crimes – does not intend to conduct a trial that would meet
international standards of justice. The show-trial of President
Milosevic provides "legal" cover for the US/NATO policy of regime
change in Yugoslavia. President Milosevic has never wavered in his
characterization of the ICTY as an illegal, illegitimate tool of the US
and NATO powers against the sovereignty of a nation they destroyed. He
has taken every opportunity to defend the dignity of his nation, and
reveal the perfidy that broke up Yugoslavia.
An unfair process
As the process wears on, the Trial Chamber's effort to stifle the
defendant have gone from outrageous to pathetic. First, the major media
pulled out of The Hague, complicit in the browning-out of President
Milosevic's articulate and effective defense. Then, without complaint,
he has weathered successively more transparent attempts to exhaust him
and has maintained remarkable poise in life-threatening conditions.
In November of last year, the ICDSM requested standing before the
Chamber to argue that Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition required
immediate specialized medical attention, and that his state of health
required he be released from custody, given adequate time for his
convalescence, and be allowed to prepare his defence in a non-custodial
setting. The ICTY has not granted this request, nor has it denied it.
The "Tribunal" has simply ignored it.
Gag order
In brazen complicity with the ICTY, the Belgrade regime persecutes the
family of President Milosevic, preventing him even from receiving
visits from his wife and son.
Slobodan Milosevic cannot meet with his closest associates and friends,
as the Registrar has banned him from contact with members of his party,
the SPS, (Socialist Party of Serbia) and "associated entities".
Sloboda, the leading association in defence of President Milosevic has
been listed as a banned group. The Registrar applied this measure
based on the suspicion that two SPS members who had visited him had
spoken to the press. "Associated entities" could be anyone -it is left
to the discretion of the Registrar. This is an attempt to silence
President Milosevic and interfere with the preparation of his defence.
Sloboda has challenged the ban on legal grounds. It has yet to hear
from the ICTY.
A public trial?
Article 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the
presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to a public
trial. But the "trial" of Slobodan Milosevic is often not public, and
shielded from international public scrutiny. Security concerns are
systematically invoked to justify the numerous closed sessions,
pseudonymous witnesses, and ex parte motions filed by the Prosecutor,
motions whose content Mr. Milosevic is not entitled to review. In the
past six months, the Chamber has handed down several decisions
following ex parte motions. Another fundamental right is to be present
for one's own trial. If Mr. Milosevic cannot read Prosecution
submissions to the judges, let alone respond to them, can it be said
that he is actually present at his trial?
Unintelligible
The ICTY has now authorized the admission into evidence of written
witness statements. It has become impossible to follow the trial.
Witnesses declare that their statements are true, and President
Milosevic is afforded a mere hour to cross-examine them. The public can
only try to speculate as to the content of the witness' evidence. At
least we can now say that this is no longer a "Show Trial", but
rather a strictly closed-circuit event.
Less time, fewer questions!
So effective has been Slobodan Milosevic in hammering home the message
of NATO's aggression against his nation, and the conspiracy to
dismember Yugoslavia, with consequences now being felt – and
courageously challenged – by the people of Serbia, that the ICTY is
determined to prevent him from continuing. Cross-examination has been
severely curtailed and he has been barred, with respect to certain
witnesses, from asking questions with respect to their credibility.
This is unheard of in any adversarial legal system, such as the ICTY
purports to be.
When President Milosevic attempted to question the Deputy Prosecutor
(who appeared as a witness!) about their position – namely, supine –
with respect to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, whether the Prosecutor
had acted "objectively" and "without bias" in summarily dismissing a
request to investigate a large number of egregious violations of
International Law, including the Geneva Conventions, Mr. Milosevic was
told by the President of the Chamber that it was "irrelevant". He was
told that if he did not ask questions "as ordered" he would not have
the right to ask questions at all. A question pointing up the
protection of Al Qaeda-supported terrorism in Kosovo by the ICTY and
its NATO sponsors met with a similar reaction. The "amicus curiae,"
friend of the court, appointed against President's Milosevic's will,
attempted to intervene but was browbeaten by a visibly angry President
of the Chamber.
What comes next?
President Milosevic has been afforded a mere three months to prepare
his defence, while the Prosecution has been accumulating evidence since
the ICTY was established in 1993. The Prosecution has stalled
throughout this case, and is still adding witnesses to its list, as
well as changing, at the last minute, the order in which they are to
appear. But the ICTY has ordered President Milosevic to provide a
witness list only six weeks after the close of the seemingly endless
Prosecution case. All the while, the Prosecution blames President
Milosevic for the delays. They blame his ill health – for which they
are responsible – and they blame him for "wasting the court's time" by
asking embarrassing questions.
He has received millions of pages of documents, as well as thousands of
tapes, exhibits and photos. Isolated from his closest associates, his
preparation of the defence phase – and the crucial matter of defence
witnesses – is severely impaired.
After twenty-one months of this process, nothing has been proven
against President Milosevic, and thanks to his unerring determination,
much has been proven about the ICTY's purely political nature. He could
very well invite the Chamber to take notice of the Prosecution's
failure to establish a single count of the Prosecution's fantastic
indictments. Only one indictment, the so-called "Kosovo" indictment,
has shown itself to be of any use – it served to isolate the leadership
and people of Serbia, to demonize them, and to justify a gruesome
78-day bombing campaign that barely lifted an eyebrow in the West, even
among so many who claim to be progressive.
What is more, it is not clear that this institution has the power to
compel witnesses to testify. The ICTY has claimed it is bound by
respect for the sovereignty of states – perhaps not that of Yugoslavia
– in that they respect the idea that states may decide whether or not
they choose to cooperate. In contrast, consequences are severe for
non-cooperation when requests are made to surrender those indicted.
It is true that sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law.
How can one explain the scores of decisions rendered by the
International Court of Justice – a truly legitimate UN body – against
the US that have never been complied with? Including the judgments
having found that US death sentences had been pronounced against
foreign nationals in violation of international law. The President of
the ICTY, Theodor Meron, represented the US in one such case, brought
by Germany, who won its suit before the world court. But the German
prisoners were executed nonetheless.
It is not clear that Slobodan Milosevic could call Bill Clinton as a
witness. The ICTY has left open the question as to whether there are
certain categories of State officials for whom immunity would
apply. Perhaps former Presidents will be protected by immunity from
testifying, to prevent other former Presidents from defending
themselves and their people. And this in contrast to the United States
itself, where Bill Clinton was compelled to provide a deposition when
accused of sexual harassment.
This concept of sovereignty, now threatening to prevent President
Milosevic from questioning those who destroyed Yugoslavia, is key. Loss
of sovereignty created the ICTY, as well as the miserable conditions
against which Serbia’s people are now rising, thus recalling President
Milosevic’s words: "All countries finding themselves with limited
sovereignty and with governments controlled by foreign powers, speedily
become impoverished in a way that destroys all hope for more just and
humane social relations."
This is the same struggle!
The large-scale protests in Belgrade demonstrate that the will of the
people to fight for their dignity will not be defeated. This has been
President Milosevic's struggle as well. A Committee of the Serbian
Diaspora, ICDSM, Sloboda and other progressive forces and individuals
are calling upon all honest and principled people to participate in the
international demonstration at The Hague on November 8th.
United for freedom in the same struggle, we shall all rise for freedom,
life and for the fundamental rights of the Serbian people and of their
defender, President Slobodan Milosevic. This kind of battle a united
people always wins. This fight against tyranny is a fight for the
dignity and prosperity of all peoples.
=== 2 ===
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
During the demonstrations, our delegations will deliver protest letters
to the Tribunal, Dutch Foreign Ministry and the Embassies of the UN
Security Council permanent members: USA, UK, France, Russia and China.
A letter of support will be delivered to President Milosevic.
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN,
FOR SURVIVAL OF THE SERBIAN PEOPLE,
FOR FREEDOM, TRUTH AND JUSTICE!
In the demonstrations for freedom and dignity of the Serbian people,
against the occupation and colonization of the Balkans, against the
aggression and enslaving of the peoples of the World, against the
attempt of the aggressor to try freedom fighters and victims, up to now
the participation has been confirmed by the groups of Serbs, Yugoslavs,
Greeks and other honest people from Germany, France, Switzerland,
Austria, Italy, UK, Holland, Serbia, among them Klaus Hartmann
(Germany), Fulvio Grimaldi (Italy), Louis Dalmas (France), John
Catalinotto (USA), Michel Collon (Belgium), Ian Johnson (UK), John
Jefferies (Ireland), Professor Aldo Bernardini (Italy), Wil van der
Klift (Holland), Misha Gavrilovich (UK), Dr Ljiljana Verner (Germany),
dr Sima Mraovitch (France), Vladimir Krsljanin (Yugoslavia) and many
others.
SAVE THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC!
S T O P THE HAGUE INQUISITION!
Useful files at:
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
=== 3 ===
To the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
To the Governments of the French Republic, People’s Republic of China,
Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America (via their Embassies at The Hague);
To the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
The people of Serbia and Yugoslavia have been victimized by the
criminal and irresponsible actions of foreign powers, primarily the
U.S. and other leading NATO governments. These powers provoked the
break-up of Yugoslavia and, in alliance with terrorists and
neo-fascists, waged the first war of aggression on European soil since
1945, against Yugoslavia. Until now no one responsible from these
countries has been held accountable for these crimes.
Instead, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and almost all
political and military leaders of the Serbian people who resisted the
destruction of their country have been forced to appear before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, established
in violation of the UN Charter. Not being a legitimate court of law,
the ICTY has also proven to be no court of justice. Directly or
indirectly, the ICTY is responsible for the loss of seven human lives.
Its unfairness, bias and violation of both universal and European
conventions on the protection of human-rights, as well as of generally
accepted juridical principles, oblige all the most responsible members
of the World Organization to dismiss this malignant and failed attempt
to create an ad hoc court, which was done on a purely political basis.
The ICTY is not solving, but is deepening problems in the Balkans.
The rules and procedures of the ICTY favor the Prosecution and presume
the guilt of the defendants. The trials are being conducted so as to
allow the falsification of history, charging the entire Serbian nation
for alleged crimes, which is a kind of racism we believed was buried
forever in Europe. The Serbs and all other honest people of Europe
refuse to allow the aggressors to write history!
A terrifying panorama of distorted and perverse views on the history
of the Balkans was presented in the three indictments against President
Milosevic, who has been kept in illegal detention for more than two
years in spite of the three judgments of the Yugoslav Constitutional
Court. Supported by the freedom loving people in his country and
abroad, President Milosevic has heroically and successfully defended
the truth, in spite of his ill health, the bias of the judges and his
isolation from his family, associates and the media.
President Milosevic has been deprived of the basic conditions
necessary to prepare his case – time and facilities. To prepare to
confront what the tribunal has fabricated or collected in ten years,
while spending 700 million dollars from the UN budget alone, and what
took two years and millions of pages of disclosure for the Prosecution
to present, President Milosevic has been granted only six weeks, and he
must remain in his prison cell! At the same time, should this sort of
pressure on him continue, his malignant hypertension and damaged heart,
exacerbated by the way the trial is conducted, by the harsh prison
conditions and the absence of specialized medical care, can cause an
infarct or stroke any moment. Only in freedom is it possible to
diminish the threat to his life and allow the relative recuperation of
his health.
For all the above reasons, we
DEMAND:
1. The immediate release of President Milosevic and an adjournment of
the process against him for at least two years;
2. Abolition of the ICTY, as it is a criminal tool against Yugoslavia
and Serbian people and an insult to law and justice.
SERBS AND OTHER HONEST CITIZENS OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA GATHERED IN
THE INTERNATIONAL DEMONSTRATIONS AT THE HAGUE ON 8 NOVEMBER 2003
Slovenia/SFRJ (italiano / english)
SLOVENIA: PARLAMENTO APPROVA REINTEGRO 18.000 'CANCELLATI'
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 30 OTT - Il parlamento sloveno ha approvato oggi il
reintegro dei cosiddetti 'cancellati', quelle 18.000 persone
originarie di altre repubbliche ex jugoslave che, seppur residenti a
tutti gli effetti in Slovenia al momento dell'indipendenza, nel 1991,
vennero eliminate dai registri anagrafici perche' non avevano chiesto
la cittadinanza o regolato il proprio status nei tempi e nei modi
richiesti. La norma votata dal parlamento prevede anche il
riconoscimento retroattivo della residenza dei 'cancellati', come
stabilito da una sentenza della Corte costituzionale, che nell'aprile
scorso ha dichiarato ileggittima la cancellazione imponendo il
ripristino dei diritti perduti. La sanatoria dara' modo di
regolarizzare la propria posizione solo a coloro che potranno
dimostrare di aver risieduto ininterrottamente in Slovenia dal 1992 ad
oggi. Per gli altri, circa 4.000 persone, e' in preparazione una nuova
legge. Contro l'approvazione della norma si e' espressa
l'opposizione di centro destra che giudica il reintegro pericoloso dal
punto di vista sociale e finanziario, a causa in particolare degli
indenizzi miliardari rivendicati dai cittadini cancellati. (ANSA)
COR*VD
30/10/2003 14:05
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/slovenia/20031030140532738772.html
---
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1512&u=/afp/20031030/wl_afp/
slovenia_minorities_031030180249&printer=1
Slovenian parliament passes law on "erased" former Yugoslav citizens
Thu Oct 30, 1:02 PM ET
LJUBLJANA (AFP) - The Slovenian parliament has granted permanent
residency to thousands of so-called "erased" citizens from other former
Yugoslav republics who lost the right to reside in Slovenia 11 years
ago.
The legislation was passed by 45 votes to 19, weathering strong
objections from the right-wing opposition.
It pledged "to give back permanent residency to all those citizens who
were illegally erased from the state registers in 1992, depriving them
of their rights," according to the draft text.
The legislative move followed a ruling by the Constitutional Court,
which in April declared that taking several thousand former Yugoslav
citizens living in Slovenia in 1991 and 1992 off the the registers of
permanent residents in the tiny Alpine state was illegal.
Slovenia, the most prosperous former constituent republic of
Yugoslavia, declared independence in June 1991 and hopes to join the
European Union (news - web sites) and NATO (news - web sites) next year.
The breakup of Yugoslavia, from which five new states emerged
(Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro), left
many citizens stateless, among them many Serbs, Bosnians and Kosovo
Albanians who had come to work to Slovenia.
Over 30,000 former Yugoslav citizens living in Slovenia were "erased"
from the registers of permanent residents in year 1992, according to
the Slovenian Interior ministry.
About 11,000 left the country but over 18,000 remained in Slovenia,
among them some 2,500 who obtained temporary residency and 4,200 who
remained without status, leaving them without identity cards or any
legal Slovenian documents, according to the ministry.
Slovenia's influential newspaper Delo said Thursday that the new law
was a belated acknowledgment of the damage the state had caused some of
its citizens during the process of breaking from the former Yugoslav
federation and building an independent state.
"Then our only goal and only concern was getting a state of our own. We
had no time to think about the fundamental rights of the individuals...
and that hurt many," Delo said.
Opposition parties criticized the bill, saying it would lead to a
number of compensation lawsuits from those affected.
"We are passing a law without having any knowledge of the financial
consequences it will have for the state," said Saso Pece of the
right-wing Slovenian National Party during the debate in parliament.
"Every society has scum and usually society tries to reduce the
percentage (of scum). This law will only increase that number, which is
horrible," Pece said.
The law was also criticized by the center-right Slovenian Democratic
Party as "an attack against the Slovenian taxpayers' pockets."
But former constitutional judge Mateuz Krivic, who is a member of a
group that works to protect the rights of the "erased," denied that
compensation claims would be high.
He told AFP there would be only a few claims from people who had lost
their rights to pensions.
Krivic said the law against foreigners passed at the time of
independence was largely based on anti-Serb feelings.
"Nationalism remains high" in Slovenia, he said.
SLOVENIA: PARLAMENTO APPROVA REINTEGRO 18.000 'CANCELLATI'
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 30 OTT - Il parlamento sloveno ha approvato oggi il
reintegro dei cosiddetti 'cancellati', quelle 18.000 persone
originarie di altre repubbliche ex jugoslave che, seppur residenti a
tutti gli effetti in Slovenia al momento dell'indipendenza, nel 1991,
vennero eliminate dai registri anagrafici perche' non avevano chiesto
la cittadinanza o regolato il proprio status nei tempi e nei modi
richiesti. La norma votata dal parlamento prevede anche il
riconoscimento retroattivo della residenza dei 'cancellati', come
stabilito da una sentenza della Corte costituzionale, che nell'aprile
scorso ha dichiarato ileggittima la cancellazione imponendo il
ripristino dei diritti perduti. La sanatoria dara' modo di
regolarizzare la propria posizione solo a coloro che potranno
dimostrare di aver risieduto ininterrottamente in Slovenia dal 1992 ad
oggi. Per gli altri, circa 4.000 persone, e' in preparazione una nuova
legge. Contro l'approvazione della norma si e' espressa
l'opposizione di centro destra che giudica il reintegro pericoloso dal
punto di vista sociale e finanziario, a causa in particolare degli
indenizzi miliardari rivendicati dai cittadini cancellati. (ANSA)
COR*VD
30/10/2003 14:05
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/slovenia/20031030140532738772.html
---
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1512&u=/afp/20031030/wl_afp/
slovenia_minorities_031030180249&printer=1
Slovenian parliament passes law on "erased" former Yugoslav citizens
Thu Oct 30, 1:02 PM ET
LJUBLJANA (AFP) - The Slovenian parliament has granted permanent
residency to thousands of so-called "erased" citizens from other former
Yugoslav republics who lost the right to reside in Slovenia 11 years
ago.
The legislation was passed by 45 votes to 19, weathering strong
objections from the right-wing opposition.
It pledged "to give back permanent residency to all those citizens who
were illegally erased from the state registers in 1992, depriving them
of their rights," according to the draft text.
The legislative move followed a ruling by the Constitutional Court,
which in April declared that taking several thousand former Yugoslav
citizens living in Slovenia in 1991 and 1992 off the the registers of
permanent residents in the tiny Alpine state was illegal.
Slovenia, the most prosperous former constituent republic of
Yugoslavia, declared independence in June 1991 and hopes to join the
European Union (news - web sites) and NATO (news - web sites) next year.
The breakup of Yugoslavia, from which five new states emerged
(Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro), left
many citizens stateless, among them many Serbs, Bosnians and Kosovo
Albanians who had come to work to Slovenia.
Over 30,000 former Yugoslav citizens living in Slovenia were "erased"
from the registers of permanent residents in year 1992, according to
the Slovenian Interior ministry.
About 11,000 left the country but over 18,000 remained in Slovenia,
among them some 2,500 who obtained temporary residency and 4,200 who
remained without status, leaving them without identity cards or any
legal Slovenian documents, according to the ministry.
Slovenia's influential newspaper Delo said Thursday that the new law
was a belated acknowledgment of the damage the state had caused some of
its citizens during the process of breaking from the former Yugoslav
federation and building an independent state.
"Then our only goal and only concern was getting a state of our own. We
had no time to think about the fundamental rights of the individuals...
and that hurt many," Delo said.
Opposition parties criticized the bill, saying it would lead to a
number of compensation lawsuits from those affected.
"We are passing a law without having any knowledge of the financial
consequences it will have for the state," said Saso Pece of the
right-wing Slovenian National Party during the debate in parliament.
"Every society has scum and usually society tries to reduce the
percentage (of scum). This law will only increase that number, which is
horrible," Pece said.
The law was also criticized by the center-right Slovenian Democratic
Party as "an attack against the Slovenian taxpayers' pockets."
But former constitutional judge Mateuz Krivic, who is a member of a
group that works to protect the rights of the "erased," denied that
compensation claims would be high.
He told AFP there would be only a few claims from people who had lost
their rights to pensions.
Krivic said the law against foreigners passed at the time of
independence was largely based on anti-Serb feelings.
"Nationalism remains high" in Slovenia, he said.
Djindjic (italiano / deutsch)
1. Der zweite Schütze
Interview mit Milan Veruvic, dem Leibwächter des ermordeten Premiers
(Radio B92 / J. Elsaesser auf der "Junge Welt" vom 27.10.2003)
2. Il mistero Ðinđić
I nuovi dettagli sull’omicidio del premier serbo dischiudono la
possibilità che il potere di Belgrado non abbia interesse a rivelare
tutti i dettagli sull’attentato a Ðinđić
(Željko Cvijanović / Osservatorio Balcani)
=== 1 ===
Junge Welt (Berlin), 27.10.2003
Der zweite Schütze
Was verbergen die serbischen Behörden bei der Aufklärung des Attentates
auf Zoran Djindjic? Interview mit Milan Veruvic, dem Leibwächter des
ermordeten Premiers
Das Attentat auf den serbischen Ministerpräsidenten Zoran Djindjic am
12. März dieses Jahres erschütterte Serbien. Nach wochenlangem
Ausnahmezustand und einer landesweiten Fahndung, bei der über 3000
Personen in Untersuchungshaft genommen wurden, präsentierte die
Staatsanwaltschaft mittlerweile die Angeklagten: die unmittelbaren
Täter seien Gangster des sogenannten Zemun Clans gewesen, die
Hintermänner Polizisten der Sondereinheit „Rote Barette“. Der Mord, so
legt die Anklageschrift nahe, sollte Auftakt zu einem Putsch der alten
Seilschaften aus der Milosevic-Zeit sein.
Doch bereits im Vorfeld des für Dezember angesetzten Prozesses häufen
sich die Hinweise, daß auch Teile der heutigen Belgrader Machthaber in
die Bluttat verwickelt gewesen sein könnten. Anfang Oktober zitierte
das Belgrader Wochenblatt Nedeljni Telegraf einen Minister mit den
Worten: „Es wird ein Schock für die Öffentlichkeit sein, wenn sie
erfährt, daß der Mörder Djindjics in dessen unmittelbarer Umgebung in
der Regierung saß.“ Demnach sollen auch Videoaufnahmen existieren, die
ein Regierungsmitglied beim Betreten des Hauptquartiers des Zemun Clans
in der Zeit kurz vor dem Mord zeigen (vgl. jW, 4. Oktober).
Diese Aussagen konnten noch ignoriert werden, weil der Zeuge sich nur
unter dem Siegel der Anonymität hatte äußern wollen. Mit dem, was jW im
folgenden dokumentiert, wird das nicht mehr möglich sein. Wer jemals
Thriller wie „JFK“ oder „Der Schakal“ sah, wird sich an manches
erinnern: Zeugen, die nicht gehört werden; Spuren, die die Polizei
nicht verfolgt; eine Kugel, die es nicht geben darf; ein Killer, der
über die Grenze eingeschleust wird; ein Opfer, dessen Vorstellungen den
Großmächten mißfiel.
Man würde es nicht glauben, kämen die Auskünfte nicht von jemanden, der
das Vertrauen von Djindjic besaß und überdies Augenzeuge war: Milan
Veruvic, jahrelang Chef der Leibschutz-Garde des Premiers, stand am 12.
März direkt neben diesem, als die Schüsse fielen, und wurde selbst
getroffen. Das Interview lief auf Radio B92, das der regierenden
DOS-Koalition nahesteht. (Jürgen Elsässer)
Das Interview
- Gehen wir zurück zum 12. März. Sie sagten, an dem Morgen sei alles
wie sonst gewesen?
Wir kamen am Regierungsgebäude ... ungefähr um 12.25 Uhr an ... Ich
kündigte unsere Ankunft über Funk an. Ich rief beim Sicherheitschef im
Gebäude an, aber er antwortete nicht ... Stattdessen antwortete mir,
gleich nachdem wir in den Hof eingefahren waren, ein Mann, der auf
demselben Kanal war. Er leitete die Security auf dem ersten Stock. Er
sagte seine Code Nummer. „Nummer fünf hört Sie.“ Ich nahm an, das sei
jemand von der Regierung, der mich gehört hat, und wir fuhren in den
Hof rein. Seltsam an diesem Tag war, daß es hinter dem Gebäude ganz
leer war. ... Ich ging aus dem Wagen raus, nahm seine Krücken und die
Tasche mit (Djindjic hatte zu jener Zeit einen Gipsfuß, Anm. JE). Ich
öffnete seine Tür, gab ihm die Krücken, und ging mit ihm auf den
Eingang Nummer fünf zu ... In diesem Augenblick näherten wir uns der
Tür. Ich drehte mich herum, um die Wagentür zu schließen, und ich hörte
einen gedämpften Schuß. Einen Sekundenbruchteil dachte ich, daß irgend
etwas in einem Gebäude weiter weg geballert hatte. Ich hörte seinen
Schrei ... Im selben Augenblick, als er getroffen wurde, hörte ich
einen lauten Knall. Das war der Schuß, der mich getroffen hat. Ich fiel
vor dem Regierungsgebäude zu Boden, er lehnte sich gegen die Tür und
fiel hinein. Die Tür war zu der Zeit nicht offen, was ungewöhnlich war.
Er fiel in den Korridor des Gebäudes. Ich blieb auf den Stufen liegen.
In diesem Augenblick liefen die Leute von der Security hinein, um nach
ihm zu sehen. Irgendwie kroch ich zum Wagen. Dann kam der dritte Schuß.
Er traf die Mauer des Gebäudes, das bedeutete, sie hatten uns immer
noch im Schußfeld. Wir blieben dort einige Minuten, der Premier bekam
Erste Hilfe ... Mir gelang es, in den Wagen hineinzukommen, und ich
benutzte ihn als Deckung. In diesem Moment kam auch mein Kollege ins
Auto, man brachte en Chef in das zweite Fahrzeug und wir rasten davon
Richtung Notaufnahme.
- Sie sprachen von einer dritten Kugel .. Niemand sonst hat sie
erwähnt. Weder in der polizeilichen Untersuchung, noch im
Sicherheitsbericht und in der Anklageschrift. Warum? Woher ist diese
dritte Kugel gekommen?
Diese Frage wird sich erst in künftigen Ermittlungen stellen. Ich
versuchte ihnen zu erklären, daß das Knall bei der ersten Kugel, die
den Premier traf, schwächer war als bei den anderen beiden, die mich
und die Mauer trafen. Deshalb habe ich den Verdacht, daß der Schuß aus
einer anderen Position kam ... Später versuchte ich das dem
Untersuchungsrichter zu erklären, aber ich fand nicht viel Verständnis.
Die Gerichtsmediziner versuchten mir zu erklären, daß der Unterschied
daher kam, daß der zweite für mich lauter erschien, weil er mich traf
... Warum man die dritte Kugel nie ernsthaft in die Überlogen einbezog,
kann ich nicht erklären. Das würde ich gerne die Leute fragen, die
etwas mit der Untersuchung zu tun hatten ... Wir konnten schon lesen,
daß man das Gewehr gefunden hat, und daß mit dem Gewehr zwei Schüsse
abgefeuert wurden. Diese ganze Geschichte mit den zwei Kugeln machte
die ganze Geschichte von dem, was an jenem Tag passiert sein soll,
unglaubwürdig, sogar für uns, die an jenem Tag dort waren und die das
laut und deutlich jedem sagten, der uns fragte. Im Krankenhaus fragte
ich die Leute, die an jenem Tag da waren, und wir waren uns einig
darin, daß es drei Schüsse gegeben hatte. Wir alle hörten den dritten.
Wir sahen sogar, wo er einschlug.
- Nicht nur Sie, sondern auch Ihre Kollegen?
Ja, ja. Acht von uns waren an jenem Tag da, und alle gaben dieselbe
Erklärung ab, alle.
- Sie wurden von hinten getroffen, in den Rücken, ist das richtig? Und
der Premier wurde von vorne erschossen, in die Brust. Tatsächlich
gingen Sie in dieselbe Richtung, aber einer wurde in den Rücken
getroffen und der andere in die Brust. Wie ist das möglich?
Ich weiß nicht wie. Die Frage, die man stellen muß, ist, warum die
Leute, die die Untersuchung leiteten, zu der Schlußfolgerung kamen, daß
er von dieser Richtung, von diesem Fenster aus, getroffen wurde, obwohl
wir doch wissen, daß bisher keine Tatortrekonstruktion vorgenommen
worden ist, und als Augenzeuge hätte ich zu all dem hinzugezogen werden
müssen.
- Wie ist es möglich, daß noch keine Tatortrekonstruktion vorgenommen
worden ist?
Das interessiert mich auch. Das würde ich gerne jeden fragen, der damit
zu tun hat. Eine Tatortrekonstruktion ist das erste, was bei einer
Untersuchung gemacht werden muß, damit man die Abläufe rekonstruieren
kann. Ohne das ist es absurd, die Position des Premierministers im
Augenblick des Schusses festlegen zu wollen. Wenn man alle meine
Aussagen zugrunde legt, gingen wir in dem Augenblick los, als er sich
zum Regierungsgebäude drehte, was der Angabe im Untersuchungsbericht
widerspricht, wonach er dem Regierungsgebäude den Rücken zugedreht hat.
- Behaupten Sie damit, er kann nicht von der Admiral Geprat Straße aus
in die Brust getroffen worden sein?
Ja, und dabei bleibe ich. Wenn er in Richtung Tür stand, und in diese
Richtung fiel er, dann kann er nicht von links getroffen worden sein,
denn er wurde in seine rechte Seite getroffen. Ich stand an seiner
linken Seite direkt neben ihm ... Ich vermute einfach, daß es noch ein
weiteres Scharfschützennest in der gegenüberliegenden Straße gab, in
der Bircaninova Straße, in einem Durchgang, der mir verdächtig vorkam,
zwischen den Gebäuden des Außenministeriums und der
Eisenbahngesellschaft. Der Eingang Nummer sechs, der zu bestimmten
staatlichen Einrichtungen wie dem Hydrometeorologischen Institut und
was weiß ich führt, wurde seit dem 1. Februar, als das Gebäude
renoviert wurde, nicht mehr überprüft. Ich ging dorthin, nachdem ich
aus dem Krankenhaus entlassen worden war, um mir selbst anzusehen, was
an jenem Tag passiert ist. Tatsache ist, daß es in dem Hof hinter dem
Gebäude ein Gerüst bis hinauf zum Dach gibt, die jeder benutzt haben
könnte, um hinaufzusteigen und alles mögliche anzustellen ...
- Sie glauben also, daß die Kugel, die Zoran Djindjic traf, aus dieser
Richtung kam?
Ich glaube, daß er aus der Bircaninova getroffen wurde, und daß ich von
dem Fenster aus getroffen wurde, aus dem (der Hauptangeklagte, Anm. JE)
Zvezdan Jovanovic einen Schuß abgab, und daß die dritte Kugel ... auch
von der Admiral Geprat Straße (wo Jovanovic war, Anm. JE) kam ...
Das Phantom
- Die Frage ist – wer war der zweite Schütze? Gibt es irgendwelche
Verdachtmomente, wer es gewesen sein könnte, auch wenn er noch keine
Erwähnung gefunden hat? Nur ein Schütze ist bisher erwähnt worden, und
das ist Zvezdan Jovanovic, der den Mord während der polizeilichen
Untersuchung zugegeben hat (Jovanovics Anwalt bestreitet dieses
Geständnis, Anm. JE) Aber nach ihren Angaben gibt es einen zweiten Ort,
ein zweites Gewehr.
Ich weiß nicht, wer dieser Mann sein könnte, aber Tatsache ist, daß ich
vor einer Woche in Vreme (pro-westliche Belgrader Wochenzeitung, Anm.
JE) las, daß am 11. März eine Person am (kroatischen, Anm. JE)
Grenzübergang Batrovac eingereist ist und am 12. März wieder außer
Landes eskortiert wurde, ohne Paß. Er wurde hereingebracht und
hinauseskortiert, sagte ein hoher Offizier der (Polizeisondereinheit,
Anm. JE) Rote Barette in den Zeitungen. Da begann ich wirklich Verdacht
zu schöpfen, ich würde gerne wissen, ob das wahr ist oder nicht. Mir
wäre lieber, es würde nicht einfach übergangen werden, wenn Leute in
den Zeitungen solche Spekulationen aufbringen. Ich weiß nicht, warum
der Untersuchungsrichter diese Information nicht mitbekommen hat und
warum er die Zeitung, die Medien, die Öffentlichkeit nicht fragt:
‚Hallo, ist das wahr? Ist es wahr, daß einer – ohne Paß und Papiere,
ohne daß es irgend jemand registrierte - am 11. März irgendwie ins Land
gebracht werden konnte und am 12. März wieder hinaus, wo wir doch alle
wissen, was am 12. März passiert ist? ...
- ... Wie erklären Sie die Tatsache, daß so viele Leute weiter im
(Polizei-)Dienst sind, sogar heute noch, die eine Gefahr für Leute wie
Zoran Djindjic darstellen könnten?
Ich glaube, davon gibt es viele. Tatsächlich glaube ich, alle sind noch
da. Ich weiß nicht, was sich wirklich geändert hat. Ich weiß nicht, was
sich bei der Polizei seit dem 5. Oktober (Tag des Sturzes von Milosevic
im Jahr 2000, Anm. JE) geändert hat. Ich weiß nicht, was sich bei der
olizei seit dem 12. März geändert hat. Die sind immer noch da und
machen dieselben Jobs ...
- Kommen wir zum Schluß. Was die Menschen in diesem Land wirklich
betroffen macht, ist das wirkliche Motiv des Mordes an Zoran Djindjic.
Die Anklageschrift nennt zwei: Einerseits, daß er das organisierte
Verbrechen angreifen wollte und die Kriminellen davon rechtzeitig
Kenntnis erhielten, und andererseits seine Tagespolitik als Premier,
vor allem seine Verpflichtung zur Zusammenarbeit mit dem Haager
Tribunal ... Was denken Sie über diese Dinge?
Ja, ich kann darüber nur meine Meinung äußern, aber bevor ich das
mache, will ich sagen, daß es absurd ist, daß wir einen Mord haben,
aber kein Motiv. Wenn es nach den Zeitungen geht, soll das Motiv in der
Verwirrung einer kriminellen Gruppe bestehen, die Angst vor dem Kampf
gegen das organisierte Verbrechen bekommen haben, ein Kampf, der in den
letzten eineinhalb Jahren schon angekündigt worden ist und nichts Neues
war. In meinen Augen ist die Verwirrung einer Verbrecherbande ein
völlig unannehmbares Motiv für den Mord am Premierminister, einem Mann,
der sich mit Politik beschäftigt. Ich meine, es gibt doch Italien, es
gibt Malta, daraus, was dort seit Jahren passiert, können wir bestimmte
Dinge ableiten.
Wenn die Mafia Grund hat, einen zu ermorden, dann sind das Richter,
Untersuchungsbeamte, Polizisten, Leute also, die direkt mit ihrem
„Geschäft“ zu tun haben. Ich würde das Motiv für den Mord am Premier
überhaupt nicht bei dieser Verbrecherbande suchen. Ich würde mir seine
politische Arbeit anschauen. Ich glaube, daß das Motiv für seine
Ermordung in seiner politischen Arbeit zu suchen ist und in seiner
Vorstellung von Serbien, die sich wahrscheinlich von denen anderer
unterscheidet, vielleicht von denen größerer Institutionen, vielleicht
sogar von denen einiger Länder.... Wir haben die Verbrecherbande
verhaftet, die Hälfte hält sich in Belgrader Löchern versteckt, und wir
warten darauf, daß die Polizei die übrigen verhaftet, so daß sie uns
erklären können, wer das Gewehr aus der General Geprat Straße genommen
und es unter einen Felsen in Neu-Belgrad gelegt hat.
Und was völlig ungeklärt bleibt ist, wie sie den Rückzug von den
General Geprat-Straße nach Neu-Belgrad geschafft haben, um ein Uhr
Mittag, mitten in der Rush Hour. Und das führt wiederum zur
Polizeiarbeit und den Verbindungen innerhalb der Polizei. An jeder
Kreuzung steht ein Polizist. Hätte nur einer von ihnen ein Signal
bekommen, daß etwas passiert, hätte er auf die Kreuzung raus gehen und
den Verkehr anhalten können. Ich weiß nicht, wie sie davongekommen
sind. Zwei Dinge: Wie konnten sie es schaffen, drei , vierTage lang in
dem Gebäude zu sein, wie sie behaupten, und wie konnten sie flüchten?
...
- Erwarten Sie, als Zeuge geladen zu werden, wenn der Prozeß beginnt?
Sicher.
- Würden Sie das alles vor Gericht wiederholen?
Ja. Ich habe keinen Grund, es nicht zu tun.
Interview: Radio B92, Belgrad, 21. Oktober 2003 (vollständig unter
www.b92.net)
Übersetzung/Bearbeitung: Jürgen Elsässer
=== 2 ===
http://auth.unimondo.org/cfdocs/obportal/
index.cfm?fuseaction=news.notizia&NewsID=2555
Il mistero Ðinđić
I nuovi dettagli sull’omicidio del premier serbo dischiudono la
possibilità che il potere di Belgrado non abbia interesse a rivelare
tutti i dettagli sull’attentato a Ðinđić. Da Belgrado, Željko Cvijanović
(28/10/2003)
Da Belgrado scrive Željko Cvijanović
Solo ad un mese dall’inizio del processo agli assassini del premier
serbo Zoran Ðinđić, alcuni nuovi dettagli sull’omicidio, giunti
all’opinione pubblica, potrebbero far sollevare dei dubbi sulla
fondatezza delle accuse.
Nuove spinte al caso le ha fornite il capo della sicurezza di Ðinđić,
Milan Veruović, il quale al momento dell’omicidio il 12 marzo si
trovava vicino al premier.
Veruović nell’intervista rilasciata alla radio belgradese B92 ha
sollevato la possibilità che Ðinđić non sia stato ucciso dal colpo di
fucile sparato da Zvezdan Jovanović, l’aiuto comandante dell’Unita per
le operazioni speciali, JSO, la più forte unità speciale sotto il
comando della polizia serba.
Veruović, anch’egli gravemente ferito durante l’attentato, il 20
ottobre ha reso noto che Ðinđić nel momento in cui è stato ucciso il 12
marzo davanti al palazzo del governo aveva la faccia rivolta verso la
porta d’ingresso del palazzo.
Se questa affermazione fosse esatta, ciò significherebbe che il
premier nel momento in cui è stato ucciso non poteva essere colpito dal
palazzo da cui ha sparato Jovanović.
Questo perché, il referto dell’autopsia ha confermato che un
proiettile lo ha colpito al lato destro della cassa toracica, mentre
nel palazzo, se vi è entrato, era rivolto sul fianco sinistro.
“Ciò mi fa venire un grande sospetto che ci sia stato un luogo (di
appostamento per lo sparo) nella via opposta”, ha detto Veruović.
L’affermazione secondo la quale al momento dell’omicidio esisteva un
altro fucile, di cui non si parla né nell’indagine né nelle accuse,
Veruović la spiega anche col fatto che, secondo quanto lui stesso dice,
su Ðinđić e su di lui sono stati sparati tre proiettili.
Inoltre, la guardia del corpo di Ðinđić sostiene che “il suono del
primo proiettile che ha colpito il premier non era della stessa
intensità degli altri due che hanno colpito me e il muro (del palazzo
del governo)”.
Dall’altra parte, nell’accusa si afferma che sono stati sparati solo
due proiettili, che il primo ha colpito Ðinđić, mentre il secondo ha
ferito il trentaduenne Veruović e si è conficcato nel muro del palazzo
del governo.
La testimonianza pubblica della guardia del corpo ha sollevato
parecchia inquietudine tra le fila del governo benché la fondatezza
delle sue affermazioni sia stata rigettata all’unanimità.
Il vice presidente del governo serbo Žarko Korać ha definito le
affermazioni di Veruović come le parole di un giovane che si “trova
sotto shock”, mentre il procuratore Ðorđe Ostojić ha detto che si
tratta di “speculazioni”.
“Lui specula, porta i suoi sospetti. Però, l’indagine è terminata e
questi sospetti sono risolti” ha detto Ostojić.
Anche se si mostrasse che le affermazioni di Veruović non sono
fondate, è invece sicuro che la sua dichiarazione ha evidenziato gravi
mancanze nell’indagine sull’omicidio.
Perché la ricostruzione degli eventi sul luogo dell’omicidio non è
mai stata fatta, mentre lo stesso Veruović è stato ascoltato una sola
volta, e ben quattro mesi dopo l’omicidio.
Allo steso tempo, nella stessa accusa, pubblicata la scorsa
settimana, si sono evidenziate grosse contraddizioni: perché in un
unico luogo si dice Ðinđić è stato ucciso”nel momento in cui è uscito
dall’automobile di servizio ed è andato verso la porta di ingresso del
palazzo del governo”.
Ciò suggerisce che era rivolto col lato sinistro verso il luogo dove
si trovava Jovanović, e non su quello destro dove è stato colpito.
In un altro luogo, invece, nell’accusa si dice esplicitamente che
Ðinđić era “rivolto con la schiena” verso la porta del palazzo del
governo e che “con la spalla destra e il corpo col lato anteriore del
busto era rivolto verso il luogo da dove è giunto il proiettile”.
Nonostante le evidenti mancanze, il procuratore dispone di due forti
argomenti: la confessione di Jovanović che ha ucciso Ðinđić e il
possesso del fucile con cui è stato commesso l’omicidio.
In verità, afferma l’avvocato di Jovanović, Nenad Vukasović, che le
confessioni del suo cliente sono state rilasciate senza la presenza di
un difensore e sotto “torture psichiche”.
“Non ha confessato lui l’omicidio”, dice Vukasović, “dopo una serie
di giorni e notti di lavoro operativo con Jovanović, si è giunti a
quelle famose dichiarazioni”.
Questo, come anche la difesa col silenzio di Jovanović nelle
indagini, suggerisce che al processo probabilmente ritirerà le
confessioni rilasciate in carcere.
Dopo tutto questo, occorre dire che tra la maggior parte degli
esperti legali e della polizia non è stata smontata la tesi secondo la
quale Jovanović avrebbe commesso l’omicidio, ma anche che la maggior
parte di loro crede che ciò che è stato reso noto dell’indagine non sia
tutta la verità e che il governo nasconda qualcosa.
L’ex poliziotto e capo della sicurezza di un ministro Slobodan
Pajić, il quale si trovava immediatamente dopo la sparatoria sul luogo
dell’omicidio, ha detto che la maggior parte dei testimoni diretti
dell’attentato ha sentito che ci sono stati tre spari di differente
intensità.
Pajić ha detto che il rifiuto delle dichiarazioni di Veruović può
significare che “a qualcuno non è d’interesse che si sappia l’esatta
verità”.
I sospetti che il governo nasconda qualcosa sono aumentati anche col
fatto che sulla maggior parte dei media filo governativi i sospetti di
Veruović sono stati risolutamente rigettati come non esatti.
Un alto funzionario della polizia che ha acconsentito di parlare per
l’Osservatorio sui Balcani delle dichiarazioni di Veruović concorda che
la dichiarazione della guardia del corpo è stata “facilmente ignorata”.
E vede in ciò “una chiara intenzione” che alcune cose vengano
nascoste, ma non crede alle tesi rese note secondo le quali ciò farebbe
pensare che qualcuno del governo sia immischiato nel complotto contro
il premier.
Questo poliziotto, che ha desiderato mantenere l’anonimato, crede che
la rivelazione di tutti i dettagli connessi con l’omicidio potrebbero
scoprire le relazioni di alcuni ministri serbi con la gente della
malavita vicina agli uccisori di Ðinđić.
“Non solo questo sarebbe l’ultimo chiodo conficcato nel governo ma
sarebbe anche di ostacolo all’intenzione degli uomini del governo di
utilizzare il processo come campagna contro i rivali politici”, afferma
la fonte.
Perché, tra i 44 che saranno processati al processo per l’omicidio
Ðinđić si trova anche l’ex capo dei servizi informativi dell’esercito,
il generale Aco Tomić, considerato vicino all’ex presidente jugoslavo
Vojislav Koštunica, il più forte rivale politico del governo.
Il generale Tomić è accusato di associazione “finalizzata ad azioni
nemiche”, perché ha avuto contatti con Milorad Luković Legija, un tempo
comandante della JSO e che è accusato di essere il principale
organizzatore dell’attentato.
Tutto ciò fa pensare che il processo agli assassini di Ðinđić si
giocherà all’ombra di numerose contraddizioni e amare lotte politiche
tra le forze filo-governative e quelle dell’opposizione, dove si
sospettano reciprocamente di coinvolgimento nell’attentato e
connessione con gli assassini del premier serbo.
Se il processo agli assassini di Ðinđić si svolgerà all’ombra delle
lotte politiche non è escluso che una delle sue vittime sia la piena
verità.
» Fonte: © Osservatorio sui Balcani
1. Der zweite Schütze
Interview mit Milan Veruvic, dem Leibwächter des ermordeten Premiers
(Radio B92 / J. Elsaesser auf der "Junge Welt" vom 27.10.2003)
2. Il mistero Ðinđić
I nuovi dettagli sull’omicidio del premier serbo dischiudono la
possibilità che il potere di Belgrado non abbia interesse a rivelare
tutti i dettagli sull’attentato a Ðinđić
(Željko Cvijanović / Osservatorio Balcani)
=== 1 ===
Junge Welt (Berlin), 27.10.2003
Der zweite Schütze
Was verbergen die serbischen Behörden bei der Aufklärung des Attentates
auf Zoran Djindjic? Interview mit Milan Veruvic, dem Leibwächter des
ermordeten Premiers
Das Attentat auf den serbischen Ministerpräsidenten Zoran Djindjic am
12. März dieses Jahres erschütterte Serbien. Nach wochenlangem
Ausnahmezustand und einer landesweiten Fahndung, bei der über 3000
Personen in Untersuchungshaft genommen wurden, präsentierte die
Staatsanwaltschaft mittlerweile die Angeklagten: die unmittelbaren
Täter seien Gangster des sogenannten Zemun Clans gewesen, die
Hintermänner Polizisten der Sondereinheit „Rote Barette“. Der Mord, so
legt die Anklageschrift nahe, sollte Auftakt zu einem Putsch der alten
Seilschaften aus der Milosevic-Zeit sein.
Doch bereits im Vorfeld des für Dezember angesetzten Prozesses häufen
sich die Hinweise, daß auch Teile der heutigen Belgrader Machthaber in
die Bluttat verwickelt gewesen sein könnten. Anfang Oktober zitierte
das Belgrader Wochenblatt Nedeljni Telegraf einen Minister mit den
Worten: „Es wird ein Schock für die Öffentlichkeit sein, wenn sie
erfährt, daß der Mörder Djindjics in dessen unmittelbarer Umgebung in
der Regierung saß.“ Demnach sollen auch Videoaufnahmen existieren, die
ein Regierungsmitglied beim Betreten des Hauptquartiers des Zemun Clans
in der Zeit kurz vor dem Mord zeigen (vgl. jW, 4. Oktober).
Diese Aussagen konnten noch ignoriert werden, weil der Zeuge sich nur
unter dem Siegel der Anonymität hatte äußern wollen. Mit dem, was jW im
folgenden dokumentiert, wird das nicht mehr möglich sein. Wer jemals
Thriller wie „JFK“ oder „Der Schakal“ sah, wird sich an manches
erinnern: Zeugen, die nicht gehört werden; Spuren, die die Polizei
nicht verfolgt; eine Kugel, die es nicht geben darf; ein Killer, der
über die Grenze eingeschleust wird; ein Opfer, dessen Vorstellungen den
Großmächten mißfiel.
Man würde es nicht glauben, kämen die Auskünfte nicht von jemanden, der
das Vertrauen von Djindjic besaß und überdies Augenzeuge war: Milan
Veruvic, jahrelang Chef der Leibschutz-Garde des Premiers, stand am 12.
März direkt neben diesem, als die Schüsse fielen, und wurde selbst
getroffen. Das Interview lief auf Radio B92, das der regierenden
DOS-Koalition nahesteht. (Jürgen Elsässer)
Das Interview
- Gehen wir zurück zum 12. März. Sie sagten, an dem Morgen sei alles
wie sonst gewesen?
Wir kamen am Regierungsgebäude ... ungefähr um 12.25 Uhr an ... Ich
kündigte unsere Ankunft über Funk an. Ich rief beim Sicherheitschef im
Gebäude an, aber er antwortete nicht ... Stattdessen antwortete mir,
gleich nachdem wir in den Hof eingefahren waren, ein Mann, der auf
demselben Kanal war. Er leitete die Security auf dem ersten Stock. Er
sagte seine Code Nummer. „Nummer fünf hört Sie.“ Ich nahm an, das sei
jemand von der Regierung, der mich gehört hat, und wir fuhren in den
Hof rein. Seltsam an diesem Tag war, daß es hinter dem Gebäude ganz
leer war. ... Ich ging aus dem Wagen raus, nahm seine Krücken und die
Tasche mit (Djindjic hatte zu jener Zeit einen Gipsfuß, Anm. JE). Ich
öffnete seine Tür, gab ihm die Krücken, und ging mit ihm auf den
Eingang Nummer fünf zu ... In diesem Augenblick näherten wir uns der
Tür. Ich drehte mich herum, um die Wagentür zu schließen, und ich hörte
einen gedämpften Schuß. Einen Sekundenbruchteil dachte ich, daß irgend
etwas in einem Gebäude weiter weg geballert hatte. Ich hörte seinen
Schrei ... Im selben Augenblick, als er getroffen wurde, hörte ich
einen lauten Knall. Das war der Schuß, der mich getroffen hat. Ich fiel
vor dem Regierungsgebäude zu Boden, er lehnte sich gegen die Tür und
fiel hinein. Die Tür war zu der Zeit nicht offen, was ungewöhnlich war.
Er fiel in den Korridor des Gebäudes. Ich blieb auf den Stufen liegen.
In diesem Augenblick liefen die Leute von der Security hinein, um nach
ihm zu sehen. Irgendwie kroch ich zum Wagen. Dann kam der dritte Schuß.
Er traf die Mauer des Gebäudes, das bedeutete, sie hatten uns immer
noch im Schußfeld. Wir blieben dort einige Minuten, der Premier bekam
Erste Hilfe ... Mir gelang es, in den Wagen hineinzukommen, und ich
benutzte ihn als Deckung. In diesem Moment kam auch mein Kollege ins
Auto, man brachte en Chef in das zweite Fahrzeug und wir rasten davon
Richtung Notaufnahme.
- Sie sprachen von einer dritten Kugel .. Niemand sonst hat sie
erwähnt. Weder in der polizeilichen Untersuchung, noch im
Sicherheitsbericht und in der Anklageschrift. Warum? Woher ist diese
dritte Kugel gekommen?
Diese Frage wird sich erst in künftigen Ermittlungen stellen. Ich
versuchte ihnen zu erklären, daß das Knall bei der ersten Kugel, die
den Premier traf, schwächer war als bei den anderen beiden, die mich
und die Mauer trafen. Deshalb habe ich den Verdacht, daß der Schuß aus
einer anderen Position kam ... Später versuchte ich das dem
Untersuchungsrichter zu erklären, aber ich fand nicht viel Verständnis.
Die Gerichtsmediziner versuchten mir zu erklären, daß der Unterschied
daher kam, daß der zweite für mich lauter erschien, weil er mich traf
... Warum man die dritte Kugel nie ernsthaft in die Überlogen einbezog,
kann ich nicht erklären. Das würde ich gerne die Leute fragen, die
etwas mit der Untersuchung zu tun hatten ... Wir konnten schon lesen,
daß man das Gewehr gefunden hat, und daß mit dem Gewehr zwei Schüsse
abgefeuert wurden. Diese ganze Geschichte mit den zwei Kugeln machte
die ganze Geschichte von dem, was an jenem Tag passiert sein soll,
unglaubwürdig, sogar für uns, die an jenem Tag dort waren und die das
laut und deutlich jedem sagten, der uns fragte. Im Krankenhaus fragte
ich die Leute, die an jenem Tag da waren, und wir waren uns einig
darin, daß es drei Schüsse gegeben hatte. Wir alle hörten den dritten.
Wir sahen sogar, wo er einschlug.
- Nicht nur Sie, sondern auch Ihre Kollegen?
Ja, ja. Acht von uns waren an jenem Tag da, und alle gaben dieselbe
Erklärung ab, alle.
- Sie wurden von hinten getroffen, in den Rücken, ist das richtig? Und
der Premier wurde von vorne erschossen, in die Brust. Tatsächlich
gingen Sie in dieselbe Richtung, aber einer wurde in den Rücken
getroffen und der andere in die Brust. Wie ist das möglich?
Ich weiß nicht wie. Die Frage, die man stellen muß, ist, warum die
Leute, die die Untersuchung leiteten, zu der Schlußfolgerung kamen, daß
er von dieser Richtung, von diesem Fenster aus, getroffen wurde, obwohl
wir doch wissen, daß bisher keine Tatortrekonstruktion vorgenommen
worden ist, und als Augenzeuge hätte ich zu all dem hinzugezogen werden
müssen.
- Wie ist es möglich, daß noch keine Tatortrekonstruktion vorgenommen
worden ist?
Das interessiert mich auch. Das würde ich gerne jeden fragen, der damit
zu tun hat. Eine Tatortrekonstruktion ist das erste, was bei einer
Untersuchung gemacht werden muß, damit man die Abläufe rekonstruieren
kann. Ohne das ist es absurd, die Position des Premierministers im
Augenblick des Schusses festlegen zu wollen. Wenn man alle meine
Aussagen zugrunde legt, gingen wir in dem Augenblick los, als er sich
zum Regierungsgebäude drehte, was der Angabe im Untersuchungsbericht
widerspricht, wonach er dem Regierungsgebäude den Rücken zugedreht hat.
- Behaupten Sie damit, er kann nicht von der Admiral Geprat Straße aus
in die Brust getroffen worden sein?
Ja, und dabei bleibe ich. Wenn er in Richtung Tür stand, und in diese
Richtung fiel er, dann kann er nicht von links getroffen worden sein,
denn er wurde in seine rechte Seite getroffen. Ich stand an seiner
linken Seite direkt neben ihm ... Ich vermute einfach, daß es noch ein
weiteres Scharfschützennest in der gegenüberliegenden Straße gab, in
der Bircaninova Straße, in einem Durchgang, der mir verdächtig vorkam,
zwischen den Gebäuden des Außenministeriums und der
Eisenbahngesellschaft. Der Eingang Nummer sechs, der zu bestimmten
staatlichen Einrichtungen wie dem Hydrometeorologischen Institut und
was weiß ich führt, wurde seit dem 1. Februar, als das Gebäude
renoviert wurde, nicht mehr überprüft. Ich ging dorthin, nachdem ich
aus dem Krankenhaus entlassen worden war, um mir selbst anzusehen, was
an jenem Tag passiert ist. Tatsache ist, daß es in dem Hof hinter dem
Gebäude ein Gerüst bis hinauf zum Dach gibt, die jeder benutzt haben
könnte, um hinaufzusteigen und alles mögliche anzustellen ...
- Sie glauben also, daß die Kugel, die Zoran Djindjic traf, aus dieser
Richtung kam?
Ich glaube, daß er aus der Bircaninova getroffen wurde, und daß ich von
dem Fenster aus getroffen wurde, aus dem (der Hauptangeklagte, Anm. JE)
Zvezdan Jovanovic einen Schuß abgab, und daß die dritte Kugel ... auch
von der Admiral Geprat Straße (wo Jovanovic war, Anm. JE) kam ...
Das Phantom
- Die Frage ist – wer war der zweite Schütze? Gibt es irgendwelche
Verdachtmomente, wer es gewesen sein könnte, auch wenn er noch keine
Erwähnung gefunden hat? Nur ein Schütze ist bisher erwähnt worden, und
das ist Zvezdan Jovanovic, der den Mord während der polizeilichen
Untersuchung zugegeben hat (Jovanovics Anwalt bestreitet dieses
Geständnis, Anm. JE) Aber nach ihren Angaben gibt es einen zweiten Ort,
ein zweites Gewehr.
Ich weiß nicht, wer dieser Mann sein könnte, aber Tatsache ist, daß ich
vor einer Woche in Vreme (pro-westliche Belgrader Wochenzeitung, Anm.
JE) las, daß am 11. März eine Person am (kroatischen, Anm. JE)
Grenzübergang Batrovac eingereist ist und am 12. März wieder außer
Landes eskortiert wurde, ohne Paß. Er wurde hereingebracht und
hinauseskortiert, sagte ein hoher Offizier der (Polizeisondereinheit,
Anm. JE) Rote Barette in den Zeitungen. Da begann ich wirklich Verdacht
zu schöpfen, ich würde gerne wissen, ob das wahr ist oder nicht. Mir
wäre lieber, es würde nicht einfach übergangen werden, wenn Leute in
den Zeitungen solche Spekulationen aufbringen. Ich weiß nicht, warum
der Untersuchungsrichter diese Information nicht mitbekommen hat und
warum er die Zeitung, die Medien, die Öffentlichkeit nicht fragt:
‚Hallo, ist das wahr? Ist es wahr, daß einer – ohne Paß und Papiere,
ohne daß es irgend jemand registrierte - am 11. März irgendwie ins Land
gebracht werden konnte und am 12. März wieder hinaus, wo wir doch alle
wissen, was am 12. März passiert ist? ...
- ... Wie erklären Sie die Tatsache, daß so viele Leute weiter im
(Polizei-)Dienst sind, sogar heute noch, die eine Gefahr für Leute wie
Zoran Djindjic darstellen könnten?
Ich glaube, davon gibt es viele. Tatsächlich glaube ich, alle sind noch
da. Ich weiß nicht, was sich wirklich geändert hat. Ich weiß nicht, was
sich bei der Polizei seit dem 5. Oktober (Tag des Sturzes von Milosevic
im Jahr 2000, Anm. JE) geändert hat. Ich weiß nicht, was sich bei der
olizei seit dem 12. März geändert hat. Die sind immer noch da und
machen dieselben Jobs ...
- Kommen wir zum Schluß. Was die Menschen in diesem Land wirklich
betroffen macht, ist das wirkliche Motiv des Mordes an Zoran Djindjic.
Die Anklageschrift nennt zwei: Einerseits, daß er das organisierte
Verbrechen angreifen wollte und die Kriminellen davon rechtzeitig
Kenntnis erhielten, und andererseits seine Tagespolitik als Premier,
vor allem seine Verpflichtung zur Zusammenarbeit mit dem Haager
Tribunal ... Was denken Sie über diese Dinge?
Ja, ich kann darüber nur meine Meinung äußern, aber bevor ich das
mache, will ich sagen, daß es absurd ist, daß wir einen Mord haben,
aber kein Motiv. Wenn es nach den Zeitungen geht, soll das Motiv in der
Verwirrung einer kriminellen Gruppe bestehen, die Angst vor dem Kampf
gegen das organisierte Verbrechen bekommen haben, ein Kampf, der in den
letzten eineinhalb Jahren schon angekündigt worden ist und nichts Neues
war. In meinen Augen ist die Verwirrung einer Verbrecherbande ein
völlig unannehmbares Motiv für den Mord am Premierminister, einem Mann,
der sich mit Politik beschäftigt. Ich meine, es gibt doch Italien, es
gibt Malta, daraus, was dort seit Jahren passiert, können wir bestimmte
Dinge ableiten.
Wenn die Mafia Grund hat, einen zu ermorden, dann sind das Richter,
Untersuchungsbeamte, Polizisten, Leute also, die direkt mit ihrem
„Geschäft“ zu tun haben. Ich würde das Motiv für den Mord am Premier
überhaupt nicht bei dieser Verbrecherbande suchen. Ich würde mir seine
politische Arbeit anschauen. Ich glaube, daß das Motiv für seine
Ermordung in seiner politischen Arbeit zu suchen ist und in seiner
Vorstellung von Serbien, die sich wahrscheinlich von denen anderer
unterscheidet, vielleicht von denen größerer Institutionen, vielleicht
sogar von denen einiger Länder.... Wir haben die Verbrecherbande
verhaftet, die Hälfte hält sich in Belgrader Löchern versteckt, und wir
warten darauf, daß die Polizei die übrigen verhaftet, so daß sie uns
erklären können, wer das Gewehr aus der General Geprat Straße genommen
und es unter einen Felsen in Neu-Belgrad gelegt hat.
Und was völlig ungeklärt bleibt ist, wie sie den Rückzug von den
General Geprat-Straße nach Neu-Belgrad geschafft haben, um ein Uhr
Mittag, mitten in der Rush Hour. Und das führt wiederum zur
Polizeiarbeit und den Verbindungen innerhalb der Polizei. An jeder
Kreuzung steht ein Polizist. Hätte nur einer von ihnen ein Signal
bekommen, daß etwas passiert, hätte er auf die Kreuzung raus gehen und
den Verkehr anhalten können. Ich weiß nicht, wie sie davongekommen
sind. Zwei Dinge: Wie konnten sie es schaffen, drei , vierTage lang in
dem Gebäude zu sein, wie sie behaupten, und wie konnten sie flüchten?
...
- Erwarten Sie, als Zeuge geladen zu werden, wenn der Prozeß beginnt?
Sicher.
- Würden Sie das alles vor Gericht wiederholen?
Ja. Ich habe keinen Grund, es nicht zu tun.
Interview: Radio B92, Belgrad, 21. Oktober 2003 (vollständig unter
www.b92.net)
Übersetzung/Bearbeitung: Jürgen Elsässer
=== 2 ===
http://auth.unimondo.org/cfdocs/obportal/
index.cfm?fuseaction=news.notizia&NewsID=2555
Il mistero Ðinđić
I nuovi dettagli sull’omicidio del premier serbo dischiudono la
possibilità che il potere di Belgrado non abbia interesse a rivelare
tutti i dettagli sull’attentato a Ðinđić. Da Belgrado, Željko Cvijanović
(28/10/2003)
Da Belgrado scrive Željko Cvijanović
Solo ad un mese dall’inizio del processo agli assassini del premier
serbo Zoran Ðinđić, alcuni nuovi dettagli sull’omicidio, giunti
all’opinione pubblica, potrebbero far sollevare dei dubbi sulla
fondatezza delle accuse.
Nuove spinte al caso le ha fornite il capo della sicurezza di Ðinđić,
Milan Veruović, il quale al momento dell’omicidio il 12 marzo si
trovava vicino al premier.
Veruović nell’intervista rilasciata alla radio belgradese B92 ha
sollevato la possibilità che Ðinđić non sia stato ucciso dal colpo di
fucile sparato da Zvezdan Jovanović, l’aiuto comandante dell’Unita per
le operazioni speciali, JSO, la più forte unità speciale sotto il
comando della polizia serba.
Veruović, anch’egli gravemente ferito durante l’attentato, il 20
ottobre ha reso noto che Ðinđić nel momento in cui è stato ucciso il 12
marzo davanti al palazzo del governo aveva la faccia rivolta verso la
porta d’ingresso del palazzo.
Se questa affermazione fosse esatta, ciò significherebbe che il
premier nel momento in cui è stato ucciso non poteva essere colpito dal
palazzo da cui ha sparato Jovanović.
Questo perché, il referto dell’autopsia ha confermato che un
proiettile lo ha colpito al lato destro della cassa toracica, mentre
nel palazzo, se vi è entrato, era rivolto sul fianco sinistro.
“Ciò mi fa venire un grande sospetto che ci sia stato un luogo (di
appostamento per lo sparo) nella via opposta”, ha detto Veruović.
L’affermazione secondo la quale al momento dell’omicidio esisteva un
altro fucile, di cui non si parla né nell’indagine né nelle accuse,
Veruović la spiega anche col fatto che, secondo quanto lui stesso dice,
su Ðinđić e su di lui sono stati sparati tre proiettili.
Inoltre, la guardia del corpo di Ðinđić sostiene che “il suono del
primo proiettile che ha colpito il premier non era della stessa
intensità degli altri due che hanno colpito me e il muro (del palazzo
del governo)”.
Dall’altra parte, nell’accusa si afferma che sono stati sparati solo
due proiettili, che il primo ha colpito Ðinđić, mentre il secondo ha
ferito il trentaduenne Veruović e si è conficcato nel muro del palazzo
del governo.
La testimonianza pubblica della guardia del corpo ha sollevato
parecchia inquietudine tra le fila del governo benché la fondatezza
delle sue affermazioni sia stata rigettata all’unanimità.
Il vice presidente del governo serbo Žarko Korać ha definito le
affermazioni di Veruović come le parole di un giovane che si “trova
sotto shock”, mentre il procuratore Ðorđe Ostojić ha detto che si
tratta di “speculazioni”.
“Lui specula, porta i suoi sospetti. Però, l’indagine è terminata e
questi sospetti sono risolti” ha detto Ostojić.
Anche se si mostrasse che le affermazioni di Veruović non sono
fondate, è invece sicuro che la sua dichiarazione ha evidenziato gravi
mancanze nell’indagine sull’omicidio.
Perché la ricostruzione degli eventi sul luogo dell’omicidio non è
mai stata fatta, mentre lo stesso Veruović è stato ascoltato una sola
volta, e ben quattro mesi dopo l’omicidio.
Allo steso tempo, nella stessa accusa, pubblicata la scorsa
settimana, si sono evidenziate grosse contraddizioni: perché in un
unico luogo si dice Ðinđić è stato ucciso”nel momento in cui è uscito
dall’automobile di servizio ed è andato verso la porta di ingresso del
palazzo del governo”.
Ciò suggerisce che era rivolto col lato sinistro verso il luogo dove
si trovava Jovanović, e non su quello destro dove è stato colpito.
In un altro luogo, invece, nell’accusa si dice esplicitamente che
Ðinđić era “rivolto con la schiena” verso la porta del palazzo del
governo e che “con la spalla destra e il corpo col lato anteriore del
busto era rivolto verso il luogo da dove è giunto il proiettile”.
Nonostante le evidenti mancanze, il procuratore dispone di due forti
argomenti: la confessione di Jovanović che ha ucciso Ðinđić e il
possesso del fucile con cui è stato commesso l’omicidio.
In verità, afferma l’avvocato di Jovanović, Nenad Vukasović, che le
confessioni del suo cliente sono state rilasciate senza la presenza di
un difensore e sotto “torture psichiche”.
“Non ha confessato lui l’omicidio”, dice Vukasović, “dopo una serie
di giorni e notti di lavoro operativo con Jovanović, si è giunti a
quelle famose dichiarazioni”.
Questo, come anche la difesa col silenzio di Jovanović nelle
indagini, suggerisce che al processo probabilmente ritirerà le
confessioni rilasciate in carcere.
Dopo tutto questo, occorre dire che tra la maggior parte degli
esperti legali e della polizia non è stata smontata la tesi secondo la
quale Jovanović avrebbe commesso l’omicidio, ma anche che la maggior
parte di loro crede che ciò che è stato reso noto dell’indagine non sia
tutta la verità e che il governo nasconda qualcosa.
L’ex poliziotto e capo della sicurezza di un ministro Slobodan
Pajić, il quale si trovava immediatamente dopo la sparatoria sul luogo
dell’omicidio, ha detto che la maggior parte dei testimoni diretti
dell’attentato ha sentito che ci sono stati tre spari di differente
intensità.
Pajić ha detto che il rifiuto delle dichiarazioni di Veruović può
significare che “a qualcuno non è d’interesse che si sappia l’esatta
verità”.
I sospetti che il governo nasconda qualcosa sono aumentati anche col
fatto che sulla maggior parte dei media filo governativi i sospetti di
Veruović sono stati risolutamente rigettati come non esatti.
Un alto funzionario della polizia che ha acconsentito di parlare per
l’Osservatorio sui Balcani delle dichiarazioni di Veruović concorda che
la dichiarazione della guardia del corpo è stata “facilmente ignorata”.
E vede in ciò “una chiara intenzione” che alcune cose vengano
nascoste, ma non crede alle tesi rese note secondo le quali ciò farebbe
pensare che qualcuno del governo sia immischiato nel complotto contro
il premier.
Questo poliziotto, che ha desiderato mantenere l’anonimato, crede che
la rivelazione di tutti i dettagli connessi con l’omicidio potrebbero
scoprire le relazioni di alcuni ministri serbi con la gente della
malavita vicina agli uccisori di Ðinđić.
“Non solo questo sarebbe l’ultimo chiodo conficcato nel governo ma
sarebbe anche di ostacolo all’intenzione degli uomini del governo di
utilizzare il processo come campagna contro i rivali politici”, afferma
la fonte.
Perché, tra i 44 che saranno processati al processo per l’omicidio
Ðinđić si trova anche l’ex capo dei servizi informativi dell’esercito,
il generale Aco Tomić, considerato vicino all’ex presidente jugoslavo
Vojislav Koštunica, il più forte rivale politico del governo.
Il generale Tomić è accusato di associazione “finalizzata ad azioni
nemiche”, perché ha avuto contatti con Milorad Luković Legija, un tempo
comandante della JSO e che è accusato di essere il principale
organizzatore dell’attentato.
Tutto ciò fa pensare che il processo agli assassini di Ðinđić si
giocherà all’ombra di numerose contraddizioni e amare lotte politiche
tra le forze filo-governative e quelle dell’opposizione, dove si
sospettano reciprocamente di coinvolgimento nell’attentato e
connessione con gli assassini del premier serbo.
Se il processo agli assassini di Ðinđić si svolgerà all’ombra delle
lotte politiche non è escluso che una delle sue vittime sia la piena
verità.
» Fonte: © Osservatorio sui Balcani
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook