Informazione
(this text in english:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SCH308B.html )
Junge Welt (Berlin)
19.08.2003, Ausland
Cathrin Schütz, Belgrad
Beweisnot in Den Haag
UN-Tribunal will dubiose Dokumente nutzen, um Vorwürfe gegen Milosevic
aufrechtzuerhalten
Am UN-Tribunal in Den Haag ist am Montag die Sommerpause zu Ende
gegangen. Im Prozeß gegen den ehemaligen jugoslawischen Präsidenten
Slobodan Milosevic soll in den kommenden Monaten schwerpunktmäßig das
»Massaker von Srebrenica« im Juli 1995 verhandelt werden. Im Fall des
Bürgerkriegs in Bosnien-Herzegowina wirft Chefanklägerin Carla del
Ponte dem Angeklagten »Völkermord« vor. Ursprünglich war dieser
Tatvorwurf auch Teil des Kosovo-Komplexes. Mangels Beweisen mußte dies
allerdings fallengelassen werden. Dabei war der Völkermordvorwurf
Hintergrund der Anklage und der illegalen Auslieferung Milosevics. Auch
im Fall Srebrenica bewegt sich del Ponte auf dünnem Eis. Noch vor der
Sommerpause hatte der ehemalige jugoslawische Präsident Zoran Lilic vor
Gericht Milosevic bescheinigt, nicht in das Massaker in der ehemaligen
UN-Schutzzone verwickelt gewesen zu sein.
Das »Institute for War and Peace Reporting« (IWPR) in London spielte
der Anklageseite in Den Haag indes ein belastendes Papier zu, bei dem
es sich um einen vom damaligen bosnisch-serbischen Innenminister
Tomislav Kovac unterzeichneten Befehl zur Truppenverlegung serbischer
Polizeieinheiten von Sarajevo nach Srebrenica handeln soll. Stacey
Sullivan, Mitarbeiterin von IWPR, erklärte, das Dokument belege
erstmalig, daß Polizei aus Serbien an der Operation in Srebrenica
teilnahm. Dem entgegen hob die Washingtoner »Koalition für
internationale Gerechtigkeit« hervor, daß dies durch das Dokument
keineswegs bewiesen sei. Daß weiterhin unbekannt sei, was Milosevic
selbst von den Vorgängen wußte, mußte jedoch auch Sullivan zugeben.
Die New York Times, die sich sonst in der Vorverurteilung des
ehemaligen jugoslawischen Präsidenten übt, berichtete bereits im Juni,
daß bekannt sei, daß gegen Milosevic im Falle Srebrenica keine Beweise
vorliegen: »Sogar im Prozeß gegen General Radislav Krstic, einem der
Kommandierenden in Srebrenica, der zu 46 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt
wurde, lag den Anklägern kein Dokument vor, das Belgrad mit den
Verbrechen in Verbindung bringt.« Es scheint sich auch bei dem neuen
Papier nicht um einen Beweis gegen Milosevic zu handeln. Die Sprecherin
der Anklageseite bezeichnete das Dokument denn auch nur als »ein
Element«. Vermutlich wird das Dokument genutzt, um Lilics Aussage über
Milosevics Unschuld aus den Medien zu verdrängen. IWPR gibt an, das
Papier bislang »übersehen zu haben«.
Wenn man die Kooperationspartner des IWPR betrachtet, verstärkt sich
der Verdacht, daß das Institut den Anklägern in die Hände spielt. Zu
diesen Partnern gehören das »Open Society Institute« des
US-amerikanischen Multimillionärs George Soros, der auch das Tribunal
selbst mitfinanziert. Über »US AID« erhält das Institut Mittel der
US-Regierung. Weitere stammen von der US-amerikanischen Organisa-
tion »IREX«, die eigenen Angaben zufolge direkte Unterstützung vom
Außenministerium in Washington erhält. IREX finanziert auch
Journalisten aus dem ehemaligen Jugoslawien, die von Den Haag aus über
den Milosevic-Prozeß berichten.
Ein Assistent von Milosevic kommentierte gegenüber jW: »Carla del
Ponte prahlte kürzlich gegenüber der Presse, sie habe alle
Anklagepunkte beweisen können, nur der Völkermord sei schwerer
nachzuweisen, aber sie werde das in den kommenden Monaten tun. Das war
ihr Versuch, der Öffentlichkeit ihren fehlenden Erfolg zu
verheimlichen, da ihre Position als Chefanklägerin derzeit gefährdet
ist. Milosevics Schuld kann nicht nachgewiesen werden, weil es sie
nicht gibt. Jeder weiß, daß er Extremismus und Verbrechen öffentlich
verurteilte, auch wenn sie von serbischer Seite kamen. Er hat
angekündigt, daß er versuchen werde, die Komplizenschaft der westlichen
Geheimdienste bei den schlimmsten Verbrechen in Bosnien und Kroatien
nachzuweisen.«
Dieses Unternehmen dürfte sich als erfolgreicher erweisen als der
Versuch der Anklage, Beweise für eine Verbindung Milosevics zum
Massaker von Srebrenica zu erbringen. Schon die Kommission unter Cees
Wiebes vom Niederländischen Institut für Kriegsdokumentation
(NIOD), die den wohl umfangreichsten Bericht über den Krieg in Bosnien
erstellte, brachte eben dies zutage. Wiebes hatte ungehinderten Zugang
zu niederländischen Geheimdienstdokumenten und recherchierte bei
Geheimdiensten westlicher Staaten und in Bosnien. Während es in der
Presse hieß, es gebe »keine Hinweise auf eine direkte Verbindung
Milosevics und der serbischen Behörden in Belgrad« in den Überfall auf
Srebrenica, brachte die Untersuchung die direkte Verwicklung
ausländischer Kräfte ans Licht: »Die USA benutzen Islamisten, um die
bosnischen Muslime zu bewaffnen; der Srebrenica-Bericht enttarnt die
Rolle des Pentagons in einem schmutzigen Krieg. Die offizielle
niederländische Untersuchung des Srebrenica-Massakers von 1995 enthält
einen der sensationellsten Berichte über westliche Geheimdienste, die
je veröffentlicht wurden«, so der britische Guardian.
SIEHE AUCH:
-> http://www.jungewelt.de/beilage/index.php?b_id=12
*** sloboda - Freiheit für Milosevic
Junge Welt Beilage vom 18.06.2003 ***
Inhalt:
Es sind noch Zellen frei
Slobodan Milosevic ist der erste Kriegsgefangene der neuen Weltordnung
Jürgen Elsässer
Im Kreuzverhör
Milosevic befragt einen prominenten Zeugen über die Kriegsverbrechen in
Kroatien und Bosnien-Herzegowina
Kein Völkermord
Der bisherige Prozeßverlauf in Den Haag ist für die Anklage ein Fiasko
Matthias Gockel
Fluch des Amselfeldes
Wie Milosevic Jugoslawien durch Serbien retten wollte und doch alles
verlor
Werner Pirker
Abschied von Serbien
Vier Jahre nach dem NATO-Krieg: Kosovo auf dem Weg in die Unabhängigkeit
Rüdiger Göbel
Quislinge in Belgrad
An der Ermordung des serbischen Premiers Zoran Djindjic sollen die
Gegner des Haager Tribunals schuld sein, meinen Djindjics Erbschleicher
Klaus Hartmann
»Das Tribunal ist illegal«
junge Welt sprach mit dem ehemaligen US-amerikanischen Justizminister
Ramsey Clark über den Verlauf des Prozesses
Interview: Cathrin Schütz
Die BRD vor Gericht
Im Prozeß um den Bombenangriff auf die Brücke von Varvarin geht es um
mehr als Schadensersatz
Harald Kampffmeyer
28. Juni - Demo in Den Haag
Informationen / Anmeldungen / Mitfahrgelegenheiten
-> http://www.jungewelt.de/beilage/index.php?b_id=12
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SCH308B.html )
Junge Welt (Berlin)
19.08.2003, Ausland
Cathrin Schütz, Belgrad
Beweisnot in Den Haag
UN-Tribunal will dubiose Dokumente nutzen, um Vorwürfe gegen Milosevic
aufrechtzuerhalten
Am UN-Tribunal in Den Haag ist am Montag die Sommerpause zu Ende
gegangen. Im Prozeß gegen den ehemaligen jugoslawischen Präsidenten
Slobodan Milosevic soll in den kommenden Monaten schwerpunktmäßig das
»Massaker von Srebrenica« im Juli 1995 verhandelt werden. Im Fall des
Bürgerkriegs in Bosnien-Herzegowina wirft Chefanklägerin Carla del
Ponte dem Angeklagten »Völkermord« vor. Ursprünglich war dieser
Tatvorwurf auch Teil des Kosovo-Komplexes. Mangels Beweisen mußte dies
allerdings fallengelassen werden. Dabei war der Völkermordvorwurf
Hintergrund der Anklage und der illegalen Auslieferung Milosevics. Auch
im Fall Srebrenica bewegt sich del Ponte auf dünnem Eis. Noch vor der
Sommerpause hatte der ehemalige jugoslawische Präsident Zoran Lilic vor
Gericht Milosevic bescheinigt, nicht in das Massaker in der ehemaligen
UN-Schutzzone verwickelt gewesen zu sein.
Das »Institute for War and Peace Reporting« (IWPR) in London spielte
der Anklageseite in Den Haag indes ein belastendes Papier zu, bei dem
es sich um einen vom damaligen bosnisch-serbischen Innenminister
Tomislav Kovac unterzeichneten Befehl zur Truppenverlegung serbischer
Polizeieinheiten von Sarajevo nach Srebrenica handeln soll. Stacey
Sullivan, Mitarbeiterin von IWPR, erklärte, das Dokument belege
erstmalig, daß Polizei aus Serbien an der Operation in Srebrenica
teilnahm. Dem entgegen hob die Washingtoner »Koalition für
internationale Gerechtigkeit« hervor, daß dies durch das Dokument
keineswegs bewiesen sei. Daß weiterhin unbekannt sei, was Milosevic
selbst von den Vorgängen wußte, mußte jedoch auch Sullivan zugeben.
Die New York Times, die sich sonst in der Vorverurteilung des
ehemaligen jugoslawischen Präsidenten übt, berichtete bereits im Juni,
daß bekannt sei, daß gegen Milosevic im Falle Srebrenica keine Beweise
vorliegen: »Sogar im Prozeß gegen General Radislav Krstic, einem der
Kommandierenden in Srebrenica, der zu 46 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt
wurde, lag den Anklägern kein Dokument vor, das Belgrad mit den
Verbrechen in Verbindung bringt.« Es scheint sich auch bei dem neuen
Papier nicht um einen Beweis gegen Milosevic zu handeln. Die Sprecherin
der Anklageseite bezeichnete das Dokument denn auch nur als »ein
Element«. Vermutlich wird das Dokument genutzt, um Lilics Aussage über
Milosevics Unschuld aus den Medien zu verdrängen. IWPR gibt an, das
Papier bislang »übersehen zu haben«.
Wenn man die Kooperationspartner des IWPR betrachtet, verstärkt sich
der Verdacht, daß das Institut den Anklägern in die Hände spielt. Zu
diesen Partnern gehören das »Open Society Institute« des
US-amerikanischen Multimillionärs George Soros, der auch das Tribunal
selbst mitfinanziert. Über »US AID« erhält das Institut Mittel der
US-Regierung. Weitere stammen von der US-amerikanischen Organisa-
tion »IREX«, die eigenen Angaben zufolge direkte Unterstützung vom
Außenministerium in Washington erhält. IREX finanziert auch
Journalisten aus dem ehemaligen Jugoslawien, die von Den Haag aus über
den Milosevic-Prozeß berichten.
Ein Assistent von Milosevic kommentierte gegenüber jW: »Carla del
Ponte prahlte kürzlich gegenüber der Presse, sie habe alle
Anklagepunkte beweisen können, nur der Völkermord sei schwerer
nachzuweisen, aber sie werde das in den kommenden Monaten tun. Das war
ihr Versuch, der Öffentlichkeit ihren fehlenden Erfolg zu
verheimlichen, da ihre Position als Chefanklägerin derzeit gefährdet
ist. Milosevics Schuld kann nicht nachgewiesen werden, weil es sie
nicht gibt. Jeder weiß, daß er Extremismus und Verbrechen öffentlich
verurteilte, auch wenn sie von serbischer Seite kamen. Er hat
angekündigt, daß er versuchen werde, die Komplizenschaft der westlichen
Geheimdienste bei den schlimmsten Verbrechen in Bosnien und Kroatien
nachzuweisen.«
Dieses Unternehmen dürfte sich als erfolgreicher erweisen als der
Versuch der Anklage, Beweise für eine Verbindung Milosevics zum
Massaker von Srebrenica zu erbringen. Schon die Kommission unter Cees
Wiebes vom Niederländischen Institut für Kriegsdokumentation
(NIOD), die den wohl umfangreichsten Bericht über den Krieg in Bosnien
erstellte, brachte eben dies zutage. Wiebes hatte ungehinderten Zugang
zu niederländischen Geheimdienstdokumenten und recherchierte bei
Geheimdiensten westlicher Staaten und in Bosnien. Während es in der
Presse hieß, es gebe »keine Hinweise auf eine direkte Verbindung
Milosevics und der serbischen Behörden in Belgrad« in den Überfall auf
Srebrenica, brachte die Untersuchung die direkte Verwicklung
ausländischer Kräfte ans Licht: »Die USA benutzen Islamisten, um die
bosnischen Muslime zu bewaffnen; der Srebrenica-Bericht enttarnt die
Rolle des Pentagons in einem schmutzigen Krieg. Die offizielle
niederländische Untersuchung des Srebrenica-Massakers von 1995 enthält
einen der sensationellsten Berichte über westliche Geheimdienste, die
je veröffentlicht wurden«, so der britische Guardian.
SIEHE AUCH:
-> http://www.jungewelt.de/beilage/index.php?b_id=12
*** sloboda - Freiheit für Milosevic
Junge Welt Beilage vom 18.06.2003 ***
Inhalt:
Es sind noch Zellen frei
Slobodan Milosevic ist der erste Kriegsgefangene der neuen Weltordnung
Jürgen Elsässer
Im Kreuzverhör
Milosevic befragt einen prominenten Zeugen über die Kriegsverbrechen in
Kroatien und Bosnien-Herzegowina
Kein Völkermord
Der bisherige Prozeßverlauf in Den Haag ist für die Anklage ein Fiasko
Matthias Gockel
Fluch des Amselfeldes
Wie Milosevic Jugoslawien durch Serbien retten wollte und doch alles
verlor
Werner Pirker
Abschied von Serbien
Vier Jahre nach dem NATO-Krieg: Kosovo auf dem Weg in die Unabhängigkeit
Rüdiger Göbel
Quislinge in Belgrad
An der Ermordung des serbischen Premiers Zoran Djindjic sollen die
Gegner des Haager Tribunals schuld sein, meinen Djindjics Erbschleicher
Klaus Hartmann
»Das Tribunal ist illegal«
junge Welt sprach mit dem ehemaligen US-amerikanischen Justizminister
Ramsey Clark über den Verlauf des Prozesses
Interview: Cathrin Schütz
Die BRD vor Gericht
Im Prozeß um den Bombenangriff auf die Brücke von Varvarin geht es um
mehr als Schadensersatz
Harald Kampffmeyer
28. Juni - Demo in Den Haag
Informationen / Anmeldungen / Mitfahrgelegenheiten
-> http://www.jungewelt.de/beilage/index.php?b_id=12
ANTONIO MILOSEVIC
«Bisogna aiutare Milosevic ad uscire dall’isolamento, poiché accettando
il piano di pace corre rischi ad opera dei falchi del suo Paese: senza
la cooperazione internazionale sarebbe in pericolo»
Antonio Martino, ministro degli Esteri del 1° governo
Berlusconi. Dichiarazione riportata dall'ANSA dell'11 settembre 1994,
nel corso della guerra in Bosnia, e ripresa adesso nell'ambito scontro
politico interno italiano sul caso "Telekom Serbia" da L'Unita' del 1
settembre 2003 ( vedi:
http://www.unita.it/index.asp??SEZIONE_COD=&TOPIC_ID=28517 )
All'epoca in Italia solo i radicali protestarono, perche' volevano che
la guerra in Bosnia continuasse fino alla disfatta dei serbi.
«Bisogna aiutare Milosevic ad uscire dall’isolamento, poiché accettando
il piano di pace corre rischi ad opera dei falchi del suo Paese: senza
la cooperazione internazionale sarebbe in pericolo»
Antonio Martino, ministro degli Esteri del 1° governo
Berlusconi. Dichiarazione riportata dall'ANSA dell'11 settembre 1994,
nel corso della guerra in Bosnia, e ripresa adesso nell'ambito scontro
politico interno italiano sul caso "Telekom Serbia" da L'Unita' del 1
settembre 2003 ( vedi:
http://www.unita.it/index.asp??SEZIONE_COD=&TOPIC_ID=28517 )
All'epoca in Italia solo i radicali protestarono, perche' volevano che
la guerra in Bosnia continuasse fino alla disfatta dei serbi.
E' USCITA LA NUOVA CASSETTA DI SADDAM
Il nastro di Saddam messo in distribuzione nei giorni scorsi e'
autentico: la conferma viene dalla CIA, casa di produzione
statunitense, nell'ambito della campagna promozionale. Secondo la CIA
la voce che si sente e' proprio quella di Saddam.
Ricordiamo agli appassionati che sono sempre disponibili anche i piu'
recenti video di Osama Bin Laden.
Solo nei migliori negozi.
Il nastro di Saddam messo in distribuzione nei giorni scorsi e'
autentico: la conferma viene dalla CIA, casa di produzione
statunitense, nell'ambito della campagna promozionale. Secondo la CIA
la voce che si sente e' proprio quella di Saddam.
Ricordiamo agli appassionati che sono sempre disponibili anche i piu'
recenti video di Osama Bin Laden.
Solo nei migliori negozi.
Alla Redazione di
"Il Messaggero", Roma
e per conoscenza al
Prof. Predrag Matvejevic
Su "il Messaggero" del 22 agosto appariva l'articolo "Mostar, è rinato
il vecchio ponte" a firma Predrag Matvejevic.
Belle le parole sul Ponte, "alla luce del sole... così luminoso" (ma
anche "alla luna..."), riportate dal prof Matvejevic. Quel sasso
bianco e luminoso è stato di ispirazione per tanti poeti e scrittori,
in primis Ivo Andric, jugoslavo, premio Nobel per la letteratura.
Giustamente Valerio Pelizzari ce lo ricorda
nell'articolo sulla stessa pagina: "Il Ponte di Mostar, rinasce un
sogno".
Siccome però in passato abbiamo dovuto lamentare, in tante occasioni,
la assoluta mancanza di coerenza da parte di Matvejevic, ci siamo ormai
abituati a registrare incongruenze in ognuno dei suoi scritti
riguardanti la tragedia jugoslava. Poco male, per la Bosnia e per la
Jugoslavia, se qualche professore usa promuovere se stesso, fintantoché
trova spazio sulla stampa di ogni orientamento politico... Ma talvolta
Matvejevic distorce deliberatamente la storia ed i concetti, e Camus ha
ben spiegato che "non chiamare le cose con il proprio nome, significa
seminare disgrazia tra la gente".
Scrive il Matvejevic nell'articolo: <<Poi cercarono di danneggiarlo i
"serbi". I "croati" completarono la distruzione... Metto fra
le virgolette i nomi dei due popoli per non confondere i distruttori di
quella straordinaria opera architettonica con quei croati e serbi che
hanno pianto per questo atto vandalico...>> (Sono sempre parole del
Matvejevic)
I serbi, nel caso di Mostar non c'entrano assolutamente niente, nè
quelli con le virgolette, nè quelli senza.
Lo sforzo del professore di scaricare sui serbi (se "il pesce puzza
dalla testa", allora esimio professore, nel contesto le virgolette le
può anche evitare) la responsabilità "originaria" per la distruzione
del Ponte è in linea con il "pensiero unico" sulla guerra fratricida in
Jugoslavia. Questo "pensiero unico", del quale Matvejevic è uno dei
grandi ideologi insieme a troppi intellettuali e professori "di
servizio", imputa ai serbi il "peccato originale" del nazionalismo.
Ma i serbi si ritirarono da Mostar e dintorni prima ancora che
iniziassero gli scontri tra nazionalisti croati e nazionalisti
musulmani bosniaci, nell'ambito dei quali il Ponte fu abbattuto.
Matvejevic volentieri dimentica di ricordare che la "Erzegbosnia"
(come lui stesso definì quella regione, agli inizi delle sue "uscite"
davanti al pubblico italiano, secondo la più ignobile "vulgata"
ustascia) ha partorito i nazionalisti croati più efferati. D'altronde,
anche il loro storico duce Pavelic proviene da quelle parti. Tutti,
tranne gli ignoranti ed i miserabili, sanno DA CHI E DA DOVE partì
l'ordine di organizzare i croati nati in Bosnia ed Erzegovina in unità
speciali, con a capo "un certo" Tihomir Blaskic, per andare in quella
ex repubblica federata jugoslava a fare la guerra e la pulizia etnica
contro i musulmani (bosgnazzi!?) oltrechè contro i serbi.
La faziosità di Matvejevic non ci stupisce. Uno al quale è stata
attribuita una onorificenza (la "Stella Polare Croata" - sic!) da un
presidente che si vantava "sarò l'ultimo presidente della RFS di
Jugoslavia", e ci scriveva poi pure un libro "Come abbiamo distrutto la
Jugoslavia"; uno che in quella occasione ha tenuto a precisare "questo
distintivo rosso che porto all'occhiello non è un residuo del
comunismo" (mentre era candidato con i cossuttiani!); beh, un
professore così andrebbe "bacchettato" proprio come facevano una volta
i professori con gli alunni.
Ivan Pavicevac (Roma)
Andrea Martocchia (Roma)
Giuseppe Catapano (Roma)
Manuela Marianetti (Roma)
Olga Daric (Parigi)
Nada Znirdasic (Parigi)
Bogdan Manojlovic (Parigi)
Gordana Mojasevic (Parigi)
Joseph Kaminski (Parigi)
Rada Wolf (Saint Tropez)
Lusi Milenkovic (Gubbio)
Serena Marchionni (Bologna)
Miriam Pellegrini Ferri (Roma)
Gruppo Atei Materialisti Dialettici - GAMADI (Roma)
Fulvio Grimaldi (Roma)
Sandra Paganini (Roma)
Enrico Vigna (Torino)
Milena Cubrakovic (Roma)
Alessandro Di Meo (Roma)
Gilberto Vlaic (Trieste)
Aldo Bernardini (Roma)
Mirjana Jovanovic (Roma)
"Il Messaggero", Roma
e per conoscenza al
Prof. Predrag Matvejevic
Su "il Messaggero" del 22 agosto appariva l'articolo "Mostar, è rinato
il vecchio ponte" a firma Predrag Matvejevic.
Belle le parole sul Ponte, "alla luce del sole... così luminoso" (ma
anche "alla luna..."), riportate dal prof Matvejevic. Quel sasso
bianco e luminoso è stato di ispirazione per tanti poeti e scrittori,
in primis Ivo Andric, jugoslavo, premio Nobel per la letteratura.
Giustamente Valerio Pelizzari ce lo ricorda
nell'articolo sulla stessa pagina: "Il Ponte di Mostar, rinasce un
sogno".
Siccome però in passato abbiamo dovuto lamentare, in tante occasioni,
la assoluta mancanza di coerenza da parte di Matvejevic, ci siamo ormai
abituati a registrare incongruenze in ognuno dei suoi scritti
riguardanti la tragedia jugoslava. Poco male, per la Bosnia e per la
Jugoslavia, se qualche professore usa promuovere se stesso, fintantoché
trova spazio sulla stampa di ogni orientamento politico... Ma talvolta
Matvejevic distorce deliberatamente la storia ed i concetti, e Camus ha
ben spiegato che "non chiamare le cose con il proprio nome, significa
seminare disgrazia tra la gente".
Scrive il Matvejevic nell'articolo: <<Poi cercarono di danneggiarlo i
"serbi". I "croati" completarono la distruzione... Metto fra
le virgolette i nomi dei due popoli per non confondere i distruttori di
quella straordinaria opera architettonica con quei croati e serbi che
hanno pianto per questo atto vandalico...>> (Sono sempre parole del
Matvejevic)
I serbi, nel caso di Mostar non c'entrano assolutamente niente, nè
quelli con le virgolette, nè quelli senza.
Lo sforzo del professore di scaricare sui serbi (se "il pesce puzza
dalla testa", allora esimio professore, nel contesto le virgolette le
può anche evitare) la responsabilità "originaria" per la distruzione
del Ponte è in linea con il "pensiero unico" sulla guerra fratricida in
Jugoslavia. Questo "pensiero unico", del quale Matvejevic è uno dei
grandi ideologi insieme a troppi intellettuali e professori "di
servizio", imputa ai serbi il "peccato originale" del nazionalismo.
Ma i serbi si ritirarono da Mostar e dintorni prima ancora che
iniziassero gli scontri tra nazionalisti croati e nazionalisti
musulmani bosniaci, nell'ambito dei quali il Ponte fu abbattuto.
Matvejevic volentieri dimentica di ricordare che la "Erzegbosnia"
(come lui stesso definì quella regione, agli inizi delle sue "uscite"
davanti al pubblico italiano, secondo la più ignobile "vulgata"
ustascia) ha partorito i nazionalisti croati più efferati. D'altronde,
anche il loro storico duce Pavelic proviene da quelle parti. Tutti,
tranne gli ignoranti ed i miserabili, sanno DA CHI E DA DOVE partì
l'ordine di organizzare i croati nati in Bosnia ed Erzegovina in unità
speciali, con a capo "un certo" Tihomir Blaskic, per andare in quella
ex repubblica federata jugoslava a fare la guerra e la pulizia etnica
contro i musulmani (bosgnazzi!?) oltrechè contro i serbi.
La faziosità di Matvejevic non ci stupisce. Uno al quale è stata
attribuita una onorificenza (la "Stella Polare Croata" - sic!) da un
presidente che si vantava "sarò l'ultimo presidente della RFS di
Jugoslavia", e ci scriveva poi pure un libro "Come abbiamo distrutto la
Jugoslavia"; uno che in quella occasione ha tenuto a precisare "questo
distintivo rosso che porto all'occhiello non è un residuo del
comunismo" (mentre era candidato con i cossuttiani!); beh, un
professore così andrebbe "bacchettato" proprio come facevano una volta
i professori con gli alunni.
Ivan Pavicevac (Roma)
Andrea Martocchia (Roma)
Giuseppe Catapano (Roma)
Manuela Marianetti (Roma)
Olga Daric (Parigi)
Nada Znirdasic (Parigi)
Bogdan Manojlovic (Parigi)
Gordana Mojasevic (Parigi)
Joseph Kaminski (Parigi)
Rada Wolf (Saint Tropez)
Lusi Milenkovic (Gubbio)
Serena Marchionni (Bologna)
Miriam Pellegrini Ferri (Roma)
Gruppo Atei Materialisti Dialettici - GAMADI (Roma)
Fulvio Grimaldi (Roma)
Sandra Paganini (Roma)
Enrico Vigna (Torino)
Milena Cubrakovic (Roma)
Alessandro Di Meo (Roma)
Gilberto Vlaic (Trieste)
Aldo Bernardini (Roma)
Mirjana Jovanovic (Roma)
Il terrorismo "buono" / 5
1. Happy Days, Here Again
(New York Press, Volume 15, Issue 6, February 2002)
2. Taliban heroin profits arming Balkan rebels
(The Daily Telegraph, February 19, 2002)
=== 1 ===
The Bush Administration supports Terrorists in Kosovo, Macedonia and
Chechnya
Happy Days, Here Again
by George Szamuely
New York Press, Volume 15, Issue 6, February 2002
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 14
February 2002
Forget the war on terrorism. The United States is once again supporting
the drug dealers, gangsters and warlord fundamentalists. The other day
a State Dept. official met Chechnya’s self-declared foreign
minister, Ilyas Akhmadov. The Russians were dismayed. Having thrown
their lot in with the supposed common struggle against terrorism, they
find the Americans giving support to terrorists. Last month, after
a post-Sept. 11 lull, the U.S. stepped up its criticism of human rights
abuses in Chechnya. The Russians professed to be "amazed" that the
United States, as Agence France Presse reported, would meet with
Chechens, "whose direct links with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are
being proven with constantly emerging, irrefutable evidence…"
Chechnya has always been seen here as a rerun of Kosovo, which itself
was a rerun of Afghanistan. All the ingredients are there: a spurious
"national liberation" struggle financed by organized crime, drug
trafficking and the global Islamic network; support from Western
governments and human rights groups; Islamic fundamentalism as a
substitute for genuine nationhood; violently enforced clan loyalty;
political legitimacy based on appeals to Islam; and terrorists in
power. Consider Kosovo: The U.S. is currently brokering a deal on the
distribution of power. Leaders of the three leading Kosovo Albanian
parties recently met the head of the U.S. office in Pristina, John
Menzies, and it was proposed that the job of prime minister should
go to Hashim Thaci’s Democratic Party of Kosovo (DPK). Thaci is the
leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Its links to Islamic
terrorism and bin Laden have been amply documented. The KLA
allegedly disbanded after the NATO takeover and reconstituted itself as
a "civil defense force," the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC). Its wages
were paid by the UN.
Last summer, the Bush administration discovered that the KPC was a
terrorist organization after all and that it was fueling a terrorist
insurgency in neighboring Macedonia. The President signed two
decrees depriving "Albanian extremists who were threatening the
stability of Macedonia" of all financial or material support. The
decrees also barred them from entering the United States. This
followed the embarrassing revelation that the U.S. military had
facilitated the escape of NLA terrorists holed up in Arcinovo from the
Macedonian army. According to Hamburger Abendblatt, "Among the
rebels that were withdrawing were 17 ‘instructors’–former US officers
that provided military training for the rebels. Not only that: the
Macedonian security forces claim that 70 percent of the equipment
that the guerrilla fighters took with them are of US production." The
"instructors" were almost certainly members of an outfit called
Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI). It is filled with
former senior U.S. Army personnel and works on contract for the U.S.
government. It had trained and directed the Croatian army during
Operation Storm, in which something like 300,000 Serbs were driven out
of their homes in Krajina. One of the commanders of Operation Storm was
an Albanian, Agim Ceku, who also happens to be the chief of the
Kosovo Protection Corps.
The people Bush banned from entering the United States included Gezim
Ostremi, the KPC’s chief-of-staff; his replacement, Daut Haradinaj; the
commander and deputy commander of the KPC’s elite force, the Rapid
Reaction Corps, plus the leaders of two of its six regional divisions,
Sami Lushtaku and Mustafa Rrustem. The UN expressed shock and surprise
and demanded proof that people on its payroll were terrorists. This
was an odd request. The UN had itself reported a year earlier that the
KPC was a bunch of gangsters.
The U.S. decrees were more rhetoric than reality. As an Irish Times
report put it sarcastically: "Commander Rrustem…earned fame during the
Kosovo war as one of the most successful guerrilla commanders. He
has since become a favourite with NATO commanders, whose glowing
commendations line the walls of his office. Certainly if the Americans
have reservations about him they have yet to show it: on Tuesday
two separate US army teams came to his base to train his men."
There we have it: The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded by U.S. military
aid, the UN peacekeeping budget, Al Qaeda and by drug trafficking and
prostitution. If everything goes according to plan, their leader is
about to be appointed prime minister thanks to U.S. efforts. O what a
lovely war! Now on to Central Asia.
Washington now has 13 bases in nine countries ringing Afghanistan and
in the Gulf. Agreements are in place to use airfields in Tajikistan. An
air base is being built in Kyrgyzstan to hold 3000 troops. Gen.
Tommy Franks vows to crush the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones promises $160 million in
aid. Some 1500 U.S. servicemen are already stationed there; 3000
American troops are in Kyrgyzstan. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz says the bases will serve to facilitate cooperation and
training with the local military. In other words, the U.S. will, as
in the Balkans, play the Islamists and anti-Islamists off against each
other and reduce the countries to abject dependence. If the fates of
Kosovo and Macedonia are anything to go by, the Soviet Union era
will soon seem like a glorious one.
Copyright New York Press 2002. Reprinted for fair use only.
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA202A.html
=== 2 ===
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20020219/
98481.html&qs=jennings
February 19, 2002
Taliban heroin profits arming Balkan rebels
Albanian extremists: Weapons order could equip force
of up to 2,000
Christian Jennings
The Daily Telegraph
SKOPJE, Macedonia - Heroin from huge stockpiles in
Afghanistan is beginning to pour into European
capitals, with much of the profit being used to buy
arms for Albanian rebels seeking to start a new round
of conflict in the southern Balkans.
Senior drug trade analysts from the United Nations
Drug Control Program in Vienna and Western police
officials say much of the heroin being sold in
countries such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland is
coming from stocks in Afghanistan, much of it
controlled by al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
European drug squad officers say Albanian and Kosovo
Albanian dealers are ruthlessly trying to seize
control of the European heroin market, worth up to
$27-billion a year, and have taken over the trade in
at least six European countries.
Western intelligence officials in Kosovo, Macedonia
and Switzerland say Albanian gangs have used
$7-million of their heroin profits since last October
to re-equip rebels in Macedonia who gave up their
weapons to NATO troops.
Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's interim leader, hopes to
replace opium growing in Afghanistan, which provides
90% of the heroin in Europe, with cultivation of
agricultural staples.
But Thomas Pietschmann, a senior researcher with the
UN's drug control program, said bumper crops in
Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000 meant there were
stockpiles of heroin and opium worth $68-billion to
$114-billion.
"This is enough to keep every addict in Europe
supplied for three years, even if another poppy is not
grown in Afghanistan, and leave some over for the
increasing market in Russia,'' Dr. Pietschmann said.
Police chiefs are particularly worried about the
arrival of a new brand of heroin from Afghanistan and
Pakistan. It is 80% pure and known as Heroin No. 4 or
white heroin.
Recently, there have been large seizures of white
heroin along the eastern boundary of the European
Union, which stretches from Poland, Germany and
Finland southward to Turkey. It has all come from
Afghanistan and Pakistan via Central Asia.
Police say Albanian criminal gangs have taken over the
heroin trade along this border, muscling in on
gangland turf formerly controlled by Russians,
Ukrainians, Czechs and Turks.
"The rebels in Macedonia, former [Kosovo Liberation
Army] freedom fighters in Kosovo and extremist
Albanians in southern Serbia are all part of the
network of Albanian and Kosovo Albanian families who
control criminal networks in Switzerland, Austria,
Germany and elsewhere,'' said a Western intelligence
official in the province.
"Albanians account for up to 90% of our problems with
drugs and drug dealings,'' said Thomas Koeppel, a
senior Swiss police official involved in the drug war.
Norwegian police made their country's largest heroin
haul last month, arresting three former KLA
guerrillas.
This month, the Drugs Investigative Committee in
Bavaria announced seven Albanians at the centre of a
drug ring that spanned Europe had been arrested in a
multinational operation. The haul included 55
kilograms en route to Scandinavia, via Italy, Austria
and Switzerland.
The smugglers had already moved at least 90 kilograms
to other suppliers.
Albanian extremists from Macedonia and Kosovo have
used part of the profits to buy new weapons since last
October. They have used arms dealers in Belgrade,
Bulgaria, Macedonia and Bosnia, and sometimes also
Swiss and Serb middle men.
Western defence intelligence officials say many of the
weapons have been smuggled into northern Macedonia and
Albania.
Arms trade experts say the deals include at least 20
SA-18 and SA-7 shoulder-held anti-aircraft missile
systems.
The missiles could tip the balance of the dormant
conflict in Macedonia by giving rebels the ability to
shoot down the Macedonian army's Mi-24 Hind helicopter
gunships and Sukhoi Su-25 ground attack jets
The rest of the weapons on the Albanians' shopping
list include Chinese and Yugoslav 120mm and 82mm
mortars, Yugoslav RBR M79 anti-tank rockets,
large-calibre machine guns, grenade launchers, up to
1,500 assault rifles, high-calibre M93 sniper rifles
and millions of rounds of ammunition.
Military experts believe this is enough to arm a force
of up to 2,000.
Thousands of Albanian rebels from the National
Liberation Army (NLA) in Macedonia handed their
weapons over to NATO troops last fall after seven
months of fighting with Macedonian government forces.
The disarmament program was part of an internationally
sponsored peace deal designed to head off the prospect
of a fifth Balkan war.
Although rebel leaders from the former NLA have
renounced violence, a hardline breakaway element
calling itself the Albanian National Army has
threatened more trouble this spring.
1. Happy Days, Here Again
(New York Press, Volume 15, Issue 6, February 2002)
2. Taliban heroin profits arming Balkan rebels
(The Daily Telegraph, February 19, 2002)
=== 1 ===
The Bush Administration supports Terrorists in Kosovo, Macedonia and
Chechnya
Happy Days, Here Again
by George Szamuely
New York Press, Volume 15, Issue 6, February 2002
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 14
February 2002
Forget the war on terrorism. The United States is once again supporting
the drug dealers, gangsters and warlord fundamentalists. The other day
a State Dept. official met Chechnya’s self-declared foreign
minister, Ilyas Akhmadov. The Russians were dismayed. Having thrown
their lot in with the supposed common struggle against terrorism, they
find the Americans giving support to terrorists. Last month, after
a post-Sept. 11 lull, the U.S. stepped up its criticism of human rights
abuses in Chechnya. The Russians professed to be "amazed" that the
United States, as Agence France Presse reported, would meet with
Chechens, "whose direct links with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are
being proven with constantly emerging, irrefutable evidence…"
Chechnya has always been seen here as a rerun of Kosovo, which itself
was a rerun of Afghanistan. All the ingredients are there: a spurious
"national liberation" struggle financed by organized crime, drug
trafficking and the global Islamic network; support from Western
governments and human rights groups; Islamic fundamentalism as a
substitute for genuine nationhood; violently enforced clan loyalty;
political legitimacy based on appeals to Islam; and terrorists in
power. Consider Kosovo: The U.S. is currently brokering a deal on the
distribution of power. Leaders of the three leading Kosovo Albanian
parties recently met the head of the U.S. office in Pristina, John
Menzies, and it was proposed that the job of prime minister should
go to Hashim Thaci’s Democratic Party of Kosovo (DPK). Thaci is the
leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Its links to Islamic
terrorism and bin Laden have been amply documented. The KLA
allegedly disbanded after the NATO takeover and reconstituted itself as
a "civil defense force," the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC). Its wages
were paid by the UN.
Last summer, the Bush administration discovered that the KPC was a
terrorist organization after all and that it was fueling a terrorist
insurgency in neighboring Macedonia. The President signed two
decrees depriving "Albanian extremists who were threatening the
stability of Macedonia" of all financial or material support. The
decrees also barred them from entering the United States. This
followed the embarrassing revelation that the U.S. military had
facilitated the escape of NLA terrorists holed up in Arcinovo from the
Macedonian army. According to Hamburger Abendblatt, "Among the
rebels that were withdrawing were 17 ‘instructors’–former US officers
that provided military training for the rebels. Not only that: the
Macedonian security forces claim that 70 percent of the equipment
that the guerrilla fighters took with them are of US production." The
"instructors" were almost certainly members of an outfit called
Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI). It is filled with
former senior U.S. Army personnel and works on contract for the U.S.
government. It had trained and directed the Croatian army during
Operation Storm, in which something like 300,000 Serbs were driven out
of their homes in Krajina. One of the commanders of Operation Storm was
an Albanian, Agim Ceku, who also happens to be the chief of the
Kosovo Protection Corps.
The people Bush banned from entering the United States included Gezim
Ostremi, the KPC’s chief-of-staff; his replacement, Daut Haradinaj; the
commander and deputy commander of the KPC’s elite force, the Rapid
Reaction Corps, plus the leaders of two of its six regional divisions,
Sami Lushtaku and Mustafa Rrustem. The UN expressed shock and surprise
and demanded proof that people on its payroll were terrorists. This
was an odd request. The UN had itself reported a year earlier that the
KPC was a bunch of gangsters.
The U.S. decrees were more rhetoric than reality. As an Irish Times
report put it sarcastically: "Commander Rrustem…earned fame during the
Kosovo war as one of the most successful guerrilla commanders. He
has since become a favourite with NATO commanders, whose glowing
commendations line the walls of his office. Certainly if the Americans
have reservations about him they have yet to show it: on Tuesday
two separate US army teams came to his base to train his men."
There we have it: The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded by U.S. military
aid, the UN peacekeeping budget, Al Qaeda and by drug trafficking and
prostitution. If everything goes according to plan, their leader is
about to be appointed prime minister thanks to U.S. efforts. O what a
lovely war! Now on to Central Asia.
Washington now has 13 bases in nine countries ringing Afghanistan and
in the Gulf. Agreements are in place to use airfields in Tajikistan. An
air base is being built in Kyrgyzstan to hold 3000 troops. Gen.
Tommy Franks vows to crush the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones promises $160 million in
aid. Some 1500 U.S. servicemen are already stationed there; 3000
American troops are in Kyrgyzstan. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz says the bases will serve to facilitate cooperation and
training with the local military. In other words, the U.S. will, as
in the Balkans, play the Islamists and anti-Islamists off against each
other and reduce the countries to abject dependence. If the fates of
Kosovo and Macedonia are anything to go by, the Soviet Union era
will soon seem like a glorious one.
Copyright New York Press 2002. Reprinted for fair use only.
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA202A.html
=== 2 ===
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20020219/
98481.html&qs=jennings
February 19, 2002
Taliban heroin profits arming Balkan rebels
Albanian extremists: Weapons order could equip force
of up to 2,000
Christian Jennings
The Daily Telegraph
SKOPJE, Macedonia - Heroin from huge stockpiles in
Afghanistan is beginning to pour into European
capitals, with much of the profit being used to buy
arms for Albanian rebels seeking to start a new round
of conflict in the southern Balkans.
Senior drug trade analysts from the United Nations
Drug Control Program in Vienna and Western police
officials say much of the heroin being sold in
countries such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland is
coming from stocks in Afghanistan, much of it
controlled by al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
European drug squad officers say Albanian and Kosovo
Albanian dealers are ruthlessly trying to seize
control of the European heroin market, worth up to
$27-billion a year, and have taken over the trade in
at least six European countries.
Western intelligence officials in Kosovo, Macedonia
and Switzerland say Albanian gangs have used
$7-million of their heroin profits since last October
to re-equip rebels in Macedonia who gave up their
weapons to NATO troops.
Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's interim leader, hopes to
replace opium growing in Afghanistan, which provides
90% of the heroin in Europe, with cultivation of
agricultural staples.
But Thomas Pietschmann, a senior researcher with the
UN's drug control program, said bumper crops in
Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000 meant there were
stockpiles of heroin and opium worth $68-billion to
$114-billion.
"This is enough to keep every addict in Europe
supplied for three years, even if another poppy is not
grown in Afghanistan, and leave some over for the
increasing market in Russia,'' Dr. Pietschmann said.
Police chiefs are particularly worried about the
arrival of a new brand of heroin from Afghanistan and
Pakistan. It is 80% pure and known as Heroin No. 4 or
white heroin.
Recently, there have been large seizures of white
heroin along the eastern boundary of the European
Union, which stretches from Poland, Germany and
Finland southward to Turkey. It has all come from
Afghanistan and Pakistan via Central Asia.
Police say Albanian criminal gangs have taken over the
heroin trade along this border, muscling in on
gangland turf formerly controlled by Russians,
Ukrainians, Czechs and Turks.
"The rebels in Macedonia, former [Kosovo Liberation
Army] freedom fighters in Kosovo and extremist
Albanians in southern Serbia are all part of the
network of Albanian and Kosovo Albanian families who
control criminal networks in Switzerland, Austria,
Germany and elsewhere,'' said a Western intelligence
official in the province.
"Albanians account for up to 90% of our problems with
drugs and drug dealings,'' said Thomas Koeppel, a
senior Swiss police official involved in the drug war.
Norwegian police made their country's largest heroin
haul last month, arresting three former KLA
guerrillas.
This month, the Drugs Investigative Committee in
Bavaria announced seven Albanians at the centre of a
drug ring that spanned Europe had been arrested in a
multinational operation. The haul included 55
kilograms en route to Scandinavia, via Italy, Austria
and Switzerland.
The smugglers had already moved at least 90 kilograms
to other suppliers.
Albanian extremists from Macedonia and Kosovo have
used part of the profits to buy new weapons since last
October. They have used arms dealers in Belgrade,
Bulgaria, Macedonia and Bosnia, and sometimes also
Swiss and Serb middle men.
Western defence intelligence officials say many of the
weapons have been smuggled into northern Macedonia and
Albania.
Arms trade experts say the deals include at least 20
SA-18 and SA-7 shoulder-held anti-aircraft missile
systems.
The missiles could tip the balance of the dormant
conflict in Macedonia by giving rebels the ability to
shoot down the Macedonian army's Mi-24 Hind helicopter
gunships and Sukhoi Su-25 ground attack jets
The rest of the weapons on the Albanians' shopping
list include Chinese and Yugoslav 120mm and 82mm
mortars, Yugoslav RBR M79 anti-tank rockets,
large-calibre machine guns, grenade launchers, up to
1,500 assault rifles, high-calibre M93 sniper rifles
and millions of rounds of ammunition.
Military experts believe this is enough to arm a force
of up to 2,000.
Thousands of Albanian rebels from the National
Liberation Army (NLA) in Macedonia handed their
weapons over to NATO troops last fall after seven
months of fighting with Macedonian government forces.
The disarmament program was part of an internationally
sponsored peace deal designed to head off the prospect
of a fifth Balkan war.
Although rebel leaders from the former NLA have
renounced violence, a hardline breakaway element
calling itself the Albanian National Army has
threatened more trouble this spring.
Croazia/Slovenia: se li vedesse Tito...
(english / italiano)
=== ITALIANO ===
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/slovenia/slovenia.shtml
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/croazia/croazia.shtml
SLOVENIA-CROAZIA: LUBIANA INSISTE PER CORRIDOIO MARITTIMO
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 28 AGO
SLOVENIA-CROAZIA: LUBIANA RICHIAMA AMBASCIATORE A ZAGABRIA
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 01 SET
SLOVENIA-CROAZIA: TENSIONI PER ZONA ECONOMICA E FRONTIERA
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 1 SET
CROAZIA-SLOVENIA: NESSUNA SCHIARITA PER ZONA ADRIATICO/ ANSA
(ANSA) - ZAGABRIA, 2 SET - L'accesso della Slovenia alle acque
internazionali e l'annuncio della zona economica che la Croazia vuole
proclamare nell'Adriatico entro la fine dell'anno, hanno provocato la
piu' grave crisi nei rapporti tra Lubiana e Zagabria dalla loro
indipendenza nel 1991, arrivando al richiamo ''per consultazioni''
dell'ambasciatore sloveno a Zagabria. L'annuncio della zona
economica, istituita probabilmente insieme all'Italia, aveva gia'
provocato nelle scorse settimane quella che e' stata definita una
"guerra delle note diplomatiche'' per le proteste di Lubiana secondo
cui non e' possibile la proclamazione di una tale area senza il
contributo di tutti i paesi interessati. A far scattare il
richiamo dell'ambasciatore sloveno sono state le dichiarazioni del
ministro degli esteri croato Tonino Picula, pubblicate domenica sul
quotidiano di Spalato 'Slobodna Dalmacija'. ''La Slovenia - ha detto
Picula - non ha uno sbocco diretto alle acque internazionali e
l'accordo sulla frontiera (marittima, ndr) siglato nel 2001 non ha
alcun effetto legale''. Picula si riferiva all'accordo raggiunto
dai primi ministri dei due paesi nel 2001, approvato dal parlamento
sloveno ma che, per opposizione dell'opinione pubblica, non e' mai
stato nemmeno presentato al parlamento croato. Spiegando ieri la
decisione di richiamare l'ambasciatore a Zagabria, il ministro degli
esteri sloveno Dimitri Rupel ha detto che ''le dicharazioni di Picula
potrebbero provocare un reale peggioramento dei rapporti
sloveno-croati'' ed ha aggiunto che Lubiana ''sta pensando di
riconsiderare il proprio appoggio all'ingresso della Croazia nella
Nato e nell'Unione europea''. Curiosamente, quasi come se non
riconoscesse l'autorita' del ministro degli esteri, il premier croato
Ivica Racan ha dichiarato stasera di voler sperare che dietro le
dichiarazioni di Rupel non corrispondano all'atteggiamento dei
cittadini e del governo sloveno e che il ''suon delle armi politiche
e' estremamente inappropriato'', auspicando che si tratti di un
malinteso che si possa rapidamente chiarire. Ieri, il presidente
croato Stipe Mesic aveva espresso il suo ''sincero rammarico'',
mentre il ministro Picula ha soltanto ribadito che nelle sue
dichiarazioni non ha detto ''nulla che non fosse gia' noto''. Fonti
del governo hanno fatto sapere di essere ''spiacevolmente sorprese
per le dichiarazioni smisurate e senza fondamento e per il tono
radicalmente litigioso di Rupel'' aggiungendo che per quanto riguarda
la zona economica nell'Adriatico non e' stata ancora presa una
decisone ufficiale e che ''la questione e' oggetto di seri colloqui
con i paesi vicini''. A fine luglio, durante un incontro a
Zagabria tra i sottosegretari agli esteri Roberto Antonione e Ivan
Simonovic, l'Italia e la Croazia hanno discusso della tutela delle
risorse ambientali ed economiche dell'Adriatico e dell'ipotesi di una
zona economica che porterebbe ai due paesi il controllo della
navigazione e il diritto di stabilire le quote di pesca nelle
rispettive zone. Il presidente della Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia Riccardo Illy, in visita oggi a Lubiana, ha sostenuto le
ragioni di Lubiana affermando la necessita' di preservare ''una
fascia di acque internazionali in Adriatico e la libera circolazione
di tutte le navi di qualunque Paese''. Dopo l'incontro con Illy,
Rupel ha lanciato una proposta alla Croazia di proclamare ''una zona
ecologica comune nell'Adriatico che non ha bisogno di frontiere''.
(ANSA) COR*VD 02/09/2003 20:01
=== ENGLISH ===
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Lun 1 Set 2003 21:25:41 Europe/Rome
A: antinato@...
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] Slovenia Balks At Croatian Attempt To 'Damage
Its Strategic Interests'
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/af/Qslovenia-croatia.RmVZ_DS1.html
Slovenia threatens to drop support for Croatia's EU
bid over Adriatic row
-Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
-Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
LJUBLJANA, Sept 1 (AFP) - Slovenia on Monday
threatened to withdraw its support for Croatia's
European Union aspirations in response to Zagreb's
plans to proclaim an exclusive economic zone in the
Adriatic Sea.
"We are coming to the point at which Slovenia will
have to re-consider its policy (of backing Croatia's
accession to the EU)", Slovenian Foreign Minister
Dimitrij Rupel said.
The Slovenian government on Sunday recalled its
ambassador to Zagreb, Peter Bekes, "for consultations"
amid outrage at Croatia's plans to lay claim to a
large part of the Adriatic.
Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
This has brought to a head a long-standing row between
Croatia and Slovenia over access to the Adriatic.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
The two governments reached a deal in 2001 that
granted Slovenia direct access to international
shipping waters in the Adriatic, but this was later
rejected by the Croatian parliament.
Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
Slovenia, which is set to join the EU in May 2004, had
so far supported Croatia's bid to join the bloc in the
next wave of enlargement.
But Rupel Monday accused Zagreb of trying to damage
Slovenia's strategic interests.
"That is an attempt to damage Slovenia's economic and
political interests and creating complicated relations
on the border between the enlarged EU and Croatia," he
said.
"The Croatian minister's statements are unacceptable
and could provoke a serious worsening in relations,"
he added.
Rupel said experts from both countries are expected to
meet in Ljubljana on September 16 to discuss the
matter.
Slovenia's coastline is just over 42 kilometres (26
miles) long, while Croatia's is more than 1,000
kilometres (600 miles) long.
---
Croatian government won't react yet to attacks from Slovenia
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=ehot&NID=ehot/politika/
H9019243.2yc
CROATIAN GOVERNMENT WON'T REACT YET TO ATTACKS FROM SLOVENIA
HNA
HR-POLITICS-Politika
ZAGREB, Sept 1 (Hina) - The Croatian government will not react to
the latest attacks from Slovenia today, while the foreign ministry
will most likely define its stand on Tuesday, after Ljubljana has
officially notified Zagreb, a source at the government said on Monday.
#L#
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the diplomatic
corps was likely to be convened at the foreign ministry in the coming
days to be briefed about Croatia's standpoints.
Earlier today, Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel said his
Croatian counterpart Tonino Picula's claims that Slovenia did not have
access to the open sea and that a border deal was legally invalid were
"unacceptable" and could deteriorate relations between the two
countries.
Rupel went on to say that Slovenia might reconsider its support to
Croatia's bids to join the European Union and NATO.
The source at the Croatian government said the government had been
"unpleasantly surprised by the unfounded, tactless and radically
quarrelsome tone of Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel's
statements".
The Croatian government "wishes to believe that this is not the
stance of the Slovene government, and the Croatian government doesn't
want to participate in such a quarrel," said the source. It added the
proclamation of an economic zone in the Adriatic was a matter for
serious discussion, something Slovenia had been refusing for the past
two months by offering talks at the expert level or a row.
(hina) ha sb
ISSN 1334-0034 / Masthead / © Copyright Hina 2003. All rights reserved
---
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Mar 2 Set 2003 18:03:20 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] Slovenia Recalls Ambassador In Coastal
Dispute With Croatia
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/09/4-SEE/see-020903.asp
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
September 2, 2003
SLOVENIA RECALLS ITS AMBASSADOR FROM CROATIA
-Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters.
The Slovenian Foreign Ministry announced on 31 August
that it has recalled its ambassador to Croatia "for
consultations," RFE/RL's South Slavic and Albanian
Languages Service reported. Foreign Minister Dimitrij
Rupel said the next day that remarks made by his
Croatian counterpart, Tonino Picula, to the daily
"Slobodna Dalmacija" to the effect that the 2001
agreement on the maritime and land borders between the
two countries has not been signed or ratified and
hence is not legally binding, were unacceptable.
Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters. Ljubljana opposes the move
on the grounds that it will prejudice the final
demarcation of the maritime frontier). The recall of
the Slovenian ambassador suggests that relations
between the two former Yugoslav republics are at their
lowest point since the two states declared
independence from Belgrade in June 1991. PM
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Mer 3 Set 2003 11:47:27 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Croatia, Slovenia: Balkans NATO Aspirants Heading Toward
Border War?
1) Slovenia Balks At Croatian Attempt To 'Damage Its
Strategic Interests'
2) Slovenia Recalls Ambassador In Coastal Dispute With
Croatia
3) Croatian Government Says It Won't React To 'Attacks
From Slovenia'; Slovenia Threatens To Thwart Croatia's
NATO, EU Memberships
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/af/Qslovenia-croatia.RmVZ_DS1.html
Slovenia threatens to drop support for Croatia's EU
bid over Adriatic row
-Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
-Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
LJUBLJANA, Sept 1 (AFP) - Slovenia on Monday
threatened to withdraw its support for Croatia's
European Union aspirations in response to Zagreb's
plans to proclaim an exclusive economic zone in the
Adriatic Sea.
"We are coming to the point at which Slovenia will
have to re-consider its policy (of backing Croatia's
accession to the EU)", Slovenian Foreign Minister
Dimitrij Rupel said.
The Slovenian government on Sunday recalled its
ambassador to Zagreb, Peter Bekes, "for consultations"
amid outrage at Croatia's plans to lay claim to a
large part of the Adriatic.
Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
This has brought to a head a long-standing row between
Croatia and Slovenia over access to the Adriatic.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
The two governments reached a deal in 2001 that
granted Slovenia direct access to international
shipping waters in the Adriatic, but this was later
rejected by the Croatian parliament.
Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
Slovenia, which is set to join the EU in May 2004, had
so far supported Croatia's bid to join the bloc in the
next wave of enlargement.
But Rupel Monday accused Zagreb of trying to damage
Slovenia's strategic interests.
"That is an attempt to damage Slovenia's economic and
political interests and creating complicated relations
on the border between the enlarged EU and Croatia," he
said.
"The Croatian minister's statements are unacceptable
and could provoke a serious worsening in relations,"
he added.
Rupel said experts from both countries are expected to
meet in Ljubljana on September 16 to discuss the
matter.
Slovenia's coastline is just over 42 kilometres (26
miles) long, while Croatia's is more than 1,000
kilometres (600 miles) long.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/09/4-SEE/see-020903.asp
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
September 2, 2003
SLOVENIA RECALLS ITS AMBASSADOR FROM CROATIA
-Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters.
The Slovenian Foreign Ministry announced on 31 August
that it has recalled its ambassador to Croatia "for
consultations," RFE/RL's South Slavic and Albanian
Languages Service reported. Foreign Minister Dimitrij
Rupel said the next day that remarks made by his
Croatian counterpart, Tonino Picula, to the daily
"Slobodna Dalmacija" to the effect that the 2001
agreement on the maritime and land borders between the
two countries has not been signed or ratified and
hence is not legally binding, were unacceptable.
Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters. Ljubljana opposes the move
on the grounds that it will prejudice the final
demarcation of the maritime frontier). The recall of
the Slovenian ambassador suggests that relations
between the two former Yugoslav republics are at their
lowest point since the two states declared
independence from Belgrade in June 1991. PM
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=43130&LangID=1
Seeurope.net
September 3, 2003
Croatian Gov’t Won't React Yet To Attacks From
Slovenia
-Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel said his
Croatian counterpart Tonino Picula's claims that
Slovenia did not have access to the open sea and that
a border deal was legally invalid were "unacceptable"
and could deteriorate relations between the two
countries.
Rupel went on to say that Slovenia might reconsider
its support to Croatia's bids to join the European
Union and NATO, HINA reported.
The Croatian government will not react to the latest
attacks from Slovenia on Monday, while the foreign
ministry will most likely define its stand on Tuesday,
after Ljubljana has officially notified Zagreb, a
source at the government said on Monday.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said
the diplomatic corps was likely to be convened at the
foreign ministry in the coming days to be briefed
about Croatia's standpoints.
Earlier on Monady, Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij
Rupel said his Croatian counterpart Tonino Picula's
claims that Slovenia did not have access to the open
sea and that a border deal was legally invalid were
"unacceptable" and could deteriorate relations between
the two countries.
Rupel went on to say that Slovenia might reconsider
its support to Croatia's bids to join the European
Union and NATO, HINA reported.
The source at the Croatian government said the
government had been "unpleasantly surprised by the
unfounded, tactless and radically quarrelsome tone of
Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel's statements".
The Croatian government "wishes to believe that this
is not the stance of the Slovene government, and the
Croatian government doesn't want to participate in
such a quarrel," said the source. It added the
proclamation of an economic zone in the Adriatic was a
matter for serious discussion, something Slovenia had
been refusing for the past two months by offering
talks at the expert level or a row.
(english / italiano)
=== ITALIANO ===
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/slovenia/slovenia.shtml
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/croazia/croazia.shtml
SLOVENIA-CROAZIA: LUBIANA INSISTE PER CORRIDOIO MARITTIMO
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 28 AGO
SLOVENIA-CROAZIA: LUBIANA RICHIAMA AMBASCIATORE A ZAGABRIA
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 01 SET
SLOVENIA-CROAZIA: TENSIONI PER ZONA ECONOMICA E FRONTIERA
(ANSA) - LUBIANA, 1 SET
CROAZIA-SLOVENIA: NESSUNA SCHIARITA PER ZONA ADRIATICO/ ANSA
(ANSA) - ZAGABRIA, 2 SET - L'accesso della Slovenia alle acque
internazionali e l'annuncio della zona economica che la Croazia vuole
proclamare nell'Adriatico entro la fine dell'anno, hanno provocato la
piu' grave crisi nei rapporti tra Lubiana e Zagabria dalla loro
indipendenza nel 1991, arrivando al richiamo ''per consultazioni''
dell'ambasciatore sloveno a Zagabria. L'annuncio della zona
economica, istituita probabilmente insieme all'Italia, aveva gia'
provocato nelle scorse settimane quella che e' stata definita una
"guerra delle note diplomatiche'' per le proteste di Lubiana secondo
cui non e' possibile la proclamazione di una tale area senza il
contributo di tutti i paesi interessati. A far scattare il
richiamo dell'ambasciatore sloveno sono state le dichiarazioni del
ministro degli esteri croato Tonino Picula, pubblicate domenica sul
quotidiano di Spalato 'Slobodna Dalmacija'. ''La Slovenia - ha detto
Picula - non ha uno sbocco diretto alle acque internazionali e
l'accordo sulla frontiera (marittima, ndr) siglato nel 2001 non ha
alcun effetto legale''. Picula si riferiva all'accordo raggiunto
dai primi ministri dei due paesi nel 2001, approvato dal parlamento
sloveno ma che, per opposizione dell'opinione pubblica, non e' mai
stato nemmeno presentato al parlamento croato. Spiegando ieri la
decisione di richiamare l'ambasciatore a Zagabria, il ministro degli
esteri sloveno Dimitri Rupel ha detto che ''le dicharazioni di Picula
potrebbero provocare un reale peggioramento dei rapporti
sloveno-croati'' ed ha aggiunto che Lubiana ''sta pensando di
riconsiderare il proprio appoggio all'ingresso della Croazia nella
Nato e nell'Unione europea''. Curiosamente, quasi come se non
riconoscesse l'autorita' del ministro degli esteri, il premier croato
Ivica Racan ha dichiarato stasera di voler sperare che dietro le
dichiarazioni di Rupel non corrispondano all'atteggiamento dei
cittadini e del governo sloveno e che il ''suon delle armi politiche
e' estremamente inappropriato'', auspicando che si tratti di un
malinteso che si possa rapidamente chiarire. Ieri, il presidente
croato Stipe Mesic aveva espresso il suo ''sincero rammarico'',
mentre il ministro Picula ha soltanto ribadito che nelle sue
dichiarazioni non ha detto ''nulla che non fosse gia' noto''. Fonti
del governo hanno fatto sapere di essere ''spiacevolmente sorprese
per le dichiarazioni smisurate e senza fondamento e per il tono
radicalmente litigioso di Rupel'' aggiungendo che per quanto riguarda
la zona economica nell'Adriatico non e' stata ancora presa una
decisone ufficiale e che ''la questione e' oggetto di seri colloqui
con i paesi vicini''. A fine luglio, durante un incontro a
Zagabria tra i sottosegretari agli esteri Roberto Antonione e Ivan
Simonovic, l'Italia e la Croazia hanno discusso della tutela delle
risorse ambientali ed economiche dell'Adriatico e dell'ipotesi di una
zona economica che porterebbe ai due paesi il controllo della
navigazione e il diritto di stabilire le quote di pesca nelle
rispettive zone. Il presidente della Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia Riccardo Illy, in visita oggi a Lubiana, ha sostenuto le
ragioni di Lubiana affermando la necessita' di preservare ''una
fascia di acque internazionali in Adriatico e la libera circolazione
di tutte le navi di qualunque Paese''. Dopo l'incontro con Illy,
Rupel ha lanciato una proposta alla Croazia di proclamare ''una zona
ecologica comune nell'Adriatico che non ha bisogno di frontiere''.
(ANSA) COR*VD 02/09/2003 20:01
=== ENGLISH ===
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Lun 1 Set 2003 21:25:41 Europe/Rome
A: antinato@...
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] Slovenia Balks At Croatian Attempt To 'Damage
Its Strategic Interests'
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/af/Qslovenia-croatia.RmVZ_DS1.html
Slovenia threatens to drop support for Croatia's EU
bid over Adriatic row
-Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
-Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
LJUBLJANA, Sept 1 (AFP) - Slovenia on Monday
threatened to withdraw its support for Croatia's
European Union aspirations in response to Zagreb's
plans to proclaim an exclusive economic zone in the
Adriatic Sea.
"We are coming to the point at which Slovenia will
have to re-consider its policy (of backing Croatia's
accession to the EU)", Slovenian Foreign Minister
Dimitrij Rupel said.
The Slovenian government on Sunday recalled its
ambassador to Zagreb, Peter Bekes, "for consultations"
amid outrage at Croatia's plans to lay claim to a
large part of the Adriatic.
Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
This has brought to a head a long-standing row between
Croatia and Slovenia over access to the Adriatic.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
The two governments reached a deal in 2001 that
granted Slovenia direct access to international
shipping waters in the Adriatic, but this was later
rejected by the Croatian parliament.
Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
Slovenia, which is set to join the EU in May 2004, had
so far supported Croatia's bid to join the bloc in the
next wave of enlargement.
But Rupel Monday accused Zagreb of trying to damage
Slovenia's strategic interests.
"That is an attempt to damage Slovenia's economic and
political interests and creating complicated relations
on the border between the enlarged EU and Croatia," he
said.
"The Croatian minister's statements are unacceptable
and could provoke a serious worsening in relations,"
he added.
Rupel said experts from both countries are expected to
meet in Ljubljana on September 16 to discuss the
matter.
Slovenia's coastline is just over 42 kilometres (26
miles) long, while Croatia's is more than 1,000
kilometres (600 miles) long.
---
Croatian government won't react yet to attacks from Slovenia
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=ehot&NID=ehot/politika/
H9019243.2yc
CROATIAN GOVERNMENT WON'T REACT YET TO ATTACKS FROM SLOVENIA
HNA
HR-POLITICS-Politika
ZAGREB, Sept 1 (Hina) - The Croatian government will not react to
the latest attacks from Slovenia today, while the foreign ministry
will most likely define its stand on Tuesday, after Ljubljana has
officially notified Zagreb, a source at the government said on Monday.
#L#
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the diplomatic
corps was likely to be convened at the foreign ministry in the coming
days to be briefed about Croatia's standpoints.
Earlier today, Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel said his
Croatian counterpart Tonino Picula's claims that Slovenia did not have
access to the open sea and that a border deal was legally invalid were
"unacceptable" and could deteriorate relations between the two
countries.
Rupel went on to say that Slovenia might reconsider its support to
Croatia's bids to join the European Union and NATO.
The source at the Croatian government said the government had been
"unpleasantly surprised by the unfounded, tactless and radically
quarrelsome tone of Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel's
statements".
The Croatian government "wishes to believe that this is not the
stance of the Slovene government, and the Croatian government doesn't
want to participate in such a quarrel," said the source. It added the
proclamation of an economic zone in the Adriatic was a matter for
serious discussion, something Slovenia had been refusing for the past
two months by offering talks at the expert level or a row.
(hina) ha sb
ISSN 1334-0034 / Masthead / © Copyright Hina 2003. All rights reserved
---
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Mar 2 Set 2003 18:03:20 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] Slovenia Recalls Ambassador In Coastal
Dispute With Croatia
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/09/4-SEE/see-020903.asp
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
September 2, 2003
SLOVENIA RECALLS ITS AMBASSADOR FROM CROATIA
-Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters.
The Slovenian Foreign Ministry announced on 31 August
that it has recalled its ambassador to Croatia "for
consultations," RFE/RL's South Slavic and Albanian
Languages Service reported. Foreign Minister Dimitrij
Rupel said the next day that remarks made by his
Croatian counterpart, Tonino Picula, to the daily
"Slobodna Dalmacija" to the effect that the 2001
agreement on the maritime and land borders between the
two countries has not been signed or ratified and
hence is not legally binding, were unacceptable.
Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters. Ljubljana opposes the move
on the grounds that it will prejudice the final
demarcation of the maritime frontier). The recall of
the Slovenian ambassador suggests that relations
between the two former Yugoslav republics are at their
lowest point since the two states declared
independence from Belgrade in June 1991. PM
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Mer 3 Set 2003 11:47:27 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Croatia, Slovenia: Balkans NATO Aspirants Heading Toward
Border War?
1) Slovenia Balks At Croatian Attempt To 'Damage Its
Strategic Interests'
2) Slovenia Recalls Ambassador In Coastal Dispute With
Croatia
3) Croatian Government Says It Won't React To 'Attacks
From Slovenia'; Slovenia Threatens To Thwart Croatia's
NATO, EU Memberships
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/af/Qslovenia-croatia.RmVZ_DS1.html
Slovenia threatens to drop support for Croatia's EU
bid over Adriatic row
-Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
-Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
LJUBLJANA, Sept 1 (AFP) - Slovenia on Monday
threatened to withdraw its support for Croatia's
European Union aspirations in response to Zagreb's
plans to proclaim an exclusive economic zone in the
Adriatic Sea.
"We are coming to the point at which Slovenia will
have to re-consider its policy (of backing Croatia's
accession to the EU)", Slovenian Foreign Minister
Dimitrij Rupel said.
The Slovenian government on Sunday recalled its
ambassador to Zagreb, Peter Bekes, "for consultations"
amid outrage at Croatia's plans to lay claim to a
large part of the Adriatic.
Croatia and Italy propose to divide the Adriatic Sea
bordering their territorial waters into two exclusive
economic zones, leaving Slovenia without direct access
to international shipping waters leading to the
Mediterranean.
This has brought to a head a long-standing row between
Croatia and Slovenia over access to the Adriatic.
The two former Yugoslav states have since independence
in 1991 been locked in a dispute over their shared
border at Piran Bay on the Adriatic.
The two governments reached a deal in 2001 that
granted Slovenia direct access to international
shipping waters in the Adriatic, but this was later
rejected by the Croatian parliament.
Croatian Foreign Minister Tonino Picula was quoted in
the press here Sunday as saying the 2001 deal on the
Adriatic was dead and Slovenia should accept it has no
direct access to international shipping waters.
Slovenia, which is set to join the EU in May 2004, had
so far supported Croatia's bid to join the bloc in the
next wave of enlargement.
But Rupel Monday accused Zagreb of trying to damage
Slovenia's strategic interests.
"That is an attempt to damage Slovenia's economic and
political interests and creating complicated relations
on the border between the enlarged EU and Croatia," he
said.
"The Croatian minister's statements are unacceptable
and could provoke a serious worsening in relations,"
he added.
Rupel said experts from both countries are expected to
meet in Ljubljana on September 16 to discuss the
matter.
Slovenia's coastline is just over 42 kilometres (26
miles) long, while Croatia's is more than 1,000
kilometres (600 miles) long.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/09/4-SEE/see-020903.asp
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
September 2, 2003
SLOVENIA RECALLS ITS AMBASSADOR FROM CROATIA
-Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters.
The Slovenian Foreign Ministry announced on 31 August
that it has recalled its ambassador to Croatia "for
consultations," RFE/RL's South Slavic and Albanian
Languages Service reported. Foreign Minister Dimitrij
Rupel said the next day that remarks made by his
Croatian counterpart, Tonino Picula, to the daily
"Slobodna Dalmacija" to the effect that the 2001
agreement on the maritime and land borders between the
two countries has not been signed or ratified and
hence is not legally binding, were unacceptable.
Croatia is planning to declare an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) in the Adriatic that would cut Slovenia off
from international waters. Ljubljana opposes the move
on the grounds that it will prejudice the final
demarcation of the maritime frontier). The recall of
the Slovenian ambassador suggests that relations
between the two former Yugoslav republics are at their
lowest point since the two states declared
independence from Belgrade in June 1991. PM
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=43130&LangID=1
Seeurope.net
September 3, 2003
Croatian Gov’t Won't React Yet To Attacks From
Slovenia
-Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel said his
Croatian counterpart Tonino Picula's claims that
Slovenia did not have access to the open sea and that
a border deal was legally invalid were "unacceptable"
and could deteriorate relations between the two
countries.
Rupel went on to say that Slovenia might reconsider
its support to Croatia's bids to join the European
Union and NATO, HINA reported.
The Croatian government will not react to the latest
attacks from Slovenia on Monday, while the foreign
ministry will most likely define its stand on Tuesday,
after Ljubljana has officially notified Zagreb, a
source at the government said on Monday.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said
the diplomatic corps was likely to be convened at the
foreign ministry in the coming days to be briefed
about Croatia's standpoints.
Earlier on Monady, Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij
Rupel said his Croatian counterpart Tonino Picula's
claims that Slovenia did not have access to the open
sea and that a border deal was legally invalid were
"unacceptable" and could deteriorate relations between
the two countries.
Rupel went on to say that Slovenia might reconsider
its support to Croatia's bids to join the European
Union and NATO, HINA reported.
The source at the Croatian government said the
government had been "unpleasantly surprised by the
unfounded, tactless and radically quarrelsome tone of
Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel's statements".
The Croatian government "wishes to believe that this
is not the stance of the Slovene government, and the
Croatian government doesn't want to participate in
such a quarrel," said the source. It added the
proclamation of an economic zone in the Adriatic was a
matter for serious discussion, something Slovenia had
been refusing for the past two months by offering
talks at the expert level or a row.
Trasversale verde / ZeTra
1. SERBIA: SERBS LEAVING SANDZAK
(IWPR No. 353, July 26, 2002)
2. At danger point
Interview with Dusan Janjic, Chairman of the Forum for Ethnic
Relations - Vecernje Novosti, September 29, 2002
3. French diplomacy keeps dealing with separatist leader
(Tanjug Nov. 28, 2002)
4. "Bosniaks" (i.e. slav muslims extremist leaderships) in Sandzak
region seek "recognition" (i.e. secession)
(Links to pro-separatist propaganda by Radio Free Europe, November 2002)
5. AUGUST 2003: TENSION RISES
Various links and dispatches
=== 1 ===
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 353, July 26, 2002
SERBIA: SERBS LEAVING SANDZAK
Departure of Serbs from Sandzak believed to be triggered by policies of
Bosniak nationalists
By IWPR staff in London
Serbs are beginning to leave the predominantly Muslim Sandzak region of
south-west Serbia after losing public sector jobs, local Serb
representatives say.
Some Serbs estimate that around 1,000 members of the community in the
largest town in the region, Novi Pazar, have left over the last couple
of years. New For Sale signs appear on Serb homes and land throughout
the region almost daily.
More departures could have serious implications for the stability of
the country, with some predicting a possible nationalist Serb backlash.
The exodus is believed to have been prompted by the predominantly
Muslim Party of Democratic Action, SDA, which has dismissed Serb
managers in state companies and local authorities since coming to power
two years ago.
Federal Minister for National and Ethnic Communities Rasim Ljajic, who
leads the moderate Bosniak Coalition for Sandzak, told IWPR that "th
reasons for Serb departures are economic but one certainly shouldn't
overlook other reasons linked to the actions of the SDA."
Head of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, municipal committee Milan
Veselinovic is more blunt, "The extremist statements and actions of the
SDA have resulted in a situation in which over 70 Serb houses in the
very centre of Novi Pazar have been sold in the past two years. There
the Serb proportion of the population has dropped from 22 to around 17
per cent."
The SDA led by Sulejman Ugljanin has long called for Sandzak to be made
a republic and in the past prominent party members have also talked of
secession from Serbia and annexation to Bosnia.
Widely-publicised statements made by Ugljanin in the 1990s include "the
Muslims are well-armed, they just lack tanks" (Globus, October 1992)
and "Sandzak would become a new, Muslim autonomous region in Serbia
that will even secede" (Novosti, November 1990).
This was a period when convoys of Bosniaks - which is how local Muslims
describe themselves - were fleeing Sandzak for Sarajevo or Turkey,
fearing that the war in neighbouring Bosnia would spread and they would
be targeted by the Milosevic regime.
However, while there is no longer public talk of a republic,
Milosevic's fall in 2000 and a general change in Belgrade's policy
direction does not appear to have done much to alter SDA thinking.
In June this year, a public statement from a session of the regional
executive body the Bosniak National Council of Sandzak, which has close
links with the SDA, said, "There are no reasons for us to ingratiate
ourselves either to Belgrade or Podgorica, or the international
community because Sandzak must be a separate territorial unit".
Participants at the session also declared that they must not give up on
an illegal referendum held in 1991, in which a clear majority voted for
autonomy.
Serb directors in Novi Pazar to lose their jobs include the head of the
town's culture centre Dusan Raicevic; Raco Vuckovic of the Toplane
heating company; Elektroras director Mile Cvetic; and Miroljub
Djokanovic, director of the firm, Vojin Popovic.
In turn, appointments to local government at the end of 2000 saw
Ugljanin's personal secretary Vasvija Gusinac become mayor of Sandzak,
his brother, Sadik, head of the executive committee and driver, Nedzib
Hodzic, deputy major.
The only Serb in authority, municipal secretary Milijan Belic "is just
for decor and the local Serbs do not recognise him as their
representative," said Radenko Jokovic, head of the United Peoples
Party, SNS, in the Raska district.
Like Ljajic, the head of the Liberal Bosniak Organisation, Kasim
Zoranic, said the major motivation behind the Serb withdrawal was
economic, "The price of real-estate in Novi Pazar is three times higher
than that in other parts of Serbia."
An apartment in Novi Pazar costs approximately 750 euros per square
metre compared with 400 euros in the central Serbian cities of Kraljevo
and Kragujevac.
A Serb who had shifted from Novi Pazar to Kragujevac, and who insisted
on anonymity, agreed that there was a range of motives for Serb
departures.
"There was always some tension felt at work. There was no open
pressure but one could feel insecurity and some kind of fear in the
air. Maybe more a feeling of uncertainty of what could happen and what
the Novi Pazar authorities could do," he said.
"On the other hand the difference in the price of a flat sold in Novi
Pazar and one bought in Kragujevac is quite alluring especially for
those who are in a difficult financial situation."
Whatever lies behind the Serb departures, SDA-ruled local authorities
are showing no interest.
Assistant to the head of the Novi Pazar municipal executive committee
Kimeta Ramovic recently told a Sandzak news agency that they had
neither information nor any comment on the migration.
That local Serbs have lost the backing they enjoyed during Milosevic's
rule has been made clear by the fact that the current Serbian
leadership has not held a single meeting with them since they came to
power.
Such complacency is astonishing as there's a danger that if more Serbs
leave Sandzak, Bosniak nationalists could press for their demands for
autonomy provoking another Balkan crisis.
---
Balkan Crisis Report is supported by the Department for International
Development, the European Commission, the Swedish International
Development and Cooperation Agency, The Netherlands Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general
support from the Ford Foundation. For more
infos: www.iwpr.net
=== 2 ===
Subject: [yugoslaviainfo] Raska/Sandzak: At Danger Point
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:20:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Predrag Tosic
To: yugoslaviainfo <Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.>
[ Raska (pronounced 'Rashka') or Sandzak (pronounced 'Sanjak') is a
region where Serbia and Montenegro meet;
most of Raska's municipalities are on Serbia's side of the border, i.e.
in south-west Serbia. This region traditionally rural,
underdeveloped and ethnically mixed.
Some experts predict it may be the next trouble spot. 'Vecernje
Novosti', a Belgrade daily, published an interview with Dusan Janjic,
an expert on inter-ethnic relation RE.: the current
situations and prospects for the future of the Raska region. The term
'Bosniak' herewith pertains to Slavic Muslims, who speak Serbian or
Serbo-Croatian, and inhabit both south-eastern Serbia and northern
Montenegro; most of this people identify themselves closely with the
Bosnian Muslims, hence the name
(which has not been universally adopted). ]
Vecernje Novosti - September 29, 2002
AT DANGER POINT
Interview with Dusan Janjic, Chairman of
the Forum for Ethnic Relations, by Jelena Jovovic
The promenades and the coffee shops in Sandzak will soon be divided
and it all will happen faster than it did in Bosnia. The first armed
incidents will break out -- political murders. If the authorities do
nothing, Sandzak will flare up in a year.
Dusan Janjic, chairman of the Forum for Ethnic Relations, recently
publicly raised this alarming warning. We asked him to explain his
prediction in more detail for Novosti.
Here is his answer:
"To a great extent, Sandzak today is noting an illegal economy,
organized crime (still on a moderate scale so far), and an extremely
powerful linkage among people in so-called small businesses along the
Novi Pazar-Kosmet-Macedonia-Istanbul axis, inherited from the Milosevic
regime. Within this
mosaic, the major impact of the war environment, the sanctions, and the
flow of big money from abroad have created ideal conditions for the
clash of two extreme ideologies -- Bosniak and Serbian extremism. The
first is on the rise, the second is in decline. Fortunately, that
clash has not yet had bloody consequences, but it is showing a tendency
toward escalation.
Janjic thinks that the previous government consciously encouraged
that situation, but also controlled it with the help of State Security
and the narrow interests of various political elites. That lasted
until 5 October 2000. The DOS victory did not resolve the problem of
a disrupted and dangerous Sandzak and it is still far from resolved.
What Is Government Waiting for?
[Jovovic] Who is responsible for this situation?
[Janjic] Everyone -- especially those whose job it is -- knows that
organized crime has created both political and financial power. The
narrow groups that control enormous amounts of money are getting very
rich. Unfortunately, the republic government did not react seriously
to that problem. Neither is there any control over the flow of money
today. However, there is also no adequate control over weapons,
smuggling, prostitution. . .
[Jovovic] From where, and how, is money reaching Sandzak?
[Janjic] The network of international non-governmental and
humanitarian organizations in this region is very dense. There are
more of them per capita in Novi Pazar than in much larger Belgrade.
Most of them are from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and
the Emirates. . . They appear as para-institutions for the
financing of Bosniak parties and institutions. The Serbian Government
has not done what it should have done here. But it should have
publicly presented information on how much, from where, for what
purpose, and to what addresses money is
reaching Sandzak from non-governmental and humanitarian organizations.
The recent incident at a handball match and the fight after the triumph
of our basketball team in Indianapolis are a serious indicator of a
crisis in Sandzak that can only take on dangerous
dimensions in the next round. Even after these events, the Serbian
Government, unfortunately, has not adopted adequate measures.
Conflict Among Bosniaks
[Jovovic] Which and what kind of measures?
[Janjic] I think that the current situation could still be resolved
through political means. The next crisis will certainly be deeper,
and then everything could escalate. There is also conflict within the
Bosniak community. Sulejman Ugljanin's
and Rasim Ljajic's factions are fighting for domination. Both are
focusing on the status of Sandzak in Serbia, as well as the position of
this region in Yugoslavia -- that is, the future statehood union of
Serbia and Montenegro. That issue is
legitimate, but it has been opened in a mistaken way. In addition,
the solution of a future statehood union absolutely does not suit the
financially stronger groups, primarily
because of unified customs and control over goods and money. Besides
that, Rozaje, Plav, Bijelo Polje -- where there are tensions between
Bosniaks and Albanians -- are also
hot points.
[Jovovic] How might the presidential election in Serbia be
reflected in the circumstances in Sandzak?
[Janjic] The outcome of the presidential election in Serbia could
be the first danger point, and the results of the parliamentary
elections in Montenegro could also influence the
situation here. It is not difficult to guess for whom the members of
ethnic communities in Sandzak will vote. It is more difficult to say
what the state of Serbia will do in this region after Tuesday, when,
perhaps, the new president of Serbia will be known.
Ugljanin Overlooked
"Sandzak has no Hamas or Serbian Eagles, no notorious State
Security from the previous region, and does not even have Milosevic or
the influence of Vojislav Seselj," said Janjic. "But it does have at
least three conditions for a political crisis,
and even violence. Serbia has not imposed serious governmental,
political, and economic reforms here and it is has not dealt fairly
with Ugljanin. It is inexplicable and very problematic how Ugljanin,
as the leader of an important Bosniak political force, was overlooked
in the distribution of
authority in Serbia and bypassed in the parliament and the government.
Then there is the local government here.
Although numerous humanitarian organizations have their missions here,
the local government does not have money to revive and build, but it
does have the mechanisms to adopt statutes, to introduce the Bosniak
language, and to change the flag. In addition to that, nobody must
allow the Serbian community to be punished today because it was formerly
instrumentalized by Milosevic.
=== 3 ===
French ambassador to Yugoslavia meets with Ugljanin
NOVI PAZAR, Nov 28 (Tanjug) - Bosniac National Council of Sandzak
(BNVS) leader Suleiman Ugljanin and French Ambassador to Yugoslavia
Gabriel Keller said on Thursday that the success of the Serbian
presidential elections would contribute to the development of
democratic institutions,
stabilization of the political situation and the continuation of the
democratic reforms. BNSV said in a statement that Ugljanin and Keller
also discussed the position of the Serbian government towards local
self-rule in the Sandzak municipalities, the Constitutional Charter,
problems in the implementation of the minority law and the Dec 8
presidential elections.
=== 4 ===
*** Bosniaks in Sandzak region seek recognition: Part 1
A movement is afoot among Bosniaks in Serbia's ethnically mixed Sandzak
region to hold an internationally supervised referendum on the area's
status. This comes amid occasional violent clashes between Bosniaks and
Serbs and heightened attention from the international community. This
is the first of a two-part report.
Novi Pazar, Serbia; 28 November 2002
by Jolyon Naegele / Radio Free Europe
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/11/28112002155832.asp
*** Sandzak's Bosniaks Search For Identity: Part 2
Sandzak is a restive, multiethnic mountainous region straddling
Serbia's mountainous border with Montenegro and wedged between Bosnia
and Kosovo. Sandzak managed to escape the five wars over the past 11
years elsewhere in ex-Yugoslavia. In this second of a two-part series
on the region, RFE/RL examines how questions of ethnic, linguistic, and
religious identity shape Sandzak and its relations with Sarajevo and
Belgrade.
Novi Pazar, Serbia; 29 November 2002
by Jolyon Naegele / Radio Free Europe
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/11/29112002174948.asp
=== 5 ===
*** Novi Pazar media fail to honor day of mourning
Following the terrorist attack on Serb children in the village of
Gorazdevac by Albanian terrorists, which shocked both domestic and
global public, the government of the Republic of Serbia decided to
proclaim August 15, 2003 an official day of mourning in Serbia.
However, in Novi Pazar some local media failed to honor the decree of
the government of Serbia and are broadcasting their normal programming
including popular and folk music.
Raska District Human Rights Committee
Public communiqué no. 26-08 2003, August 15, 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76594
*** New nationalistic provocations in Novi Pazar
A new incident occurred today in Novi Pazar. At the Novi Pazar-Rad
football match fans of the Novi Pazar team shouted slogans clearly and
directly supporting the act of terrorism by Albanian terrorists a few
days ago. The fans shouted "Hashim Thaci," "KLA, KLA", "Kill the Serb,
kill the Serb," "Independent Kosovo", "This is Turkey," "We will not
give you Kosovo" and many other abusive slogans and songs.
Raska District Human Rights Committee
Public communiqué no. 27-08 2003, August 16, 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76606
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=24246&style=headlines
B92, August 17, 2003
Border authorities attacked, policeman slightly wounded
NOVI PAZAR -- Sunday -- A policeman suffered minor
injuries last night when an explosion occurred at the
Mehov Krs control and security station close to Novi
Pazar, near the Serbian border with Montenegro.
Speaking to Radio B92, a Novi Pazar Medical Centre
employee said that policeman Boban Stasevic sustained
just scratches to the chest and has been discharged.
Also speaking to B92, Novi Pazar District Court's
investigative judge Milomir Jovicevic said: "Around
10:00 p.m. a person, or persons, threw explosives,
probably homemade bombs, at the police booth.
"After hurling the bombs, the attackers fled in an
unknown direction, leaving the police and customs
booths obviously damaged. Security workers, policemen
and customs officers responded with gunfire and an
investigation has now begun. It is not known who the
attackers are".
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYug.htm#No%20results%20yet%20of%20investigation%20on%20explosion%20at%2
0boundary%20between%20Serbia,%20Montenegro
Tanjug, August 18, 2003
No results yet of investigation on explosion at
boundary between Serbia, Montenegro
20:32 NOVI PAZAR , Aug 18 (Tanjug) - The authorities
have not yet made public any results of the
investigation of the explosion of three bombs Saturday
evening at Mehov Krs, on the boundary between Serbia
and Montenegro.
Police officer Boban Stasevic, who was injured in the
explosion, has been released from hospital, but has
given no statements to the media.
1. SERBIA: SERBS LEAVING SANDZAK
(IWPR No. 353, July 26, 2002)
2. At danger point
Interview with Dusan Janjic, Chairman of the Forum for Ethnic
Relations - Vecernje Novosti, September 29, 2002
3. French diplomacy keeps dealing with separatist leader
(Tanjug Nov. 28, 2002)
4. "Bosniaks" (i.e. slav muslims extremist leaderships) in Sandzak
region seek "recognition" (i.e. secession)
(Links to pro-separatist propaganda by Radio Free Europe, November 2002)
5. AUGUST 2003: TENSION RISES
Various links and dispatches
=== 1 ===
IWPR'S BALKAN CRISIS REPORT, No. 353, July 26, 2002
SERBIA: SERBS LEAVING SANDZAK
Departure of Serbs from Sandzak believed to be triggered by policies of
Bosniak nationalists
By IWPR staff in London
Serbs are beginning to leave the predominantly Muslim Sandzak region of
south-west Serbia after losing public sector jobs, local Serb
representatives say.
Some Serbs estimate that around 1,000 members of the community in the
largest town in the region, Novi Pazar, have left over the last couple
of years. New For Sale signs appear on Serb homes and land throughout
the region almost daily.
More departures could have serious implications for the stability of
the country, with some predicting a possible nationalist Serb backlash.
The exodus is believed to have been prompted by the predominantly
Muslim Party of Democratic Action, SDA, which has dismissed Serb
managers in state companies and local authorities since coming to power
two years ago.
Federal Minister for National and Ethnic Communities Rasim Ljajic, who
leads the moderate Bosniak Coalition for Sandzak, told IWPR that "th
reasons for Serb departures are economic but one certainly shouldn't
overlook other reasons linked to the actions of the SDA."
Head of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, municipal committee Milan
Veselinovic is more blunt, "The extremist statements and actions of the
SDA have resulted in a situation in which over 70 Serb houses in the
very centre of Novi Pazar have been sold in the past two years. There
the Serb proportion of the population has dropped from 22 to around 17
per cent."
The SDA led by Sulejman Ugljanin has long called for Sandzak to be made
a republic and in the past prominent party members have also talked of
secession from Serbia and annexation to Bosnia.
Widely-publicised statements made by Ugljanin in the 1990s include "the
Muslims are well-armed, they just lack tanks" (Globus, October 1992)
and "Sandzak would become a new, Muslim autonomous region in Serbia
that will even secede" (Novosti, November 1990).
This was a period when convoys of Bosniaks - which is how local Muslims
describe themselves - were fleeing Sandzak for Sarajevo or Turkey,
fearing that the war in neighbouring Bosnia would spread and they would
be targeted by the Milosevic regime.
However, while there is no longer public talk of a republic,
Milosevic's fall in 2000 and a general change in Belgrade's policy
direction does not appear to have done much to alter SDA thinking.
In June this year, a public statement from a session of the regional
executive body the Bosniak National Council of Sandzak, which has close
links with the SDA, said, "There are no reasons for us to ingratiate
ourselves either to Belgrade or Podgorica, or the international
community because Sandzak must be a separate territorial unit".
Participants at the session also declared that they must not give up on
an illegal referendum held in 1991, in which a clear majority voted for
autonomy.
Serb directors in Novi Pazar to lose their jobs include the head of the
town's culture centre Dusan Raicevic; Raco Vuckovic of the Toplane
heating company; Elektroras director Mile Cvetic; and Miroljub
Djokanovic, director of the firm, Vojin Popovic.
In turn, appointments to local government at the end of 2000 saw
Ugljanin's personal secretary Vasvija Gusinac become mayor of Sandzak,
his brother, Sadik, head of the executive committee and driver, Nedzib
Hodzic, deputy major.
The only Serb in authority, municipal secretary Milijan Belic "is just
for decor and the local Serbs do not recognise him as their
representative," said Radenko Jokovic, head of the United Peoples
Party, SNS, in the Raska district.
Like Ljajic, the head of the Liberal Bosniak Organisation, Kasim
Zoranic, said the major motivation behind the Serb withdrawal was
economic, "The price of real-estate in Novi Pazar is three times higher
than that in other parts of Serbia."
An apartment in Novi Pazar costs approximately 750 euros per square
metre compared with 400 euros in the central Serbian cities of Kraljevo
and Kragujevac.
A Serb who had shifted from Novi Pazar to Kragujevac, and who insisted
on anonymity, agreed that there was a range of motives for Serb
departures.
"There was always some tension felt at work. There was no open
pressure but one could feel insecurity and some kind of fear in the
air. Maybe more a feeling of uncertainty of what could happen and what
the Novi Pazar authorities could do," he said.
"On the other hand the difference in the price of a flat sold in Novi
Pazar and one bought in Kragujevac is quite alluring especially for
those who are in a difficult financial situation."
Whatever lies behind the Serb departures, SDA-ruled local authorities
are showing no interest.
Assistant to the head of the Novi Pazar municipal executive committee
Kimeta Ramovic recently told a Sandzak news agency that they had
neither information nor any comment on the migration.
That local Serbs have lost the backing they enjoyed during Milosevic's
rule has been made clear by the fact that the current Serbian
leadership has not held a single meeting with them since they came to
power.
Such complacency is astonishing as there's a danger that if more Serbs
leave Sandzak, Bosniak nationalists could press for their demands for
autonomy provoking another Balkan crisis.
---
Balkan Crisis Report is supported by the Department for International
Development, the European Commission, the Swedish International
Development and Cooperation Agency, The Netherlands Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general
support from the Ford Foundation. For more
infos: www.iwpr.net
=== 2 ===
Subject: [yugoslaviainfo] Raska/Sandzak: At Danger Point
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:20:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Predrag Tosic
To: yugoslaviainfo <Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.>
[ Raska (pronounced 'Rashka') or Sandzak (pronounced 'Sanjak') is a
region where Serbia and Montenegro meet;
most of Raska's municipalities are on Serbia's side of the border, i.e.
in south-west Serbia. This region traditionally rural,
underdeveloped and ethnically mixed.
Some experts predict it may be the next trouble spot. 'Vecernje
Novosti', a Belgrade daily, published an interview with Dusan Janjic,
an expert on inter-ethnic relation RE.: the current
situations and prospects for the future of the Raska region. The term
'Bosniak' herewith pertains to Slavic Muslims, who speak Serbian or
Serbo-Croatian, and inhabit both south-eastern Serbia and northern
Montenegro; most of this people identify themselves closely with the
Bosnian Muslims, hence the name
(which has not been universally adopted). ]
Vecernje Novosti - September 29, 2002
AT DANGER POINT
Interview with Dusan Janjic, Chairman of
the Forum for Ethnic Relations, by Jelena Jovovic
The promenades and the coffee shops in Sandzak will soon be divided
and it all will happen faster than it did in Bosnia. The first armed
incidents will break out -- political murders. If the authorities do
nothing, Sandzak will flare up in a year.
Dusan Janjic, chairman of the Forum for Ethnic Relations, recently
publicly raised this alarming warning. We asked him to explain his
prediction in more detail for Novosti.
Here is his answer:
"To a great extent, Sandzak today is noting an illegal economy,
organized crime (still on a moderate scale so far), and an extremely
powerful linkage among people in so-called small businesses along the
Novi Pazar-Kosmet-Macedonia-Istanbul axis, inherited from the Milosevic
regime. Within this
mosaic, the major impact of the war environment, the sanctions, and the
flow of big money from abroad have created ideal conditions for the
clash of two extreme ideologies -- Bosniak and Serbian extremism. The
first is on the rise, the second is in decline. Fortunately, that
clash has not yet had bloody consequences, but it is showing a tendency
toward escalation.
Janjic thinks that the previous government consciously encouraged
that situation, but also controlled it with the help of State Security
and the narrow interests of various political elites. That lasted
until 5 October 2000. The DOS victory did not resolve the problem of
a disrupted and dangerous Sandzak and it is still far from resolved.
What Is Government Waiting for?
[Jovovic] Who is responsible for this situation?
[Janjic] Everyone -- especially those whose job it is -- knows that
organized crime has created both political and financial power. The
narrow groups that control enormous amounts of money are getting very
rich. Unfortunately, the republic government did not react seriously
to that problem. Neither is there any control over the flow of money
today. However, there is also no adequate control over weapons,
smuggling, prostitution. . .
[Jovovic] From where, and how, is money reaching Sandzak?
[Janjic] The network of international non-governmental and
humanitarian organizations in this region is very dense. There are
more of them per capita in Novi Pazar than in much larger Belgrade.
Most of them are from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and
the Emirates. . . They appear as para-institutions for the
financing of Bosniak parties and institutions. The Serbian Government
has not done what it should have done here. But it should have
publicly presented information on how much, from where, for what
purpose, and to what addresses money is
reaching Sandzak from non-governmental and humanitarian organizations.
The recent incident at a handball match and the fight after the triumph
of our basketball team in Indianapolis are a serious indicator of a
crisis in Sandzak that can only take on dangerous
dimensions in the next round. Even after these events, the Serbian
Government, unfortunately, has not adopted adequate measures.
Conflict Among Bosniaks
[Jovovic] Which and what kind of measures?
[Janjic] I think that the current situation could still be resolved
through political means. The next crisis will certainly be deeper,
and then everything could escalate. There is also conflict within the
Bosniak community. Sulejman Ugljanin's
and Rasim Ljajic's factions are fighting for domination. Both are
focusing on the status of Sandzak in Serbia, as well as the position of
this region in Yugoslavia -- that is, the future statehood union of
Serbia and Montenegro. That issue is
legitimate, but it has been opened in a mistaken way. In addition,
the solution of a future statehood union absolutely does not suit the
financially stronger groups, primarily
because of unified customs and control over goods and money. Besides
that, Rozaje, Plav, Bijelo Polje -- where there are tensions between
Bosniaks and Albanians -- are also
hot points.
[Jovovic] How might the presidential election in Serbia be
reflected in the circumstances in Sandzak?
[Janjic] The outcome of the presidential election in Serbia could
be the first danger point, and the results of the parliamentary
elections in Montenegro could also influence the
situation here. It is not difficult to guess for whom the members of
ethnic communities in Sandzak will vote. It is more difficult to say
what the state of Serbia will do in this region after Tuesday, when,
perhaps, the new president of Serbia will be known.
Ugljanin Overlooked
"Sandzak has no Hamas or Serbian Eagles, no notorious State
Security from the previous region, and does not even have Milosevic or
the influence of Vojislav Seselj," said Janjic. "But it does have at
least three conditions for a political crisis,
and even violence. Serbia has not imposed serious governmental,
political, and economic reforms here and it is has not dealt fairly
with Ugljanin. It is inexplicable and very problematic how Ugljanin,
as the leader of an important Bosniak political force, was overlooked
in the distribution of
authority in Serbia and bypassed in the parliament and the government.
Then there is the local government here.
Although numerous humanitarian organizations have their missions here,
the local government does not have money to revive and build, but it
does have the mechanisms to adopt statutes, to introduce the Bosniak
language, and to change the flag. In addition to that, nobody must
allow the Serbian community to be punished today because it was formerly
instrumentalized by Milosevic.
=== 3 ===
French ambassador to Yugoslavia meets with Ugljanin
NOVI PAZAR, Nov 28 (Tanjug) - Bosniac National Council of Sandzak
(BNVS) leader Suleiman Ugljanin and French Ambassador to Yugoslavia
Gabriel Keller said on Thursday that the success of the Serbian
presidential elections would contribute to the development of
democratic institutions,
stabilization of the political situation and the continuation of the
democratic reforms. BNSV said in a statement that Ugljanin and Keller
also discussed the position of the Serbian government towards local
self-rule in the Sandzak municipalities, the Constitutional Charter,
problems in the implementation of the minority law and the Dec 8
presidential elections.
=== 4 ===
*** Bosniaks in Sandzak region seek recognition: Part 1
A movement is afoot among Bosniaks in Serbia's ethnically mixed Sandzak
region to hold an internationally supervised referendum on the area's
status. This comes amid occasional violent clashes between Bosniaks and
Serbs and heightened attention from the international community. This
is the first of a two-part report.
Novi Pazar, Serbia; 28 November 2002
by Jolyon Naegele / Radio Free Europe
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/11/28112002155832.asp
*** Sandzak's Bosniaks Search For Identity: Part 2
Sandzak is a restive, multiethnic mountainous region straddling
Serbia's mountainous border with Montenegro and wedged between Bosnia
and Kosovo. Sandzak managed to escape the five wars over the past 11
years elsewhere in ex-Yugoslavia. In this second of a two-part series
on the region, RFE/RL examines how questions of ethnic, linguistic, and
religious identity shape Sandzak and its relations with Sarajevo and
Belgrade.
Novi Pazar, Serbia; 29 November 2002
by Jolyon Naegele / Radio Free Europe
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/11/29112002174948.asp
=== 5 ===
*** Novi Pazar media fail to honor day of mourning
Following the terrorist attack on Serb children in the village of
Gorazdevac by Albanian terrorists, which shocked both domestic and
global public, the government of the Republic of Serbia decided to
proclaim August 15, 2003 an official day of mourning in Serbia.
However, in Novi Pazar some local media failed to honor the decree of
the government of Serbia and are broadcasting their normal programming
including popular and folk music.
Raska District Human Rights Committee
Public communiqué no. 26-08 2003, August 15, 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76594
*** New nationalistic provocations in Novi Pazar
A new incident occurred today in Novi Pazar. At the Novi Pazar-Rad
football match fans of the Novi Pazar team shouted slogans clearly and
directly supporting the act of terrorism by Albanian terrorists a few
days ago. The fans shouted "Hashim Thaci," "KLA, KLA", "Kill the Serb,
kill the Serb," "Independent Kosovo", "This is Turkey," "We will not
give you Kosovo" and many other abusive slogans and songs.
Raska District Human Rights Committee
Public communiqué no. 27-08 2003, August 16, 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76606
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=24246&style=headlines
B92, August 17, 2003
Border authorities attacked, policeman slightly wounded
NOVI PAZAR -- Sunday -- A policeman suffered minor
injuries last night when an explosion occurred at the
Mehov Krs control and security station close to Novi
Pazar, near the Serbian border with Montenegro.
Speaking to Radio B92, a Novi Pazar Medical Centre
employee said that policeman Boban Stasevic sustained
just scratches to the chest and has been discharged.
Also speaking to B92, Novi Pazar District Court's
investigative judge Milomir Jovicevic said: "Around
10:00 p.m. a person, or persons, threw explosives,
probably homemade bombs, at the police booth.
"After hurling the bombs, the attackers fled in an
unknown direction, leaving the police and customs
booths obviously damaged. Security workers, policemen
and customs officers responded with gunfire and an
investigation has now begun. It is not known who the
attackers are".
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYug.htm#No%20results%20yet%20of%20investigation%20on%20explosion%20at%2
0boundary%20between%20Serbia,%20Montenegro
Tanjug, August 18, 2003
No results yet of investigation on explosion at
boundary between Serbia, Montenegro
20:32 NOVI PAZAR , Aug 18 (Tanjug) - The authorities
have not yet made public any results of the
investigation of the explosion of three bombs Saturday
evening at Mehov Krs, on the boundary between Serbia
and Montenegro.
Police officer Boban Stasevic, who was injured in the
explosion, has been released from hospital, but has
given no statements to the media.
Ovaj tekst na Word format:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/Nov8Poziv.doc
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/
Nov8latPoziv.doc (latinicom)
---
SLOBODA
za svet slobodnih i ravnopravnih
NACIONALNI KOMITET ZA OSLOBODJENJE
SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA
Beograd, Rajiceva 16, tel./faks 630-549
Nase demonstracije odrzane u Hagu na Vidovdan ove godine uputile su
zahteve «tribunalu» i Ujedinjenim nacijama, u cijem formalnom okrilju
ova zlokobna ustanova deluje. Ne samo da nas i glavni zahtevi nisu
ispunjeni, vecje «tribunal» jos vise pogorsao svoju praksu krsenja
ljudskih prava. Sto gase Udruzenje «Sloboda» ponovo pridruzuje pozivu
Srpsko-medjunarodnog organizacionog odbora da se odrze nove
DEMONSTRACIJE
u Hagu, 8. novembra 2003.
«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''.»
Slobodan Milosevic, 17. avgusta 2003.
· «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! Zato:
Oslobodimo Evropu i svet od "tribunala"!
SLOBODA ZA SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA!
Sloboda za Srbiju i Jugoslaviju!
POZIVAMO SVE NAPREDNE LJUDE I ORGANIZACIJE
U EVROPI I SVETU DA NAM SE PRIDRUZE!
---
Demonstracijama i borbi za ove ciljeve potrebna je finansijska pomoc.
Posaljite cek na nasu adresu ili uplatite prilog na racun nasih
prijatelja u Nemackoj:
German ICDSM, c/o Peter Betscher,
Account Number (Konto-Nr.): 102013409
Bank: Volksbank Darmstadt,
Bank Number (BLZ): 508 90 000,
use: defense
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/Nov8Poziv.doc
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/
Nov8latPoziv.doc (latinicom)
---
SLOBODA
za svet slobodnih i ravnopravnih
NACIONALNI KOMITET ZA OSLOBODJENJE
SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA
Beograd, Rajiceva 16, tel./faks 630-549
Nase demonstracije odrzane u Hagu na Vidovdan ove godine uputile su
zahteve «tribunalu» i Ujedinjenim nacijama, u cijem formalnom okrilju
ova zlokobna ustanova deluje. Ne samo da nas i glavni zahtevi nisu
ispunjeni, vecje «tribunal» jos vise pogorsao svoju praksu krsenja
ljudskih prava. Sto gase Udruzenje «Sloboda» ponovo pridruzuje pozivu
Srpsko-medjunarodnog organizacionog odbora da se odrze nove
DEMONSTRACIJE
u Hagu, 8. novembra 2003.
«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''.»
Slobodan Milosevic, 17. avgusta 2003.
· «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! Zato:
Oslobodimo Evropu i svet od "tribunala"!
SLOBODA ZA SLOBODANA MILOSEVICA!
Sloboda za Srbiju i Jugoslaviju!
POZIVAMO SVE NAPREDNE LJUDE I ORGANIZACIJE
U EVROPI I SVETU DA NAM SE PRIDRUZE!
---
Demonstracijama i borbi za ove ciljeve potrebna je finansijska pomoc.
Posaljite cek na nasu adresu ili uplatite prilog na racun nasih
prijatelja u Nemackoj:
German ICDSM, c/o Peter Betscher,
Account Number (Konto-Nr.): 102013409
Bank: Volksbank Darmstadt,
Bank Number (BLZ): 508 90 000,
use: defense
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Mer 3 Set 2003 00:34:54 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: The Hague: "There is no defence, only prosecution!"
"There is no defence, only prosecution!"
-Slobodan Milosevic, September 2nd, 2003
SLOBODA calls upon all organizations and individuals who care
about freedom, justice and democracy to stand URGENTLY AND SOUNDLY
against the perhaps final proof that the aim of the "tribunal" and it's
NATO masters is to suppress freedom and to silence the truth.
Today's outrageous developments at the Hague require that no decent
person remains silent.
Progressive forces and lawyers have a particular responsibility to
stand up and let their voices be heard - there are thousands of
arguments!
The alternatives of today's world are: freedom or slavery. In the
version of the "judicial" arm of NATO the alternative is: truth or
inquisition.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC WILL HELP ALL OF US WINNING OUR BATTLE IF WE HELP
HIM NOW!
Address the public and all relevant international factors!
ICDSM and all national committees will give the tone to this action.
Either the truth will be allowed to appear or destinies of another
nations can be sealed for a long time.
TWO YEARS OF FREEDOM FOR THE VICTORY OF TRUTH!
Earlier today President Slobodan Milosevic addressed the "Tribunal",
stating again, before being summarily shut down by Richard May, that he
did not recognize the ICTY and that the exercise was "not a trial".
At a status conference scheduled today to establish the modalities of
the "defense case", President Milosevic told the "ICTY" that two issues
were central: time and circumstances.
He stated that two years to prepare a response to the allegations made
was a bare minimum, that in fact the time required would be endless. In
addition, President Milosevic has demanded direct and unsupervised
contacts with witnesses and the ability to locate and obtain key
documents to refute the lies that have been put forward in The Hague,
which can only be done if he is
released.
"I will need the conditions necessary for me to prepare my trial while
at liberty," Slobodan Milosevic told the Chamber.
President Milosevic reminded Mr. May that the opposing side,
represented by Carla Del Ponte, had filed the Kosovo indictment in
1999, practically three years before the beginning of his Hague
"trial", and four and one half years before today. Other issues raised
in the subsequent indictments with respect to Croatia and Bosnia date
back to 1993.
President Milosevic pointed out that although he does not acknowledge
the process as legitimate, Mr. May and his colleagues must provide him
with adequate time for preparation, without which it will be clear that
the ICTY does not respect the rights it claims to stand for, that in
fact at the ICTY there is no defence, only a prosecution.
President Milosevic also demanded direct, unsupervised and unimpeded
contact with witnesses under adequate conditions, at liberty. He added
that he could not even begin to estimate the number of people working
for the opposite side. He demanded to be given the ability to prepare
witnesses properly, reminding the Chamber of the extent of preparation
carried out by the other side.
President Milosevic stressed that it was the Chamber, not he, who
claimed that "rights" were being afforded to him, and therefore they
should see that he be given the possibility of realizing those rights.
President Milosevic explained that the symbolic value of the equality
of arms supported his demands to prepare his witnesses and documents in
conditions that were adequate and suitable.
Following President Milosevic's presentation, "Judge" May did not
hesitate to immediately deny, yet again, any request for provisional
release made by President Milosevic, without stating any justification.
Mr. May also summarily dismissed President Milosevic's request for two
years to prepare his case.
After lengthy submissions from the "amicus" and opposite side,
President Milosevic spoke again, and strongly criticized the
"Prosecution's" suggestion that they were equal all on equal footing as
absurd. He reiterated, before being cut off, that he did not recognize
the "Tribunal" and that the process was not a "trial", but that the
Chamber itself had claimed he had rights. After being told to be
concrete by Mr. May, President Milosevic responded that he had been
speaking in the most practical terms, and asked how it was possible for
him to communicate with witnesses without direct and unsupervised
contact with them. He stated that two years of preparation was a most
modest evaluation of the time required under the so-called "Tribunal's"
principles.
President Milosevic concluded his remarks by stating that it was
well-known that at the ICTY there is only a prosecution and no defence,
nor is there equality of arms.
The "Chamber" has not issued any formal rulings on the submissions
heard today, but has already rejected President Milosevic's concrete
demands without deliberations. A decision setting out the modalities of
resident Milosevic's presentation of evidence is expected soon.
Recently, the "tribunal" banned all visits of all SPS members, Sloboda
and other associated people to President Milosevic. By that, pratically
no witness could be prepared. Fighting that decision and the "rule"
forbidding President Milosevic contacts with the media, earlier today
Sloboda sent to the president of the "tribunal" a written request to
annull that decision, naming dozens of arguments. The full text of the
letter by Sloboda is attached as Appendix.
---
APPENDIX
---
Belgrade, September 2, 2003
To: Judge Theodor Meron, President
ICTY, The Hague, The Netherlands
URGENT
REQUEST TO THE PRESIDENT FOR REVIEW OF THE REGISTRAR'S DECISION TO DENY
REQUESTS FOR VISITS TO PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC AT THE DETENTION
CENTRE, PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENT'S SUPERVISORY POWERS, RULE 19 OF THE
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE
Hereby we request the President's intervention, on the basis of his
powers set out at Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to
reverse the Registrar's decision to deny, until further notice, visits
from members of the Freedom Association (SLOBODA) (1). The Registrar's
decision is supported by his claim that individuals having visiting
President Slobodan Milosevic disclosed information to the media. (2)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A. The Registrar's decision constitutes an arbitrary and illegal
exercice of the discretion afforded by Regulation 33 (B) of the
Regulations to Govern the Supervision of Visits to and Communications
with detainees (the "Regulations") and Rule 66 (B) of the Rules of
Detention, and should therefore be overturned;
B. The Registrar's decision violates the principle of equality of arms.
The Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages
unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any
such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registrar's decision
should therefore be overturned;
C. The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental, universally
recognized principle of presumption of innocence, and should therefore
be overturned;
D. The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental principle of
freedom of expression, has no legitimate aim, and is unnecessary. The
Registrar's decision should be overturned;
E. The Registrar's decision is tantamount to ordering the isolation of
President Milosevic, and should be overturned.
THE FACTS
1. On 11 August 2003, Mr. Bogoljub Bjelica, Chairman of the Freedom
Association, a non-government association, applied, in accordance with
the applicable rules and procedural requirements, for a visit with
President Milosevic, who had also requested to meet with Mr. Bjelica.
2. On 15 August 2003, he received a copy of a fax sent by the Registrar
to Mr. Milosevic denying "until further notice" visits from "members of
the SPS and associated entities, such the Freedom Association" until
further notice.
3. On 19 August 2003, Mr Igor Raicevic of the Freedom Association
requested the Registrar reconsider his decision to deny visits to
members of the Freedom Association, which request did not get any reply;
ARGUMENT
The Registrar's decision to suspend visits is arbitrary and constitutes
an abuse of discretion:
a) the decision was not made in accordance with statutory authority;
b) the decision did not respect the principle of audi alteram partem;
c) the decision is overbroad and abusive with respect to its
application over time;
d) the decision arbitrarily and unjustifiably targets persons and
groups entirely unconnected to those allegedly in breach of rules
governing visits and communication with detainees;
e) the decision is apparently unfounded, as no evidence is provided to
support the Registrar's claim of transgression of the rules.
a) The decision was not made in accordance with statutory authority.
Regulation 33 (B) of the Regulations and Rule 66 of the Rules of
Detention attribute discretion to the Registrar to deny visits to
detainees. This discretionary power constitutes an exception to the
general rule which provides that detainees have the right to meet with
the person of their choice, subject to security considerations.
In absence of an express provision to the contrary, judicial review
lies against administrative decisions before the ICTY.(3)
This general prinicple is enunciated in Rule 92 of the Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (4):
92. An untried prisoner shall be allowed to inform immediately his
family of his detention and shall be given all reasonable facilities
for communicating with his family and friends, and for receiving visits
from them, subject only to restrictions and supervision as are
necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and of the
security and good order of the institution.
The ICTY Registrar's discretion is set out as follows in Rule 66 (B) of
the Rules of Detention and 33 (B) of the Regulations:
(B) Permission may be denied if the Registrar has reason to
believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which
may be subsequently reported in the media.
1. The Registrar may only deny visits if he has "reason to believe"
that the purpose of the visit is that of obtaining information which
may subsequently be reported in the media. Nowhere in the Registrar's
fax to the Freedom Association is it alleged that the purpose of the
visit made by 5 named SPS members was to obtain information that might
subsequently be reported to the media.
2. The Registrar has not stated any reason to believe that any other
member of the SPS, "associated entities" or members of the Freedom
Association will apply for a visit with President Milosevic "for the
purpose" of obtaining information which may subsequently be reported in
the media.
3. The Registrar has simply banned, for an indeterminate period,
members of a political party, members of an association, as well as
persons unknown and unidentifiable, from visiting President Milosevic
although those unknown have not yet expressed the desire to visit him,
much less the intention of gathering information for the purposes of
future publication in the media.
4. The decision is overbroadly prospective, and is ultra vires the
discretionary authority provided by the Rules of Detention. The
Decision is overbroad as to targeted individuals and groups, and is
overbroad as to its duration.
5. The Registrar has misstated the Rule in his decision. In it he
writes that the visitors had been advised that "dissemination to the
media of any information disclosed to the media in any form is
prohibited". The Rule merely confers discretion to the Registrar to
prohibit visits if he has reason to believe that its purpose to obtain
information that is subsequently reported by the media. Such a patent
misstatement of the rule creates a reasonable apprehension that the
Registrar also errs in the actual exercise of his discretion.
b) The decision did not respect the principle of audi alteram partem
nor did respect procedural fairness;
1. Freedom Association/Sloboda is banned from visits to President
Milosevic "until further notice". At no point was a representative of
Sloboda/Freedom association called upon by the Registrar to provide a
response to the charge of "flagrant (…) breach" of the Rules. It is
obvious that the Registrar could not do so: No member of Freedom
Association is even alleged to have breached the Rules. Yet the
Registrar's decision arbitrarily bans its members from visits to Mr
Milosevic.
2. In fact, all visits undertaken by Freedom Association members have
been made without incident.
3. The Registrar's decision alleges a breach of Rules by two
individuals, Mr. Vucelic and Mr. Andjelkovic. At no time prior to the
ban were they given an opportunity to respond to the Registrar's
allegations that they had violated their undertaking to comply with the
rules and regulations of the ICTY. The Registrar has violated the most
basic principles of natural justice.
4. The Registrar has not afforded an opportunity to the SPS, or its
members, also subject to the Registrar's decision to deny visits to
President Milosevic, to respond to his allegations before deciding to
deny requests for visits "until further notice". The party, and its
members, could not, in any event, reasonably be expected to respond to
allegations made not against them, but against third parties. The
Registrar's decision therefore violates the most basic tenets of
natural justice.
5. The Registrar's failure to afford an opportunity to respond to
non-confidential evidence has been held by the President of the ICTY to
represent a failure to act with procedural fairness, and has resulted
in the President quashing the Registrar's decision in Prosecutor v.
Slijivancanin (5)
6. The Registrar has banned, until further notice, visits to President
Milosevic, by "associated entities" of the SPS. These "entities" are
unspecified, and therefore unknown. It is strikingly evident that
unspecified groups or entities have not had an opportunity to respond
to the Registrar's allegations against third parties. The Registrar's
decision constitutes an egregious violation of the most basic
principles of natural justice.
c) The Registrar's decision is overbroad and abusive with respect to
its application over time.
1. The Registrar's decision to deny request to visit President
Milosevic to members of the SPS, the Freedom Association, as well as
entities as to yet unknown and unspecified "until further notice"
constitutes an excess of jurisdiction. Discretion is to be exercised
on a case by case basis, as clearly envisaged by the relevant rules. An
administrative decision in force "until further notice" removes all
exercise of discretion, essentially applying one discrete factual
evaluation to all future cases.
2. In addition, an administrative decision taken "until further notice"
is egregiously arbitrary with respect to the period of time in which it
will be in force. The Registrar has failed to assert any legislative
basis to justify the indeterminate nature of the decision. The
Registrar has also failed to indicate what requirements or criteria, if
any, would need to be met in order to terminate his decision to ban
visits from persons and groups, some unspecified and yet to be
identified. The decision is overbroad, and does not constitute an
acceptable exercise of administrative discretion.
3. Rule 63 (A) and Rules and Rule 33 (B) of the Regulations clearly
confers discretion to refuse a single visit-- not all visits,-- for an
undisclosed, potentially indefinite period. The Rule requires the
Registrar to treat each case individually, which he has failed to to
do. Instead he has restricted his discretion and thus exceeded and/ or
not excercised his jurisdiction. The Registrar has rendered an illegal
decision, which should be reversed.
d) The Registrar's decision arbitrarily and unjustifiably targets
persons and groups entirely unconnected to those allegedly in breach of
rules governing visits and communication with detainees.
1. It is trite to point out that banning visits by persons not even
alleged to have breached rules is a violation of any legal standard.
Not only does the impugned decision target all members of a political
party, present and future, as well as present and future members of the
Freedom Association, but outrageously extends the ban on visits to
"associated entities" of the SPS. The Registrar has in essence banned
unknown, unidentified, and unidentifiable groups from visiting
President Milosevic. This decision is simply unprecedented and violates
every fundamental principle of transparency. It is guilt by
association, and worse, it targets people unknown.
2. By extending the ban on visits to undefined groups, the Registrar
has usurped legislative jurisdiction and conferred absolute discretion
onto himself. The Registar's decision is patently ultra vires.
e) The Registrar's decision is apparently unfounded, as no evidence is
provided to support the Registrar's claim of transgression of the rules
1. The Registrar's decision laconically states that "two articles were
published in the media in Belgrade". The Registrar has provided no copy
of publication, no date of publication, and has not identified the
media in question. The Registrar has failed to positively identify the
type of media alleged to have published details of a visit. The
Registrar points to "factual inaccuracies" in the "articles". The
paucity of information provided to support such a sweeping ban is well
below any standard of transparency required in the drafting of his
decision (6). The Registrar's claim that a "flagrant breach" of the
Rules occurred is unreasonable, his reasons inadequate.
The Registrar's decision violates the principle of equality of arms.
The Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages
unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any
such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registrar's decision
should therefore be quashed
1. The Registry facilitates, finances and otherwise supports joint
press briefings of the ICTY's Spokesman for Registry and Chambers with
Office of the Prosecutor's spokeswoman. Summaries of these press
conferences are made available on the ICTY's website at
http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm .
2. Article 21 of the ICTY Statute sets out the minimum rights of
accused persons. These rights encompass the principle of the equality
of arms.
3. The principle of equality of arms, in the context of a trial, is to
be interpreted as meaning that each party must be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to present its case, under conditions that do not place it
at a substantial disadvantage vis à vis the opposing party (7).
4. The Registrar's ban puts President Milosevic at "a substantial
disadvantage vis-à-vis the opposing party" as, simply put, the
"opposing party" maintains a channel of communication with the media,
which it uses to present its case, and does so with the assistance and
support of the Registry.
5. Equality of arms is violated when the Registrar simultaneously bans
visits to an accused, based on the prohibition on contact with the
media, while facilitating joint press briefings of the Tribunal and
Prosecutor's spokespeople. The imbalance is striking.
6. The Registrar's decision to ban visits to President Milosevic based
on prohibition of contact with the media could not be made in other
United Nations Tribunals. No rule permitting such discretion has been
adopted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special
Court for Sierra Leone, or the International Criminal Court. These
Tribunals are held to the respect of the principle of the equality of
arms.
The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental principle of freedom
of expression, and should be quashed
1. Some security considerations can legitimately justify the
non-disclosure of certain information to the media by visitors such as
the details of floor plans of Detention Unit, for instance. Security
considerations are a pattern throughout legislation governing visits to
detention units under international and domestic law.
2. In contrast, the Registrar's decision constitutes a blanket
prohibition of contact with the media. No security considerations have
been asserted in support of the ban, which is tantamount to a gag order.
3. The ICTY is held to apply and respect the provisions of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (8).
4. The accused is innocent, presumed as such by Article 21 of the ICTY
Statute until proof has established, beyond a reason doubt, the
contrary. The accused preserves his freedom of expression (9).
5. Visitors of the accused also enjoy the right to freedom of
expression, a fundamental freedom set out in Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to the freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers."
The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has recognized the public's right to
receive information from the press as a component of freedom of
expression. On interlocutory appeal in Prosecutor v. Brdjanin (10),
the Appeals Chamber overturned the Trial Chamber's decision to issue a
subpoena to Jonathan Randall. The Appeals Chamber held:
As has been noted, the right to freedom of expression includes not
merely the right of journalists and media organizations freely to
communicate information. It also incorporates a right of members of the
public to receive information. As the European Court of Human Rights
put it in its decision in Fresso and Roire v. France: “Not only does
the press have the task of imparting information and ideas on matters
of public interest: the public also has a right to receive them.”
1. Brdjanin described the vital role of war correspondents in the work
of the Tribunal (11), and concluded:
The Appeals Chamber will not unnecessarily hamper the work of
professions that perform a public interest. (12)
1. The House of Lords, in Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex Parte Simms (A.P.) Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex Parte O'Brien (13) overturned the British Home
Secretary's ban on verbal interviews between convicted prisoners
serving sentences and the media (14).
2. The O'Brien case establishes that convicted prisoners have the right
to conduct interviews with the media and discuss the unfairness of
their trials. Lord Steyn stated:
The prisoners are in prison because they are presumed to have been
properly convicted. They wish to challenge the safety of their
convictions. In principle it is not easy to conceive of a more
important function which free speech might fulfil. (15)
1. O'Brien acknowledged the reality of miscarriages of justice, and the
crucial role of the media in exposing them. (16)
2. President Slobodan Milosevic asserts his innocence, and steadfastly
criticizes the ICTY. He is innocent, until proven otherwise, and has
every right to oppose the legitimacy of this institution. By banning
contact with the media, the Registrar has violated the rights of Mr.
Milosevic, of his visitors, and of the public at large.
3. The ICTY may not enjoy President Milosevic's criticism. Nonetheless,
the public benefits of permitting him to communicate with the media far
outweigh whatever embarassment might be visited upon the ICTY. As Lord
Steyn stated it:
Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is
valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also
instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives.
First, it promotes the self fulfilment of individuals in society.
Secondly, in the famous words of Mr. Justice Holmes (echoing John
Stuart Mill), "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to
get itself accepted in the competition of the market.": Abraham v.
United States 250 U.S. 616, at 630 (1919), per Holmes J. (dissent).
Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow
of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety
valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them
if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on
the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of
errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country:
see Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnett, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed.,
(1996), 1078-1086. It is this last interest which is engaged in the
present case. The prisoners argue that in their cases the criminal
justice system has failed, and that they have been wrongly convicted.
They seek with the assistance of journalists, who have the resources to
do the necessary investigations, to make public the wrongs which they
allegedly suffered. (17)
1. The House of Lords contemplated the right of convicted criminals to
conduct interviews with the media. Neither Mr. Milosevic nor his
visitors have been convicted of any crimes, yet the Registrar's
decision strips them of rights enjoyed by convicted persons in the
United Kingdom.
Freedom of expression before the ICTY
1. In the matter of Brdjanin, the Appeals Chamber recognized freedom of
expression as a fundamnetal right. It had been asked to recognize a
specific privilege for war correspondents before the Tribunal, but
established instead a two-pronged test to determine whether a decision
violating freedom of expression should be overturned in particular
cases where compelling testimony would reduce the "free flow of
information" (18) . The test developed by the majority of the Chamber
is too narrow to apply to the instant matter.
2. Judge Shahabudeen's separate opinion, however, provides a useful
test in the instant case. With respect to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, he stated:
8) The Covenant was not constructed with the International Tribunal in
view. So far as the Tribunal is concerned, there is no “law” providing
for restrictions under article 19(3). But, given that it is
acknowledged that the principles of the Covenant apply in relation to
the Tribunal, those principles have to be construed to mean that the
right to freedom of expression is subject to restrictions on the
exercise of it which result from the responsibilities and functions of
the Tribunal. This opinion will proceed on the basis that the
protection of the public interests which justifies those restrictions
includes the protection of the essential elements of the administration
of justice; the matter is so understood generally.
9) If a restriction is judged “necessary”, no balancing of interests is
thereafter required. The balance is made by the provision; the task of
the courts is to say whether the particular restriction of freedom of
expression is “necessary ” on any of the permitted grounds. If the
restriction is necessary, the restriction prevails – the testimony is
compelled; if the restriction is not necessary, freedom of expression
prevails – the testimony is not compelled. But it seems to me that
there is a preliminary stage at which some balancing of competing
interests has inescapably to be made in the process of determining
whether a restriction of freedom of expression is “necessary” for the
protection of a public interest.
1. The Registrar has not asserted any grounds to establish that his
decision to ban President Milosevic from contact , until further
notice, with members of the SPS, and "associated entities", including
the Freedom Association is necessary to protect the public interest.
2. The Registrar thus justified his decision to ban visits, as a result
of alleged contacts with the media by previous visitors :
"In view of the flagrant nature of this breach of the rules and
regulations of the Tribunal, I have decided that it would be in the
interests of the good administration of the Detention Unit to deny
until further notice any requests from members of the SPS and
associated entities, such as the Freedom Association, for visits with
you at the Detention Unit." (19)
1. "The good administration of the Detention Unit", is a legitimate
administrative preoccupation, but falls far short of the standard set
out by Judge Shahabudeen. The Registrar's decision fails to show how
his decision would satisfy "the protection of the public interests
which justifies those restrictions" to freedom of expression, a right
enjoyed by the public and by the accused.
2. The protection of the essential elements of the administration of
justice (20), as opposed to the administration of the Detention Unit,
could justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The Appeals
Chamber has further held (21) that adequate weight must be given to the
ability of war correspondents to provide vital information to citizens
of the international community.
3. Brdjanin stands for the general proposition that the protection of
the administration of justice includes the protection of the free flow
of information to the international community. The Registrar has not
justified his restriction of the free flow of information to the
public, nor has he justified his restriction on the ability of members
of the public to participate in, or contribute to, the free flow of
information in the media.
4. Security considerations with respect to the administration of the
Detention Unit are set out elsewhere in the Rules and Regulations
adopted with respect to detention. It has not been shown that it is
necessary to adopt additional measures which so severely curtail the
fundamental rights of such a great number.
5. Transparency is required of any judicial institution. The
Registrar's decision, absent justification, heightens concerns that the
ICTY has something to hide.
6. In the course of a trial where the Prosecution has put the
transparency of the accused's governance at issue, it is demeaning to
the law to strip him of the right to contact media. To ban yet
unidentified persons from visiting him is unconscionable.
The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental, universally
recognized principle of presumption of innocence, and should therefore
be overturned.
1. Only a blatant disregard for the presumption of innocence can
justify the violation of President Milosevic's fundamental right of
freedom of expression, in addition to the violation of the rights of
his potential visitors.
2. In effect, a ban on visits following alleged communication with the
media supposes that President Milosevic is guilty and that his visitors
are guilty by association. The ban assumes that Mr. Milosevic will tell
his visitors bad things, which in turn will be reported in the media.
3. The ban also appears to prevent information favorable to Mr.
Milosevic from being be published in the media, which could only be
justified if his guilt were assumed.
4. In any event, the Registrar's decision suggests that the public
cannot be trusted with any information that could be received in the
course of a visit with Mr. Milosevic.
5. The Registrar's decision violates Rule 5 of the Rules of Detention,
which states:
All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the
Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be
treated as such at all times.
The Registrar's decision is tantamount to ordering the isolation of
President Milosevic, and should be overturned.
1. The governing principle with respect to detention has been set out
above: All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the
Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be
treated as such at all times.
2. This principle is at the heart of the rule providing for detainees
right to visitors of their choice, subject to security considerations
(22). This general rule is consistent with UN protocols on detention
(23).
3. Amnesty International provides the following justification for the
principle of free access to visitors:
The rights of detainees to communicate with others and to receive
visits are fundamental safeguards against human rights abuses such as
torture, ill-treatment and "disappearances".
Detained and imprisoned people must be allowed to communicate with the
outside world, subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions.
(24)
1. Mr. Milosevic is has been deprived of visits from his wife and
immediate family since March 2003. The Registrar's decision now bans
visits from members of the Serbian Socialist Party's "associated
entities". This could justify denying every request for visitation made
by anyone close or affiliated not with the SPS, but with Slobodan
Milosevic himself.
2. The Registrar's decision is tantamount to imposing isolation on Mr.
Milosevic. The Rules of Detention only contemplate this measure
pursuant to specific conditions or when a detainee has committed
serious breaches to the Rule;
3. President Milosevic's isolation raises the apprehension that a
punitive measure has been carried out, although he has committed no
breach of rules and is innocent of the charges brought against him
until proof of the contrary;
4. The isolation imposed as a result of the Registrar's decision is
unwarranted, arbitrary and capricious;
RELIEF SOUGHT
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, PETITIONER, FREEDOM ASSOCIATION/ SLOBODA
REQUESTS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ICTY :
DIRECT the Registrar to overturn his decision, rendered August 12th
2003, to deny visits from members of the SPS, "associated entities" and
Freedom Association, until further notice;
DECLARE Rule 63 (B) of the Rules of Detention and Regulation 33 (B) of
the Regulations to govern the supervision of visits to and
communications with detainees contrary to article 21 of the ICTY
Statute, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(1) On August 15th, 2003, Mr Bogoljub Bjelica, Chairman of Freedom
Association, received a copy of a letter to Mr. Slobodan Milosevic
dated August 19th 2003 from the Registrar, Mr. Hans Holthuis,
informing him that he had "decided that it would be in the interests of
the good adminstration of the Detention Unit to deny untli further
notice any requests from members of the SPS and associated entities,
such as the Freedom Association, for visits with you at the Detention
Unit".
(2) Id., second paragraph of the Registrar's decision: "Subsequent to
the visit, two articles were published in the media in Belgrade, which
quoted from Mr. Vucelic and Mr. Andjelkovic respectively in relation to
the details of the visit. Despite the existence of some factual
inaccuracies, it is clear that the only possible source of the
information referred to in the articles was the SPS delegation"
(3) Prosecutor v. Sljivancanin, Decision on Assignment of Defence
Counsel, The President, IT-95-13/1-PT, 20 August 2003, paragraph 18.
(4) Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and
approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolution 663 C
(XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977
(5) Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel, 20 August 2003,
IT-95-13/1-PT, paragraph 23. See also Kvocka Decision, Appeal Chamber,
paragraph 12: "The administrative decision will also be quashed if the
Registrar has failed …to act with procedural fairness"
(6) See President's Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel,
Slijivancanin, supra.
(7) European Court judgments in the cases of Ofrer and Hopfinger,
Nos. 524/59 and 617/59, Dec. 19.12.60, Yearbook 6, p. 680 and 696;
Krajisnik and Plavsic, (IT-00-3940), Decision on Prosecution Motion for
Clarification in respect of Application of Rules 65 ter, 66 (B) and 67
(C), 1 August 2001.
(8) Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, Case No.:
IT-99-36-T, Decision on interlocutory appeal, 11 December 2002,
Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabudeen, footnote 4: "Paragraph 106 of
the Secretary-General’s Report (S/25704 of 3 May 1993) said that it “is
axiomatic that the International Tribunal must fully respect
internationally recognized standards regarding the rights of the
accused at all stages of the proceedings. In the view of the
Secretary-General, such internationally recognized standards are, in
particular, contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights”. In the context in which the
Secretary-General was speaking, his reference to the rights of the
accused was understandable; it does not limit the applicability of the
Covenant to other matters."
(9) See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979) (Supreme Court of
the United States), and Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 774 F.Supp. 1, 34
(D.D.C. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 6 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir.1993): A
defendant preserves "a First Amendment right to be free from
governmental interferencewith [his] contacts with the press if that
interference is based on the content of the speech or proposed speech."
(10) Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, Case No.:
IT-99-36-T, Decision on interlocutory appeal, 11 December 2002.
(11) Brdjanin, supra, at paragraph 36: The Appeals Chamber is of the
view that society’s interest in protecting the integrity of the
newsgathering process is particularly clear and weighty in the case of
war correspondents. Wars necessarily involve death, destruction, and
suffering on a large scale and, too frequently, atrocities of many
kinds, as the conflict in the former Yugoslavia illustrates. In war
zones, accurate information is often difficult to obtain and may be
difficult to distribute or disseminate as well. The transmission of
that information is essential to keeping the international public
informed about matters of life and death. It may also be vital to
assisting those who would prevent or punish the crimes under
international humanitarian law that fall within the jurisdiction of
this Tribunal. In this regard, it may be recalled that the images of
the terrible suffering of the detainees at the Omarska Camp that played
such an important role in awakening the international community to the
seriousness of the human rights situation during the conflict in Bosnia
Herzegovina were broadcast by war correspondents. The Appeals Chamber
readily agrees with the Trial Chamber that war correspondents “play a
vital role in bringing to the attention of the international community
the horrors and reality of conflict.”30 The information uncovered by
war correspondents has on more than one occasion provided important
leads for the investigators of this Tribunal.31 In view of these
reasons, the Appeals Chamber considers that war correspondents do serve
a public interest.
(12) Id., paragraph 44.
(13)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990708/
obrien01.htm,Consolidated Appeals, 1998.
(14) In the United States, the right to freedom of speech for
convicts was upheld by the Supreme Court in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S.
(1974); see also Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)
(15) O'Brien, supra, p. XX
(16) O'Brien, supra,., p. XXX
(17) Id., p. XXX
(18) Brdjanin, supra, paragraph 50: "In view of the foregoing, the
Appeals Chamber holds that in order for a Trial Chamber to issue a
subpoena to a war correspondent a two-pronged test must be satisfied .
First, the petitioning party must demonstrate that the evidence sought
is of direct and important value in determining a core issue in the
case. Second, it must demonstrate that the evidence sought cannot
reasonably be obtained elsewhere ."
(19) Registrar's decision, supra, note 1.
(20) Separate Opinion of Shahabudeen, supra, paragraph 8.
(21)Brdjanin, supra, majority opinion, paragraph 38: "Rather, it is
because vigorous investigation and reporting by war correspondents
enables citizens of the international community to receive vital
information from war zones that the Appeals Chamber considers that
adequate weight must be given to protecting the ability of war
correspondents to carry out their functions."
(22) Rule 63 (A) of the Rules of Detention.
(23) See, supra, footnote 2
(24) Amnesty International, Fair Trials Manual, International
Secretariate, London 1998. Cf Principle 19 of the Body of Principles:
"A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by
and to correspond with, in particular, members of his family and shall
be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world,
subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law
or lawful regulations."
---
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) now back in service!
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German 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)
Data: Mer 3 Set 2003 00:34:54 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: The Hague: "There is no defence, only prosecution!"
"There is no defence, only prosecution!"
-Slobodan Milosevic, September 2nd, 2003
SLOBODA calls upon all organizations and individuals who care
about freedom, justice and democracy to stand URGENTLY AND SOUNDLY
against the perhaps final proof that the aim of the "tribunal" and it's
NATO masters is to suppress freedom and to silence the truth.
Today's outrageous developments at the Hague require that no decent
person remains silent.
Progressive forces and lawyers have a particular responsibility to
stand up and let their voices be heard - there are thousands of
arguments!
The alternatives of today's world are: freedom or slavery. In the
version of the "judicial" arm of NATO the alternative is: truth or
inquisition.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC WILL HELP ALL OF US WINNING OUR BATTLE IF WE HELP
HIM NOW!
Address the public and all relevant international factors!
ICDSM and all national committees will give the tone to this action.
Either the truth will be allowed to appear or destinies of another
nations can be sealed for a long time.
TWO YEARS OF FREEDOM FOR THE VICTORY OF TRUTH!
Earlier today President Slobodan Milosevic addressed the "Tribunal",
stating again, before being summarily shut down by Richard May, that he
did not recognize the ICTY and that the exercise was "not a trial".
At a status conference scheduled today to establish the modalities of
the "defense case", President Milosevic told the "ICTY" that two issues
were central: time and circumstances.
He stated that two years to prepare a response to the allegations made
was a bare minimum, that in fact the time required would be endless. In
addition, President Milosevic has demanded direct and unsupervised
contacts with witnesses and the ability to locate and obtain key
documents to refute the lies that have been put forward in The Hague,
which can only be done if he is
released.
"I will need the conditions necessary for me to prepare my trial while
at liberty," Slobodan Milosevic told the Chamber.
President Milosevic reminded Mr. May that the opposing side,
represented by Carla Del Ponte, had filed the Kosovo indictment in
1999, practically three years before the beginning of his Hague
"trial", and four and one half years before today. Other issues raised
in the subsequent indictments with respect to Croatia and Bosnia date
back to 1993.
President Milosevic pointed out that although he does not acknowledge
the process as legitimate, Mr. May and his colleagues must provide him
with adequate time for preparation, without which it will be clear that
the ICTY does not respect the rights it claims to stand for, that in
fact at the ICTY there is no defence, only a prosecution.
President Milosevic also demanded direct, unsupervised and unimpeded
contact with witnesses under adequate conditions, at liberty. He added
that he could not even begin to estimate the number of people working
for the opposite side. He demanded to be given the ability to prepare
witnesses properly, reminding the Chamber of the extent of preparation
carried out by the other side.
President Milosevic stressed that it was the Chamber, not he, who
claimed that "rights" were being afforded to him, and therefore they
should see that he be given the possibility of realizing those rights.
President Milosevic explained that the symbolic value of the equality
of arms supported his demands to prepare his witnesses and documents in
conditions that were adequate and suitable.
Following President Milosevic's presentation, "Judge" May did not
hesitate to immediately deny, yet again, any request for provisional
release made by President Milosevic, without stating any justification.
Mr. May also summarily dismissed President Milosevic's request for two
years to prepare his case.
After lengthy submissions from the "amicus" and opposite side,
President Milosevic spoke again, and strongly criticized the
"Prosecution's" suggestion that they were equal all on equal footing as
absurd. He reiterated, before being cut off, that he did not recognize
the "Tribunal" and that the process was not a "trial", but that the
Chamber itself had claimed he had rights. After being told to be
concrete by Mr. May, President Milosevic responded that he had been
speaking in the most practical terms, and asked how it was possible for
him to communicate with witnesses without direct and unsupervised
contact with them. He stated that two years of preparation was a most
modest evaluation of the time required under the so-called "Tribunal's"
principles.
President Milosevic concluded his remarks by stating that it was
well-known that at the ICTY there is only a prosecution and no defence,
nor is there equality of arms.
The "Chamber" has not issued any formal rulings on the submissions
heard today, but has already rejected President Milosevic's concrete
demands without deliberations. A decision setting out the modalities of
resident Milosevic's presentation of evidence is expected soon.
Recently, the "tribunal" banned all visits of all SPS members, Sloboda
and other associated people to President Milosevic. By that, pratically
no witness could be prepared. Fighting that decision and the "rule"
forbidding President Milosevic contacts with the media, earlier today
Sloboda sent to the president of the "tribunal" a written request to
annull that decision, naming dozens of arguments. The full text of the
letter by Sloboda is attached as Appendix.
---
APPENDIX
---
Belgrade, September 2, 2003
To: Judge Theodor Meron, President
ICTY, The Hague, The Netherlands
URGENT
REQUEST TO THE PRESIDENT FOR REVIEW OF THE REGISTRAR'S DECISION TO DENY
REQUESTS FOR VISITS TO PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC AT THE DETENTION
CENTRE, PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENT'S SUPERVISORY POWERS, RULE 19 OF THE
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE
Hereby we request the President's intervention, on the basis of his
powers set out at Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to
reverse the Registrar's decision to deny, until further notice, visits
from members of the Freedom Association (SLOBODA) (1). The Registrar's
decision is supported by his claim that individuals having visiting
President Slobodan Milosevic disclosed information to the media. (2)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A. The Registrar's decision constitutes an arbitrary and illegal
exercice of the discretion afforded by Regulation 33 (B) of the
Regulations to Govern the Supervision of Visits to and Communications
with detainees (the "Regulations") and Rule 66 (B) of the Rules of
Detention, and should therefore be overturned;
B. The Registrar's decision violates the principle of equality of arms.
The Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages
unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any
such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registrar's decision
should therefore be overturned;
C. The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental, universally
recognized principle of presumption of innocence, and should therefore
be overturned;
D. The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental principle of
freedom of expression, has no legitimate aim, and is unnecessary. The
Registrar's decision should be overturned;
E. The Registrar's decision is tantamount to ordering the isolation of
President Milosevic, and should be overturned.
THE FACTS
1. On 11 August 2003, Mr. Bogoljub Bjelica, Chairman of the Freedom
Association, a non-government association, applied, in accordance with
the applicable rules and procedural requirements, for a visit with
President Milosevic, who had also requested to meet with Mr. Bjelica.
2. On 15 August 2003, he received a copy of a fax sent by the Registrar
to Mr. Milosevic denying "until further notice" visits from "members of
the SPS and associated entities, such the Freedom Association" until
further notice.
3. On 19 August 2003, Mr Igor Raicevic of the Freedom Association
requested the Registrar reconsider his decision to deny visits to
members of the Freedom Association, which request did not get any reply;
ARGUMENT
The Registrar's decision to suspend visits is arbitrary and constitutes
an abuse of discretion:
a) the decision was not made in accordance with statutory authority;
b) the decision did not respect the principle of audi alteram partem;
c) the decision is overbroad and abusive with respect to its
application over time;
d) the decision arbitrarily and unjustifiably targets persons and
groups entirely unconnected to those allegedly in breach of rules
governing visits and communication with detainees;
e) the decision is apparently unfounded, as no evidence is provided to
support the Registrar's claim of transgression of the rules.
a) The decision was not made in accordance with statutory authority.
Regulation 33 (B) of the Regulations and Rule 66 of the Rules of
Detention attribute discretion to the Registrar to deny visits to
detainees. This discretionary power constitutes an exception to the
general rule which provides that detainees have the right to meet with
the person of their choice, subject to security considerations.
In absence of an express provision to the contrary, judicial review
lies against administrative decisions before the ICTY.(3)
This general prinicple is enunciated in Rule 92 of the Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (4):
92. An untried prisoner shall be allowed to inform immediately his
family of his detention and shall be given all reasonable facilities
for communicating with his family and friends, and for receiving visits
from them, subject only to restrictions and supervision as are
necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and of the
security and good order of the institution.
The ICTY Registrar's discretion is set out as follows in Rule 66 (B) of
the Rules of Detention and 33 (B) of the Regulations:
(B) Permission may be denied if the Registrar has reason to
believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which
may be subsequently reported in the media.
1. The Registrar may only deny visits if he has "reason to believe"
that the purpose of the visit is that of obtaining information which
may subsequently be reported in the media. Nowhere in the Registrar's
fax to the Freedom Association is it alleged that the purpose of the
visit made by 5 named SPS members was to obtain information that might
subsequently be reported to the media.
2. The Registrar has not stated any reason to believe that any other
member of the SPS, "associated entities" or members of the Freedom
Association will apply for a visit with President Milosevic "for the
purpose" of obtaining information which may subsequently be reported in
the media.
3. The Registrar has simply banned, for an indeterminate period,
members of a political party, members of an association, as well as
persons unknown and unidentifiable, from visiting President Milosevic
although those unknown have not yet expressed the desire to visit him,
much less the intention of gathering information for the purposes of
future publication in the media.
4. The decision is overbroadly prospective, and is ultra vires the
discretionary authority provided by the Rules of Detention. The
Decision is overbroad as to targeted individuals and groups, and is
overbroad as to its duration.
5. The Registrar has misstated the Rule in his decision. In it he
writes that the visitors had been advised that "dissemination to the
media of any information disclosed to the media in any form is
prohibited". The Rule merely confers discretion to the Registrar to
prohibit visits if he has reason to believe that its purpose to obtain
information that is subsequently reported by the media. Such a patent
misstatement of the rule creates a reasonable apprehension that the
Registrar also errs in the actual exercise of his discretion.
b) The decision did not respect the principle of audi alteram partem
nor did respect procedural fairness;
1. Freedom Association/Sloboda is banned from visits to President
Milosevic "until further notice". At no point was a representative of
Sloboda/Freedom association called upon by the Registrar to provide a
response to the charge of "flagrant (…) breach" of the Rules. It is
obvious that the Registrar could not do so: No member of Freedom
Association is even alleged to have breached the Rules. Yet the
Registrar's decision arbitrarily bans its members from visits to Mr
Milosevic.
2. In fact, all visits undertaken by Freedom Association members have
been made without incident.
3. The Registrar's decision alleges a breach of Rules by two
individuals, Mr. Vucelic and Mr. Andjelkovic. At no time prior to the
ban were they given an opportunity to respond to the Registrar's
allegations that they had violated their undertaking to comply with the
rules and regulations of the ICTY. The Registrar has violated the most
basic principles of natural justice.
4. The Registrar has not afforded an opportunity to the SPS, or its
members, also subject to the Registrar's decision to deny visits to
President Milosevic, to respond to his allegations before deciding to
deny requests for visits "until further notice". The party, and its
members, could not, in any event, reasonably be expected to respond to
allegations made not against them, but against third parties. The
Registrar's decision therefore violates the most basic tenets of
natural justice.
5. The Registrar's failure to afford an opportunity to respond to
non-confidential evidence has been held by the President of the ICTY to
represent a failure to act with procedural fairness, and has resulted
in the President quashing the Registrar's decision in Prosecutor v.
Slijivancanin (5)
6. The Registrar has banned, until further notice, visits to President
Milosevic, by "associated entities" of the SPS. These "entities" are
unspecified, and therefore unknown. It is strikingly evident that
unspecified groups or entities have not had an opportunity to respond
to the Registrar's allegations against third parties. The Registrar's
decision constitutes an egregious violation of the most basic
principles of natural justice.
c) The Registrar's decision is overbroad and abusive with respect to
its application over time.
1. The Registrar's decision to deny request to visit President
Milosevic to members of the SPS, the Freedom Association, as well as
entities as to yet unknown and unspecified "until further notice"
constitutes an excess of jurisdiction. Discretion is to be exercised
on a case by case basis, as clearly envisaged by the relevant rules. An
administrative decision in force "until further notice" removes all
exercise of discretion, essentially applying one discrete factual
evaluation to all future cases.
2. In addition, an administrative decision taken "until further notice"
is egregiously arbitrary with respect to the period of time in which it
will be in force. The Registrar has failed to assert any legislative
basis to justify the indeterminate nature of the decision. The
Registrar has also failed to indicate what requirements or criteria, if
any, would need to be met in order to terminate his decision to ban
visits from persons and groups, some unspecified and yet to be
identified. The decision is overbroad, and does not constitute an
acceptable exercise of administrative discretion.
3. Rule 63 (A) and Rules and Rule 33 (B) of the Regulations clearly
confers discretion to refuse a single visit-- not all visits,-- for an
undisclosed, potentially indefinite period. The Rule requires the
Registrar to treat each case individually, which he has failed to to
do. Instead he has restricted his discretion and thus exceeded and/ or
not excercised his jurisdiction. The Registrar has rendered an illegal
decision, which should be reversed.
d) The Registrar's decision arbitrarily and unjustifiably targets
persons and groups entirely unconnected to those allegedly in breach of
rules governing visits and communication with detainees.
1. It is trite to point out that banning visits by persons not even
alleged to have breached rules is a violation of any legal standard.
Not only does the impugned decision target all members of a political
party, present and future, as well as present and future members of the
Freedom Association, but outrageously extends the ban on visits to
"associated entities" of the SPS. The Registrar has in essence banned
unknown, unidentified, and unidentifiable groups from visiting
President Milosevic. This decision is simply unprecedented and violates
every fundamental principle of transparency. It is guilt by
association, and worse, it targets people unknown.
2. By extending the ban on visits to undefined groups, the Registrar
has usurped legislative jurisdiction and conferred absolute discretion
onto himself. The Registar's decision is patently ultra vires.
e) The Registrar's decision is apparently unfounded, as no evidence is
provided to support the Registrar's claim of transgression of the rules
1. The Registrar's decision laconically states that "two articles were
published in the media in Belgrade". The Registrar has provided no copy
of publication, no date of publication, and has not identified the
media in question. The Registrar has failed to positively identify the
type of media alleged to have published details of a visit. The
Registrar points to "factual inaccuracies" in the "articles". The
paucity of information provided to support such a sweeping ban is well
below any standard of transparency required in the drafting of his
decision (6). The Registrar's claim that a "flagrant breach" of the
Rules occurred is unreasonable, his reasons inadequate.
The Registrar's decision violates the principle of equality of arms.
The Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages
unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any
such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registrar's decision
should therefore be quashed
1. The Registry facilitates, finances and otherwise supports joint
press briefings of the ICTY's Spokesman for Registry and Chambers with
Office of the Prosecutor's spokeswoman. Summaries of these press
conferences are made available on the ICTY's website at
http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm .
2. Article 21 of the ICTY Statute sets out the minimum rights of
accused persons. These rights encompass the principle of the equality
of arms.
3. The principle of equality of arms, in the context of a trial, is to
be interpreted as meaning that each party must be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to present its case, under conditions that do not place it
at a substantial disadvantage vis à vis the opposing party (7).
4. The Registrar's ban puts President Milosevic at "a substantial
disadvantage vis-à-vis the opposing party" as, simply put, the
"opposing party" maintains a channel of communication with the media,
which it uses to present its case, and does so with the assistance and
support of the Registry.
5. Equality of arms is violated when the Registrar simultaneously bans
visits to an accused, based on the prohibition on contact with the
media, while facilitating joint press briefings of the Tribunal and
Prosecutor's spokespeople. The imbalance is striking.
6. The Registrar's decision to ban visits to President Milosevic based
on prohibition of contact with the media could not be made in other
United Nations Tribunals. No rule permitting such discretion has been
adopted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special
Court for Sierra Leone, or the International Criminal Court. These
Tribunals are held to the respect of the principle of the equality of
arms.
The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental principle of freedom
of expression, and should be quashed
1. Some security considerations can legitimately justify the
non-disclosure of certain information to the media by visitors such as
the details of floor plans of Detention Unit, for instance. Security
considerations are a pattern throughout legislation governing visits to
detention units under international and domestic law.
2. In contrast, the Registrar's decision constitutes a blanket
prohibition of contact with the media. No security considerations have
been asserted in support of the ban, which is tantamount to a gag order.
3. The ICTY is held to apply and respect the provisions of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (8).
4. The accused is innocent, presumed as such by Article 21 of the ICTY
Statute until proof has established, beyond a reason doubt, the
contrary. The accused preserves his freedom of expression (9).
5. Visitors of the accused also enjoy the right to freedom of
expression, a fundamental freedom set out in Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to the freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers."
The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has recognized the public's right to
receive information from the press as a component of freedom of
expression. On interlocutory appeal in Prosecutor v. Brdjanin (10),
the Appeals Chamber overturned the Trial Chamber's decision to issue a
subpoena to Jonathan Randall. The Appeals Chamber held:
As has been noted, the right to freedom of expression includes not
merely the right of journalists and media organizations freely to
communicate information. It also incorporates a right of members of the
public to receive information. As the European Court of Human Rights
put it in its decision in Fresso and Roire v. France: “Not only does
the press have the task of imparting information and ideas on matters
of public interest: the public also has a right to receive them.”
1. Brdjanin described the vital role of war correspondents in the work
of the Tribunal (11), and concluded:
The Appeals Chamber will not unnecessarily hamper the work of
professions that perform a public interest. (12)
1. The House of Lords, in Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex Parte Simms (A.P.) Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex Parte O'Brien (13) overturned the British Home
Secretary's ban on verbal interviews between convicted prisoners
serving sentences and the media (14).
2. The O'Brien case establishes that convicted prisoners have the right
to conduct interviews with the media and discuss the unfairness of
their trials. Lord Steyn stated:
The prisoners are in prison because they are presumed to have been
properly convicted. They wish to challenge the safety of their
convictions. In principle it is not easy to conceive of a more
important function which free speech might fulfil. (15)
1. O'Brien acknowledged the reality of miscarriages of justice, and the
crucial role of the media in exposing them. (16)
2. President Slobodan Milosevic asserts his innocence, and steadfastly
criticizes the ICTY. He is innocent, until proven otherwise, and has
every right to oppose the legitimacy of this institution. By banning
contact with the media, the Registrar has violated the rights of Mr.
Milosevic, of his visitors, and of the public at large.
3. The ICTY may not enjoy President Milosevic's criticism. Nonetheless,
the public benefits of permitting him to communicate with the media far
outweigh whatever embarassment might be visited upon the ICTY. As Lord
Steyn stated it:
Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is
valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also
instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives.
First, it promotes the self fulfilment of individuals in society.
Secondly, in the famous words of Mr. Justice Holmes (echoing John
Stuart Mill), "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to
get itself accepted in the competition of the market.": Abraham v.
United States 250 U.S. 616, at 630 (1919), per Holmes J. (dissent).
Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow
of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety
valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them
if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on
the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of
errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country:
see Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnett, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed.,
(1996), 1078-1086. It is this last interest which is engaged in the
present case. The prisoners argue that in their cases the criminal
justice system has failed, and that they have been wrongly convicted.
They seek with the assistance of journalists, who have the resources to
do the necessary investigations, to make public the wrongs which they
allegedly suffered. (17)
1. The House of Lords contemplated the right of convicted criminals to
conduct interviews with the media. Neither Mr. Milosevic nor his
visitors have been convicted of any crimes, yet the Registrar's
decision strips them of rights enjoyed by convicted persons in the
United Kingdom.
Freedom of expression before the ICTY
1. In the matter of Brdjanin, the Appeals Chamber recognized freedom of
expression as a fundamnetal right. It had been asked to recognize a
specific privilege for war correspondents before the Tribunal, but
established instead a two-pronged test to determine whether a decision
violating freedom of expression should be overturned in particular
cases where compelling testimony would reduce the "free flow of
information" (18) . The test developed by the majority of the Chamber
is too narrow to apply to the instant matter.
2. Judge Shahabudeen's separate opinion, however, provides a useful
test in the instant case. With respect to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, he stated:
8) The Covenant was not constructed with the International Tribunal in
view. So far as the Tribunal is concerned, there is no “law” providing
for restrictions under article 19(3). But, given that it is
acknowledged that the principles of the Covenant apply in relation to
the Tribunal, those principles have to be construed to mean that the
right to freedom of expression is subject to restrictions on the
exercise of it which result from the responsibilities and functions of
the Tribunal. This opinion will proceed on the basis that the
protection of the public interests which justifies those restrictions
includes the protection of the essential elements of the administration
of justice; the matter is so understood generally.
9) If a restriction is judged “necessary”, no balancing of interests is
thereafter required. The balance is made by the provision; the task of
the courts is to say whether the particular restriction of freedom of
expression is “necessary ” on any of the permitted grounds. If the
restriction is necessary, the restriction prevails – the testimony is
compelled; if the restriction is not necessary, freedom of expression
prevails – the testimony is not compelled. But it seems to me that
there is a preliminary stage at which some balancing of competing
interests has inescapably to be made in the process of determining
whether a restriction of freedom of expression is “necessary” for the
protection of a public interest.
1. The Registrar has not asserted any grounds to establish that his
decision to ban President Milosevic from contact , until further
notice, with members of the SPS, and "associated entities", including
the Freedom Association is necessary to protect the public interest.
2. The Registrar thus justified his decision to ban visits, as a result
of alleged contacts with the media by previous visitors :
"In view of the flagrant nature of this breach of the rules and
regulations of the Tribunal, I have decided that it would be in the
interests of the good administration of the Detention Unit to deny
until further notice any requests from members of the SPS and
associated entities, such as the Freedom Association, for visits with
you at the Detention Unit." (19)
1. "The good administration of the Detention Unit", is a legitimate
administrative preoccupation, but falls far short of the standard set
out by Judge Shahabudeen. The Registrar's decision fails to show how
his decision would satisfy "the protection of the public interests
which justifies those restrictions" to freedom of expression, a right
enjoyed by the public and by the accused.
2. The protection of the essential elements of the administration of
justice (20), as opposed to the administration of the Detention Unit,
could justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The Appeals
Chamber has further held (21) that adequate weight must be given to the
ability of war correspondents to provide vital information to citizens
of the international community.
3. Brdjanin stands for the general proposition that the protection of
the administration of justice includes the protection of the free flow
of information to the international community. The Registrar has not
justified his restriction of the free flow of information to the
public, nor has he justified his restriction on the ability of members
of the public to participate in, or contribute to, the free flow of
information in the media.
4. Security considerations with respect to the administration of the
Detention Unit are set out elsewhere in the Rules and Regulations
adopted with respect to detention. It has not been shown that it is
necessary to adopt additional measures which so severely curtail the
fundamental rights of such a great number.
5. Transparency is required of any judicial institution. The
Registrar's decision, absent justification, heightens concerns that the
ICTY has something to hide.
6. In the course of a trial where the Prosecution has put the
transparency of the accused's governance at issue, it is demeaning to
the law to strip him of the right to contact media. To ban yet
unidentified persons from visiting him is unconscionable.
The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental, universally
recognized principle of presumption of innocence, and should therefore
be overturned.
1. Only a blatant disregard for the presumption of innocence can
justify the violation of President Milosevic's fundamental right of
freedom of expression, in addition to the violation of the rights of
his potential visitors.
2. In effect, a ban on visits following alleged communication with the
media supposes that President Milosevic is guilty and that his visitors
are guilty by association. The ban assumes that Mr. Milosevic will tell
his visitors bad things, which in turn will be reported in the media.
3. The ban also appears to prevent information favorable to Mr.
Milosevic from being be published in the media, which could only be
justified if his guilt were assumed.
4. In any event, the Registrar's decision suggests that the public
cannot be trusted with any information that could be received in the
course of a visit with Mr. Milosevic.
5. The Registrar's decision violates Rule 5 of the Rules of Detention,
which states:
All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the
Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be
treated as such at all times.
The Registrar's decision is tantamount to ordering the isolation of
President Milosevic, and should be overturned.
1. The governing principle with respect to detention has been set out
above: All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the
Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be
treated as such at all times.
2. This principle is at the heart of the rule providing for detainees
right to visitors of their choice, subject to security considerations
(22). This general rule is consistent with UN protocols on detention
(23).
3. Amnesty International provides the following justification for the
principle of free access to visitors:
The rights of detainees to communicate with others and to receive
visits are fundamental safeguards against human rights abuses such as
torture, ill-treatment and "disappearances".
Detained and imprisoned people must be allowed to communicate with the
outside world, subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions.
(24)
1. Mr. Milosevic is has been deprived of visits from his wife and
immediate family since March 2003. The Registrar's decision now bans
visits from members of the Serbian Socialist Party's "associated
entities". This could justify denying every request for visitation made
by anyone close or affiliated not with the SPS, but with Slobodan
Milosevic himself.
2. The Registrar's decision is tantamount to imposing isolation on Mr.
Milosevic. The Rules of Detention only contemplate this measure
pursuant to specific conditions or when a detainee has committed
serious breaches to the Rule;
3. President Milosevic's isolation raises the apprehension that a
punitive measure has been carried out, although he has committed no
breach of rules and is innocent of the charges brought against him
until proof of the contrary;
4. The isolation imposed as a result of the Registrar's decision is
unwarranted, arbitrary and capricious;
RELIEF SOUGHT
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, PETITIONER, FREEDOM ASSOCIATION/ SLOBODA
REQUESTS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ICTY :
DIRECT the Registrar to overturn his decision, rendered August 12th
2003, to deny visits from members of the SPS, "associated entities" and
Freedom Association, until further notice;
DECLARE Rule 63 (B) of the Rules of Detention and Regulation 33 (B) of
the Regulations to govern the supervision of visits to and
communications with detainees contrary to article 21 of the ICTY
Statute, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(1) On August 15th, 2003, Mr Bogoljub Bjelica, Chairman of Freedom
Association, received a copy of a letter to Mr. Slobodan Milosevic
dated August 19th 2003 from the Registrar, Mr. Hans Holthuis,
informing him that he had "decided that it would be in the interests of
the good adminstration of the Detention Unit to deny untli further
notice any requests from members of the SPS and associated entities,
such as the Freedom Association, for visits with you at the Detention
Unit".
(2) Id., second paragraph of the Registrar's decision: "Subsequent to
the visit, two articles were published in the media in Belgrade, which
quoted from Mr. Vucelic and Mr. Andjelkovic respectively in relation to
the details of the visit. Despite the existence of some factual
inaccuracies, it is clear that the only possible source of the
information referred to in the articles was the SPS delegation"
(3) Prosecutor v. Sljivancanin, Decision on Assignment of Defence
Counsel, The President, IT-95-13/1-PT, 20 August 2003, paragraph 18.
(4) Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and
approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolution 663 C
(XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977
(5) Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel, 20 August 2003,
IT-95-13/1-PT, paragraph 23. See also Kvocka Decision, Appeal Chamber,
paragraph 12: "The administrative decision will also be quashed if the
Registrar has failed …to act with procedural fairness"
(6) See President's Decision on Assignment of Defence Counsel,
Slijivancanin, supra.
(7) European Court judgments in the cases of Ofrer and Hopfinger,
Nos. 524/59 and 617/59, Dec. 19.12.60, Yearbook 6, p. 680 and 696;
Krajisnik and Plavsic, (IT-00-3940), Decision on Prosecution Motion for
Clarification in respect of Application of Rules 65 ter, 66 (B) and 67
(C), 1 August 2001.
(8) Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, Case No.:
IT-99-36-T, Decision on interlocutory appeal, 11 December 2002,
Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabudeen, footnote 4: "Paragraph 106 of
the Secretary-General’s Report (S/25704 of 3 May 1993) said that it “is
axiomatic that the International Tribunal must fully respect
internationally recognized standards regarding the rights of the
accused at all stages of the proceedings. In the view of the
Secretary-General, such internationally recognized standards are, in
particular, contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights”. In the context in which the
Secretary-General was speaking, his reference to the rights of the
accused was understandable; it does not limit the applicability of the
Covenant to other matters."
(9) See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979) (Supreme Court of
the United States), and Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 774 F.Supp. 1, 34
(D.D.C. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 6 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir.1993): A
defendant preserves "a First Amendment right to be free from
governmental interferencewith [his] contacts with the press if that
interference is based on the content of the speech or proposed speech."
(10) Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic, Case No.:
IT-99-36-T, Decision on interlocutory appeal, 11 December 2002.
(11) Brdjanin, supra, at paragraph 36: The Appeals Chamber is of the
view that society’s interest in protecting the integrity of the
newsgathering process is particularly clear and weighty in the case of
war correspondents. Wars necessarily involve death, destruction, and
suffering on a large scale and, too frequently, atrocities of many
kinds, as the conflict in the former Yugoslavia illustrates. In war
zones, accurate information is often difficult to obtain and may be
difficult to distribute or disseminate as well. The transmission of
that information is essential to keeping the international public
informed about matters of life and death. It may also be vital to
assisting those who would prevent or punish the crimes under
international humanitarian law that fall within the jurisdiction of
this Tribunal. In this regard, it may be recalled that the images of
the terrible suffering of the detainees at the Omarska Camp that played
such an important role in awakening the international community to the
seriousness of the human rights situation during the conflict in Bosnia
Herzegovina were broadcast by war correspondents. The Appeals Chamber
readily agrees with the Trial Chamber that war correspondents “play a
vital role in bringing to the attention of the international community
the horrors and reality of conflict.”30 The information uncovered by
war correspondents has on more than one occasion provided important
leads for the investigators of this Tribunal.31 In view of these
reasons, the Appeals Chamber considers that war correspondents do serve
a public interest.
(12) Id., paragraph 44.
(13)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990708/
obrien01.htm,Consolidated Appeals, 1998.
(14) In the United States, the right to freedom of speech for
convicts was upheld by the Supreme Court in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S.
(1974); see also Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)
(15) O'Brien, supra, p. XX
(16) O'Brien, supra,., p. XXX
(17) Id., p. XXX
(18) Brdjanin, supra, paragraph 50: "In view of the foregoing, the
Appeals Chamber holds that in order for a Trial Chamber to issue a
subpoena to a war correspondent a two-pronged test must be satisfied .
First, the petitioning party must demonstrate that the evidence sought
is of direct and important value in determining a core issue in the
case. Second, it must demonstrate that the evidence sought cannot
reasonably be obtained elsewhere ."
(19) Registrar's decision, supra, note 1.
(20) Separate Opinion of Shahabudeen, supra, paragraph 8.
(21)Brdjanin, supra, majority opinion, paragraph 38: "Rather, it is
because vigorous investigation and reporting by war correspondents
enables citizens of the international community to receive vital
information from war zones that the Appeals Chamber considers that
adequate weight must be given to protecting the ability of war
correspondents to carry out their functions."
(22) Rule 63 (A) of the Rules of Detention.
(23) See, supra, footnote 2
(24) Amnesty International, Fair Trials Manual, International
Secretariate, London 1998. Cf Principle 19 of the Body of Principles:
"A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by
and to correspond with, in particular, members of his family and shall
be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world,
subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law
or lawful regulations."
---
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) now back in service!
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German 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":
Towards the November 8th Demonstration in Den Haag
(english - Portuguese)
All the following documents have been forwarded to us by the SLOBODA
Association, Belgrade: http://www.sloboda.org.yu/
1. DEMONSTRATIONS
at The Hague, on November 8, 2003
2. Brazilian Workers for President Milosevic
3. Sloboda appeal to humanitarian organizations and UN
=== 1 ===
(download this leaflet at:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/
Nov8Leaflet.doc
Nov8Poziv.doc na srpskohrvatskom
Nov8latPoziv.doc isto latinicom)
SLOBODA udruzenje - FREEDOM association
YUGOSLAV COMMITTEE FOR THE LIBERATION OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Belgrade, Rajiceva 16, tel./fax +381-11-630549
Our demonstrations held on June 28 at The Hague delivered our demands
to the “tribunal” and to UN, under which formal auspices this
institution acts. It is not only that our main demands have not been
fulfilled, but also the human rights violation record of the “tribunal”
became even worse. For that reason SLOBODA/Freedom Association endorses
the call of the Serbian-International Organizational Committee to hold
new
DEMONSTRATIONS
at The Hague, on November 8, 2003
«By the terror and tyranny they try to prevent, or at least minimize,
the obvious fiasco of the false tribunal, which is serving as the
weapon of war against our country and our people. Nothing new! As
Montesquieu wrote in 1742: “There is no crueler tyranny than one
perpetrated under the shield of law, and in the name of justice.” »
Slobodan Milosevic, 17 August 2003
The “tribunal” at The Hague is not an instrument of justice, but of
aggression and war;
The “tribunal” at The Hague attempts to falsify Serbian history, to
retaliate against the freedom fighters and to protect the perpetrators
of the policies of war and colonization, condemned by the whole World;
The “tribunal” at The Hague, by its terror against Serbian people and
President Milosevic and by the persecution of his family and
associates, attempts to silence the truth;
A court which violates the human rights in the way the “tribunal” does,
should not exist in any democratic and civilized country;
For the existence of such “tribunal” most responsible are the
governments USA and UK, but also of the other UN Security Council
permanent member states;
In the Autumn 70 years ago, “The Third Reich” “tried” Dimitrov. On
November 8, 65 years ago, one of the biggest Nazi crimes was committed
– the “Crystal Night” of pogrom. Killing nations – never again!
Therefore:
FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC!
*WE CALL UPON ALL THE PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE AND
ORGANIZATIONS IN EUROPE AND WORLD WIDE TO JOIN US!
The demos and the struggle for these goals need the financial
assistance.
Send a check to our address or transfer your donation to the following
account:
German ICDSM, c/o Peter Betscher, Account Number (Konto-Nr.): 102013409
Bank: Volksbank Darmstadt, Bank Number (BLZ): 508 90 000, use: defense
=== 2 ===
URL for this article is: http://www.icdsm.org/more/brazil.htm
Brazilian Workers for President Milosevic
In the protest letter sent today to the Hague tribunal, Antonio Neto,
President of the General Confederation of Trade Unions of Brazil
(Central Geral dos Trabalhadores, CGTB), one of the main trade union
organizations in Brazil, expresses indignation against the recent
decision to ban visits to President Milosevic. Brazilian workers
condemn NATO crimes and the tribunal as an instrument of US government.
The letter demands rights of President Milosevic to be guaranteed,
including the right of access to media.
Bellow is complete text of the letter and the link to the Portuguese
translation of the speech of President Milosevic delivered after the
end of 1999 NATO military aggression, published in CGTB newspaper “Hora
do Povo”.
CENTRAL
GERALDOS TRABALHADORES
Filiada à Federação Sindical Mundial – FSM
São Paulo, August 29, 2003
Mr. Hans Holthuis, Registrar
ICTY, The Hague, The Netherlands
Dear Mr. Holthuis,
The General Confederation of Trade Unions of Brazil - CGTB - finds it
necessary to express its indignation against the recent Hague tribunal
decision to ban visits to President Milosevic.
That arbitrary decision furthermore, reinforces the idea shared by wide
sections of the international public opinion that The Hague tribunal
was created with the sole objective of condemning President Milosevic
to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the crimes committed
by EUA/NATO when, in less than 90 days, they threw 25 thousand tons of
bombs on Yugoslavia murdering 5 thousand civilians and wounding another
10 thousand, of which 40% were children.
In the 3rd Congress of our Confederation, which took place in March of
2002, the Brazilian workers were aware of the crimes practiced by
EUA/NATO. They condemned the foreign aggressor and they questioned the
role of The Hague tribunal, considering it one more instrument
controlled by the government of the USA.
Today, after the attack on Iraq, all the people in the world are aware
of the farce that is set up by the North American administration to
justify the invasion of a sovereign country and to guarantee with that
their own interests. Therefore, if The Hague tribunal continues acting
in an arbitrary and unilateral way as it is doing, it is taking the
serious risk of becoming totally discredited.
In this sense, we consider it indispensable that The Hague tribunal
should respect the broad rights of defense and of visit of President
Milosevic and guarantee immediately his right of access to media, a
right that is today insured to the prosecution by the tribunal at any
time.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Neto President CGTB
Vice-president of World Federation of Trade
Union
Maria Pimentel Secret. of Inter. Relations of CGTB
---
Iugoslávia heróica derrota desmembramento de Kosovo
"Nós năo apenas defendemos nosso país, mas trouxemos de volta ao
cenário internacional a ONU. Esta é a nossa contribuiçăo ao mundo. O
heroísmo de nosso povo na resistęncia ao inimigo, muitas vezes mais
forte e maior, marcará o fim do século 20"
O altivo discurso do presidente Milosevic (HORA DO POVO)
*** Read the whole speech in Portuguese:
http://www.horadopovo.com.br/matesp/mat13.htm ***
=== 3 ===
To:
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – Geneva
World Health Organization – Geneva
International Committee of the Red Cross - Geneva
Copies to:
Office of The UN Secretary General – New York
The Permanent Missions of the Members of the UN Security Council – New
York
Belgrade, August 29, 2003
Dear Sirs,
As an NGO dealing with issues of human rights, democracy and
peace, a pending member of The World Peace Council, we would like to
draw your attention and urge your immediate reaction to protect life,
health and fundamental rights of the long term democratically elected
President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of the Republic of
Serbia Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, presently detained in UN Detention Unit
at The Hague, The Netherlands.
The most extensive specialist medical report about the
health condition of President Milosevic in detention, made on November
18, 2002 by the cardiologist Dr P. R. M. van Dijkman, appointed by the
ICTY says:
“Essential hypertension with secondary organ damage:
hypertrophy of the left ventricle. (...) In recent weeks during trial
again steep increase in blood pressure up to around 220/130 mmHg. (...)
During the tiring process of the trial, Mr Milosevic experiences a
condition that looks like hypertensive urgency.
(…)
Reducing (seriously) increased blood pressure also reduces
the possibility of coronary disease, cerebrovascular accident, heart
attack and death. (…)
It can be concluded that with combination of sufficient rest
and medication the level of Mr. Milosevic’s blood pressure will be an
acceptable one. (…)
I agree (…) that the pressure of the trial may lead to
extreme exhaustion on the part of Mr. Milosevic. (…)
I leave it to the Tribunal to decide in what way sufficient
rest periods can be incorporated in the trial.”
In February 2003, President Milosevic has been examined also
by a specialists’ medical team form Belgrade. Serbian doctors agreed
with their Dutch colleagues appointed by ICTY that the health situation
of President Milosevic requires regular specialists’ monitoring. But
since then, in spite our many times repeated requests, there was no
more specialists’ examination and the access of the Belgrade doctors to
President Milosevic was denied.
With the lack of proper medical care, with the denial to the
Belgrade doctors to perform regular check-ups, and with the trial
burden (two years lasting prosecution case with at least five hours of
every day court sessions) in obvious contradiction with the above
doctor’s recommendation, the ICTY as a subsidiary organ of the UN
Security Council, bears great responsibility for the life and health of
President Milosevic and acts in violation to UN documents securing the
fundamental human rights.
There are also other examples of arbitrary and illegal
behavior of ICTY in relation to President Milosevic, such as their
recent decision to ban all the visits of his close associates.
We are convinced that only the provisional release of
President Milosevic for medical treatment and recuperation, can secure
his life and health and can secure that the truth will be achieved in
the subsequent continuation of the process.
For further information, we can be reached by phones +381 63
8862 301 and +381 11 630 206 and by fax +381 11 630 549.
We call you upon to act in accordance with your
responsibilities and to act urgently.
Respe
ctfully,
On behalf of Freedom
Association,
Bogoljub Bjelica,
president
---
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.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
Towards the November 8th Demonstration in Den Haag
(english - Portuguese)
All the following documents have been forwarded to us by the SLOBODA
Association, Belgrade: http://www.sloboda.org.yu/
1. DEMONSTRATIONS
at The Hague, on November 8, 2003
2. Brazilian Workers for President Milosevic
3. Sloboda appeal to humanitarian organizations and UN
=== 1 ===
(download this leaflet at:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/AIA/
Nov8Leaflet.doc
Nov8Poziv.doc na srpskohrvatskom
Nov8latPoziv.doc isto latinicom)
SLOBODA udruzenje - FREEDOM association
YUGOSLAV COMMITTEE FOR THE LIBERATION OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Belgrade, Rajiceva 16, tel./fax +381-11-630549
Our demonstrations held on June 28 at The Hague delivered our demands
to the “tribunal” and to UN, under which formal auspices this
institution acts. It is not only that our main demands have not been
fulfilled, but also the human rights violation record of the “tribunal”
became even worse. For that reason SLOBODA/Freedom Association endorses
the call of the Serbian-International Organizational Committee to hold
new
DEMONSTRATIONS
at The Hague, on November 8, 2003
«By the terror and tyranny they try to prevent, or at least minimize,
the obvious fiasco of the false tribunal, which is serving as the
weapon of war against our country and our people. Nothing new! As
Montesquieu wrote in 1742: “There is no crueler tyranny than one
perpetrated under the shield of law, and in the name of justice.” »
Slobodan Milosevic, 17 August 2003
The “tribunal” at The Hague is not an instrument of justice, but of
aggression and war;
The “tribunal” at The Hague attempts to falsify Serbian history, to
retaliate against the freedom fighters and to protect the perpetrators
of the policies of war and colonization, condemned by the whole World;
The “tribunal” at The Hague, by its terror against Serbian people and
President Milosevic and by the persecution of his family and
associates, attempts to silence the truth;
A court which violates the human rights in the way the “tribunal” does,
should not exist in any democratic and civilized country;
For the existence of such “tribunal” most responsible are the
governments USA and UK, but also of the other UN Security Council
permanent member states;
In the Autumn 70 years ago, “The Third Reich” “tried” Dimitrov. On
November 8, 65 years ago, one of the biggest Nazi crimes was committed
– the “Crystal Night” of pogrom. Killing nations – never again!
Therefore:
FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC!
*WE CALL UPON ALL THE PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE AND
ORGANIZATIONS IN EUROPE AND WORLD WIDE TO JOIN US!
The demos and the struggle for these goals need the financial
assistance.
Send a check to our address or transfer your donation to the following
account:
German ICDSM, c/o Peter Betscher, Account Number (Konto-Nr.): 102013409
Bank: Volksbank Darmstadt, Bank Number (BLZ): 508 90 000, use: defense
=== 2 ===
URL for this article is: http://www.icdsm.org/more/brazil.htm
Brazilian Workers for President Milosevic
In the protest letter sent today to the Hague tribunal, Antonio Neto,
President of the General Confederation of Trade Unions of Brazil
(Central Geral dos Trabalhadores, CGTB), one of the main trade union
organizations in Brazil, expresses indignation against the recent
decision to ban visits to President Milosevic. Brazilian workers
condemn NATO crimes and the tribunal as an instrument of US government.
The letter demands rights of President Milosevic to be guaranteed,
including the right of access to media.
Bellow is complete text of the letter and the link to the Portuguese
translation of the speech of President Milosevic delivered after the
end of 1999 NATO military aggression, published in CGTB newspaper “Hora
do Povo”.
CENTRAL
GERALDOS TRABALHADORES
Filiada à Federação Sindical Mundial – FSM
São Paulo, August 29, 2003
Mr. Hans Holthuis, Registrar
ICTY, The Hague, The Netherlands
Dear Mr. Holthuis,
The General Confederation of Trade Unions of Brazil - CGTB - finds it
necessary to express its indignation against the recent Hague tribunal
decision to ban visits to President Milosevic.
That arbitrary decision furthermore, reinforces the idea shared by wide
sections of the international public opinion that The Hague tribunal
was created with the sole objective of condemning President Milosevic
to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the crimes committed
by EUA/NATO when, in less than 90 days, they threw 25 thousand tons of
bombs on Yugoslavia murdering 5 thousand civilians and wounding another
10 thousand, of which 40% were children.
In the 3rd Congress of our Confederation, which took place in March of
2002, the Brazilian workers were aware of the crimes practiced by
EUA/NATO. They condemned the foreign aggressor and they questioned the
role of The Hague tribunal, considering it one more instrument
controlled by the government of the USA.
Today, after the attack on Iraq, all the people in the world are aware
of the farce that is set up by the North American administration to
justify the invasion of a sovereign country and to guarantee with that
their own interests. Therefore, if The Hague tribunal continues acting
in an arbitrary and unilateral way as it is doing, it is taking the
serious risk of becoming totally discredited.
In this sense, we consider it indispensable that The Hague tribunal
should respect the broad rights of defense and of visit of President
Milosevic and guarantee immediately his right of access to media, a
right that is today insured to the prosecution by the tribunal at any
time.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Neto President CGTB
Vice-president of World Federation of Trade
Union
Maria Pimentel Secret. of Inter. Relations of CGTB
---
Iugoslávia heróica derrota desmembramento de Kosovo
"Nós năo apenas defendemos nosso país, mas trouxemos de volta ao
cenário internacional a ONU. Esta é a nossa contribuiçăo ao mundo. O
heroísmo de nosso povo na resistęncia ao inimigo, muitas vezes mais
forte e maior, marcará o fim do século 20"
O altivo discurso do presidente Milosevic (HORA DO POVO)
*** Read the whole speech in Portuguese:
http://www.horadopovo.com.br/matesp/mat13.htm ***
=== 3 ===
To:
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – Geneva
World Health Organization – Geneva
International Committee of the Red Cross - Geneva
Copies to:
Office of The UN Secretary General – New York
The Permanent Missions of the Members of the UN Security Council – New
York
Belgrade, August 29, 2003
Dear Sirs,
As an NGO dealing with issues of human rights, democracy and
peace, a pending member of The World Peace Council, we would like to
draw your attention and urge your immediate reaction to protect life,
health and fundamental rights of the long term democratically elected
President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of the Republic of
Serbia Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, presently detained in UN Detention Unit
at The Hague, The Netherlands.
The most extensive specialist medical report about the
health condition of President Milosevic in detention, made on November
18, 2002 by the cardiologist Dr P. R. M. van Dijkman, appointed by the
ICTY says:
“Essential hypertension with secondary organ damage:
hypertrophy of the left ventricle. (...) In recent weeks during trial
again steep increase in blood pressure up to around 220/130 mmHg. (...)
During the tiring process of the trial, Mr Milosevic experiences a
condition that looks like hypertensive urgency.
(…)
Reducing (seriously) increased blood pressure also reduces
the possibility of coronary disease, cerebrovascular accident, heart
attack and death. (…)
It can be concluded that with combination of sufficient rest
and medication the level of Mr. Milosevic’s blood pressure will be an
acceptable one. (…)
I agree (…) that the pressure of the trial may lead to
extreme exhaustion on the part of Mr. Milosevic. (…)
I leave it to the Tribunal to decide in what way sufficient
rest periods can be incorporated in the trial.”
In February 2003, President Milosevic has been examined also
by a specialists’ medical team form Belgrade. Serbian doctors agreed
with their Dutch colleagues appointed by ICTY that the health situation
of President Milosevic requires regular specialists’ monitoring. But
since then, in spite our many times repeated requests, there was no
more specialists’ examination and the access of the Belgrade doctors to
President Milosevic was denied.
With the lack of proper medical care, with the denial to the
Belgrade doctors to perform regular check-ups, and with the trial
burden (two years lasting prosecution case with at least five hours of
every day court sessions) in obvious contradiction with the above
doctor’s recommendation, the ICTY as a subsidiary organ of the UN
Security Council, bears great responsibility for the life and health of
President Milosevic and acts in violation to UN documents securing the
fundamental human rights.
There are also other examples of arbitrary and illegal
behavior of ICTY in relation to President Milosevic, such as their
recent decision to ban all the visits of his close associates.
We are convinced that only the provisional release of
President Milosevic for medical treatment and recuperation, can secure
his life and health and can secure that the truth will be achieved in
the subsequent continuation of the process.
For further information, we can be reached by phones +381 63
8862 301 and +381 11 630 206 and by fax +381 11 630 549.
We call you upon to act in accordance with your
responsibilities and to act urgently.
Respe
ctfully,
On behalf of Freedom
Association,
Bogoljub Bjelica,
president
---
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.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
(english / srpskohrvatski)
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
---
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Belgrade, 30 August 2003
Almost all domestic – as well as foreign – media inform us these days
that former admiral of the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) Miodrag Jokic
pleaded guilty to six accounts of the indictment of the prosecution of
the so-called Hague tribunal for "violation of the laws and custom of
war" on Dubrovnik area in Yugoslavia in October 1991 for (1) murder,
(2) cruel treatment, (3) attacs on civilians, (4) exessive use of force
and (5) destruction of historic buildings. It is about bombardement of
Dubrovnik on December 6, 1991, when 2 civilians were killed and 3
wounded. As a result of a deal with Jokic, the Prosecution abandonded
all other caunts contained in the initial idictment of Febrauary 22,
2001 against him and other three officers of the YPA – Pavle Strugar,
Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. On his first appearence before the
Tribunal on November 14, 2001, he pleaded not guilty to all 9 counts.
As a result of the deal the Prosecution wrote a new amanded indictment
bearing the date of March 31, 2003.
One of the reasons that the case provokes interst in domestic and
foreign media is that it is the first time that that a high officer of
the YPA pleads gulty before the Hague tribual for former Yugoslavia,
changing his mind.
What is in the initial idictment?
As we already mentioned, it is about the indictment of February 22,
2001, which idicts also three other officers of the YPA – Pavle
Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. Reading that indictment one
cannot just believe his eyes.
Namely, all four officers of the YPA are indicted for serious
violations of Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws and customs
of war!!
Because the prosecution was aware taht these criminal offences could be
committed only in an international armed conflict, it was a conditio
sine qua non to caracterize that armed conflict on the Dubrovnik area
between Yugoslav legal and legitimate authorities with the Croatian
secessionist ustasha paramilitaries as an armed conflict of
international character!! No problem for the prosecutor: she simply
characterze it as a conflict of international character. The
prosecution simply wrote in the initial indictment:
"All the acts and omissions specified in this indictment took place
between October 1 and December 31, 1991 on the territory of the
Republic of Croatia. In all relevant periods there existed the state of
international armed conflict and partial occupation". And even more
explicitly in the amanded indictment (paragraph 10): "10. At all times
relevant to this amended indictment, a state of armed conflict existed
in Croatia. On 25 June 1991, Croatia declared its independence from the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY") and became
independent on 8 October 1991. Up to and including 7 October 1991, this
armed conflict was internal in nature. >From 8 October 1991 an
international armed conflict and partial occupation existed in
Croatia."!!
No proofs for such categorical statement were offered. Naturally
enough, because they do not exist. Everybody who wishes to know knows
that in Croatia in the relevant period of time – that is between the
October 1st and December 31, 1991 – existed armed secessionist mutiny
in which all Army's barracks and institutions on the territory of
Croatia, including the Dubrovnik area, were attacked and that the YPA
had to defend itself . It was a typical internal armed conflict, and
such conflicts are regulated by the common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions 1949 and Additional Protocol II of 1977, and not by the
Geneva and Hague Conventions which regulate international armed
conflicts.
With regard to the above statement of the prosecutor Carla del Ponte
that Croatia seceded Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, one must point to the
cynicism of such a statement. The act of Croatia, it is known, was
unconstitutional and legally of no validity whatsoever. She is not
stupid, and knows very well that if in her country, Switzerland, a
canton adopted such a decision that all normal Swiss would laugh and
that the authorities would act swiftly. She doubtlessly knows how
Lincoln reacted when Southern states used unconstitutional means to
secede. She surely knows how would every state react in the case of
unconstitutional armed secession and how in political realm they react.
What this immoral woman is telling us is: yes, every state and every
nation has right to use force against armed secession, EXCEPT those
damned Serbs! She knew all that and what such a behavior of the
pro-ustashas HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) especially meant for the
Serbs in Croatia who were during the Second World War subject of a
genocide unknown in human history for its cruelty. She only pretends to
be stupid in order to satisfy her masters. Also, taking the October 8,
1991, as a date when Croatia became an independent state is utmost
cynicism. In all probability, it is reference to a so-called Brioni
declaration of July 7, 1991, when, under pressure, deceit and lies of
European Community it was agreed that Slovenia would not press for its
independence within 3 months in order to solve the problems peacefully.
But, it has nothing to do with Croatia's independence.
Therefore, there is no basis to consider the conflict between YPA and
ustashas paramilitaries between October 1 and December 31, 1991 as a
conflict of an international character, but consider it as a typical
internal, secessionist conflict. The first, naturally illegal,
recognition of a new "Independent State of Croatia" came from its
sponsors and masters from the West only on the January 15, 1992, and
cowardly General Assembly, under the command of the USA, which,
precisely at that time took it under its patronage, enrolled that
secessionist entity in the UN. If there is any reason to speak about
legality of diplomatic recognition of Yugoslav secessionist entities as
independent states (there are numerous resolutions of the General
Assembly of the UN about prohibition and non-recognition of the violent
dismemberment of states!!) it could be done only after the admission of
an entity into the UN. Therefore, in the case of Croatia – only after
May 22, 1992.
Therefore, Miodrag Jokic agreed to accept non-existent guilt. Let us
repeat: "war crimes" technically could be committed only in a conflict
of an international character. In civil, internal conflict the criteria
for judging whether actions of state organs which are constitutionally
in charge of protecting state and citizens from internal separatists,
secessionists and terrorists are different, less demanding than those
when there are conflicts among states. Those situations are, as we
said, covered with the common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol II, and not with the remaining provisions of the
Geneva and Hague Conventions of 1907. That should be known to every law
student. This is not the place to speak about those laws. Surely all
that is known to Carla del Ponte, but that woman takes care only how to
satisfy her masters who reward her generously for her undertakings.
What is astonishing is the behavior of Miodrag Jokic, behavior which is
unworthy of a high YPA officer, although former. In all probability the
answer to the question how it all happened lies in the pressure to
which he was subject by those political factors in the current power
holders whose main aim is to submit to demands which come from abroad,
whose aim is to fully submit the state and the nation to foreign
interests and discredit not only its military but also the nation as a
whole.
---
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30_1.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 30. avgust 2003. godine
Gotovo sva domaca – pa i strana – sredstva javnog inforrmisanja
objavila su informaciju da je bivši admiral JNA Miodrag Jokic priznao
krivicu po šest tacaka optužbe za kršenje zakona i obicaja rata na
dubrovackom ratištu u oktobru 1991. godine, i to za (1) ubistva, (2)
okrutno postupanje, (3) protivpravne napade na civile, (4) prekomerna
upotreba vojne sile, (5) razaranje civilnih objekata i (6) uništavanje
sakralnih objekata i kulturne baštine. Rec je o bombardovanju
Dubrovnika na dan 6. decembra 1991. godine, kojom prilikom su dva
civila poginula, a tri su ranjena. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa Tužilaštvom,
ono je odustalo od svih ostalih tacaka optužnice protiv Jokica koje
sadržava prvobitna optužnica protiv njega i još trojice oficira JNA –
Pavla Strugara, Vladimira Kovacevica i Milana Zeca – od 22. februara
2001 (br. IT-01-42). Sve optužbe po toj optužnici je Jokic na svom
prvom pojavljivanju pred tim "tribunalom" 14. novembra 2001. godine
odbacio, rekavši da se ne oseca krivim. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa
Jokicem, i odustanka od optužbe protiv Zeca, tužilaštvo je napravilo
novu, amandiranu optužnicu koja nosi datum 31. mart 2003.
Slucaj izaziva interes u domacoj i stranoj javnosti pre svega po tome
što je to prvi slucaj da pred tzv. Haškim tribunalom za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju jedan visoki oficir Jugoslovenske narodne armije priznaje
krivicu, tim pre što je ranije poricao krivicu.
Šta sadrži optužnice iz 2001. godine
Kao što rekosmo, rec je o optužnici od 22.2. 2001. kojom su ubuhvaceni
još trojica oficira JNA – Pavle Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic i Milan
Zec. Kada covek cita tu optužnicu, koju je licno potpisala glavni
tužiulac toga nazovi suda Karla del Ponte, naprosto ne može da veruje
svojim ocima.
Naime, sva cetvorica oficira JNA optuženi su za teška kršenja Ženevskih
konvencija i kršenje zakona i obicaja rata!
Buduci da je tužilac svestan toga da se ta krivicna dela mogu pociniti
samo u oružanom sukobu medunarodnog karaktera bilo je nužno taj oružani
sukob na dubrovackom prostoru izmedu legalne i legitimne oružane sile
države koju su oružano napale secesionisticke paravojne formacije
okarakterisati kao "oružani sukob medunarodnog karaktera". Za tužioca
tog "tribunala" ništa lakše od toga: jednostavno je taj sukob
okarakterisala kao medunarodni! Tužilac jednostavno veli u tackama 12 i
13 optužnice:
"Sva cinjenja i necinjenja navedena u ovoj optužnici dogodila su se
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. na teritoriji Republike
Hrvatske. U svim periodima relevantnim za ovu optužnicu Hrvatskoj je
vladalo stanje medunarodnog oružanog sukoba i djelimicne okupacije"!! A
u amandiranoj optužnici od 31.marta 2003. još eksplicitnije stoji
(tacka 10): "10. Za sve vreme relevantno za ovu optužnicu postojalo je
u Hrvatskoj stanje oružanog sukoba. Na dan 25. juna 1991. Hrvatsaka je
proglasila svoju nezavisnost od Socijalisticke Federativne Jugoslavije
("SFRJ") i postala nezavisna na dan 8. oktobra 1991. Sve do 7. oktobra
1991. ovaj oružani sukob bio je po svojoj prirodi interni. Od 8.
oktobra 1991. postojao je medunarodni oružani sukob, kao i delimicna
okupacija Hrvatske"!!
Nikakvi se dokazi ne navode. Naravno, jer ih nema. Sakome ko to hoce da
zna dobro je poznato da je u Hrvatskoj u naznacenom periodu – dakle
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991 – bila ustaška secesionisticka
oružana pobuna u kojoj su izmedu ostalog bile napadnute sve kasarne i
postaje JNA na teritoriji te jugoslovenske republike i da se JNA
branila od tih i takvih napada na celoj teritoriji Hrvatske, pa i na
dubrovackom podrucju. Radilo se o tipicnom oružanom sukobu
nemedunarodnog karaktera, a ti i takvi sukobu su regulisani zajednickim
clanom 3 Ženevskih konvencija iz 1949. godine i Dopunskim protokolam II
iz 1977. godine, a ne ženevskim i haškim konvencijama koje se odnose na
medunarodne oružane sukobe.
U vezi sa gornjim stavom tužiteljice Karla del Ponte da se Hrvatska
otcepila od SFRJ 25. juna 1991. mora se ukazati na cinizam takve
tvrdnje. Taj akt Hrvatske, kao što se zna, bio je protivustavan i
pravno nevažeci. Ona nije glupa, i vrlo dobro zna da ako bi neki kanton
u njenoj zemlju, Švajcarskoj, usvojio slicnu odluku da bi to izazvalo
smeh svih normalnih ljudi, ali bogami i akciju vlasti od koje bi se sve
dimilo. Ona nesumnjivo zna kako je Linkoln reagovao kada je došlo do
protivustavne oružane secesije južnih država SAD. Zna ona kako bi svaka
država reagovala, i kako reaguje. Ono što nama ova nemoralna žena
porucuje jeste: svaka država i svaki narod imaju pravo da na oružanu
secesiju reaguju silom, OSIM kada se radi o tim prokletim Srbima! Ona
sve to zna, i to kakva se oluja spremala takvim ponašanjem proustaškog
HDZ u Hrvatskoj, a posebno u odnosu na Srbe u Hrvatskoj koji su za
vreme Drugog svetskog rata tamo doživeli genocid kakvom nema ravna u
istoriji zlocina po svojoj okrutnosti. A pravi se blesava, samo da bi
udovoljila svojim nalogodnacima. Isto tako, uzimanje 8. oktobra 1991.
kao datuma kada je Hrvatska postala država je krajnji cinizam. Rec je
verovatno o stavu izrecenom u Brionskoj deklaraciji od 7. jula 1991. –
koju je Jugoslaviji nametnula EZ – kojom se pre svega Slovenija
obavezala na strpljivost i mirno raspetljavanje jugoslovenske krize u
naredna tri meseca. Ta deklaracija nema nikakve vezee sa datumom kada
su jugoslovenski secesionisticki entiteti postali države.
Dakle, nema nikakvog osnova smatrati da je sukob izmedu JNA i ustaških
paravojski izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. bio sukob
medunarodnog karaktera, vec se radilo o tipicnom unutrašnjem
secesionistickom sukobu. Prvo, naravno nelegalno, diplomatsko priznanje
nove "Nezavisne Države Hrvatske" dolazi od njenih zapadnih pokrovitelja
i nalogodavaca tek 15. januara 1992, a kukavna Generalna skupština UN,
pod komandom SAD koje su upravo u to vreme potpuno preuzele UN pod
svoje, prima taj secesionisticki entitet u UN. Ako ima ikakvog smisla
govoriti o bilo kakvoj legalnosti diplomatskog priznavanja
jugoslovenskih secessionistickih entiteta za nezavisne države (postoji
nekoliko rezolucija Generalne skupštine UN kojima se osuduju i ne
priznaje protivustavna nasilna komadanja država!!) onda se o tome može
govoriti samo nakon prijema takvih entiteta u UN. Dakle, kada je rec o
Hrvatskoj – samo nakon 22. maja 1992.
Prema tome, Miodrag Jokic je pristao da na sebe primi nepostojecu
krivicu. Ponovimo: "ratni zlocini" tehnicki se mogu pociniti samo u
oružanom sukobu (ratu) medunarodnog karaktera. U gradanskom,
unutrašnjem sukobu kriteriji za prosudivanje postupaka državnih organa
cija je dužnost da zaštite državu i narod od unutašnjih separatista,
secesionista i terorista su drukciji, manje zahtevni, od onih koji se
moraju poštivati kada je rec o oružanom sukobu (ratu) izmedu država. Te
situacije su, kao što rekosmo, "pokrivene" zajednickim clanom 3 sve
cetiri Ženevske konvencije i Dopunskim protokolom II, a ne ostalim
odredbama ženevskih konvencija i haškim konvencijama iz 1907. To bi
trebalo da zna svaki student prve godine prava. Ovde nije mesto da se
detaljnije govori o tim pravnim propisima. Sigurno je to poznato i
Karli del Ponte, ali ta žena ne vodi racuna ni o cemu vec da se dodvori
svojim gazdama koji je izdašno nagraduju za njen "rad". Ono što
zaprepašcuje jeste ponašanje Miodrga Jokica, ponašanje koje je
nedostojno visokog oficira JNA, makar bivšeg. Verovatno odgovor na
pitanje kako je došlo do toga da se upusti u necasnu rabotu sa
tužiulaštvom "tribunala" leži u pritiscima na njega od strane onih
politickih faktora u aktuelnoj vlasti kojima je glavni cilj pokoravanje
svim zahtevima koja dolaze od mocnika izvana, onima kojima je cilj
potpuno podredivanje zemlje stranim interesima i kompromitacija ne samo
njene oružane sile nego i naroda kao takvog.
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
---
ON PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADMIRAL MIODRAG JOKIC BEFORE SO-CALLED HAGUE
TRIBUNAL
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Belgrade, 30 August 2003
Almost all domestic – as well as foreign – media inform us these days
that former admiral of the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) Miodrag Jokic
pleaded guilty to six accounts of the indictment of the prosecution of
the so-called Hague tribunal for "violation of the laws and custom of
war" on Dubrovnik area in Yugoslavia in October 1991 for (1) murder,
(2) cruel treatment, (3) attacs on civilians, (4) exessive use of force
and (5) destruction of historic buildings. It is about bombardement of
Dubrovnik on December 6, 1991, when 2 civilians were killed and 3
wounded. As a result of a deal with Jokic, the Prosecution abandonded
all other caunts contained in the initial idictment of Febrauary 22,
2001 against him and other three officers of the YPA – Pavle Strugar,
Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. On his first appearence before the
Tribunal on November 14, 2001, he pleaded not guilty to all 9 counts.
As a result of the deal the Prosecution wrote a new amanded indictment
bearing the date of March 31, 2003.
One of the reasons that the case provokes interst in domestic and
foreign media is that it is the first time that that a high officer of
the YPA pleads gulty before the Hague tribual for former Yugoslavia,
changing his mind.
What is in the initial idictment?
As we already mentioned, it is about the indictment of February 22,
2001, which idicts also three other officers of the YPA – Pavle
Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic and Milan Zec. Reading that indictment one
cannot just believe his eyes.
Namely, all four officers of the YPA are indicted for serious
violations of Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws and customs
of war!!
Because the prosecution was aware taht these criminal offences could be
committed only in an international armed conflict, it was a conditio
sine qua non to caracterize that armed conflict on the Dubrovnik area
between Yugoslav legal and legitimate authorities with the Croatian
secessionist ustasha paramilitaries as an armed conflict of
international character!! No problem for the prosecutor: she simply
characterze it as a conflict of international character. The
prosecution simply wrote in the initial indictment:
"All the acts and omissions specified in this indictment took place
between October 1 and December 31, 1991 on the territory of the
Republic of Croatia. In all relevant periods there existed the state of
international armed conflict and partial occupation". And even more
explicitly in the amanded indictment (paragraph 10): "10. At all times
relevant to this amended indictment, a state of armed conflict existed
in Croatia. On 25 June 1991, Croatia declared its independence from the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY") and became
independent on 8 October 1991. Up to and including 7 October 1991, this
armed conflict was internal in nature. >From 8 October 1991 an
international armed conflict and partial occupation existed in
Croatia."!!
No proofs for such categorical statement were offered. Naturally
enough, because they do not exist. Everybody who wishes to know knows
that in Croatia in the relevant period of time – that is between the
October 1st and December 31, 1991 – existed armed secessionist mutiny
in which all Army's barracks and institutions on the territory of
Croatia, including the Dubrovnik area, were attacked and that the YPA
had to defend itself . It was a typical internal armed conflict, and
such conflicts are regulated by the common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions 1949 and Additional Protocol II of 1977, and not by the
Geneva and Hague Conventions which regulate international armed
conflicts.
With regard to the above statement of the prosecutor Carla del Ponte
that Croatia seceded Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, one must point to the
cynicism of such a statement. The act of Croatia, it is known, was
unconstitutional and legally of no validity whatsoever. She is not
stupid, and knows very well that if in her country, Switzerland, a
canton adopted such a decision that all normal Swiss would laugh and
that the authorities would act swiftly. She doubtlessly knows how
Lincoln reacted when Southern states used unconstitutional means to
secede. She surely knows how would every state react in the case of
unconstitutional armed secession and how in political realm they react.
What this immoral woman is telling us is: yes, every state and every
nation has right to use force against armed secession, EXCEPT those
damned Serbs! She knew all that and what such a behavior of the
pro-ustashas HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) especially meant for the
Serbs in Croatia who were during the Second World War subject of a
genocide unknown in human history for its cruelty. She only pretends to
be stupid in order to satisfy her masters. Also, taking the October 8,
1991, as a date when Croatia became an independent state is utmost
cynicism. In all probability, it is reference to a so-called Brioni
declaration of July 7, 1991, when, under pressure, deceit and lies of
European Community it was agreed that Slovenia would not press for its
independence within 3 months in order to solve the problems peacefully.
But, it has nothing to do with Croatia's independence.
Therefore, there is no basis to consider the conflict between YPA and
ustashas paramilitaries between October 1 and December 31, 1991 as a
conflict of an international character, but consider it as a typical
internal, secessionist conflict. The first, naturally illegal,
recognition of a new "Independent State of Croatia" came from its
sponsors and masters from the West only on the January 15, 1992, and
cowardly General Assembly, under the command of the USA, which,
precisely at that time took it under its patronage, enrolled that
secessionist entity in the UN. If there is any reason to speak about
legality of diplomatic recognition of Yugoslav secessionist entities as
independent states (there are numerous resolutions of the General
Assembly of the UN about prohibition and non-recognition of the violent
dismemberment of states!!) it could be done only after the admission of
an entity into the UN. Therefore, in the case of Croatia – only after
May 22, 1992.
Therefore, Miodrag Jokic agreed to accept non-existent guilt. Let us
repeat: "war crimes" technically could be committed only in a conflict
of an international character. In civil, internal conflict the criteria
for judging whether actions of state organs which are constitutionally
in charge of protecting state and citizens from internal separatists,
secessionists and terrorists are different, less demanding than those
when there are conflicts among states. Those situations are, as we
said, covered with the common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol II, and not with the remaining provisions of the
Geneva and Hague Conventions of 1907. That should be known to every law
student. This is not the place to speak about those laws. Surely all
that is known to Carla del Ponte, but that woman takes care only how to
satisfy her masters who reward her generously for her undertakings.
What is astonishing is the behavior of Miodrag Jokic, behavior which is
unworthy of a high YPA officer, although former. In all probability the
answer to the question how it all happened lies in the pressure to
which he was subject by those political factors in the current power
holders whose main aim is to submit to demands which come from abroad,
whose aim is to fully submit the state and the nation to foreign
interests and discredit not only its military but also the nation as a
whole.
---
O POSTUPKU PROTIV ADMIRALA JNA MIODRADA JOKICA PRED TZV. HAŠKIM
TRIBUNALOM
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/reakcije_citalaca/2003-08-30_1.html
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 30. avgust 2003. godine
Gotovo sva domaca – pa i strana – sredstva javnog inforrmisanja
objavila su informaciju da je bivši admiral JNA Miodrag Jokic priznao
krivicu po šest tacaka optužbe za kršenje zakona i obicaja rata na
dubrovackom ratištu u oktobru 1991. godine, i to za (1) ubistva, (2)
okrutno postupanje, (3) protivpravne napade na civile, (4) prekomerna
upotreba vojne sile, (5) razaranje civilnih objekata i (6) uništavanje
sakralnih objekata i kulturne baštine. Rec je o bombardovanju
Dubrovnika na dan 6. decembra 1991. godine, kojom prilikom su dva
civila poginula, a tri su ranjena. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa Tužilaštvom,
ono je odustalo od svih ostalih tacaka optužnice protiv Jokica koje
sadržava prvobitna optužnica protiv njega i još trojice oficira JNA –
Pavla Strugara, Vladimira Kovacevica i Milana Zeca – od 22. februara
2001 (br. IT-01-42). Sve optužbe po toj optužnici je Jokic na svom
prvom pojavljivanju pred tim "tribunalom" 14. novembra 2001. godine
odbacio, rekavši da se ne oseca krivim. Kao rezultat nagodbe sa
Jokicem, i odustanka od optužbe protiv Zeca, tužilaštvo je napravilo
novu, amandiranu optužnicu koja nosi datum 31. mart 2003.
Slucaj izaziva interes u domacoj i stranoj javnosti pre svega po tome
što je to prvi slucaj da pred tzv. Haškim tribunalom za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju jedan visoki oficir Jugoslovenske narodne armije priznaje
krivicu, tim pre što je ranije poricao krivicu.
Šta sadrži optužnice iz 2001. godine
Kao što rekosmo, rec je o optužnici od 22.2. 2001. kojom su ubuhvaceni
još trojica oficira JNA – Pavle Strugar, Vladimir Kovacevic i Milan
Zec. Kada covek cita tu optužnicu, koju je licno potpisala glavni
tužiulac toga nazovi suda Karla del Ponte, naprosto ne može da veruje
svojim ocima.
Naime, sva cetvorica oficira JNA optuženi su za teška kršenja Ženevskih
konvencija i kršenje zakona i obicaja rata!
Buduci da je tužilac svestan toga da se ta krivicna dela mogu pociniti
samo u oružanom sukobu medunarodnog karaktera bilo je nužno taj oružani
sukob na dubrovackom prostoru izmedu legalne i legitimne oružane sile
države koju su oružano napale secesionisticke paravojne formacije
okarakterisati kao "oružani sukob medunarodnog karaktera". Za tužioca
tog "tribunala" ništa lakše od toga: jednostavno je taj sukob
okarakterisala kao medunarodni! Tužilac jednostavno veli u tackama 12 i
13 optužnice:
"Sva cinjenja i necinjenja navedena u ovoj optužnici dogodila su se
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. na teritoriji Republike
Hrvatske. U svim periodima relevantnim za ovu optužnicu Hrvatskoj je
vladalo stanje medunarodnog oružanog sukoba i djelimicne okupacije"!! A
u amandiranoj optužnici od 31.marta 2003. još eksplicitnije stoji
(tacka 10): "10. Za sve vreme relevantno za ovu optužnicu postojalo je
u Hrvatskoj stanje oružanog sukoba. Na dan 25. juna 1991. Hrvatsaka je
proglasila svoju nezavisnost od Socijalisticke Federativne Jugoslavije
("SFRJ") i postala nezavisna na dan 8. oktobra 1991. Sve do 7. oktobra
1991. ovaj oružani sukob bio je po svojoj prirodi interni. Od 8.
oktobra 1991. postojao je medunarodni oružani sukob, kao i delimicna
okupacija Hrvatske"!!
Nikakvi se dokazi ne navode. Naravno, jer ih nema. Sakome ko to hoce da
zna dobro je poznato da je u Hrvatskoj u naznacenom periodu – dakle
izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991 – bila ustaška secesionisticka
oružana pobuna u kojoj su izmedu ostalog bile napadnute sve kasarne i
postaje JNA na teritoriji te jugoslovenske republike i da se JNA
branila od tih i takvih napada na celoj teritoriji Hrvatske, pa i na
dubrovackom podrucju. Radilo se o tipicnom oružanom sukobu
nemedunarodnog karaktera, a ti i takvi sukobu su regulisani zajednickim
clanom 3 Ženevskih konvencija iz 1949. godine i Dopunskim protokolam II
iz 1977. godine, a ne ženevskim i haškim konvencijama koje se odnose na
medunarodne oružane sukobe.
U vezi sa gornjim stavom tužiteljice Karla del Ponte da se Hrvatska
otcepila od SFRJ 25. juna 1991. mora se ukazati na cinizam takve
tvrdnje. Taj akt Hrvatske, kao što se zna, bio je protivustavan i
pravno nevažeci. Ona nije glupa, i vrlo dobro zna da ako bi neki kanton
u njenoj zemlju, Švajcarskoj, usvojio slicnu odluku da bi to izazvalo
smeh svih normalnih ljudi, ali bogami i akciju vlasti od koje bi se sve
dimilo. Ona nesumnjivo zna kako je Linkoln reagovao kada je došlo do
protivustavne oružane secesije južnih država SAD. Zna ona kako bi svaka
država reagovala, i kako reaguje. Ono što nama ova nemoralna žena
porucuje jeste: svaka država i svaki narod imaju pravo da na oružanu
secesiju reaguju silom, OSIM kada se radi o tim prokletim Srbima! Ona
sve to zna, i to kakva se oluja spremala takvim ponašanjem proustaškog
HDZ u Hrvatskoj, a posebno u odnosu na Srbe u Hrvatskoj koji su za
vreme Drugog svetskog rata tamo doživeli genocid kakvom nema ravna u
istoriji zlocina po svojoj okrutnosti. A pravi se blesava, samo da bi
udovoljila svojim nalogodnacima. Isto tako, uzimanje 8. oktobra 1991.
kao datuma kada je Hrvatska postala država je krajnji cinizam. Rec je
verovatno o stavu izrecenom u Brionskoj deklaraciji od 7. jula 1991. –
koju je Jugoslaviji nametnula EZ – kojom se pre svega Slovenija
obavezala na strpljivost i mirno raspetljavanje jugoslovenske krize u
naredna tri meseca. Ta deklaracija nema nikakve vezee sa datumom kada
su jugoslovenski secesionisticki entiteti postali države.
Dakle, nema nikakvog osnova smatrati da je sukob izmedu JNA i ustaških
paravojski izmedu 1. oktobra i 31. decembra 1991. bio sukob
medunarodnog karaktera, vec se radilo o tipicnom unutrašnjem
secesionistickom sukobu. Prvo, naravno nelegalno, diplomatsko priznanje
nove "Nezavisne Države Hrvatske" dolazi od njenih zapadnih pokrovitelja
i nalogodavaca tek 15. januara 1992, a kukavna Generalna skupština UN,
pod komandom SAD koje su upravo u to vreme potpuno preuzele UN pod
svoje, prima taj secesionisticki entitet u UN. Ako ima ikakvog smisla
govoriti o bilo kakvoj legalnosti diplomatskog priznavanja
jugoslovenskih secessionistickih entiteta za nezavisne države (postoji
nekoliko rezolucija Generalne skupštine UN kojima se osuduju i ne
priznaje protivustavna nasilna komadanja država!!) onda se o tome može
govoriti samo nakon prijema takvih entiteta u UN. Dakle, kada je rec o
Hrvatskoj – samo nakon 22. maja 1992.
Prema tome, Miodrag Jokic je pristao da na sebe primi nepostojecu
krivicu. Ponovimo: "ratni zlocini" tehnicki se mogu pociniti samo u
oružanom sukobu (ratu) medunarodnog karaktera. U gradanskom,
unutrašnjem sukobu kriteriji za prosudivanje postupaka državnih organa
cija je dužnost da zaštite državu i narod od unutašnjih separatista,
secesionista i terorista su drukciji, manje zahtevni, od onih koji se
moraju poštivati kada je rec o oružanom sukobu (ratu) izmedu država. Te
situacije su, kao što rekosmo, "pokrivene" zajednickim clanom 3 sve
cetiri Ženevske konvencije i Dopunskim protokolom II, a ne ostalim
odredbama ženevskih konvencija i haškim konvencijama iz 1907. To bi
trebalo da zna svaki student prve godine prava. Ovde nije mesto da se
detaljnije govori o tim pravnim propisima. Sigurno je to poznato i
Karli del Ponte, ali ta žena ne vodi racuna ni o cemu vec da se dodvori
svojim gazdama koji je izdašno nagraduju za njen "rad". Ono što
zaprepašcuje jeste ponašanje Miodrga Jokica, ponašanje koje je
nedostojno visokog oficira JNA, makar bivšeg. Verovatno odgovor na
pitanje kako je došlo do toga da se upusti u necasnu rabotu sa
tužiulaštvom "tribunala" leži u pritiscima na njega od strane onih
politickih faktora u aktuelnoj vlasti kojima je glavni cilj pokoravanje
svim zahtevima koja dolaze od mocnika izvana, onima kojima je cilj
potpuno podredivanje zemlje stranim interesima i kompromitacija ne samo
njene oružane sile nego i naroda kao takvog.
Kosmet, ferragosto di sangue
4: LINKS
Questo messaggio conclude la serie in quattro parti dedicata a stragi e
violenze avvenute in Kosmet lo scorso agosto.
I numeri piu' precedenti del nostro "bollettino di guerra" sul Kosmet
(da maggio 2002 in poi) sono elencati alla URL:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2697
dove a sua volta sono riportati gli aggiornamenti da quella che abbiamo
definito "macelleria UCKFOR" nel giugno-luglio 2003.
Come al solito, queste nostre rassegne non hanno pretesa di
completezza, ma sono da considerare solo come esempi delle informazioni
negate alla pubblica opinione.
Un grande numero di articoli sui vari aspetti del regime di terrore
instaurato congiuntamente dalle "nostre" truppe occidentali (KFOR) e
dai neonazisti locali (UCK) si puo' trovare nel nostro archivio:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Altri SITI IN LINGUA ITALIANA su cui trovare informazioni aggiornate
sulle violenze perpetrate giorno per giorno in Kosmet sono
http://www.ansa.it/balcani (dispacci ANSA) e
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.it
Si tratta di due servizi professionali di informazione, di orientamento
istituzionale, con tutto quanto cio' comporta dal punto di vista della
interpretazione e presentazione degli avvenimenti.
Per un inquadramento storico del terrore nazista in Kosovo-Metohija si
veda in particolare:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2521
ed i collegamenti ivi contenuti.
Molti dei materiali che abbiamo riportato nelle nostre rassegne vengono
diffusi regolarmente sulle mailinglists:
Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
antinato@...
anti-imperialiste@...
Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
e dal bollettino della chiesa ortodossa in Kosmet
ERP KIM Newsletter:
---
ERP KIM Info-Service is the official Information Service of the
Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Raska and Prizren and works with the
blessing of His Grace Bishop Artemije.
Our Information Service is distributing news on Kosovo related
issues. The main focus of the Info-Service is the life of the Serbian
Orthodox Church and the Serbian community in the Province of Kosovo and
Metohija. ERP KIM Info Service works in cooperation with
www.serbian-translation.com as well as the Kosovo Daily News (KDN) News
List
Our Newsletters are available on our ERP KIM Info-service Web-Page:
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo.html
Additional information on our Diocese and the life of the Kosovo Serb
Community may be found at:
http://www.kosovo.com
---
LINKS OF GENERAL INTEREST ON THE KOSMET ISSUE
LINK DI INTERESSE GENERALE SULLA QUESTIONE DEL KOSMET
Kosovo and Metohija: Propaganda and truth
Rade Drobac, Belgrade, April 22, 2003
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2003-04-22_1.html
Articles on KLA-Kosovo-Drugs-Mafia and Fundraising
(by Benjamin C. Works)
http://members.tripod.com/Balkania/resources/terrorism/kla-drugs.html
---
LINKS ON THE MOST RECENT EVENTS
LINK SUGLI AVVENIMENTI PIU' RECENTI
Reality Macedonia August 15, 2003
The Massacred Children of Kosovo
PHOTOS FROM GORAZDEVAC, AUGUST 14, 2003
VICTIMS OF ALBANIAN TERRORISM IN KOSOVO
http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=2729
Why are you killing our children?
A Petition to the United Nations - Add your signature!
http://www.petitiononline.com/Serbs/petition.html
16/07/03: PHOTOGRAPHS: KOSOVO'S ROMA REFUGEES ON THE GREEK BORDER
http://www.documentography.com/anna/webgallery/roma_border/FrameSet.htm
Memorandum on Kosovo and Metohija of the Holy Synod of bishops of the
Serbian Orthodox Church
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76419
Declaration on Kosovo-Metohija adopted
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/12/330436.html
UN mission to launch new weapons amnesty in Kosovo
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=7973&Cr=kosovo&Cr1=
Terrorist attack against Serb children near Gorazdevac
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76475#1
Serbian government demands urgent investigation into attack on Serb
children
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/13/330462.html
Statement issued by the EU Presidency on the murder of two k/serb
children in Gorazdevac
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/
1d824c574201412fc1256d820054ed73?OpenDocument
ERP KiM: Crime in Gozdarevac an indicator of the real situation in
Kosovo and Metohija (by Fr. Sava Janjic)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76525
To America & Europe: Why did you allow them to kill our children?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76575
Indictments against KLA leaders must be filed
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/15/330494.html
UN Resolution 1244 as main goal
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/15/330492.html
Serbs Blocking Kosovo (by Sergey Yugov)
http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=10724
Who is politically and morally responsible for ethnic violence in
Kosovo and Metohija?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76593
Gorazdevac Crisis Centre demands accountability of UNMIK, KFOR and
local government in massacre of Serb children
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76601
Speakers in Security Council condemn recent violence in Kosovo
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7846.doc.htm
Head of the Coordinating Centre for Kosovo-Metohija: Ethnic-Albanian
terror a threat to Kosovo stabilisation
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/19/330514.html
Talk Endgame Now
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=6&NrArticle
=10456
Kosovo's Balkan nightmare goes on
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim21aug03.html
UN SC members endorse measures proposed by Belgrade authorities
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim20aug03.html
Devastating results of the Kosovo "Peace" mission
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim22aug03.html
Media commissioner warns Kosovo dailies over inaccurate reporting on
violence
http://www.osce.org/news/generate.pf.php3?news_id=3478
Metohija weeps as church bells toll
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76741#4
Evening Standard: Albanian criminals 'significant' threat here
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/
6326817?source=Evening%20Standard
The West continues to fail in Kosovo
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=124
Why are you silent Serbia?
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim25aug03.html
Kosovo 'Indivisible' Part Of Country
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76831
Declaration on Kosovo-Metohija platform for further policy making
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/28/330626.html
Kosovo in Tirana
http://www.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=2&NrArticle
=10515
Amidst growing tensions life in Kosovo and Metohija goes on...
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim30aug03.html
Covic: Open season for hunting Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim01sep03c.html
(a cura di Andrea)
4: LINKS
Questo messaggio conclude la serie in quattro parti dedicata a stragi e
violenze avvenute in Kosmet lo scorso agosto.
I numeri piu' precedenti del nostro "bollettino di guerra" sul Kosmet
(da maggio 2002 in poi) sono elencati alla URL:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2697
dove a sua volta sono riportati gli aggiornamenti da quella che abbiamo
definito "macelleria UCKFOR" nel giugno-luglio 2003.
Come al solito, queste nostre rassegne non hanno pretesa di
completezza, ma sono da considerare solo come esempi delle informazioni
negate alla pubblica opinione.
Un grande numero di articoli sui vari aspetti del regime di terrore
instaurato congiuntamente dalle "nostre" truppe occidentali (KFOR) e
dai neonazisti locali (UCK) si puo' trovare nel nostro archivio:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Altri SITI IN LINGUA ITALIANA su cui trovare informazioni aggiornate
sulle violenze perpetrate giorno per giorno in Kosmet sono
http://www.ansa.it/balcani (dispacci ANSA) e
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.it
Si tratta di due servizi professionali di informazione, di orientamento
istituzionale, con tutto quanto cio' comporta dal punto di vista della
interpretazione e presentazione degli avvenimenti.
Per un inquadramento storico del terrore nazista in Kosovo-Metohija si
veda in particolare:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2521
ed i collegamenti ivi contenuti.
Molti dei materiali che abbiamo riportato nelle nostre rassegne vengono
diffusi regolarmente sulle mailinglists:
Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
antinato@...
anti-imperialiste@...
Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli.
e dal bollettino della chiesa ortodossa in Kosmet
ERP KIM Newsletter:
---
ERP KIM Info-Service is the official Information Service of the
Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Raska and Prizren and works with the
blessing of His Grace Bishop Artemije.
Our Information Service is distributing news on Kosovo related
issues. The main focus of the Info-Service is the life of the Serbian
Orthodox Church and the Serbian community in the Province of Kosovo and
Metohija. ERP KIM Info Service works in cooperation with
www.serbian-translation.com as well as the Kosovo Daily News (KDN) News
List
Our Newsletters are available on our ERP KIM Info-service Web-Page:
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkiminfo.html
Additional information on our Diocese and the life of the Kosovo Serb
Community may be found at:
http://www.kosovo.com
---
LINKS OF GENERAL INTEREST ON THE KOSMET ISSUE
LINK DI INTERESSE GENERALE SULLA QUESTIONE DEL KOSMET
Kosovo and Metohija: Propaganda and truth
Rade Drobac, Belgrade, April 22, 2003
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/reakcije_citalaca/2003-04-22_1.html
Articles on KLA-Kosovo-Drugs-Mafia and Fundraising
(by Benjamin C. Works)
http://members.tripod.com/Balkania/resources/terrorism/kla-drugs.html
---
LINKS ON THE MOST RECENT EVENTS
LINK SUGLI AVVENIMENTI PIU' RECENTI
Reality Macedonia August 15, 2003
The Massacred Children of Kosovo
PHOTOS FROM GORAZDEVAC, AUGUST 14, 2003
VICTIMS OF ALBANIAN TERRORISM IN KOSOVO
http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=2729
Why are you killing our children?
A Petition to the United Nations - Add your signature!
http://www.petitiononline.com/Serbs/petition.html
16/07/03: PHOTOGRAPHS: KOSOVO'S ROMA REFUGEES ON THE GREEK BORDER
http://www.documentography.com/anna/webgallery/roma_border/FrameSet.htm
Memorandum on Kosovo and Metohija of the Holy Synod of bishops of the
Serbian Orthodox Church
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76419
Declaration on Kosovo-Metohija adopted
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/12/330436.html
UN mission to launch new weapons amnesty in Kosovo
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=7973&Cr=kosovo&Cr1=
Terrorist attack against Serb children near Gorazdevac
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76475#1
Serbian government demands urgent investigation into attack on Serb
children
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/13/330462.html
Statement issued by the EU Presidency on the murder of two k/serb
children in Gorazdevac
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/
1d824c574201412fc1256d820054ed73?OpenDocument
ERP KiM: Crime in Gozdarevac an indicator of the real situation in
Kosovo and Metohija (by Fr. Sava Janjic)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76525
To America & Europe: Why did you allow them to kill our children?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76575
Indictments against KLA leaders must be filed
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/15/330494.html
UN Resolution 1244 as main goal
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/15/330492.html
Serbs Blocking Kosovo (by Sergey Yugov)
http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=10724
Who is politically and morally responsible for ethnic violence in
Kosovo and Metohija?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76593
Gorazdevac Crisis Centre demands accountability of UNMIK, KFOR and
local government in massacre of Serb children
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76601
Speakers in Security Council condemn recent violence in Kosovo
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7846.doc.htm
Head of the Coordinating Centre for Kosovo-Metohija: Ethnic-Albanian
terror a threat to Kosovo stabilisation
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/19/330514.html
Talk Endgame Now
http://balkanreport.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=6&NrArticle
=10456
Kosovo's Balkan nightmare goes on
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim21aug03.html
UN SC members endorse measures proposed by Belgrade authorities
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim20aug03.html
Devastating results of the Kosovo "Peace" mission
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim22aug03.html
Media commissioner warns Kosovo dailies over inaccurate reporting on
violence
http://www.osce.org/news/generate.pf.php3?news_id=3478
Metohija weeps as church bells toll
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76741#4
Evening Standard: Albanian criminals 'significant' threat here
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/
6326817?source=Evening%20Standard
The West continues to fail in Kosovo
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=124
Why are you silent Serbia?
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim25aug03.html
Kosovo 'Indivisible' Part Of Country
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/76831
Declaration on Kosovo-Metohija platform for further policy making
http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/cgi-bin/printpage.cgi?filename=/news/2003-
08/28/330626.html
Kosovo in Tirana
http://www.tol.cz/look/BRR/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=2&NrArticle
=10515
Amidst growing tensions life in Kosovo and Metohija goes on...
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim30aug03.html
Covic: Open season for hunting Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija
http://www.kosovo.com/erpkim01sep03c.html
(a cura di Andrea)
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook