1. From "SLOBODA" Association, 2/11/2002
2. ICTY Responsible for life and health of President Milosevic (3/11)
3. Milosevic exhausted, war crimes trial adjourned (DW 1/11)
4. Milosevic trial halted as health worry grows (Reuters 1/11)
5. Judges say Milosevic's ill health threatens war crimes trial (AFP
1/11)
6. Milosevic complains about closed court sessions (AFP 23/10)


AN IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM "SLOBODA" ASSOCIATION:

Subject: Information on our web sites
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:08:47 +0100
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>

Message from SLOBODA (Freedom) Association - Yugoslav Committee for
the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic:

Due to enormous financial difficulties that follow our work in
assisting struggle of President Milosevic at The Hague for freedom,
truth and dignity of his people, all our web sites are temporarily
disconnected.

Thanks to many hours of work of ICDSM members and supporters in USA,
the web site of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic has been reconstructed and can now be reached at the
following temporary address:

http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm

If you are able to help our struggle by your donations, please go to:

http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/donations.htm


=== 1 ===


Subject: STOP THE MURDER! FREE MILOSEVIC! corrected
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 22:39:45 +0100
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>


On Thursday, October 31, evening, President Slobodan Milosevic
suffered one of the sudden high increases of blood pressure,
characteristic for his illness (malignant hypertension + angina
pectoris). After that he felt so sick, that he couldn't attend the
"trial" next morning.

SUCH AN EVENT CAN CAUSE HIS DEATH!
President Slobodan Milosevic, national leader of Serbia and Yugoslavia
and hero of resistance to USA/NATO murderous war machinery is being
killed at The Hague by dungeon prison conditions, already nine months
of a pervert political trial, mountains of papers, lack of fresh air,
food, rest, physical activity, meetings with family and friends, any
facilities to prepare his extraordinary court room battle. He is being
killed also by total absence of medical care!
Here are the comments of the executioner "judge" May, according to
Reuters:

``He has complained of exhaustion and is being seen by a doctor this
morning and a report will be obtained,'' presiding judge Richard May
told the U.N. court in Milosevic's absence.

``In the light of the state of the accused's health and the length and
complexity of the case, the trial chamber is concerned about
completion of the trial,'' said May, one of three judges hearing the
case.

``Therefore we wish to have submission from the parties on the future
conduct of the case in order to ensure its expeditious conclusion. We
wish to have those submissions within seven days,'' he told
prosecutors and court officials.
Let these seven days be days of public fight for life of President
Milosevic!

President Milosevic has to be allowed to get specialized medical
treatment in Belgrade, until full recovery, by doctors who took care
about his health for years.

Perform every possible action!

Write to NATO puppet court ("International Criminal Tribunal for
Former Yugoslavia", "ICTY", fax +3170 512 8637) and tell them what you
mean!

Lawyers are invited to write to the "ICTY President" Claude Jorda and
"President of Trial Chamber III" Richard May, as well as to their
friends "Amici Curiae" Steven Kay and Branislav Tapuskovic (using the
same fax) and to tell them how they see "the future conduct of the
case"!

This morning SLOBODA (Freedom) - Yugoslav Committee for the defense of
Slobodan Milosevic wrote to "ICTY" the following:

---

Mr. Claude Jorda, President
Mr. Richard May, President
of the Trial Chamber III
ICTY
The Hague
The Netherlands


The actual deterioration of the health of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, long
time President of the Republic of Serbia and of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia is a direct and dramatic consequence of the way the
process has been conducted and of the fact that you have neglected the
recommendations of the physicians appointed by ICTY in order to
determine the state of Mr. President's health.

Even after of numerous warnings that, considering the state of health
of President Milosevic, detention conditions and rhythm and conduct of
the process can cause his death, you still continue to conduct your
political process in the same way. We remain you and warn you once
again that eminent Yugoslav cardiologists have concluded in their
objective and impartial expertise, which got consent of the physicians
appointed by you, that the way this political process has been
conducted represent a threat to the life of President Milosevic.

In spite the claim that ICTY is an international court of UN, you in
severest way violate the Resolutions and documents of the UN General
Assembly, related to health of persons in custody.

The first principle of the Resolution 3794 on the principles of
medical ethics, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 18,
1982, establishes an obligation to protect prisoners or detainees from
torture and other cruel, inhumane or humiliating sanctions or
behavior. The same Resolution obliges you to secure the medical
treatment of the same quality and based on same standards as for the
persons who are not in prison or in detention. But in violation to
that, you have not provided President Milosevic with medical therapy
nor even with medical care of the same quality and based on same
standards as for persons who are not in detention. This way you also
violate the Article 6 of the Codex of behavior of persons responsible
for application of the Law, adopted by UN General Assembly on December
17, 1979.

In addition to violation of the mentioned Resolutions, you also
violate your own Statute, namely its Article 21, point 4b, which
obliges you to provide every defendant with appropriate time and
facilities for preparation of his defense.

The astonishing rhythm of this political process, purpose of which is
not determination of the truth, but total endangering of the health of
President Milosevic, leads us to a conclusion that the fatal outcome
is your intention.

Experience with other persons in detention who faced dramatic
deterioration of heath or even loss of life, is also obliging you to
decide to allow Slobodan Milosevic to obtain medical therapy and
recovery in Belgrade by medical specialists who followed his health
condition for years, due to existence of special circumstances and to
resume the process after the improvement of his health.

We warn you that it is your obligation to harmonize your Rules and
practices with all UN documents on human rights protection, as well as
with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Belgrade, November 02, 2002

President of the Freedom Association -
Yugoslav Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic
Bogoljub Bjelica


=== 2 ===


Subject: WHAT DO THEY DO TO HIM
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 19:34:21 +0100
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>


ICTY Responsible for life and health of President Milosevic


The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
in The Hague is directly endangering the life and basic human rights
of President Slobodan Milosevic.

The long-term president of Serbia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, founder and chairman of the Socialist Party of Serbia,
Slobodan Milosevic is held in the ICTY's detention unit under
conditions that could rightly be considered torture. President
Milosevic' cell is small, without access to natural air, and has a low
level of overall sanitation. He can only use the public telephone, and
pays for all his calls. He has been forced to attend the trial every
weekday for the past nine months (though with a recess in August). His
workday begins around 7 AM. He endures humiliating procedures during
transport from the detention unit to ICTY chambers and back. The trial
takes place between 9 AM and 4:30 PM. During the lunch break, he is
confined to the ICTY basement, and can only eat a sandwich. He is back
at the detention unit by 6 PM, and then he must choose between dinner
and a short walk in fresh air. Thereafter, till late at night, he
prepares for the next day of the trial.

For the remainder of prosecution's case, which is scheduled to end in
May 2003, he has to review over 100.000 pages of text and over 600
videotapes submitted by the prosecution. The length of the trial and
the amount of materials he has received are irrelevant to the
indictment, and their primary purpose is to wear out President
Milosevic.
His legal assistant cannot visit him on weekends. Unlike other
prisoners, who are allowed to see their families every day, and even
unsupervised, Mr. Milosevic can see his family only once a month, for
2-3 days, and always in under supervision. All other visits to
President Milosevic are subject to exceptional restrictions as well.

President Milosevic suffers from malignant hypertension and ischemical
myocardiopathy (angina pectoris). Psychological and physical exertions
to which he is subjected, combined with poor living conditions, can
easily lead to a heart attack, stroke, even sudden death. Even so, the
President not only lack specialised medical care, he lacks any medical
care at all. After numerous appeals and requests from Belgrade, and
after his full medical files have been sent to the ICTY, the trial
chamber approved a medical check-up. This happened only once, on July
11, 2002, and was performed by Dutch general practitioners approved by
the ICTY. The physicians nonetheless confirmed that the President's
living and working conditions represent a risk to his life and health,
and that it would be necessary to reduce the exertions to which he was
subjected, and provide a check-up and care by a cardiologist.
The trial chamber considered their report and recommendations on July
25 and August 26, 2002, and concluded that they should not be
implemented to the letter, but "in spirit".

However, to the present day, no cardiologist has been allowed to
examine President Milosevic, while the trial - previously adjourned by
2PM - has again been extended to 4:30 PM every day.

All of this indicates that the trial is but an organized attempt to
murder President Milosevic. Only his release, followed by medical care
and recuperation in Belgrade under supervision of specialists who have
treated and monitored his health for years, as well as his ability to
defend himself as a free man in the later on continued process, could
remove further risks to President Milosevic's life and secure the
elementary equality of the trial.

Beograd, 31 October 2002.


=== 3 ===


http://dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_667135,00.html

DEUTSCHE WELLE

01.11.2002 11:00 UTC

Milosevic exhausted, war crimes trial adjourned

Judges at Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial in The Hague have
expressed concern about completing the case against him after a
hearing was adjourned because he complained of exhaustion. The
ex-Yugoslav leader, who has been advised by doctors to rest regularly
because of high blood pressure, has been defending himself since
February against charges of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the
Balkans in the 1990s. Presiding judge Richard May told the United
Nations court Milosevic is being seen by a doctor and a report will be
obtained.


=== 4 ===


http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;
jsessionid=1XDPLALN4PC4KCRBAEKSFEY?type=search&StoryID=1667323

Milosevic trial halted as health worry grows
Last Updated: November 01, 2002 07:51 AM ET

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Slobodan Milosevic's trial has ground to a halt
after he complained of exhaustion, with judges concerned about the
impact of his ailing health on Europe's biggest war crimes hearing
since World War Two.

The 61-year-old ex-Yugoslav leader, who has been advised by doctors to
rest regularly because of high blood pressure, has been defending
himself at The Hague since February against charges of ethnic
cleansing in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Judges at the U.N. court adjourned Friday's hearing within a matter of
minutes after announcing Milosevic would not be taking his seat in the
dock because he had complained of exhaustion at the end of a week of
vigorous cross-examination.

"He has complained of exhaustion and is being seen by a doctor this
morning and a report will be obtained," presiding judge Richard May
told the court in Milosevic's absence.

TRIAL STRESSES RAISE CONCERNS

The landmark trial for genocide and crimes against humanity has been
adjourned several times since it opened more than eight months ago
because of Milosevic's health problems.

"In the light of the state of the accused's health and the length and
complexity of the case, the trial chamber is concerned about
completion of the trial," said May, one of a panel of three
international judges hearing the case.

Judges have urged prosecutors and Milosevic to deal quickly and
efficiently with the huge volume of evidence and testimony in a case
drawing on thousands of documents, videos, photographs and maps
covering three conflicts over almost a decade.

"The judges are not intimating that the trial itself is in jeopardy.
What they are concerned about is that there are stresses on all
participants in a trial of this scope and this length," tribunal
spokesman Jim Landale said.

Judge May asked the prosecution and a team of independent lawyers
appointed to ensure Milosevic gets a fair trial to come up with
proposals within a week to streamline the hearings.

"We were working within the framework given to the court by the trial
chamber already with very tough conditions," prosecution spokeswoman
Florence Hartmann said in response to judge May's request.

One of Milosevic's legal advisers called for a shorter trial day in
response to his client's poor health. The trial often runs from around
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., taking in hours of cross-examination, detailed
evidence and complex legal argument.

"Since yesterday evening he has been feeling very, very bad. He's got
very high blood-pressure. He can't be in court to do the cross
examination," Dragoslav Ognjanovic said.

"His blood pressure and his health condition is due to the exhausting
pace of the trial," he said. Milosevic's wife Mira Markovic and his
family were also worried, Ognjanovic added.

THE "BOSS"

Milosevic, who has dismissed as lies the charges he faces, earlier
this week locked horns with a Serb ex-secret agent, who told the court
the accused was the undisputed "Boss" in Belgrade in the 1990s.

The former Serb strongman -- charged with 66 counts of human rights
violations in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo -- has made it clear he
considers the charges politically motivated.

Milosevic opted to conduct his own defence in a show of contempt for a
court he does not recognise and spurned advice to appoint a defence
lawyer. He declined to plead to the charges and not guilty pleas were
entered on his behalf by judges.

The trial's first phase, focusing on alleged Serb atrocities in Kosovo
in 1999, ended in September. The court is now hearing evidence from
the 1991-95 conflict in Croatia and Bosnia.

Judges, who have already imposed time restrictions on both sides due
to the enormous scope of the trial, have asked prosecutors to conclude
their whole case over his alleged crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and
Kosovo, by next May.

Milosevic will then launch his defence. The trial is expected to last
at least two years.

The U.N. detention block where Milosevic is held with dozens of other
war crimes suspects from the former Yugoslavia has its own doctor and
medical facilities. The block is inside a Dutch prison compound with
its own hospital.


=== 5 ===


Judges say Milosevic's ill health threatens war crimes trial

THE HAGUE, Nov 1 (AFP) - Judges trying Slobodan Milosevic for war
crimes on Friday voiced concern that the trial might not be completed,
after the former Yugoslav president's poor health again forced a delay
in the proceedings.
"In the light of the state of health of the accused, the length and
the complexity of the case, the chamber is concerned about the best
way to ensure the completion of this trial," presiding judge Richard
May said.
Milosevic, 61, did not appear in court on Friday, complaining of
"extreme fatigue and exhaustion" but the case is scheduled to resume
on Monday.
His trial, on genocide and war crimes charges, has been interrupted
four times since it began in February because he has fellen ill.
Doctors who carried out a full medical check-up in July said he had
high blood pressure and risked having a heart attack.
The court tried to reduce the workload on Milosevic after the last
health warning but even with the time limits imposed on it the case
will take years to complete.
The prosecution has until May 2003 to present its case. Milosevic will
have until at least mid-2004 for his defence.
In court Milosevic, who is facing charges of genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity for the 1990s Balkan wars, does not appear to
be a frail old man.
He defends himself vigorously, entering into heated exchanges with
witnesses and sometimes with judges as well. The former Yugoslav
leader likes to play to home audiences with lengthy speeches about the
historical mistreatment of Serbs and alleged western plots against
Belgrade.
Milosevic has refuses to appoint counsel to a court he considers
illegal and is defending himself against a team of 60 members of the
prosecution's 545-strong staff.
He is said to spend nights in his cell poring over court documents and
statements to prepare to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
On Friday Judge May asked the prosecution and the amici curae --
lawyers appointed to assist the court in the case -- to submit within
seven days proposals on how best to proceed with the trial, taking
into account the defendant's health.
The judges have already suggested the appointment of a defence counsel
could reduce the strain on Milosevic.
He has strongly rejected the idea but legal experts say that the court
can appoint a lawyer for Milosevic against his will.
"The judges have the power to do anything that is necessary to ensure
the proper conduct of a trial and there is a precedent in the Rwanda
war crimes tribunal where counsel was appointed to an unwilling
defendant," Goran Sluiter, a legal expert at the University of
Utrecht, told AFP.
Sluiter expects that Milosevic will fight such an appointment tooth
and nail.
"Milosevic's big fear is to lose his time in court. For him the trial
is just a stage to air his views because he believes it is a show
trial and he will be convicted anyway," Sluiter said.
The court has hinted at a compromise solution -- appointing a defence
lawyer who would only assist during the cross-examination of
witnesses.
But Sluiter does not believe Milosevic will agree to anything that
would take him out of the limelight.
Milosevic faces more than 60 charges of war crimes and crimes against
humanity for his involvement in the wars in Kosovo (1998-99), Croatia
(1991-95) and Bosnia (1992-95).
The former president is also charged with genocide over the ethnic
cleansing of Muslims during the Bosnian war.
If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life behind bars.


=== 6 ===


Milosevic complains about closed court sessions

THE HAGUE, Oct 23 (AFP) - Slobodan Milosevic complained on Wednesday
about the many closed sessions the judges are holding in his war
crimes trial before the tribunal here and described them as remnants
from another time.
"Secret trials stem from a past which nobody can boast about," the
former Yugoslav president told the court.
The war crimes trial of Milosevic, which is currently hearing evidence
about atrocities committed during the 1991-95 war in Croatia, has been
held largely in closed session the last few days with several witness
whose identities are shielded.
During closed sessions the public galleries are closed and the
testimony of the witnesses cannot be revealed.
Milosevic's outburst in court Wednesday came after the judges
reprimanded him for revealing elements of a testimony given in closed
session in one of his questions.
Presiding judge Richard May told the former president that "it is the
chamber that will rule in this case and not the public".
Milosevic is charged with over 60 counts of war crimes and crimes
against humanity for his role in the three conflicts that tore apart
the Balkans in the 1990s: the wars in Croatia (1991-95), the Bosnian
war (1992-95) and the Kosovo conflict (1998-99).
For Bosnia he faces a separate charge of genocide, the gravest of war
crimes.
Milosevic's historical war crimes trial started in February this year
and is expected to continue until at least 2004.

International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org - http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm

=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART VI
Because the transcript of the cross-examination
is 150 pages long we have broken it into 12 easy
to read segments. If you wish to read the whole thing
at once go to:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
OR
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/more/mesic.htm
=================================



Page 10669

1 Presidency of Yugoslavia, you betrayed Yugoslavia and contributed to
its

2 break-up. Then proceeding to betray those with whom you had
collaborated

3 to destroy Yugoslavia. I'm referring to the HDZ and Tudjman. I don't

4 know who is next. Is it true that Tudjman wanted that from the very

5 start, when the HDZ was founded, Tudjman linked it up with the
right-wing

6 factions in Croatia, which includes those who do not conceal the
fact they

7 are Ustasha?

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mesic, before you answer, allegations are made

9 there which you should have a chance to deal with, a series of them.

10 The first is that, as the president of the Presidency of

11 Yugoslavia, you betrayed Yugoslavia and contributed to its
break-up. Did

12 you regard yourself as betraying Yugoslavia?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was elected to the Presidency

14 of Yugoslavia, I believed that I would help to resolve the Yugoslav
crisis

15 by political means, that I could contribute to avoiding the war. My

16 proposal to the Presidency was that we should adopt a fully
confederal

17 system and that the confederation should be given a time limit,
three to

18 five years, that the republics should be declared independent, that
the

19 republics should be internationally recognised, that they should
recognise

20 each other, and thereby be recognised by the international
community, and

21 that on the day when the Federation ceased to exist, a
confederation be

22 established. Why? Because everyone was dissatisfied with
Yugoslavia.

23 Serbia claimed that it was being exploited. Serbia claimed that
they were

24 the ones who funded others. Croatia was saying that its hard
currency was

25 being siphoned off to Belgrade. If everybody was dissatisfied, why
not

Page 10670

Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and English
transcripts.

Page 10671

1 adopt a new model? My proposal was to have a confederation and to

2 establish what tasks the confederation would perform, how much this
would

3 cost, and what the key to the budget would be, to the financing of
this.

4 Serbia never expressed its view on this proposal. Instead of this,

5 Milosevic proposed a strong federation. That is what happened to
Kosovo

6 and Vojvodina, that this should happen everywhere. We could not
agree to

7 this. But I was in favour of negotiations. I thought that it was
better

8 to negotiate for ten years rather than to wage war for ten days.
Some

9 people were in favour of the war option, and Slobodan Milosevic was

10 certainly one of those.

11 But what could I have done in Belgrade? Who could I have

12 influenced? The generals contacted Milosevic, the army executed
what

13 Milosevic's regime wanted, the creation of a greater Serbia,
because he

14 was saying that the Serbs should remain in one state. That is the
part

15 that was to become Yugoslavia and to be taken from Croatia. That's
what

16 General Veljko Kadijevic says in his book, and he was the Secretary
for

17 National Defence.

18 Therefore, therefore, the army, when it had been made into a

19 Serbian army, when the Croats, the Slovenians, the Macedonians and
others

20 had left, when it had become a Serbian army, it was to perform the
job of

21 setting up new borders, and the one who was perpetrating that plan
was the

22 one who was destroying the Federation. I wanted to search for a
political

23 solution through constitutional means. I had two secretaries, an
advisor,

24 and a Chef de Cabinet, and they were the only people I could
influence. I

25 have to say they were all Serbs. Who else could I have influenced,
and

Page 10672

1 how could I have toppled Yugoslavia? Was it I who did it or was it
the

2 person who had the Yugoslav army at his disposal, which had been

3 transformed into a Serbian army?

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Mesic, that all the peoples of Yugoslavia should live in one

6 state pertained to Yugoslavia and that the Serbs in Yugoslavia lived
in

7 one state was one of the reasons why Serbia wanted Yugoslavia to be

8 preserved, and that is the only thing that you can quote me on
saying, not

9 anybody else. And you're making this up, just like others have along
the

10 same lines.

11 I asked you the following: Tudjman wanted a Croatian state at all

12 costs, and from the very inception of the HDZ, he firmly relied on
the

13 most radical right-wing, which consisted of the most drastic
Ustasha; is

14 that right?

15 A. That's not true. Increasingly radical elements started joining

16 the party and then I left the party.

17 Q. You say in your interview to the AIM and the question was why
did

18 Tudjman from the very inception of the HDZ so strongly rely on the
radical

19 right wing in which there are some clear-cut Ustasha. You say that
you

20 were powerless, that these were forces that were more powerful than
you

21 and that Tudjman went along with them and that the forces that you

22 represented were different, and you say that he relied on these
extremist

23 forces and he believed that they would be his friends in war, and
that

24 after the war he would manage to neutralise them. That was your

25 explanation. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Mesic?

Page 10673

1 A. I think that I answered that question at the very outset. The HDZ

2 was a democratic party and now the question is what this journalist
meant

3 by the very outset. Which outset?

4 Q. All right. You explained that this was from March 1991 after the

5 meeting in Karadjordjevo. That is your interpretation of the
situation,

6 and we are not going to dwell on that. However, you did remain in
that

7 same HDZ for another three years and now you're attacking it.

8 A. 1991 until the end of 1992 cannot be three by any kind of

9 arithmetic. So there seems to be some kind of erroneous arithmetic

10 involved.

11 Q. Is it true that it was Tudjman's view that Bosnia was a mistake,

12 that it was a mistake to make it as a republic after the Second
World War

13 and that it should be annexed to Croatia? Is that right or is that
not

14 right?

15 A. Those were his ideas, that Bosnia was supposed to belong to

16 Croatia on the basis of a decision that should have been adopted by
Avnoj.

17 That's what we discussed, because we were both in opposition, both
Tudjman

18 and I were MPs in the Croatian parliament in 1965.

19 Q. All right. Is it true that it is precisely in Zagreb that

20 deportations of the population of Bosnia were discussed? Or as you
had

21 put it, the humane resettlement of the population and basically
this was

22 ethnic cleansing. Is this right or is this not right?

23 A. As for humane resettlement, that is something that you talked

24 about and all of those who thought that it was necessary to
transport

25 Croats from Slankamen into Croatia and Serbs into Serbia. I
certainly

Page 10674

1 took no part in that.

2 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. Let's not dwell on this much longer. I

3 asked you whether you had your own views on this, because in the

4 transcript that I refer to, your opinion is quite obvious. You say
that

5 any person with common sense would realise that this is ethnic
cleansing.

6 A. Well, humanitarian resettlement is actually ethnic cleansing.

7 That is why your detachments came, Dusan Silni, Arkan's guard. All
of

8 them came in order to carry out ethnic cleansing. That is not even

9 humanitarian resettlement.

10 Q. Mr. Mesic, I am referring to your policy, the policy of Croatia.

11 I am not talking about whether anybody from Serbia did any such
thing.

12 Because as you know full well, it is only Serbia that kept its
ethnic

13 composition over the past ten years, and nobody was expelled from
Serbia,

14 not a single house was torched, and nobody was mistreated because
of their

15 ethnic affiliation.

16 A. Except for the fact that in Serbia there were 18 camps where
there

17 were Croatian citizens and they were fleeing from Seselj, the
Croats from

18 Vojvodina were, and they were settling Croat settlements and they
were

19 exchanging their houses for Serb houses. That is the so-called

20 humanitarian resettlement.

21 Q. Mr. Mesic, do you know that there was not a single camp in

22 Yugoslavia, or rather, in Serbia, not for Croats, not for anyone,
not for

23 Croats, not for Muslims, not for anyone.

24 A. Croatia is still looking for over 3.300 of its citizens. Many of

25 them, after Vukovar and after other places where massacres were
committed,

Page 10675

1 were taken to Serbia. We have to know that the Yugoslav army, with

2 paramilitary organisations, which, with the approval of the Serb

3 leadership came to Croatia, destroyed Croatian towns. Why was
Vukovar

4 destroyed? Why were the citizens of Croatia taken to Serbia from
Vukovar?

5 Why were they taken to camps in Serbia? If the president of Serbia
does

6 not know that there were camps in Serbia, then that is the problem
of

7 Serbia.

8 Q. Mr. Mesic, do you know, for example, that when this propaganda

9 started about the existence of camps in Serbia, that various foreign

10 delegations spoke to me about this, people who came on other
business, and

11 they asked me about these camps? And I answered to each and every
one of

12 them: Please feel free to take a helicopter that I have here and
that is

13 ready. Put your finger anywhere on a map and that's where the
helicopter

14 will take you, and you will see that there is nothing of the sort
in

15 Serbia. After a few answers that I gave of this kind, one
delegation, it

16 was a German delegation, asked to go, then pinpointed the mine in

17 Aleksinac on a map. They went there and the only thing they found
was --

18 JUDGE MAY: You're not giving evidence. You can give evidence to

19 us in due course.

20 Mr. Mesic, do you know anything about Mr. Milosevic's dealings

21 with foreign delegations? Have you seen any reports or heard
anything

22 about that?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about that. I do know

24 that the Yugoslav army, together with paramilitary organisations,
took out

25 of the Vukovar hospital almost 300 persons and that they were all

Page 10676

1 liquidated in Ovcara, near Vukovar. I also know that citizens who
were

2 taken prisoner in that massacre of Vukovar were transported to
Serbia.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. First of all, that is not correct. Secondly, please take a look

5 at this map.

6 JUDGE MAY: What are you suggesting happened at Vukovar,

7 Mr. Milosevic, if it's not correct?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is not correct that anyone from

9 Serbia took citizens from Vukovar to Serbia. It is not correct that
any

10 policy of Serbia's influenced the intensification of the conflict
in the

11 region of Vukovar. What is correct is that it is precisely the
armed

12 detachments of the HDZ that barged into people's homes, into
villages

13 around Vukovar and took Serbs away, arrested them, and so on. They

14 attacked Vukovar --

15 JUDGE MAY: Is it disputed that 300 persons were taken from the

16 hospital to Ovcara and there liquidated? Is that disputed?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have these figures, Mr. May,

18 and I'm not discussing them now. But I shall try to find these
facts and

19 figures and see what kind of facts and figures are available. I can

20 claim, though, that no Serbian authorities had absolutely anything
to do

21 with this, nor did the Serb authorities cause any kind of ethnic
conflicts

22 in Vukovar. Ethnic conflicts in Vukovar were caused by the same
people I

23 quoted a minute ago, those who took people out of their homes in
Zagreb.

24 JUDGE MAY: I've asked you some questions about that. Now, let's

25 move on to matters which the witness can deal with, in particular,
his

Page 10677

1 evidence. Time, as you know, is limited, Mr. Milosevic. We must
allow

2 some time for the amicus to ask any questions that they want this

3 afternoon. And any re-examination, Mr. Nice?

4 MR. NICE: There's likely to be some, yes.

5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, could you help about the amicus?

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, there will be questions.

7 JUDGE MAY: How long do you ask for, Mr. Tapuskovic? Can you give

8 us an idea, please?

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is hard for me to say. I will

10 honour any decision you make, but it seems to me that half an hour
would

11 be absolutely indispensable.

12 JUDGE MAY: We may not be able to give you half an hour, I'm

13 afraid, because time is short. We can extend the sitting this
afternoon

14 until 2.00, unless the Registry have any difficulty about that.
There's

15 another hearing this afternoon, but I anticipate we can sit until
2.00,

16 and we will extend the hearing until then to accommodate as much

17 questioning as we can.

18 But Mr. Milosevic, your time is limited, as you know. So let's

19 move on. If you've got any matters that you want to challenge on
what the

20 witness said in his evidence, you should do so.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, of course I am challenging

22 almost everything that the witness said during his testimony. But I

23 assume that it is clear to you that limiting time for the

24 cross-examination of this witness is quite contrary to the need to

25 ascertain the truth. After all, the other party announced that they
would

Page 10678

Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and English
transcripts.

Page 10679

1 examine him for ten hours and then they decreased the number by two
and a

2 half times in order to diminish my ability to cross-examine him.
However,

3 I am going to use the time that is given to me, and you will have to
deal

4 with the fact that you haven't given me enough time.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Mesic, do you know that there were 221 camps for Serbs in the

7 period between 1991 and 1996 in Croatia? The five that you refer to
in

8 Serbia never existed. And here you have a list of all the 221 camps
for

9 Serbs in Croatia, and also a map that shows where they were and how
many

10 were in different towns and so on. Are you aware of this?

11 A. Regardless of the fact that I have been highly critical in terms

12 of the functioning of rule of law in the state of Croatia until the
year

13 2000, the truth is that there were no camps in Croatia. There were

14 abuses, there were crimes. That is certain. However, unfortunately,
I

15 did not answer the question that had to do with Vukovar. Do I have
to

16 give an answer? I do. Those who carried out liquidations were given

17 decorations and were promoted to the rank of general and other such
ranks.

18 They still live in Belgrade and they are wanted by this Tribunal.
So I'm

19 not the one who is inventing things. The only persons who were not
taken

20 out of Vukovar were those who were liquidated in Ovcara.

21 Q. According to the information I have, no army could have executed

22 or liquidated anyone. You know full well as a citizen of Yugoslavia
until

23 it was broken up and you have --

24 JUDGE MAY: This is a matter which the Trial Chamber, I suspect,

25 is going to have to determine in due course, and it sounds as
though these

* Continued at: http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-7.htm
OR http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/more/mesic-7.htm



***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!

The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the
request of Slobodan Milosevic to aid in his defense.

Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have
organized research to help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And
we have initiated legal action in the Dutch and
European Courts.

Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited
to cross-examining Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced
further onto the defensive as victims of NATO's
aggression and experts from Yugoslavia and the NATO countries tell
what really happened and expose media lies. Moreover,
Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some friendly and
some hostile to the truth.

The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the
biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's
use of racism, violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.

We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is
happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the
Dutch lawyer in the ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts
and before the European Court, about which more
news soon. These efforts urgently require financial support. We now
maintain a small staff of Yugoslav lawyers in
Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We need to
expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a
non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we
have an office and office manager available at all
times, to compile and process evidence and for meetings with witnesses
and lawyers and as a base for organizing press
conferences.

All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for
attacking NATO's lies.

************
Here's how you can help...
************

* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute
directly on the Internet.

For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *

You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:

ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819

You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard

You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)

- OR -

You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association

Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH

Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG

Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia

Thank you!

http://www.icdsm.org

International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org - http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm

=================================
Slobodan Milosevic's Cross-Examination of
Croatian President Stjepan Mesic: PART VII
Because the transcript of the cross-examination
is 150 pages long we have broken it into 12 easy
to read segments. If you wish to read the whole thing
at once go to:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic.htm
OR
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/more/mesic.htm
=================================


Page 10680

1 are matters of argument. So, Mr. Milosevic, let's move on.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Mesic, is it clear to you that in that Yugoslav People's
Army,

4 there could not have been a single officer who would have issued
orders to

5 have innocent civilians executed?

6 JUDGE MAY: That is precisely the point, which is purely one of

7 argument and nothing else. Now, have you got further questions?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have an enormous number of

9 questions left, but I have a present for Mr. Mesic, a map of camps
for

10 Serbs from 1991 to 1996, with a list of all camps according to
different

11 towns. 221, to be exact. When he goes back to Croatia, let him
check

12 that out and then he can give an answer to this question, because

13 obviously he cannot give an answer now. Could you please have this
map

14 shown on the ELMO. 221 camps.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't need that, because this

16 simply is not true. There were --

17 JUDGE MAY: Just let us see. What is this document that you're

18 producing, Mr. Milosevic? Where does it come from?

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The committee for collecting

20 information on crimes against humanity that were committed and
violations

21 of international law, published in Belgrade the 5th of February,
2001. I

22 was no longer president of Yugoslavia then. On the 5th of February,
2001.

23 It is the committee for collecting information on crimes committed.
This

24 is a map with all the camps and a list of all the camps in Croatia.

25 However, in all fairness, in Bosnia-Herzegovina there were 536.

Page 10681

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. So you did not rank first.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please have this put on the overhead

4 projector so it can be seen.

5 JUDGE MAY: For what it's worth, this document may be put on the

6 overhead projector, the witness can look at it. He probably hasn't
seen

7 it. It can be shown to the Prosecution.

8 And then, Mr. Milosevic, if you want to prove it, that is, you

9 want it exhibited, then you can prove it yourself when you call your

10 evidence.

11 Yes, Mr. Mesic, you can --

12 Don't interrupt.

13 Mr. Mesic, just have a look at that, see if there's anything that

14 you can say about it or not. You've heard where it comes from,
you've

15 heard what it purports to be.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Croatia did not have any camps, but

17 I do repeat: There were illegal acts, there were abuses, there were

18 crimes, and what I'm asking for is that every crime should be
investigated

19 and the perpetrators punished. I am struggling for individual guilt
to be

20 established. I don't want any collective responsibility. This has

21 nothing to do with the truth.

22 Q. All right. So you don't want to --

23 JUDGE MAY: Let the Prosecution have that document and then it can

24 be returned to the accused.

25 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

Page 10682

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Is it correct that among the generals that you refer to, that
they

3 took part in operations in Bosnia, were Milivoj Petkovic?

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please slow down. The

5 interpreters could not --

6 JUDGE MAY: You're being asked to slow down. Slow down, please.

7 A. Yes, some generals themselves said that they were in Bosnia, but

8 they said this subsequently.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. What did they say?

11 A. Subsequently.

12 Q. Oh, subsequently. Petkovic, Roso, you say that they were not

13 there?

14 A. I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying that they did not say

15 then, that they said afterwards that they had been in Bosnia.

16 Q. And is it correct that you said that the decision on the ethnic

17 cleansing of Muslims was not formally passed but that it was
carried out.

18 Is that correct or is that not correct?

19 A. I imagine it is understandable that if everybody leaves a
village

20 and that they were forced to leave a village, that that is ethnic

21 cleansing.

22 Q. Is it true that as far as Pero Markovic is concerned, the mayor
of

23 Capljina, you said that he carried out ethnic cleansing?

24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, how does it help? How is it relevant

25 whether an individual carried out ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? To
deal

Page 10683

1 with an indictment? What you must understand is that attacking
others is

2 not a form of defence, and therefore the relevance is strictly
limited.

3 Now, what is under investigation in this trial is the activities
which are

4 alleged in the indictment. For you to attack the others is no
defence and

5 of little, if any, relevance. Now, have you got anything else you
want to

6 ask this witness about his evidence as opposed to allegations that
you

7 want to make about others? No doubt this institution has
investigated and

8 will investigate those allegations against others, but it's of no

9 assistance to this Trial Chamber to make allegations about the
conflict

10 between the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats in 1992 and 1993
when

11 we're dealing with crimes alleged to have been committed by you and
others

12 in Croatia strictly, but also in Bosnia.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, what I'm bearing in mind is

14 precisely the profile of this witness. As for everything that
happened,

15 he accuses me, first and foremost, then he accuses his former
president

16 and his former political party, and his own generals, and he was
the one

17 who gave them instructions, and he also accuses his own
politicians, the

18 ones that he gave instructions to, in order to protect himself from

19 responsibility, which is vast, both in terms of the break-up of
Yugoslavia

20 and everything else that he is now accusing the HDZ and Tudjman and
other

21 factors of, under this slogan that this is the rule of law that he
favours

22 and that that's what he's struggling for. And until 1994, what, he
did

23 not struggle for the rule of law then?

24 JUDGE MAY: The accusations which a witness might make are not

25 relevant. It's his evidence which he makes and it's on that which
you

Page 10684

1 must concentrate.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am testifying about the facts that

3 I know about. I cannot testify about those that I'm not aware of.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. Who destroyed the bridge in Mostar? Is it

6 correct that it was destroyed by the Croatian forces?

7 JUDGE MAY: I'm not going to allow the question. Move on to

8 something else, Mr. Milosevic. You really must deal with this
witness's

9 evidence, not a generalised attack upon the Bosnian Croatians.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

11 Q. Now, are the words correct by Imre Agotic, your military ally,

12 that were published in Zagreb that the greatest crimes were
performed when

13 they were taking over the terrain, that is to say, when the MUP of
Croatia

14 and the police were taking over the terrain?

15 JUDGE MAY: Which terrain are you talking about?

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

17 JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Milosevic -- yes. Another question, and move

18 off this topic. Move on to something more relevant.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. All right, Mr. Mesic. As you say that you didn't meddle and

21 interfere in this, is it true that you, as a high-ranking
functionary of

22 the HDZ, personally went to Bosnia-Herzegovina and replaced Stjepan
Kljuc

23 from the post of HDZ head in Bosnia? Is that true or is it not?

24 A. I did not replace him. I went there as an HDZ official, but that

25 has nothing to do with this trial.

Page 10685

1 Q. Well, it does have very much to do with this trial, because it

2 testifies to your direct involvement in the events in Bosnia, for
which

3 you accuse me.

4 A. May I explain?

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, since you've been asked.

6 A. The HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina was under the influence of the HDZ

7 of Croatia, because ultimately the HDZ was the one that founded it.
And

8 when the first president was replaced, the first president of the
HDZ of

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, then what we had -- what had to be done was for
a new

10 HDZ president for Bosnia and Herzegovina to be elected. This could
only

11 be done at a party congress. But that party congress was not
scheduled.

12 A Presidency meeting was scheduled. President Tudjman asked me to
go to

13 Siroki Brijeg, which is where the HDZ Bosnia-Herzegovina was
meeting at

14 the time, to intervene in this method of replacement of Stjepan
Kljuc, who

15 at the time was president of the HDZ Presidency for
Bosnia-Herzegovina. I

16 got in touch with some people. I went to Siroki Brijeg. I spoke to

17 people there, and they told me that they supported Stjepan Kljuc.
What I

18 said to them was the following: Kljuc, it is my task that he be
replaced,

19 but that I talked to people and that he would be given a vote of

20 confidence if he tenders his resignation. However, what he did was
indeed

21 tender his resignation, irreversibly, and went to Sarajevo. Before
doing

22 so, he asked me: "How are you going to explain that away to
Tudjman?

23 That is to say if I am given a vote of confidence, how are you
going to

24 explain that to Tudjman?" And I said: "Well, I'll say the majority
was

25 in favour of not accepting your resignation and you will remain the

Page 10686

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the
French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 10687

1 president of the HDZ party." And then he became afraid. He was
afraid

2 for his own survival. He got into his car and left Siroki Brijeg for

3 Sarajevo.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. All right. And is it true that the various decisions which refer

6 to Bosnia-Herzegovina, not only the one you mentioned a moment ago,
among

7 others, was taken by people in Zagreb, such as Vice Vukojevic from
Zagreb?

8 Was Vice Vukojevic a member of the Croatian Sabor or parliament?

9 A. Yes, he was a member of the Croatian Sabor, and he did appear in

10 uniform, in HVO uniform. Otherwise, his origins are from

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And I said to President Tudjman that I didn't
like

12 what Vice Vukojevic was doing. I criticised him.

13 Q. All right. You talk to Vukojevic and he said that they had shot

14 people. Is that right or not, Mr. Mesic?

15 A. No, it is not.

16 Q. Well, you can find that in the transcript, 7063.

17 A. No. He said something else. I said something else. And please

18 don't distort what I and he said. He said that in the battle for
Prozor,

19 the place called Prozor, a lot of Muslims had lost their lives, and
I

20 asked him whether anybody had been killed on the Croatian side or
perhaps

21 wounded. He said no, and that was all. I didn't have any further

22 conversation with him because I didn't think that you could have
people

23 killed on one side and nobody even wounded on the other. And I
never

24 spoke to him again after that.

25 Q. So you were angry with him, were you, because of that, because
you

Page 10688

1 in fact ascertained that crimes had been committed, but you didn't
take

2 steps at all. All you did was to be angry with him and you never
spoke to

3 him again.

4 A. The accused is well aware of the fact that this was

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, their territory, and that I wasn't able to
undertake

6 anything there. He knows that full well.

7 Q. Is it true that there were many members of the Croatian
parliament

8 who went to Bosnia, many Croatian MPs who went to Bosnia during the
war,

9 not only Vice Vukojevic but others too, wearing uniforms, to take
part of

10 the war there?

11 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt now because there's a real

12 danger of this trial being totally sidelined about matters which
were not

13 part of the witness's evidence, and that is namely the conflict in
Bosnia

14 between the Croatians and the Muslims.

15 Now, Mr. Kay, you mentioned a matter earlier, and on the grounds

16 that this might be relevant in terms of credibility of the witness.
But

17 obviously the Trial Chamber must keep the matter within bounds. The

18 witness's evidence is essentially about Croatia, although I'm aware
that

19 Bosnia, of course, is also subject of an indictment and to some
extent his

20 evidence may be relevant to that. The question is to what extent is
the

21 accused entitled, if at all, to examine matters which at the moment
appear

22 to have no bearing at all on the issues which the witness raised or
indeed

23 the issues in the trial. This is a serious matter because clearly
if he's

24 going to follow the same approach which he used before, which was
to use

25 cross-examination as a vehicle to make allegations against the
other side,

Page 10689

1 to what extent is he entitled to do that, do you submit?

2 MR. KAY: He's entitled to attack the credentials of this

3 particular witness, who has maintained during his direct examination
that

4 he was only seeking to enforce the rule of law and was not a party
taking

5 part in hostilities within the region. Plainly, the accused
disagrees

6 with that and is attacking the knowledge of this witness as to what
were

7 the real events within the region and the participation of himself
and his

8 political party within those events. One appreciates that there is a
time

9 limit on a witness giving evidence, and that is the real issue here
for

10 the accused. Time spent on matters that are not productive of his
defence

11 to the indictment obviously can cause him to be in difficulty in
putting

12 forward a defence to the charges. But in many respects, we believe
he is

13 aware of those issues. They have been sufficiently in force during
the

14 trial, and attempts have been made by the amicus to ensure that he
does

15 put his case and is given an opportunity to do so. In many
respects,

16 where the subject of the Trial Chamber's ruling here in relation to

17 timing.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think the point is that he obviously is

19 entitled to test the witness's credibility by asking about matters

20 relating to Bosnia, but the real issue is: How far can he go down
that

21 road? It would seem to me that once he has put a question in
relation to

22 a particular matter touching on Bosnia and he has received an
answer on

23 that, then he should move on to another issue. In that regard, he
would

24 have been allowed to test credibility in relation to that matter,
but I

25 think the issue being raised by the Presiding Judge is that
apparently he

Page 10690

1 goes too far down the road, and that tends to take us into areas
that are

2 not relevant.

3 MR. KAY: A helpful way may be to just make the point here that

4 the Trial Chamber is aware of the matters that have been put in
issue by

5 the accused, that the Trial Chamber is aware that he has put in
issue

6 various aspects of this witness's evidence, so that any
reinforcement of

7 that fact is not further necessary.

8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

9 Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what's been said. You know there are

10 time limits. There is a question of how far you can continue to
deal with

11 matters which are purely peripheral, and bear in mind, as has been
said,

12 that the Trial Chamber realises quite well what you're putting in
issue

13 and the challenges you make to the credibility of this witness. You

14 should therefore deal with any matters which you think are
important,

15 which you might not otherwise be able to do so because of time, as
early

16 as possible. Now, you are subject to time limits, and there will be

17 another seven minutes and then we'll have to adjourn.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I understood that in addition

19 to the time constraints and limits that have seen to be
precipitously come

20 to the fore in the case of this witness, that I do have at least
until the

21 close of business today. I think that is a minimum. But I think
that it

22 would be in order if you were to give me a little more time, if you
were

23 really to take into account the quest for truth.

24 JUDGE MAY: We have in mind the time limits taken by the

25 Prosecution. You should have roughly similar. You can have until 20

* Continued at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/mesic-8.htm
OR
http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/more/mesic-8.htm


***** Urgent Message from Sloboda (Freedom) Association and the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic!

The Freedom Association in Belgrade and the ICDSM, based outside
Yugoslavia, are the two organizations formed at the
request of Slobodan Milosevic to aid in his defense.

Up until now our main work has been threefold. We have publicized the
truth about The Hague's phony trial. We have
organized research to help President Milosevic expose NATO's lies. And
we have initiated legal action in the Dutch and
European Courts.

Now our job has increased. The defense phase of the "trial" starts in
May 2003. No longer will Mr. Milosevic be limited
to cross-examining Hague witnesses. The prosecution will be forced
further onto the defensive as victims of NATO's
aggression and experts from Yugoslavia and the NATO countries tell
what really happened and expose media lies. Moreover,
Mr. Milosevic will call leaders, from East and West, some friendly and
some hostile to the truth.

The controlled mass media will undoubtedly try to suppress this
testimony as they have tried to suppress Mr. Milosevic's
cross-examinations. Nevertheless this phase of the "trial" will be the
biggest international forum ever to expose NATO's
use of racism, violence and lies to attack Yugoslavia.

We urgently need the help of all people who care about what is
happening in The Hague. Right now, Nico Steijnen , the
Dutch lawyer in the ICDSM, is waging legal battles in the Dutch courts
and before the European Court, about which more
news soon. These efforts urgently require financial support. We now
maintain a small staff of Yugoslav lawyers in
Holland, assisting and advising Mr. Milosevic full-time. We need to
expand our Dutch facilities, perhaps bringing in a
non-Yugoslav attorney full-time. Definitely we must guarantee that we
have an office and office manager available at all
times, to compile and process evidence and for meetings with witnesses
and lawyers and as a base for organizing press
conferences.

All this costs money. And for this, we rely on those who want Mr.
Milosevic to have the best possible support for
attacking NATO's lies.

************
Here's how you can help...
************

* You may contribute by credit card. By the end of September we will
have an ICDSM secure server so you can contribute
directly on the Internet.

For now, you can contribute by credit card in two ways: *

You can Contribute by Credit Card over the Telephone by calling:

ICDSM office, USA: 1 617 916-1705
SLOBODA (Freedom) Association office, Belgrade: 381 63 279 819

You can Contribute using PayPal at:
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=icdsm%40aol.com
PayPal accepts VISA and MasterCard

You can Contribute by mail to:
ICDSM
831 Beacon St., #295
Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA)

- OR -

You can Contribute by wire transfer to Sloboda Association

Intermediary:
UBS AG
Zurich, Switzerland
Swift Code: UBSWCHZH

Account with:
/ 756 - CHF
/ 840 - USD
/ 978 - EUR
Kmercijalna Banka AD
SV. Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift Code: KOBBYUBG

Beneficiary: Account No. 5428-1246-16154-6
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia

Thank you!

http://www.icdsm.org

[Riceviamo e volentieri diffondiamo]


Per chi vuol andare a Praga

Care compagne, cari compagni,


come certamente saprete, il Prc ha aderito e partecipa al
controvertice di Praga contro la Nato (19 novembre) e
alla manifestazione europea contro la guerra e contro la
Nato che si svolgerà nel cuore di Praga il giorno dopo.

Data la scarsa informazione che su questi eventi è
apparsa finora sulla stampa italiana, penso di fare cosa
utile inviandovi alcuni materiali, pregando ognuno di voi
di fare il possibile a sua volta per divulgarli
ulteriormente; anche attraverso le vostre mailing-list
personali e/o quelle delle organizzazioni o associazioni
di cui fate parte, in modo da determinare una
moltiplicazione virtuosa dell'informazione.

Si tratta di favorire la massima partecipazione, dopo
quella del 9 novembre a Firenze, alla manifestazione
europea del 20 novembre a Praga. "Il movimento - ha
scritto bene Gennaro Migliore in un editoriale di
Liberazione - sta dandosi una stabile dimensione europea,
e si ritroverà a Firenze il 9 novembre per opporsi alla
guerra ed a Praga per avversare l'allargamento della
Nato".

Il Prc, così come le altre organizzazioni italiane
aderenti o che decideranno di aderire alle iniziative di
Praga, sono impegnate - ognuna in forme proprie - ad
organizzare la partecipazione e ad esse ci si può
utilmente rivolgere.

Il viaggio in auto, per 4 persone, andata e ritorno,
calcolando la partenza dal Nord Italia, viene a costare
circa 60 euro a testa in carburante e spese autostradali
(circa 10-12 ore di viaggio - tutta autostrada - da
Milano a Praga, per una distanza di circa mille Km.).

Il pernottamento a Praga in alberghi economici, ma
decorosi, costa circa 15-20 euro per notte a persona,
inclusa prima colazione. Sconti per gruppi di almeno 15
persone.

Chi fosse interessato ad avere ulteriori informazioni
logistiche per un alloggio economico a Praga, per una o
più notti, può rivolgersi a Claudio Buttazzo, grande
conoscitore di tutti i segreti di Praga, che può essere
contattato, a partire da domenica 3 novembre, ai seguenti
recapiti:

cell. 347-6925813
e-mail : cbuttazzo@...

Un caro saluto a tutti
Fausto Sorini

===================================

PRAGA

20 NOVEMBRE 2002 ore 14,30
Piazza della città vecchia (Staromestske namesti)

In occasione del vertice atlantico che si terrà il 21-22
novembre nella capitale ceka per decidere un nuovo
allargamento ad Est della Nato e il suo coinvolgimento
nella dottrina di Bush della "guerra preventiva"

MANIFESTAZIONE EUROPEA

Contro la guerra all'Iraq, contro le guerre di Bush
Contro la NATO e il suo allargamento ad Est
Per un'Europa di pace, di giustizia sociale e di
amicizia tra i popoli
Per un'Europa autonoma e neutrale, senza basi militari
straniere


La manifestazione è promossa dal Partito comunista della
Repubblica ceka (Kscm) con altre organizzazioni
giovanili, pacifiste, sindacali del Paese, e dal Forum
europeo per la pace, con l'adesione- per la prima volta
congiunta, dopo il 1989- delle maggiori forze comuniste e
di sinistra alternativa di tutta l'Europa (dell'Est e
dell'Ovest), rappresentative di decine di milioni di
cittadini europei. Hanno aderito finora : BELGIO (Pc e
Partito del lavoro), BIELORUSSIA (i due partiti
comunisti), BOSNIA (Pc dei lavoratori), BULGARIA (Pcb),
CIPRO (Akel), CROAZIA (Partito socialista del lavoro),
DANIMARCA (i due partiti comunisti), FINLANDIA (Pc),
FRANCIA (Pcf), GERMANIA (Pds e Dkp), GRECIA (Pc-Kke e
Synaspismos), ITALIA (Prc e PdCI), LATVIA (Partito
socialista), MOLDAVIA (Pc), POLONIA (Unione comunisti
polacchi - proletariat), PORTOGALLO (Pcp), RUSSIA (Pc
della Federazione russa), ROMANIA (i due partiti
socialisti), SLOVACCHIA (Pc-Kss), SPAGNA (Pce e Izquierda
Unida), SVEZIA (Pc), TURCHIA (Pc), UCRAINA (Pcu),
UNGHERIA (Partito del lavoro), YUGOSLAVIA (Partito
socialista serbo, Partito dei comunisti yugoslavi e Nuovo
Pc yugoslavo)?Dagli STATI UNITI aderisce l'International
Action Center di Ramsey Clark. Aderisce anche la
Federazione mondiale della gioventù democratica. E le
adesioni continuano?

La manifestazione è aperta a tutte le realtà politiche,
sociali, culturali, religiose, di movimento che si
riconoscano nelle sue parole d'ordine: contro la guerra,
contro la NATO.

Per adesioni e maggiori informazioni, politiche e
logistiche (viaggio e alloggio a Praga),
rivolgersi alle rispettive organizzazioni nazionali

=============================================

CONTRO-VERTICE ANTI-NATO

dal Partito Comunista di Boemia e Moravia (KSCM)
Lun 30 sett. 2002
mail a leftnews@... http://www.kscm.cz

Praga, 30 Settembre, 2002

Cari compagni,

Il contro-vertice internazionale organizzato dal KSCM si
terrà il 19 novembre, prima del summit della NATO,
affronterà le questioni chiave della sicurezza europea ed
il lancio di una campagna per attivare un movimento della
pace nel continente europeo.

Siamo convinti che dovrebbe essere dedicata attenzione
continua al tema della sicurezza europea. Per questo
proponiamo che per attivare un movimento per la pace e
per progettare l'architettura della sicurezza europea,
l'incontro internazionale di novembre dovrebbe avere una
continuità di lavoro permanente nel tempo. Il lavoro
relativo, fra un incontro e l'altro, potrebbe essere
coordinato da un comitato di coordinamento europeo. Al di
là dei vari punti di vista, con questa campagna l'Europa
potrebbe trasmettere un segnale contro la guerra al mondo
intero.

Vi chiediamo di raccogliere adesioni a sostegno della
bozza di appello che vi alleghiamo; siamo sicuri che
userete tutti i mezzi disponibili per attivare e
coordinare un movimento per la pace a livello europeo.

Vi invitiamo a segnalarci idee, suggerimenti e
osservazioni sul testo, entro il 1° novembre 2002, in
modo che esse possano essere incluse nel summit
internazionale di novembre a Praga.

Dott. Ing. H. Charfo, DrSc.
Responsabile del dipartimento esteri
Comitato Centrale - Partito Comunista di Boemia e Moravia



Bozza dell'appello internazionale di Praga

La NATO aumenta i rischi per la sicurezza e minaccia la pace.

L'esistenza della NATO è stata giustificata dai suoi
fondatori come "alleanza difensiva " contro " la minaccia
sovietica". Logicamente il crollo dell'Unione Sovietica e
la dissoluzione del patto di Varsavia avrebbero dovuto
portare anche allo scioglimento della NATO. E' accaduto
l'opposto. La NATO invece di smobilitare si sta
rafforzando.

Contrariamente a quanto dichiarato nel trattato fondativo
di Washington, la NATO ha ufficialmente assunto il
diritto di intervenire militarmente contro chiunque, in
qualsiasi parte del mondo e in qualunque momento. Questo
viola non soltanto il proprio statuto, ma sfida
apertamente il diritto internazionale, e la NATO usurpa
l'autorità della Comunità internazionale delle Nazioni
Unite e del suo Consiglio di sicurezza.

La guerra contro la Yugoslavia del 1999, intrapresa senza
un mandato del Consiglio di sicurezza Onu, in spregio
anche della convenzione di Ginevra, è la prova
convincente di una nuova strategia aggressiva ed
interventista che per la prima volta dal 1945 porta una
guerra di aggressione in Europa.
Un altro esempio lampante è l'attacco anglo-americano
all'Afghanistan, come parte di quella cosiddetta "guerra
contro il terrorismo", condotta e sostenuta da alcune
nazioni NATO. L'attacco non ha rispettato i principi
umanitari fondamentali e non ha risparmiato la
popolazione civile, le infrastrutture, le vite e i
diritti dei prigionieri di guerra.
Il cambiamento dell'elite dirigente dell'Afghanistan che
è stato imposto non risolverà i problemi di base della
popolazione afgana.

Influenzata in modo determinante dagli USA, la NATO è
sempre più chiaramente un patto politico-militare che va
ben oltre il carattere difensivo. Sta trasformandosi in
uno strumento di espansione e di consolidamento
dell'influenza mondiale degli Stati membri più
importanti. È uno strumento fondamentale per perseguire i
programmi degli Stati Uniti nel mondo intero, la loro
influenza e i loro interessi sul continente europeo.
L'egemonia degli Stati Uniti nella NATO si basa sullo
status privilegiato e sull'autorità USA, sul controllo
che gli Usa esercitano sugli apparati militari e di
sicurezza, sull'industria della "difesa" e sulla
tecnologia militare degli Stati membri dell'alleanza.
Le strutture militari integrate della NATO hanno una
operatività che agisce, specialmente nei momenti di
crisi, al di fuori dell'effettivo controllo delle
istituzioni nazionali, particolarmente negli Stati
europei.

Le armi nucleari, il cui uso è contrario alle
Costituzioni di diversi paesi membri, sono soggette di
fatto alle decisioni degli Stati Uniti e al controllo
politico-militare delle loro autorità, anche quando le
basi nelle quali sono schierate sono sul territorio di
questi Stati. Questo significa che c'è un crescente e
peculiare pericolo per tali paesi di essere trascinati in
uno scenario di guerra senza che ciò sia sottoposto alla
valutazione e al controllo delle legittime autorità
nazionali.
Sotto la pressione degli Stati Uniti, vi è così un
crescente pericolo per l'Europa e per il mondo di essere
trascinati in una nuova corsa al riarmo.

L'umanità è minacciata dalla militarizzazione dei
rapporti internazionali, dalla militarizzazione dello
spazio cosmico, dall'interventismo militare crescente che
sempre più domina la politica degli Stati Uniti.
La NATO, come strumento politico dell'egemonia USA, dà
priorità all'escalation militare e all'uso della forza,
anziché alle soluzioni pacifiche nelle controversie
internazionali e ai metodi civili di risoluzione dei
problemi economici e sociali che si acutizzano nel mondo
contemporaneo.
La NATO non è all'altezza di risolvere questi problemi
politicamente.

Per assicurare la pace sul continente e l'istituzione di
rapporti pacifici con le altre nazioni del mondo,
l'Europa non ha bisogno di un'alleanza aggressiva che
insidia e in pratica sfida il ruolo delle Nazioni Unite.
La NATO è inaccettabile nella sua forma attuale e
chiedere oggi il suo scioglimento è un fatto politico di
grande rilievo.

Noi pensiamo che la decisione, da parte degli Stati
europei, di sospendere la propria appartenenza alle
strutture militari integrate della NATO possa essere un
primo passo realistico di procedere nella direzione del
suo scioglimento. Ed è vitale per l'Europa e per gli
Stati che vogliono mantenere un certo grado di sovranità
nelle decisioni, per evitare di essere trascinati in
nuove avventure militari.

L'Europa ha bisogno di un diverso sistema di sicurezza
rispetto a quello rappresentato dalla NATO. Un sistema
difensivo e non aggressivo, che sulla base del principio
dell' eguale condizione e dignità, comprenda tutti gli
Stati del continente, dal Portogallo agli Urali, dalla
Scandinavia ai Balcani.
Un sistema che sia basato sulla necessità non soltanto
dell'esistenza ma anche della riforma delle Nazioni
Unite.

Un sistema che, nel pieno rispetto della carta delle
Nazioni Unite e dello spirito di Helsinki, si emancipi
dalla pressione degli USA e di altri poteri forti che
agiscono contro le leggi internazionali. Un sistema che
dovrebbe essere basato sulla sovranità di tutte le
nazioni e su rapporti di cooperazione pacifica con gli
altri Paesi. Noi proponiamo che questo concetto sia
implementato sulla base dell'esperienza dell'OSCE, nello
spirito della "Carta di Parigi per una nuova Europa",
firmata alla fine dell'incontro dei leaders degli stati e
dei governi dei Paesi membri della Conferenza sulla
Sicurezza e la Cooperazione in Europa (CSCE), tenuta a
Parigi il 21 novembre 1990.

L'Europa è stata sempre una delle parti del mondo più
minacciata dalle politiche di riarmo e dallo sviluppo
delle armi di sterminio di massa, nucleari, chimiche,
biologiche e "spaziali".
Essa può svolgere un ruolo determinante per una politica
di disarmo graduale e bilanciato, fino a che queste armi
possano essere completamente eliminate, a partire da
quelle delle grandi potenze. Ciò consentirebbe di
recuperare enormi risorse oggi bruciate nelle spese
militari, che potrebbero essere impiegate per uso
sociale, per risolvere i problemi economici e ambientali
che travagliano il pianeta.

Il patto aggressivo della NATO è incapace di trasformarsi
e porre le fondamenta di un'autentica sicurezza per
l'Europa. Il futuro sta nello sviluppo del processo di
integrazione economica e politica di tutti gli stati del
continente, su basi di pari uguaglianza e sovranità per
tutti i Paesi, contro qualsiasi tipo di oppressione da
parte di alcuni paesi o gruppi sociali nei confronti di
altri, e quindi del tutto diverse da quelle imposte dal
liberismo antisociale e dalla subalternità atlantica.

In occasione del vertice NATO a Praga, in cui ci si
aspetta che l'Alleanza si allarghi ad Est con l'ingresso
di nuovi paesi, i firmatari di questo appello, pur
esprimendo una varietà di posizioni politiche e
ideologiche, sono concordi nella comune volontà di pace,
invitano tutti i Paesi d'Europa e i membri delle Nazioni
Unite a mobilitarsi unitariamente contro la politica di
riarmo e di guerra e a compiere alcuni passi concreti
verso un'Europa di giustizia e di pace.

================================================

In occasione del vertice del Patto atlantico

MANIFESTAZIONE EUROPEA
IL 20 NOVEMBRE A PRAGA
CONTRO LA GUERRA
E PER
LO SCIOGLIMENTO DELLA NATO

di Claudio Buttazzo


Seattle, Praga, Nizza, Gotheborg, Genova, ed ora di nuovo
Praga. Dopo quello del settembre di due anni fa contro il
Fondo monetario internazionale, un altro appuntamento di
lotta internazionale e' fissato nella capitale ceka per
il 20 novembre prossimo.
In quei giorni, esattamente il 21-22 novembre, si terra'
a Praga, presso il Centro Congressi sul colle di Vyserad,
il vertice di tutti i paesi della Nato per decidere
l'ulteriore allargamento ad Est del Patto atlantico. Vi
parteciperanno 46 capi di Stato o di governo dei paesi
aderenti alla Nato e dei paesi della "Partnership per la
pace" e circa 200 "ospiti speciali", cioè ministri di
vari governi con consorti al seguito. I delegati saranno
2.500, mentre sono circa 2.000 i giornalisti accreditati.
Nel programma del Summit non sono previsti incontri, in
precedenza dati per certi, tra Nato e Russia e neppure
della Commissione Nato con l'Ucraina.
I paesi interessati all'allargamento sono i tre Stati
baltici (Estonia, Lettonia e Lituania), la Slovacchia, la
Romania e la Bulgaria, tutti confinanti con la Russia o,
comunque, con paesi dell'ex-Unione sovietica. Un
allargamento che, pur non aggiungendo nulla alla gia'
terrificante potenza militare e aggressiva del blocco
imperialistico guidato dagli Usa, ha due fondamentali
obiettivi politico-strategici: stringere in un'ulteriore
morsa la Russia, completando l'accerchiamento attorno a
tutti i suoi confini piu' "caldi"(sul versante europeo e
su quello mediorientale e caucasico) e imprimere il
marchio dell'egemonia statunitense sui paesi dell'Europa
centro-orientale e balcanica prima ancora del loro
ingresso, se mai avverra', nell'Unione europea. La
portata dell'operazione, dal punto di vista degli
equilibri mondiali, e piu' che evidente e risulta ancora
piu' drammaticamente accentuata dal particolare tipo di
ruolo che questi paesi si offrono a svolgere all'interno
della Nato. Si tratta di una questione poco dibattuta e
generalmente, purtroppo anche a sinistra, sottovalutata.
Si tratta, intanto, di paesi che hanno scelto, in campo
politico ed economico, le piu' estreme ricette
neoliberiste, legandosi mani e piedi al modello e
all'egemonia del capitalismo d'oltreoceano. I governi di
questi paesi, indifferentemente dal tipo di coalizioni
che si sono succedute, hanno sempre e indiscriminatamente
seguito una politica di totale allineamento alla politica
estera, e alle guerre, americane, anche in contrasto o in
difformità rispetto alle posizioni assunte dall'Unione
europea o da alcuni dei suoi paesi piu' importanti. E
alcuni di essi (in particolare Romania, Lituania e
Lettonia), pur non facendo parte della Nato e addirittura
senza che alcuno glielo richiedesse, si sonno offerti per
la partecipazione ad operazioni di guerra, in particolare
nelle operazioni nei Balcani e in Afganistan.

Si tratta, inoltre, di paesi quali, vivendo una
situazione economica disastrosa, cercano di offrire un
diversivo al malcontento delle popolazioni,
indirizzandolo verso l'esterno (alimentando i contrasti
con la vicina Russia) o verso le minoranze etniche
interne, particolarmente consistenti in tutti i paesi
dell'Est. Nel fare questo, vengono non di rado
rispolverate vecchie argomentazioni prese a prestito
dall'armamentario fascista e nazista. E' il caso dei tre
paesi baltici, in particolare della Lettonia, dove la
popolazione di nazionalita' russa (circa il 40% del
totale) viene sistemataticamente e pesantemente
discriminata, privata di diritti e spesso anche
volgarmente provocata nei suoi sentimenti antifascisti
con la riproposizione di simboli, ricorrenze e
celebrazioni in uso nel periodo del nazismo, con
pubbliche riabilitazione e decorazioni dei cambattenti
della Wermacht e con uno spudorato revisionismo storico
eletto a ideologia ufficiale dello Stato.

Questo e', dunque, lo scenario dentro al quale va a
espandersi la Nato, con tutte le inquietanti prospettive
e interrogativi che questo apre non solo per gli
equilibri mondiali, ma per la configurazione che potra'
assumere la stessa costruzione europea. E, a corollario
di tutto cio', c'e' la guerra infinita di Bush e
l'imminente guerra all'Irak. Dire di no a tutto questo,
fermare questa deriva distruttiva si puo'. E si deve.

Il Partito comunista di Boemia e Moravia, uno dei piu'
forti partiti comunisti in Europa (ha ottenuto il 18,6%
dei voti alle politiche del giugno scorso) si e'
opportunamente fatto promotore di un controvertice
internazionale in risposta al summit della Nato e per far
esprimere, con un forte no alla guerra infinita del
governo americano, la volonta' di pace dei popoli
europei. Ma il controvertice vuole andare ancora piu' in
la', ponendo una questione oggi ineludibile e preliminare
per qualsiasi prospettiva di pace e di sovranita' dei
popoli in Europa: la questione dello scioglimento della
Nato.

Va detto che questa iniziativa si svolge in un paese che,
per la sua collocazione nel centro dell'Europa, e' in una
posizione chiave per l'organizzazione strategica della
Nato. Non a caso esso e' stato scelto dal governo Usa
come il luogo prioritario per la realizzazione del
famigerato progetto di scudo spaziale. E pero' va anche
detto che e' proprio questa prospettiva a inquietare
ancor piu' i Ceki, tanto che l'opposizione alla Nato,
gia' maggioritaria presso l'opinione pubblica (tanto che
i governanti hanno sempre respinto la proposta di un
referendum sull'adesione), va ora ulteriormente
crescendo. E cresce, di pari passo, l'irritazione verso
l'atteggiamento servile del presidente della repubblica
Havel, che qui ormai chiamano "krvavy humanista"
(l'umanista sanguinario), per via della sua entusiastica
adesione a tutte le guerre Usa. Il presidente ceko non si
e' smentito neanche nell'attuale vecenda della
preannunciata guerra all'Irak. E' stato, dopo Blair, il
primo capo di Stato europeo a recarsi a Washington per
dare la piena adesione della Repubblica ceka ai piani di
guerra della Casa Bianca. Naturalmente, non aveva titolo
per farlo, non avendo preventivmente consultato ne' il
governo ne' il parlamento ed essendo a capo di una
Repubblica parlamentere, e non presidenziale. Questo la
dice lunga sul tasso di democrazia di questo celebrato
campione dell'anticomunismo.

Il controvertice di Praga si svolgera', dunque, il 19 e
20 novembre. Il 19 ci sara' un convegno, cui sono stati
invitati a partecipare tutti i partiti comunisti e
numerose forze di sinistra antagonista che agiscono sul
nostro continente dove si cercherà per la prima volta di
elaborare una posizione comune di tutti coloro che ad Est
e ad Ovest sostengono la necessita' dello scioglimento
della Nato e di un sistema alternativo di sicurezza
europea. E dove si cerchera' di dar vita ad un
coordinamento europeo permanente, che colleghi le
iniziative in questo campo e lanci una petizione in tutta
Europa contro la guerra e per l'abolizione del patto
nordatlantico.

Sono gia' una trentina le organizzazioni che da tutta
Europa hanno dato l'adesione al controvertice e ancor più
quelle che parteciperanno alla manifestazione :
organizzazioni che complessivamente rappresentano decine
di milioni di cittadini di ogni parte d'Europa, "dal
Portogallo agli Urali".

Il 20 novembre, alle ore 14.30, il controvertice si
trasformera' in una grande manifestazione, cui
prenderanno parte migliaia di persone da tutta Europa e
che sara' conclusa a Staromestske namesti (piazza della
Citta' vecchia), nel cuore della citta' antica.

Il governo ceko e la maggioranza dei media stanno già
alimentando un clima di terrore psicologico nella città,
dipingendo i manifestanti che verranno a Praga come
soggetti pericolosi e violenti. E' annunciata la presenza
di 12 mila poliziotti e di 240 soldati con idranti e
autoblindo e altri reparti dell'esercito. Il ministro
degli Interni ha affermato che le misure di sicurezza
saranno superiori a quelle adottate nel 2.000 in
occasione del vertice del Fmi.

Una "zona rossa" sarà creata attorno al Centro Congressi
e interesserà gran parte del centro di Praga, in
particolare i distretti 1,2,3,4 e 6, e non si esclude la
chiusura di altre zone e strade. Il governo, per
scoraggiare i giovani praghesi dal prendere parte alla
manifestazione anti-Nato, ha deciso la chiusura delle
scuole per i gioni del Summit e ha consigliato gli
studenti ad andarsene in vacanza. Molte scuole hanno
organizzato proprio per quei giorni delle gite
scolastiche, per tenere sotto sorveglianza i ragazzi.
Mentre diversi istituti scolastici hanno organizzato per
i giorni precedenti il Summit dei corsi di "formazione",
con la partecipazione di importanti personaggi politici e
politologi di regime che dovranno illustrare ai giovani
le straordinarie "virtù" dell'Alleanza atlantica.

E' dunque indispensabile che, dopo le giornate del Forum
Sociale Europeo di Firenze, tutti gli sforzi del
movimento contro la guerra e il neoliberismo si
concentrino sulla partecipazione, per quanto possibile
ampia, dal nostro paese alla manifestazione europea del
20 novembre a Praga.

=================================

Sulla manifestazione di Praga vedi anche la manchette al sito:
http://www.lernesto.it

=================================


Verso un nuovo movimento mondiale di "partigiani della pace" ?

Una battaglia da vincere


di Fausto Sorini

Non abbiamo ancora la certezza, mentre scriviamo (23
ottobre 2002), se vi sarà la guerra all'Iraq. E' in atto
nel Consiglio di Sicurezza (CdS) delle Nazioni Unite un
braccio di ferro che ci dice che la partita non è chiusa;
che l'Onu non è un guscio vuoto, privo ormai di ruolo
internazionale (anche se ovviamente, come ogni
istituzione, esso riflette i rapporti di forza reali che
esistono nel mondo); che Francia, Russia e Cina non sono
burattini alla corte di Bush; e che non esiste alcun
"direttorio mondiale unificato", nessun "asse strategico"
tra Usa, Russia e Cina, tutto interno e omogeneo alla
globalizzazione capitalistica, che ormai governerebbe il
mondo.

E se guerra comunque sarà, non conosciamo le forme
concrete né gli scenari politico-militari entro cui essa
si produrrà, per non parlare delle conseguenze sullo
scenario globale e segnatamente mediorientale ("si
apriranno le porte dell'inferno? ").

Non sappiamo neppure, nel caso, se essa avverrà come
attacco unilaterale degli Usa e di qualche fedele
alleato, senza l'avallo dell'Onu, o se viceversa essa
riceverà, al di là delle risoluzioni formali, un qualche
tacito, ambiguo "disco verde" da parte di quei membri del
CdS con diritto di veto (Francia, Russia e Cina) che fino
ad ora hanno agito per evitare uno sbocco militare.

Forse non ci rendiamo conto che questa stessa incertezza,
che in misura maggiore o minore alberga in ognuno di noi,
rappresenta di per sé un fatto politico enorme. Essa è il
segno, a oltre un decennio dal crollo dell'Urss, del
carattere non onnipotente dell'imperialismo Usa (uscito
vincente dalla competizione del '900) e delle sue
velleità di fare del 21° secolo il secolo dell' "impero
americano". (1)

Non è invincibile la linea dei settori più aggressivi
dell' imperialismo Usa: quelli che puntano a vincere la
competizione globale con le altre potenze emergenti
perseguendo una linea di unilateralismo assoluto, di
schiacciante superiorità militare sul resto del mondo.
Una prospettiva che Fidel Castro, già all'indomani
dell'11 settembre 2001, aveva definito di "dittatura
militare planetaria". E che ha indotto un uomo acuto e
intelligente come Luigi Pintor a scrivere : "la mia
generazione è convinta di aver vissuto in un secolo
tragico, ma può dirsi fortunata. Il genocidio era in
fondo ancora episodico e circoscritto e non ancora
duraturo e pianificato su scala planetaria". E' decisivo
sottolineare questo aspetto: non siamo in presenza di una
iniziativa inarrestabile della maggiore potenza
imperialista mondiale (la cui gravità non è certo il caso
di ribadire nell'editoriale di una rivista che ne ha
intravisto per tempo le linee portanti) (2). Siamo di
fronte ad una linea di tale pericolosità per l'insieme
della comunità mondiale, di tale disprezzo del diritto
internazionale e dei diritti sovrani dei popoli e delle
nazioni, da suscitare una opposizione - diversamente
graduata - non solo nelle componenti più progressive
dell'opinione mondiale, ma tale da suscitare riserve
anche in ambienti tradizionalmente conservatori, per
nulla propensi al pacifismo o a qualsivoglia cultura di
pace. Si pensi ai gruppi dominanti di paesi come la
Germania, la Francia, il Giappone, che sono parte
integrante del sistema imperialistico, membri della Nato
o affini, che fino a ieri hanno condiviso, taluni anche
operativamente, l'aggressione alla Yugoslavia (senza uno
straccio di mandato Onu), o l'intervento militare in
Afghanistan, ma che non accettano un unipolarismo
americano che pretende di sottometterli alle velleità
egemoniche di un solo padrone (Lenin le avrebbe definite
"contraddizioni inter-imperialistiche"?). (3) Dubbi e
riserve si manifestano persino all'interno
dell'amministrazione Bush. La strategia dei "falchi" di
Washington, così inquietante e densa di incognite per i
suoi stessi promotori (chi si ricorda la fine del Terzo
Reich ?), suscitare una opposizione così diffusa nel
mondo, da far ritenere non solo necessario, ma possibile,
che essa venga imbrigliata e almeno in parte fatta
retrocedere. Una opposizione così diffusa da aprire spazi
immensi ad un "nuovo movimento mondiale di partigiani
della pace", che in queste contraddizioni sappia
inserirsi per far pendere l'ago della bilancia dalla
parte della pace e del disarmo.

Parliamo innanzitutto del disarmo graduale e bilanciato
delle maggiori potenze, ampiamente dotate di armi
nucleari, chimiche e batteriologiche, di cui non si
comprende perché dovrebbero avere il monopolio. Per cui
un paese come l'Iraq, che sulla base di prove mai
fornite, lavorerebbe per poter disporre tra qualche anno
(come dice la Cia) di alcune testate nucleari
rudimentali, dovrebbe essere bombardato
"preventivamente", mentre uno Stato "canaglia" come
Israele, che non rispetta da decenni le risoluzioni
dell'Onu, massacra impunemente il popolo palestinese e
dispone, come è noto, di alcune centinaia di testate
nucleari, non dovrebbe essere chiamato a render conto dei
suoi atti, e sottoposto - perché no - a rigorosissime
ispezioni Onu per verificare la consistenza delle armi di
sterminio di cui esso già dispone in abbondanza nei
propri arsenali.

Ha detto bene in proposito il segretario del Prc, "che
noi qui in Europa, in Italia, dobbiamo trasformare
l'autunno in una straordinaria stagione contro la guerra.
Cercando di allargare il fronte quanto più possibile,
trasformando la battaglia per la pace nella nostra
principale battaglia strategica. Non solo una battaglia
di principio, una battaglia da vincere".

Si aprono spazi grandi per un movimento mondiale
antimperialista (comunque lo si voglia chiamare), che
organizzi uno schieramento più qualificato (certo non vi
troveremo Andreotti o Formigoni, e neppure Schroeder o
Chirac?), ma che per "vincere" non deve separarsi dalle
grandi masse e dalle forze popolari, come ad esempio la
Cgil, che oggi dicono comunque "no alla guerra". Uno
schieramento che comprenda i settori più avanzati dei
movimenti operai e di liberazione, di cui è parte
integrante e propulsiva (non esclusiva né
autosufficiente) il movimento che ha preso avvio a Porto
Alegre e che vedrà nelle giornate di Firenze del Forum
sociale europeo un suo momento importante, anche se
ancora molto parziale e provvisorio, di strutturazione
continentale (4).

Trovo emblematico in proposito l'appello internazionale
contro la guerra, promosso dal premio Nobel Josè
Saramago, con Pedro Almodovar, Carlos Taibo, James
Petras, Julio Anguita e altri 200 artisti e
intellettuali, a nome di una "Alleanza di intellettuali
antimperialisti". Un appello "contro una nuova
aggressione imperialistica che si propone di consolidare,
a qualunque prezzo, l'egemonia nord-americana". Andrebbe
rafforzato e generalizzato in ogni Paese del mondo
(quanti altri Nobel potrebbero firmare?), facendo
convergere il tutto in una grande campagna mondiale per
la raccolta di centinaia di milioni di firme, a tutte le
latitudini. (5)

Grandi spazi si aprono anche alla peculiare iniziativa
dei comunisti - nel quadro della più larga unità contro
la guerra - per riscoprire e diffondere nelle nuove
generazioni, tra i lavoratori e i popoli, la
consapevolezza dei nessi che esistono tra capitalismo e
guerra, "dove l'uno porta l'altra con sé, come la nube la
tempesta". E riscoprire anche per quella via l'esigenza
del socialismo nel mondo contemporaneo, e la
consapevolezza che un sistema sociale che si regge sullo
sfruttamento dell'uomo sull'uomo, un mondo che si regge
su crescenti squilibri economici e sociali tra un pugno
di paesi ricchi (in competizione tra loro) e un oceano di
paesi poveri, non sarà mai un mondo liberato dal pericolo
della guerra.

Nel mese di novembre si terranno in Europa due importanti
iniziative contro la guerra, a carattere continentale. Mi
riferisco al Fse di Firenze, che in particolare vedrà il
9 novembre una importante manifestazione europea contro
la guerra. Ed un secondo meeting europeo, meno conosciuto
ma non per questo meno significativo, che si terrà una
decina di giorni dopo a Praga, in occasione del vertice
della Nato del 21-22 novembre, che deciderà una sua
ulteriore espansione ad Est, con l'ingresso di nuovi
Paesi; e dove i rappresentanti Usa premeranno per un
coinvolgimento dell'Alleanza nella dottrina della "guerra
preventiva". Nei due giorni precedenti si terrà a Praga
un contro-vertice (19 novembre), promosso dal Partito
comunista ceko (Kscm), cui prenderanno parte la quasi
totalità dei partiti comunisti e di sinistra
anticapitalistica di tutta l'Europa, dell'Est e
dell'Ovest (dal Portogallo agli Urali, passando per i
Balcani). Un incontro continentale, il primo di questo
genere dopo il terremoto del 1989, in cui forze politiche
che rappresentano alcune decine di milioni di cittadini
di ogni parte d'Europa, discuteranno di come contribuire
allo sviluppo di un movimento continentale di massa,
articolato e continuativo, paese per paese, contro la
guerra, per lo scioglimento della Nato e la costruzione
di un sistema di sicurezza europea alternativo, non
aggressivo (una sorta di Onu europea), senza basi
militari straniere, coerente con l'idea di un'Europa
autonoma e neutrale, di pace, di giustizia sociale, di
amicizia tra i popoli. Il giorno dopo (20 novembre) le
stesse forze terranno una manifestazione europea nel
centro storico di Praga, aperta a tutte le realtà
politiche, sociali e di movimento che si riconoscono
nelle sue parole d'ordine: contro la guerra, per lo
scioglimento della Nato.

Forse non si è fatto abbastanza per costruire nei mesi
scorsi una adeguata sinergia tra questi due appuntamenti
di grande valore strategico. Auguriamoci che ciò sia
possibile in futuro, a partire dalle prossime giornate di
Firenze e di Praga. E che ogni sforzo sia messo in campo
per superare incomprensioni, distanze, pregiudiziali
ideologiche, piccole logiche di gruppo, che ostacolano la
massima convergenza di tutte le forze che si riconoscono
nelle due fondamentali discriminanti dell'anti-liberismo
e del "no" alla guerra. Vi sono oggi le condizioni, anche
in Europa, senza più muri tra Est e Ovest, per la
costruzione di un grande movimento popolare, con forme
flessibili ma efficaci di coordinamento, collocato su
posizioni socialmente avanzate, aperto alle convergenze
con chiunque sia comunque disponibile a dire "no" alla
guerra. Lo dimostra la straordinaria manifestazione di
fine settembre a Londra contro la guerra (450.000
persone), svoltasi in concomitanza con la riuscita
manifestazione di Roma, promossa e organizzata dal Prc
(dal nostro partito), ma che nei comizi ha dato ampio
spazio ad altri (no-global, sinistra Ds, movimento dei
lavoratori, associazioni di immigrati); la manifestazione
enorme, a metà settembre, del popolo dei "girotondi",
nella quale l'intervento di Gino Strada contro la guerra
è stato accolto da una autentica ovazione; la grande
riuscita dello sciopero generale del 18 ottobre e delle
manifestazioni di piazza, promosse dalla Cgil e dai
settori più avanzati del sindacalismo extra-confederale,
che hanno visto anche una massiccia partecipazione di
studenti, e in cui il tema del "no" alla guerra era
fortemente presente e condiviso; il documento contro la
guerra firmato da 131 parlamentari del Prc, del Pdci, dei
Ds, dei Verdi, della Margherita?che rappresentano insieme
quasi il 15% del Parlamento e che esprimono, senza
ambiguità, un orientamento contrario alla guerra che
tutti i sondaggi ci dicono essere larghissimamente
maggioritario nel paese. Un documento che opportunamente
raccoglie il richiamo di Pietro Ingrao (e persino di un
ex Presidente della Repubblica democristiano come Oscar
Luigi Scalfaro) all'articolo 11 della Costituzione.

Vi è qui un bel pezzo di "sinistra alternativa", sociale,
politica, di movimento, che può crescere e bilanciare la
recente (ennesima) torsione centrista e moderata della
maggioranza del gruppo dirigente dei Ds. A condizione che
si rispetti l'autonomia di ognuno, che si evitino come la
peste ipotesi confuse, velleitarie (e che alla fine
dividono, più che unire) di "nuovi soggetti politici" che
pretenderebbero di fondere o impastare tutte quelle forze
in un unico calderone, invece di operare - senza
forzature organizzativistiche - sul terreno assai più
produttivo dell'unità d'azione, del coordinamento
flessibile di tutte le iniziative condivise, con una
convergente elaborazione programmatica e progettuale.
Dove la piena autonomia politica, teorica e organizzativa
del partito comunista sia non già sinonimo di settarismo
e autosufficienza, bensì fattore propulsivo di più larghe
convergenze a sinistra. Partito comunista che si
conferma, pur con tutti i suoi difetti, strumento sempre
più prezioso e insostituibile di dinamismo politico e
sociale nel contesto italiano, su cui davvero vale la
pena di investire grandi forze ed energie, senza alcuna
boria autoreferenziale, con maggiore spirito di unità e
solidarietà interna, a partire dai gruppi dirigenti e
dalle modalità della loro costruzione.

Noi non abbiamo dubbi o esitazioni (non dobbiamo averne,
pena l'auto-emarginazione dal senso comune del nostro
popolo) su alcune priorità del momento: no alla guerra,
sostegno alle lotte dei lavoratori, opposizione
convergente al governo Berlusconi, intese tattiche -
ovunque possibile - anche sul terreno elettorale, per
battere le destre e le componenti più reazionarie del
quadro politico italiano. Ma sappiamo anche che un abisso
strategico ci distingue dal nuovo craxismo della
governabilità a qualunque costo, che sta nuovamente
prevalendo nell'Ulivo e nella direzione dei Ds. E non
diventeremo - non siamo nati per questo - né l'ala
sinistra, inevitabilmente subalterna e minoritaria, di
questo nuovo Ulivo in gestazione (non faremo la fine di
altri?), né una forza marginale e minoritaria, estranea
al movimento operaio in carne ed ossa e alle componenti
democratiche e progressive che contraddittoriamente
agiscono nel "popolo della sinistra", perché questa
sarebbe un'altra forma, speculare ma non meno
fallimentare, di subalternità.

Condivido in proposito alcune recenti sottolineature del
segretario del Prc (Liberazione, 19.10. 2002). E' vero:
"l'onda lunga oggi è quella del conflitto sociale e del
protagonismo dei lavoratori", dove emerge "una presenza
ricca e composita : classe operaia tradizionale, giovani
studenti e giovani lavoratori precari", con "una forte
volontà di opposizione politica e sociale alle scelte del
governo Berlusconi". Per cui, "dopo il successo di questo
sciopero, la normalizzazione della Cgil e del conflitto
sociale sarà più difficile?nonostante lo spostamento a
destra del centrosinistra ?e del baricentro politico
dell'Ulivo". "Bisogna prendere atto del fallimento
dell'ipotesi di chi aveva puntato tutto sullo spostamento
dell'insieme del centro-sinistra", o di chi puntava ad
una sua "rigenerazione dall'interno, ad una sua
rifondazione programmatica e di leadership : la strada
indicata da Cofferati nell'intervista di agosto al
Corriere". Il punto è quello della "costruzione di una
sinistra di alternativa, stando ciascuno dove sta,
evitando fughe di tipo organizzativistico, e produrre
iniziative e lotte comuni". E riprendere con forza il
tema della "fine della cultura dell'alternanza", con il
"mutamento del sistema elettorale", trovando le forme e
le convergenze necessarie per un " rilancio della
proporzionale".

Sul piano sociale, si impone la vertenza Fiat, e qui
bisogna "far leva su un intervento pubblico?che rompa i
tabù imposti dall'egemonia neo-liberista, sul ruolo dello
Stato e sul Patto di stabilità europeo".
Dove il dibattito sulla "nazionalizzazione" e sul
"rilancio dell'intervento pubblico in economia", allude
prospetticamente alla riapertura di una riflessione non
velleitaria su : "Quale socialismo per il XXI° secolo",
dopo il crollo di un modello di statalismo integrale. E
quindi : quale economia mista, con una prevalenza del
pubblico nei settori strategici, in un processo di lunga
transizione al socialismo, su scala mondiale e nelle sue
articolazioni nazionali e regionali; quale rapporto tra
pubblico e privato. E ancora : come costruire, in un
quadro di regionalizzazione crescente delle relazioni
economiche, un polo pubblico sovranazionale che sappia
reggere la competizione delle multinazionali private.

Si tratta cioè di riaprire, con una visione mondiale,
senza fughe in avanti né regressioni utopistiche, la
questione del socialismo.

---------------------------------------------------------

(1) Le due nozioni - imperialismo e logica "imperiale" -
se correttamente intese, possono coesistere e descrivere
fenomeni tra loro complementari, non escludentesi, a
condizione di fuoriuscire dallo schema negriano. La
questione non è nominalistica.

(2) E questo quando altri, anche in Rifondazione,
esitavano a cogliere il salto di qualità e la peculiera
pericolosità per la pace mondiale rappresentati non tanto
e non solo da una generica e indistinta "globalizzazione
capitalistica", senza nome e indirizzo, ma soprattutto
dalle nuove scelte strategiche di politica estera degli
Stati Uniti, fino alle più recenti teorizzazioni sulla
"guerra preventiva", sintetizzate in un opuscolo diffuso
il mese scorso dalla Casa Bianca, e che il quotidiano
Liberazione, unico tra i giornali italiani, ha avuto il
merito di tradurre e pubblicare integralmente (e
tempestivamente) nella sua edizione del 10 ottobre 2002 (
www.liberazione.it ) e che rappresenta un'autentica
miniera di argomenti.

(3) La Stampa (3.9.2002) pubblica in proposito una
significativa dichiarazione di Tareq Aziz, vicepremier
irakeno: "l'animosità americana contro di noi si spiega
con il fatto che se distruggeranno l'Iraq controlleranno
il petrolio di tutto il Medio Oriente, che rappresenta il
65% delle riserve mondiali, e quindi saranno in grado di
governare la crescita economica di ogni nazione del mondo
intero. L'Europa è solidale con noi non solo per ragioni
umanitarie, ma perché così protegge i suoi interessi". E
più recentemente (La Stampa, 23.10.2002) : "la Corea del
Nord ha ammesso di avere un programma nucleare. Gli Usa
non hanno chiesto ispezioni Onu come per l'Iraq. Perché?
Perché due cose mancano in Corea del Nord: il petrolio e
Israele".

(4) Mentre l'Europa occidentale è largamente
rappresentata nel Forum sociale europeo, nonostante
permangano veti assurdi alla presenza dei partiti in
quanto tali, le forze sociali e politiche che nell'Europa
dell'Est, nei Balcani e nei paesi dell'area ex-sovietica,
a partire dalla Russia, rappresentano le istanze
fondamentali del Forum (anti-liberismo e opposizione alla
guerra) sono praticamente assenti, salvo rarissime
eccezioni. Questi paesi, in cui vive circa la metà dei
700 milioni di cittadini che popolano il continente, sono
per lo più rappresentati nel Fse da piccoli o
piccolissimi gruppi, il cui consenso sociale e politico
nei rispettivi popoli è assolutamente marginale. Il caso
più eclatante è quello delle grandi organizzazioni legate
ai comunisti e ai socialisti di sinistra di questi paesi,
dove essi rappresentano in molti casi il 30-40% dei
rispettivi popoli (stiamo parlando - a spanne - di una
sessantina di milioni di persone, di cui una buona parte
solo in Russia, Ucraina, Bielorussia?) e che a Firenze
non saranno in alcun modo rappresentate. Mancanza di
contatti o assurde pregiudiziali ideologiche di alcuni
settori del Forum verso i comunisti dell'Est ? Varrebbe
la pena di discuterne e di saperne di più.

(5) Il testo dell'appello (in spagnolo) e le adesioni,
nonché la lettera aperta di queste personalità europee
agli intellettuali ed artisti statunitensi, firmatari di
un analogo manifesto, sono reperibili in:
www.nodo50.org/csca , oppure scivendo a :
csca@...

ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum: 30 oktobar 2002


Apel Skupstine "Beogradskog foruma" domacoj i
svetskoj javnosti povodom Americkih pretnji Iraku

SKUPSTINA BEOGRADSKOG FORUMA ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH, NA
SVOJOJ REDOVNOJ GODISNJOJ SEDNICI, ODR?ANOJ 29.
OKTOBRA 2002. GODINE, USVOJILA JE SLEDECI
A P E L
DOMACOJ I SVETSKOJ JAVNOSTI
POVODOM AMERICKIH PRETNJI IRAKU

Beogradski forum za svet ravnopravnih, ciji je osnovni
cilj da promovise i unapredjuje ideje mira,
razumevanja i ravnopravne medjunarodne saradnje,
demokratskih standarda i prava coveka, izra?ava veliku
zabrinutost zbog sve direktnijih i nicim opravdanih
pretnji ratom protiv Iraka od strane Sjedinjenih
Americkih Dr?ava. Ovim obracanjem domacoj i svetskoj
javnosti, Breogradski forum ?eli da uka?e na motive i
dalekose?ne posledice eventualnog takvog napada.
Pretnje za napad na Irak, Americka administracija
opravdava opasnoscu za sopstvenu bezbednost od oru?ja
za masovno unistavanje koje Irak, navodno, proizvodi
ili poseduje. Reagujuci na te pretnje, iracka vlada je
nedavno odlucila da prihvati bezuslovan povratak
inspektora Ujedinjenih nacija, kojima omogucuje da se
na licu mesta, i bez ikakvih ogranicenja, uvere u
opravdanost ili neopravdanost takvih americkih
tvrdnji. To, medjutim, nije odvratilo Americku
administraciju da nastavi sa jos ?escim pritiscima i
pripremama za oru?ani napad na Irak, cak i mimo
saglasnosti Saveta bezbednosti Ujedinjenih nacija, u
kojem se vecina zemalja zala?e za resavanje spora sa
Irakom mirnim putem i u duhu Povelje UN .
Takvo ponasanje pokazuje da Americku administraciju, u
stvari, ne interesuje utvrdjivanje istine u vezi sa
eventualnom proizvodnjom, ili posedovanjem oru?ja za
masovno unistavanje, jer to nije u prvom planu njene
politike i strategije. Ona, u stvari, samo tra?i povod
za oru?ani napad na Irak, rukovodjena iskljucivo sirim
interesima i ciljevima Amerike kao jedine globalne
sile. Radi se o te?nji Amerike da primenom sile
likvidira sadasnji iracki re?im koji smatra
"neposlusnim". Ona time, kao i ranije agresijom na
Jugoslaviju, ?eli da poka?e da ista ili slicna sudbina
ceka svaku zemlju koja, po njenim merilima, bude
svrstana u kategoriju "odmetnickih" zemalja, odnosno
onih koje ne prihvataju americki koncept novog
svetskog poretka, tj. njenu dominaciju.
U stvari, iza takve ratoborne politike Amerike prema
Iraku stoji njen interes i te?nja da potvrdi svoj
status jedine preostale supersile i time, posebno, jos
vise ucvrsti svoje pozicije na strateski va?nom
prostoru Bliskog i Srednjeg istoka i, sto je narocito
va?no, stavi pod kontrlu ogromne rezerve iracke nafte.
Amerika ovim nastoji da obezbedi dalje jacanje svojih
pozicija u svim strateski va?nim delovima sveta,
nametne marionetske re?ime u njima i stavi pod
kontrolu najva?nije sirovinske i energetske izvore u
svetu, kao i strateske saobracajne pravce. Sve to
predstavlja sustinu nove, nedavno razradjene, americke
bezbednosne doktrine i njene te?nje za hegemonijom i
dominacijom.
Beogradski forum izra?ava zadovoljstvo sto se u
pojedinim zemljama, ukljucujuci i same Sjedinjene
Americke Dr?ave, sve jace cuju glasovi protiv
americkih ratnih planova i pretnji Iraku. Ti planovi,
objektivno, izra?avaju politiku koja danas predstavlja
jednu od najvecih opasnosti za mir, bezbednost i
stabilnost medjunarodnog poretka uopste. Sve je
prisutnije saznanje da bi agresija na Irak, pored
velikog broja ljudskih ?rtava, razaranja i ogromnih
dodatnih patnji irackog naroda, predstavljala, bez
sumnje, i te?ak udarac za medjunarodne odnose, mir i
stabilnost u svetu.Ona bi krajnje zaostrila inace
slo?ene odnose izmedju Zapada i muslimanskog sveta,
dodatno destabilizovala stanje na Bliskom istoku,
pogorsavajuci ionako tragican polo?aj palestinskog
naroda. Agresija bi, takodje, otvorila put za dalje
akte bezakonja i samovolju svetskih mocnika na
najsirem medjunarodnom planu, uz realan rizik da
izazove sire medjunarodne sukobe sa nesagledivim
posledicama za covecanstvo. Rat bi, osim toga, izazvao
duboke poremecaje i nestabilnost i u medjunarodnim
ekonomskim i finansijskim odnosima, cije bi negativne
posledice dodatno pogorsale polo?aj, pre svega,
zemalja u razvoju, ali i drugih manje razvijenih
zemalja. ?elimo,medjutim, da verujemo da ce najzad
zdrav razum pobediti i da ce agresija na Irak biti
izbegnuta.
Polazeci od svega toga, Beogradski forum poziva domacu
i svetsku javnost da, poput anti-ratnih akcija
organizovanih u pojedinim zemljama Evrope i Amerike,
odlucno digne svoj glas protiv americkih ratnih
planova prema Iraku i protiv politike sile uopste u
medjunarodnim odnosima. Uporedo s tim, neophodno je
anga?ovanje svih miroljubivih i demokratskih snaga u
svetu u pravcu rehabilitacije i pune afirmacije
nezavisne i nepristrasne uloge Ujedinjenih nacija ,
kao cuvara svetskog mira i bezbednosti. To je bitna
predpostvka za suzbijanje svakog pokusaja primene sile
u medjunarodnim odnosima suprotno slovu i duhu Povelje
Ujedinjenih nacija i za striktno postovanje osnovnih
principa medjunarodnog prava, posebno principa
suverenosti, nezavisnosti i nemesanja u odnosima medju
dr?avama.
Otklanjanju ratne pretnje Iraku i miru u svetu veoma
bi doprinelo dosledno postovanje od strane Iraka
relevantnih rezolucija Saveta bezbednosti u vezi sa
ostvarivanjem mandata medjunarodnih inspektora za
kontrolu naoru?anja za masovno unistavanje.
Imajuci u vidu tragicne posledice koje je narod
Jugoslavije do?iveo zbog neopravdanih sankcija i
brutalne agresije, Beogradski forum izra?ava podrsku i
solidarnost sa irackim narodom koji je, takodje,
izlo?en dugogodisnjim sankcijama, cije su ?rtve
posebno deca i starije osobe. Zbog toga Beogradski
forum poziva domacu i svetsku javnost da se odlucno
anga?uje prema Savetu bezbednosti i za neodlo?no
ukidanje nepravednih sankcija irackom narodu, kao i za
prestanak nezakonitog i nicim opravdanog stalnog
bombardovanja Iraka. Od medjunarodne zajednice i, pre
svega, Ujedinjenih nacija ocekujemo da irackom narodu
obezbede striktno postovanje njegovog prava da sam
odlucuje o svojoj sudbini i da ?ivi u miru i slobodi,
kao i svaki drugi narod.

U Beogradu, 28. 10. 2002. godine
BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH

ONOREFICENZA CROATA PER I RADICALI

I leaders del Partito Radicale Transnazionale - Marco Pannella, Emma
Bonino ed Olivier Dupuis - sono stati insigniti dell'Ordine del Principe
Branimiro, una importante decorazione che lo Stato Croato Indipendente,
in continuita' con lo Stato nazista di Ante Pavelic, assegna ai
personaggi che hanno avuto grandi meriti per la realizzazione della
indipendenza nazionale.
I Radicali Transnazionali hanno infatti contribuito con convinzione allo
scatenamento della guerra fratricida nella Repubblica Federativa
Socialista di Jugoslavia, plaudendo in particolare alla pulizia etnica
nei territori dell'attuale Croazia fino a pochi anni fa abitati in
maggioranza da serbi. Una fotografia di Marco Pannella che veste la
divisa dell'esercito croato, risalente all'autunno 1991, si puo' trovare
alla URL:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/pannella.jpg

>
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=ehot&NID=ehot/politika/HA287375.2yc

EUROPEAN RADICALS MEET PARLIAMENT'S FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ZAGREB, Oct 28 (Hina) - A delegation of the Transnational Radical Party
at the European Parliament held talks in Zagreb on Monday with
representatives of the Croatian parliamentary committee on foreign
affairs, discussing European Union (EU) expansion following the
admission of ten new members in 2004. #L#

The delegation, including party president Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino,
and Olivier Dupuis, arrived in Croatia to receive Prince Branimir Order
decorations, conferred by President Stjepan Mesic, for their
contribution to the strengthening of Croatian interests.
Foreign affairs committee chairman Zdravko Tomac told reporters the
talks mentioned a Transnational Radical Party initiative aimed at
warning the EU that the admission of 13 candidate countries must not be
the end of the enlargement process.
"We also mentioned the possibility of Croatia's being the leader of
Euro-Atlantic integration in the region," said Tomac.
"In our country, however, there is fear that if Croatia accepted that
role it would accept the fate of those countries as well. Croatia is
twice as developed (as them) and the difference between Croatia and
those countries is like the difference between the EU and Croatia," said
Tomac.
According to Dupuis, the Radicals believe the EU enlargement process is
incomplete if Croatia and the countries of the Balkans and Caucasia are
left out. A scandal should be caused to remind Brussels that important
parts of Europe have been excluded from the expansion process, he said.
Bonino pointed to the feeling in Brussels that the upcoming admission of
13 new members should end expansion to central and eastern Europe.
The Radicals maintain the doors should be opened to other areas as well,
said Bonino. Croatia has to see if it is more effective to open the
doors to the EU at the head of several countries or to try to enter the
EU by itself, she added.
The objective is for these countries to become candidates, and then to
have each individually meet the criteria to join the EU, she stated.
"The Radicals' concept is democratic. They have realised that nobody in
Europe has the right to exclude a part of Europe from the EU. Croatia
has the right to be in the group with Romania and Bulgaria, and not to
be left out," said Tomac.
Ten candidates for EU membership, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Cyprus, Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia,
should join in 2004.
Romania and Bulgaria still do not meet the admission criteria. As for
the 13th candidate, the EU has still not commenced negotiations with
Turkey.
The Radicals' delegation was also received by Foreign Minister Tonino
Picula, who presented them with the Prince Branimir Order with chain,
the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Pannella, Bonino, and Dupuis were decorated by President Mesic for their
merits in the promotion of Croatia's international position and
reputation, as well as its relations with other states, and for their
outstanding contribution to Croatia's international recognition, the
ministry said.

(hina) ha sb
(C) Copyright Hina 2002. All rights reserved.

IL REGIME SERBO IMPLORA IN GINOCCHIO L'AMMISSIONE NELLA "PARTNERSHIP FOR
PEACE" (ANTICAMERA DELLA N.A.T.O.)

Gen. Krga in Brussels

BRUSSELS, Oct 28 (Tanjug) - Repersentative of Yugoslav
Army general staff Gen. Branko Krga arrived on Monday on a
two-day official visit to the Belgian armed forces. Gen. Krga, after a
welcome ceremony reserved for him at the Belgian supreme command,
immediately started talks with Belgian Belgian chief of staff Admiral
Vili
Herteler. This is the second meeting of Krga and Herteler in the past
month and a half. Gen. Krga was in Brussels on September 18, when he
met with Adm. Herteler, but the one-day stay in the Belgian capital
was in the srevice of talks of Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran
Svilanovic
and Gen. Krga with NATO Secretary General George Robertson.

International conference on Yugoslavia, Partnership for Peace

BELGRADE, Oct 20 (Tanjug) - Yugoslavia's joining the
Partnersip for Peace, as one of the major medium term objectives of
the Yugoslav foreign policy, is the topic of a two-day
international conference called Towards Euro-Atlantic Partnership, held
in Belgrade on Monday and on Tuesday. In the meeting are taking part
representatives of the Defense and Foreign Ministries, of the Yugoslav
and
Serbian government, the Yugoslav Army, NATO, UN representatives and of
NATO member countries.
Assistant Foreign Minister Vuk Zugic, opening the conferece, said that
the
start of the rpocess of stabilization and association with the Europeon
Union, membership in the Council of Europe and in the Partnership for
Peace as the objectives of Yugoslavia were "a logical continuation of
the
integration of Yugoslabvia into the international community. "By
joining
the Partnership for Peace we are proving that we share the same values
on
which rest modern European and Euro-Atlantic structures - stability and
security, respect for human rights and freedoms, the rule of law,
commitment to democarcy, adherence to international conventions," he
said.
Joining Partnership for Peace, Zugic considered, would help stability
in
the Balkans - a region where only Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
are not yet in the NATO program. The Yugoslav Army, through a large
number
of contacts with Partnership for Peace member states, as well as with
NATO
member states, is drawing itself closer to NATO modern standards
and programs, Gen. Slobodan Kosovac said.

SEGNALIAMO DUE IMPORTANTI APPUNTAMENTI


=== * ===


FIRENZE 7 NOVEMBRE 2002
"ZASTAVA": UNA VERGOGNA PER L'EUROPA


http://www.ecn.org/coord.rsu/doc/rsu2002/2002_1107fsf.htm

La classe operaia in Jugoslavia
colpita dai bombardamenti e dal modello liberista

"Zastava"
Una vergogna per l'Europa

Dal 9 al 12 aprile 1999, una serie di raids della Nato bombardano e
distruggono la Zastava di Kragujevac (fabbrica di auto e camion) che
occupava 36.000 lavoratori.
Sono centinaia le fabbriche bombardate in tutta la Jugoslavia, ed
assieme a queste sono colpite le strade, i ponti, le scuole, gli
ospedali. Oltre 3.000 le vittime civili. Oltre 700.000 i lavoratori
disoccupati.
La "guerra umanitaria" della Nato si svela per quello che è. Una
grande opera di distruzione per mettere in ginocchio un intero paese e
per spianare la strada al nuovo mercato capitalistico ed alle sue
leggi.
Indebolita da dieci anni di embargo, colpita dalla guerra, la classe
operaia Jugoslava è oggi chiamata ad una difficile lotta di resistenza
contro le conseguenze di una politica iperliberista con cui
l'occidente capitalistico vuole ora affermare la sua egemonia politica
ed economica.
La Zastava di Kragujevac rappresenta un simbolo di questa lotta di
resistenza, per la difesa della fabbrica, contro le privatizzazioni e
le nuove leggi per il lavoro che mirano a smantellare i contratti di
lavoro ed i diritti. Una lotta che è al tempo stesso una difficile
ricostruzione sindacale e un rilancio del mondo del lavoro come
soggetto protagonista di una ricostruzione sociale ed economica
fondata sui valori dell'uguaglianza e della solidarietà.

Nell'ambito del programma di iniziative
del Firenze Social Forum


Giovedì 7 novembre 2002
Dalle ore 9,30 alle 13

Presso la sede dello Snur Cgil di Firenze
In P.zza Indipendenza n.8 (3° piano) - 5 minuti a piedi dalla Fortezza
da basso

Introducono e conducono i lavori
Anelli Lino (Cgil Lombardia) - Perini Fulvio (Cgil Torino)

Intervengono:

Ruzica Milosavljevic (del sindacato metalmeccanici Jugoslavo)
Rajka Veljovic - Radoslav Delic (rappresentanti sindacali della
Zastava)

per informazioni - Rossi Alma - alma@...


=== * ===


TRIESTE 16 NOVEMBRE 2002
"...PASSANDO SEMPRE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA"


Dopo l'abbattimento del Muro di Berlino si parlava di pace e di
progresso. In tutti questi anni abbiamo visto invece solamente un
crescendo di guerre e di miserie: dall'Iraq all'Afghanistan alla
Palestina per ritornare di nuovo all'Iraq...


...PASSANDO SEMPRE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA.



In Jugoslavia, al centro dell'Europa, l'aggressione e' stata
inininterrotta e la spoliazione procede oggi a gonfie vele. Quale e'
la vera situazione economica e sociale sul terreno, al di la' della
disinformazione o dell'omerta' dei mass-media? Come far procedere le
tante iniziative di solidarieta' verso la popolazione bombardata?


Una giornata di dibattito organizzata da
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
e Gruppo "Zastava Trieste"

con la partecipazione del
Partito della Rifondazione Comunista - Federazione di Trieste

Il programma provvisorio prevede gli interventi di:

LINO ANELLI (CGIL Lombardia)
IGOR CANCIANI (PRC Trieste)
ANDREA CATONE (CNJ / Most za Beograd, Bari)
FULVIO GRIMALDI (CNJ / L'Ernesto)
VLADIMIR KAPURALIN (Partito Socialista Operaio, Pola)
RENATO KNEIPP (CGIL Trieste)
GORDANA PAVLOVIC (Ass. Decja Istina, Belgrado)
FABIO SEBASTIANI (Liberazione, Roma)
GILBERTO VLAIC (CNJ / Zastava Trieste)
Un esponente del PARTITO COMUNISTA DI SLOVENIA

Dettagli precisi sugli orari, sul luogo della iniziativa e su come
raggiungerlo saranno forniti in prossime comunicazioni.


Per maggiori informazioni: <jugocoord@...>

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/savich1.html

ANTIWAR


Dead Babies
Lynching or Justice? The Trial of the Century: Kosovo
Phase Analysis

by Carl Savich
October 22, 2002

Dead Babies and Baby Killers

Witness K41: "The people who were in the houses were
expelled. They were forced out into the yard.There was a
gun placed to each of their heads.I think there were
about 15 people there. There were women there too,
children. I remember at least one child that I saw."

Prosecutor Dirk Rynevald: "Were there any babies? ."

Witness K41: "Yes.There was at least one baby. It might
have been - well, not even a year old. A soldier checked
to see if they had any money. The rest of the soldiers
started to leave the yard, and the four of us, or five
of us, remained. And our sergeant, Sergeant Kozlina,
ordered us to shoot the people who were in the yard. The
people who were shot at began falling down one across
the other, one over the other, and what I remember most
vividly is how - I remember this very vividly. There was
a baby, and it had been shot with three bullets, and it
was screaming unbelievably loud..

Never a night goes by without my dreaming about that
child."

Is this a scene from yet another Hollywood Holocaust
movie? Is it from Schindler's List? Is this the Racak
Massacre Hoax, an example of Propaganda of the Deed? Is
this the massacre at Babi Yar during World War II? Is
this "testimony" from the Iraqi Baby Incubator Hoax that
Tom Lantos manufactured and concocted/orchestrated to
foment war against Iraq? In 1990, Iraqi troops were
alleged to have turned off incubators and allowed
Kuwaiti babies to die. There were dead babies. The Iraqi
troops were baby killers. Is this the testimony of Hun
atrocities in Belgium in 1914 during World War I? German
troops were alleged to have carried dead babies on
bayonets and to have cut off the arms of Belgian
children, dismembering a baby.

This was the testimony of Witness K41 at the ICTY
"international trial of the century" of former Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, at the session held on
Friday, September 6, 2002. The testimony by K41 bears a
striking resemblance and similarity to the "Hun
atrocities" alleged to have been committed in Belgium in
August, 1914 and to the Iraqi Incubator Hoax of the 1991
Persian Gulf War.

British and French government/media propaganda accused
German troops of the mass rape of Belgian girls in
public in Liege. German troops were accused of
mutilating the breasts of a Belgian girl. The classic
propaganda image of the Allied propaganda against
Germany was the dead Belgian baby on a bayonet. German
troops, eight in number, were accused of bayoneting a
two-year-old Belgian baby. The London Times published
the news dispatch of an eyewitness account of German
atrocities against Belgian babies. A man was quoted as
stating that he witnessed "with his own eyes German
soldiery chop off the arms of a baby which clung to its
mother's skirts." The French propaganda office even
manufactured a photograph of the "handless baby" which
on September 18, 1915 was published in the French
newspaper La Rive Rouge. The French media included a
drawing that showed German troops eating the hands of
the dead baby. A Belgian commission of inquiry in 1922,
however, failed to find any evidence whatsoever for any
of these alleged atrocities. But that is irrelevant.

The truth of the allegations is irrelevant in
propaganda. What is important is that the dead babies
propaganda was successful on the propaganda front. For
Britain and France, the dead babies propaganda rallied
domestic public opinion against Germany. The truth of
the allegations is irrelevant and immaterial. The goal
was to create public opinion on the home front to create
support for a continuation of the war, to manufacture
racist/national/ethnic fervor, to instill war frenzy and
to lessen the antipathy towards killing. The Belgian
atrocity propaganda was also used to create public
support in the US for a declaration of war against
Germany. As John MacArthur noted, "slaughtered and
mutilated Belgian babies were a tremendous propaganda
triumph for the Allies."

Dead babies propaganda would be used again in the Iraqi
Persian Gulf War in 1991. Propaganda techniques do not
change. Wars and "dictators" and "butchers" come and go,
but propaganda techniques do not. Why is this so?
Propaganda appeals to fundamental, universal impulses of
man. Propaganda relies on archetypes of the human mental
psyche, primordial psychological processes and
mechanisms of the mind. There are archetypical motifs,
paradigms, stereotypes that are unchanging. This is why
massacres, atrocities, the mass rape of women and the
killing of babies remains an unchanging propaganda
technique from the 1914 Belgian atrocities to the 2002
ICTY "international trial of the century" of Slobodan
Milosevic. The mass rape propaganda technique was
revived during the Bosnian civil war while the dead
babies propaganda was used again in the Iraqi War of
1991 and the Milosevic trial of 2002. You go with what
works. And if it works, why change it? Why fix it if it
ain't broken?

The ICTY dead babies propaganda is analogous to the
Jewish Ritual Murder allegations or "blood libels" in
European history. In medieval Europe, anti-Jewish and
anti-Semitic racism and racist paranoia was induced by
manufacturing allegations that Jews abducted Christian
babies and then killed them in sacrificial religious
blood rites. Jews require the blood of Christian babies
for the Passover rite or ritual. Every year Jews abduct
a Christian baby, torture and crucify the baby, pierce
its side, perform a circumcision, then they kill the
Christian baby and dispose of the body. The Jewish
ritual murder of Christian babies charge first emerged
in England. Thomas of Monmouth published an account of
St. William of Norwich in 1173. William was alleged to
have been the victim of a Jewish ritual murder committed
in Norwich in 1144 by a converted Jew, Theobald. William
was tortured, circumcised, and his side was pierced in a
mock crucifixion. Anti-Jewish propaganda and paranoia
would eventually result in the expulsion from England of
all Jews by King Edward. In 1171, Jews of Blois, France,
were accused of crucifying a French Christian baby
during Passover as a ritualistic yearly murder. Jews
then threw the dead baby into the Loise river. There was
a dead baby. Jews were baby killers. That was the
message. That was the image. The association was with
dead Christian babies and Jews. Similarly, anti-Gypsy
racism and bigotry is based on the allegation that
wandering Gypsies kidnap helpless and defenseless babies
who are subsequently murdered. The dead baby propaganda
of the ICTY prosecutors makes use of the same
psychological or psychic mechanisms and responses of the
human brain. The dead babies allegations legitimize
racial and religious hatred and suspicion and in the
case of the Kosovo conflict, "revenge killings" of
Serbian children due to the "repression" and
"oppression" of the "ethnic Albanians". K41 was used to
show that the Yugoslav/Serbian Army was made up of baby
killers. Slobodan Milosevic was a baby killer. By
implication, every Serbian Orthodox is a baby killer.
This should insult our intelligence and human dignity.
But the ICTY prosecution is appealing to our emotions,
our feelings. Don't think, just feel. Focus on the
image. The image is everything. Just take in the image
of a dead Albanian baby being shot with three bullets
and screaming. Do you feel guilty now? Do you feel
remorse? Well, do you? Do you still want to be a Serb
now? Feel. Do not think. How many times have we heard
this before?

During the Iraqi conflict, Iraqi troops were accused of
removing 312 babies from incubators and placing them on
the hospital floors to die in Kuwait City. The London
Telegraph of September 5, 1990 reported that "babies in
the premature unit of one hospital had been removed from
their incubators so that these, too, could be carried
off." Two days later, the Los Angeles Times carried a
Reuters news dispatch which reported: "Iraqis are
beating people.taking hospital equipment, babies out of
incubators. Life-support systems are turned off.The
Iraqis are beating Kuwaitis.cutting their ears off if
they are caught resisting." MacArthur noted that "of all
the accusations made against the dictator, none had more
impact on American public opinion" than the dead babies
propaganda. The dead babies propaganda was manufactured
by the US government. President George Bush used the
dead babies propaganda is calling for a war against Iraq
in 1991. The US government colluded with the media and
PR firms to manufacture the hoax. Tom Lantos
orchestrated the presentation of bogus "testimony" to
substantiate the dead babies accusation. Lantos
presented "Nayirah" who would testify about witnessing
the murder of innocent Kuwaiti babies. Nayirah testified
before the Human Rights Caucus as follows:

I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital.While I was
there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital
with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in
incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators,
took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold
floor to die.

Voila! Dead babies! Of course, the later investigations
proved the Kuwaiti baby incubator story was a
manufactured hoax, manufactured and orchestrated by the
US Government, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, the US
media, and Tom Lantos. Why did Lantos not reveal her
last name? Nayirah was actually Nayirah al-Sabah, the
daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US. It was all
a phony propaganda stunt orchestrated and staged by the
US Government. It was a hoax and a sham. But it worked.
And therefore it is to be imitated and repeated. That is
why we see its reappearance at the "trial of the
century" of Slobodan Milosevic. What is the lesson here?
What is the moral? In the New World Order, all we are
concerned with is results. If it works, it is good. If
it does not work, it is bad. This is the morality and
ethics of the New World Order. This is the ethos of the
era. Selling. But you cannot have economic expansion and
exploitation without first having military and political
exploitation. It is all about selling. We want to build
more McDonald's restaurants. We want to build Kentucky
Fried Chicken franchises globally. The goal is to expand
markets. The avatars of the New World Order are the Big
Mac and the soft-drink Coca-Cola and affordable PCs.
Selling. Get used to it. Because we will see it repeated
ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Why use dead babies propaganda? Dead babies propaganda
is highly effective as Western propagandists have
learned since the 1914 Belgian atrocity hoax following
the German occupation of Belgium in August, 1914. But
attempting to portray the Serbian Orthodox as baby
killers is an act of desperation and a sign of utter
weakness by the prosecutors at the ICTY. Dead babies
propaganda is a last resort. Its use demonstrates moral
and ethical bankruptcy and total disregard for human
rights, for humanity, humanitas. Why did the ICTY use
it? The ICTY could find no evidence of genocide in
Kosovo, no evidence of war crimes, no evidence of a plan
or conspiracy by Slobodan Milosevic to deport or
ethnically cleanse Albanians, no evidence of crimes
against humanity. The ICTY learned that the Milosevic
regime was engaged in a legal and legitimate state
action to prevent infiltration/invasion of armed
terrorist groups from Albania, the "mother country", a
terrorist army that sought to create an ethnically pure
Greater Albania that would encompass "Kosova",
Kosovo-Metohija, and "Illirida", western Macedonia.
Indeed, events in "Kosova" following the NATO bombing
showed that this was the actual goal all along.

Dead babies propaganda is a textbook example of the
Atrocity Technique or Atrocity Appeal in propaganda.
Atrocity propaganda was the US/NATO technique used
during the Bosnian Civil War to mobilize public opinion
against the Bosnian Serb faction. How was this done? The
US/NATO/ media relied on atrocity propaganda. The
Bosnian Serb forces massacred Bosnian Muslims and Croat
civilians, engaged in a systematic policy of mass rape
as an instrument of war, established "rape camps" or
"rape motels", set up concentration camps to intern
Bosnian Muslim and Croat civilians. The US
government/media concocted the Markale Massacre I and
Markale Massacre II, the Sarajevo Breadline Massacre,
and the Srebrenica Massacre. Why did the US
government/media do this? This was done to create
anti-Serbian public opinion so that the groundwork could
be established for war against the Serbian faction. The
ultimate aim of all propaganda is to enable or to
justify the killing of the "enemy".

Dead babies propaganda is meant to camouflage or
obscure/obfuscate the fact that the ICTY has failed to
prove or establish any part of its case against Slobodan
Milosevic. A focus on dead babies is termed an appeal to
the emotions, Affective Appeal in propaganda analysis.
In other words, it as an appeal to emotion, not to
reasoning, not the intellect. The goal is to bypass
reason. Atrocity propaganda in fact is meant to preclude
or prevent thought. Don't think, don't use your brain,
the ICTY prosecutors are saying, but let your emotions
control you. Here is a dead Albanian baby that Yugoslav
troops have killed. You must emote, you must feel. Guilt
and contrition are the objectives here. The Milosevic
trial is aimed primarily at the Serbian population. That
is why there is a virtual news black-out in the US. The
"trial of the century" is meant for Serbia. Ironically,
Pravda exposed the Milosevic trial as "The Lie of the
Century." It is a waste of time for Americans. The trial
is meant to discredit Serbia and the Serbian people, the
Orthodox. This was noted concisely in a Houston
Chronicle article of February 26, 2002: "Truth is,
Serbia's on trial along with Milosevic." This is why
Sylvia Poggioli of NPR interviews citizens of Belgrade
and not in New York or Washington, DC. The trial is
meant to vindicate or justify the NATO bombing and the
anti-Serbian Orthodox propaganda. Common sense tells us
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia violated the UN Charter
and all rules, customs, and agreements of international
law. The unprovoked NATO bombing, invasion, and
occupation of Serbia/Yugoslavia violated basic
principles of sovereignty. The only way NATO could sell
the war was by propaganda, by manufacturing an
imperative for intervention based on genocide. But there
was no genocide. Thus the need to justify the illegal
NATO aggressive war against a UN state, Yugoslavia. The
trial is meant to justify and vindicate what cannot be
justified and vindicated. Thus there is a mindless and
inexplicable appeal to emotion. Don't think. Feel.

Why appeal to emotion? We cannot control our emotions.
Emotion is spontaneous and based on our subconscious and
operates at the subliminal level. Is this propaganda
technique new or original? Adolf Hitler examined and
discussed this propaganda technique in Mein Kampf in
1924. Hitler wrote that atrocity propaganda, dead babies
propaganda, appeals to the emotion, and not the
intellect:

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the
emotional ideas of the masses and finding, through a
psychologically correct form, the way to the attention
and thence to the heart of the masses.The purpose of
propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for
blasé young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean
is to convince the masses.Its effect for the most part
must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited
degree at the so-called intellect.Sober reasoning
determines the people's thoughts and actions far less
than emotion and feeling.

As Hitler understood, propaganda is illogical and based
not on reason, but on emotion and feeling. This is why
the ICTY prosecution used the dead babies propaganda
which is illogical, absurd, and factually unconvincing.
But emotionally the dead babies propaganda is effective
because its appeal is to the emotions, which are
involuntary and reflexive and which are sensory in
nature.

How did the media report on this testimony of the
alleged killing of a baby? Ian Black in The Guardian
Unlimited for September 6, 2002 had this headline:
"Milosevic's army shot baby in village massacre". As the
ICTY prosecutors planned, the media focused on the dead
baby, the dead babies propaganda, the baby killers
propaganda. "We shot a little baby three times: soldiers
tell" was the headline in the Sun-Herald on September 8,
2002. This article even falsifies/manipulates the
testimony by adding the superfluous redundancy "little"
to describe the dead baby. K41 never used the adjective
"little". Isn't a baby always "little"? Media overkill?
Propaganda? The propaganda, nevertheless, worked as the
ICTY prosecution knew it would. Never mind that legally
their case against Milosevic was a total failure and
fiasco and amounted to a show or witch-hunt trial or
political trial masterminded by the US/NATO. Never mind
that legally the dead babies propaganda had achieved
absolutely nothing, had shown or proven nothing. That
was irrelevant. Why bother with something as trivial as
jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and
basic legal principles and procedures? The headline in
the Electronic Telegraph for September 6, 2002 was
"Milosevic unmoved": "Milosevic yawns as soldier witness
tells of village massacre" by Neil Tweedie for September
7, 2002. National Public Radio (NPR) pointed to the dead
babies testimony to vindicate and justify their
anti-Serbian posture.

The US and Western media advanced the propaganda line
that, contrary to all common sense and rudimentary legal
concepts, the ICTY had proven its case against
Milosevic. Isabel Vincent in The National Post Online
for September 14, 2002, argued that the ICTY prosecutors
had won a "slam dunk": "Milosevic prosecutors win a
'slam dunk'". Ruth Wedgwood, an international law
professor at Johns Hopkins University, was quoted as
follows: "Kosovo was a slam dunk." The term "slam dunk"
is an Americanism using a basketball analogy. Does using
a basketball analogy in a genocide prosecution reveal
profound moral hypocrisy and ethical cynicism or does it
demonstrate a genuine concern for human rights?
According to Vincent, the K41 dead babies testimony was
achieving its results in Serbia, instilling guilt and
contrition of the Serbian Orthodox as the ICTY
prosecutors planned: "After K41's testimony, media
outlets in Belgrade noted prosecutors were beginning to
win the case against Mr. Milosevic." Of course, not
legally, but emotionally, or at the propaganda or
infowar level. The propaganda was working. Keep it
coming. Give us more of the same. As for the legal case
against Milosevic, Vincent concluded that the ICTY
prosecutors "appeared to present a strong case." The
operative term here is "appeared". Was a strong legal
case against Milosevic presented? We do not know because
"appeared" is a meaningless, superficial term, actually
a propagandistic term implying plausible deniability and
reality control and spin. Based on the facts and the
evidence, the prosecution case was a total and complete
failure and flop/fiasco, "the travesty of the century".

Why does the US and Western media use the term "ethnic"
to describe Albanians but not the other ethnic groups in
the former Yugoslavia? The use of the term "ethnic"
stands out as an anomaly. The ethnic Serbs of
Bosnia-Hercegovina were referred to as "Bosnian Serbs".
The ethnic Serbs of Krajina were referred to as
"Croatian Serbs". The ethnic Macedonians of Macedonia
were referred to as "Slavs". Does a propaganda pattern
emerge? Why the difference in media reporting with
reference to the term "ethnic"? Nothing in propaganda or
infowar is by accident or at random. This terminology
was devised and manufactured at the US State Department
and then handed out to the "free and independent" media
as an instance of handout journalism. Every word, every
nuance of the psyop technician has a subtle purpose. As
Hitler noted, propaganda is not meant as "interesting
distraction for blasé young gentlemen". Propaganda takes
time, coordination, planning, and money to organize.
Infowar techniques have a specific result in mind, to
convince. To be consistent, US/Western terminology
should refer to Bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs, as
"ethnic" Serbs. But that was not the case. Ethnic
Albanians should be referred to as Yugoslav Albanians or
Serbian Albanians. In the Macedonia conflict, the two
groups, Albanians and Macedonians, were described as
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs" respectively. Is this
just random and by accident? We have to get inside the
mind of the US propagandist here. The terms the US
propagandist uses are based on function or on objectives
the US propagandist seeks to advance or achieve. Let us
take the term "Croatian Serbs", an oxymoron coined by
the US propagandist at the US State Department. Why this
term? The infowar technician wants to convince the
reader that the ethnic Serbian population of Croatia
only has meaning as part of Croatia. In other words, the
propagandist opposes any autonomy for the Krajina Serbs
or ethnic Serbs of Croatia. The way this brainwashing is
achieved is by the oxymoron "Croatian Serbs". Similarly,
the US propagandist coined the term "Bosnian Serb" for
the ethnic Serbs of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Why? The
choice here again is to limit Serbs to the territory of
Bosnia by the use of the limiting adjective "Bosnian".
The propagandist could just as well have used "ethnic
Serbs" or "Hercegovina Serbs" but instead chose "Bosnian
Serbs". Similarly, in the Macedonian conflict, the US
propagandist could use the term "Macedonian Albanians"
but instead refers to them as "ethnic Albanians". This
requires a parallel designation for "ethnic
Macedonians". But inconsistently and illogically, the
propaganda specialist uses the term "Slavs". Here the
goal is the opposite. The term "ethnic" is used because
"Macedonian" would limit the Albanian population to the
territory of Macedonia. The term "Slavs" is used because
the infowar technician wants to de-legitimize the ethnic
Macedonian classification. The dichotomy is between
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs". This creates parity and
equality between the two groups and allows for the
establishment of a separate Albanian federation in
Macedonia, the division of the country into "Slavs" and
"ethnic Albanians", the Greater Albania federalization
plan. Similarly, the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia is
referred to as "ethnic Albanians" and not as "Yugoslav
Albanians" or "Serbian Albanians" or Kosovo Albanians.
The rationale is obvious. The US propagandist seeks to
deny legitimacy to Yugoslavia and to Serbia by using the
vague and open term "ethnic". This systematic and
planned propaganda campaign insults our intelligence and
treats us like swine and cattle. But the US government
and media do not agree. They would maintain that they
are doing us a service, that they are teaching us how to
think correctly and ethically. Moreover, they are
counteracting the negative influence of the "butcher",
"dictator", "Hitler", Milosevic's propaganda. So enjoy
it. It is for your own good.

The dead babies testimony was presented by witness K41,
an anonymous witness, who presented his testimony on
"video link". K41 was the star prosecution witness after
the botched Rade Markovic fiasco. K41 was the final act,
the climax to the Kosovo Phase of the "trial of the
century". Before his testimony, Judge Richard May
summarily dismissed Milosevic's request to make legal
submissions: "Mr. Milosevic, we're not hearing legal
submissions now." Judge May was eager and excited to get
the star witness who was going to deliver the "slam
dunk" against Milosevic: "Now, Witness K41, we're going
to hear your evidence." K41 was questioned by Ryneveld,
and cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic and Branislav
Tapuskovic.

Much of the background information regarding K41 was
"redacted" from the trial transcripts, that is, it was
cut out or censored. But what emerged was that K41 was
unable to get a passport to appear at the Hague in the
Netherlands because he was a suspected criminal
fugitive, wanted by the Yugoslav police, who had been to
his house seeking his arrest. K41 was 19 years old at
the time he was a member of the 549th Motorized Brigade
in Prizren. K41 was in the Battalion Technical Company.
His duties consisted of the maintenance of trucks, road
construction, and delivering food supplies. His
Logistics Battalion was part of the Technical Company
under the charge of Sergeant Rajko Kozlina. K41 served
from September 9, 1998 to June 10, 1999. His company was
ordered to set up an ambush in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
K41 testified that he and other Yugoslav troops had
expelled Albanian civilians from villages after the
villages had been shelled. He had received orders "to
clean up the village." There had been no shooting from
the village. He testified that the inhabitants were all
Albanian civilians. He stated that there was "looting"
of "shops" by Yugoslav troops. He saw no UCK/KLA
uniforms. K41 "left the village of Trnje with a truck
full of bodies and children." A truck full of dead
babies! Hill & Knowlton and Ruder Finn could never top
that one. What a propaganda bonanza! Too bad this is a
trial and not a PR campaign. Hill & Knowlton and Ruder
Finn would have a field day. One of his accomplices in
the massacre was Miroslav Fejzic according to K41. But
during cross-examination Milosevic was able to show that
no one by the name of Miroslav Fejzic was in the
company. His actual name was Mohammed Fejzic. Why is
this important? It may or may not be. K41 stated that
the "nickname" for Fejzic in the company was "Miroslav",
a Slavic Christian name. Why would a Muslim be called by
such a "nickname"? One possible explanation is the ICTY
prosecutors wanted to conceal the fact that one of the
accomplices to the so-called massacre near Trnje was a
Muslim. The object was to create a clear-cut line
between Good and Evil, a classic dichotomy between Us
and Them. But if one of those killing the Muslim victims
was a Muslim himself, the story is rendered less
plausible. Moreover, the dichotomy is destroyed.
Miroslav Fejzic? That is an oxymoron. Why conceal the
fact that his real name is Mohammed Fejzic?

In his cross-examination of Witness K41, Milosevic was
able to show that a warrant had been issued for the
arrest of K41 for armed robbery. The police had come to
K41's house but he had fled. He was fleeing and eluding
arrest. This is a serious crime in itself. K41 was a
wanted criminal and a self-confessed murderer. Why was
he the star prosecution witness against Milosevic?

Milosevic explained that he wanted to "test" the
"credibility" of K41 by this line of question. Judge
May, however, cautioned Milosevic to question K41 on his
testimony only. Milosevic stated that "quite obviously
we're dealing with a criminal here." Milosevic explained
that K41 was part of a contingent sent to the village of
Ljubizda Has near the Albanian border where UCL/KLA
guerrillas/terrorists were infiltrating Yugoslavia from
their military bases in Albania. The unit of which K41
was a member had set up an ambush position at the
village which was 4 kilometers from the Albanian border
on the Pastrik Mountains. Milosevic introduced evidence
that representatives of the OSCE Verification Mission
witnessed the Yugoslav military operations in the region
at the time. The OSCE "conducted a verification
spot-check" and concluded that no civilians were killed.
There were no massacres or executions according to the
OSCE monitors who were on the scene. Instead, 9 UCK/KLA
guerrillas were killed in the operation in Jeskovo. The
UCK "freedom fighters'/"terrorists" were all wearing UCK
military uniforms with Greater Albania badges, the black
double-headed eagle on a red background, the national
flag of Albania, the mother country. The UCK troops all
possessed weapons. Brigadier General Michel Maisonneuve
of the Canadian force, head of the regional center in
Prizren, along with OSCE monitors from Poland, Finland,
and Russia confirmed these facts. How could the OSCE
monitors miss another Racak-style massacre under their
own eyes? Milosevic concluded that "this witness, like
many others, is a false witness."

Milosevic pointed out an inconsistency in the testimony.
K41 stated that the massacre occurred in Trnje. But K32,
an earlier who witness gave the same testimony, claimed
that Medvedje was where the massacre occurred. After a
recess, the court announced that K32 had later corrected
his version to agree with that of K41. Milosevic
concluded: "These witnesses did not reach the right kind
of agreement when they were supposed to tell these
falsehoods."

K41 was part of a Logistics Battalion that supplied food
and water to front-line troops stationed in the Trnje
area of Kosovo-Metohija. Logistics is involved with
supply, not combat or actions in "built-up" positions,
and operates in the rear. Captain First Class Major
Pavle Gavrilovic had stated that every soldier was
instructed on how to treat the wounded, POWs, and
civilians and informed of humanitarian law. The Geneva
Convention guidelines were read to the troops. The
"Rules for Combatants" was also provided to the troops.
Gavrilovic concluded that no violations had occurred in
this area. K41 testified that there were no UCK/KLA
troops in the area. There was no combat whatsoever.
Milosevic queried K41: "You were just going and killing
babies, women, and children."

K41 stated that the Yugoslav forces suffered no
casualties and were not in danger. But Milosevic then
disproved this statement by introducing KFOR documents
that showed that a UCK/KLA brigade was in that area. A
heavy KLA concentration of military forces was located
precisely in the Trnje area. Milosevic showed that three
Yugoslav troops, Slobodan Gasparic, Bojan Jovanovic, and
Vladimir Mirko had been killed in the operation K41
described in combat with KLA guerrillas. Milosevic was
able to contradict the testimony of K41 that there were
no Yugoslav losses. The trial transcript is redacted
following this evidence. The evidence was presented in
private session. Milosevic asserted that this evidence
was offered "to show you that the witness has not been
telling the truth about other matters either."

Milosevic then introduced evidence that the OSCE had
reported no civilian deaths in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
In fact, Yugoslav police and military forces had helped
the Albanian civilians of this area to build roads. The
UCK/KLA guerrillas had occupied the villages and imposed
terror and blackmailed residents into paying money to
KLA. K41 testified that Yugoslav forces had burned
houses in Mamusa. But Milosevic introduced a tape that
showed that no houses had been burned in Mamusa. On the
tape, Albanian residents of Mamusa reported that no
houses had been burned. K41 stated that his unit fired
an anti-aircraft gun at the Albanian village for 20
minutes non-stop. Milosevic, however, was able to show
that based on the rate of fire of the gun, it was not
possible to maintain constant fire for that long without
the ammunition running out. K41 then changed his
testimony and stated that the fire was sporadic only.
Milosevic clearly showed that K41 did not know what he
was talking about.

Yugoslav military rules, regulations, and laws required
a member of the armed forces to report an order to
commit a crime and to disobey such an order. An order to
commit a crime was to be reported to a superior officer
immediately. All members of the Yugoslav armed forces
were duty-bound by the "Rules of Service" which every
member of the armed forces was required to know.
Milosevic introduced the "Rules of Service" as part of
the evidence to the court. Milosevic asked K41 if he was
aware of these rules and regulations. K41 replied that
he was not. Milosevic explained that every Yugoslav
soldier was informed of these regulations. K41 played
dumb. Perhaps he didn't have to play that much.

The amicus curia, Branislav Tapuskovic, then
cross-examined K41. Judge May admonished him: "Mr.
Tapuskovic, we wish not to be too long." Setting a time
limit on cross-examination is definitely a clear
violation of due process. Tapuskovic asked K41 why he
chose now to come forward with his testimony about
killing the "little" baby. Why had it taken him nearly
three years to confess his crimes? If he is innocent,
why does he fear going to the police? K41 explained that
he wanted to have his relatives exonerate him. He did
not want to go to the police. Tapuskovic explained that
the proper and legal way to be exonerated was to go
before a magistrate or judge. This is how to clear his
name. Eluding and fleeing the police was not the
accepted or normal way to be exonerated. K41 stated that
he planned to go to the police "when it suits me." K41
was asked about ICTY investigator John Zdrilic. Did
Zdrilic recruit him to testify? Was he offered anything
in exchange for his testimony? K41 explained: "I thought
that if I come forward and tell the truth that I will
feel easier in my soul." It had taken three years for
K41 to make his "confession".

Dead babies. That is what the Kosovo phase of the ICTY
Slobodan Milosevic "international trial of the century"
came down to. In the final analysis, this is what the
prosecution used to close their case against former
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the "Hitler",
"dictator", "Butcher of the Balkans". The earlier ICTY
"star witness" exonerated Milosevic and admitted that he
was coerced. Milosevic alleged that Markovic was
"tortured" to testify falsely against him. Judge May
prevented any testimony on the "torture" allegation
because he ruled that it was "irrelevant" to the Kosovo
case.

The Kosovo phase of the "trial of the century", the war
crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the ICTY in the
Hague, concluded on September 11, 2002. Milosevic had
been charged with 66 counts of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide in the conflicts in
Kosovo-Metohija, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and
Croatia/Krajina. In what human rights groups have dubbed
"the international trial of the century", 95 days were
spent on in court testimony. The three-member panel was
presided over by Judge Richard May of the UK appointed
by Tony Blair. The prosecutor was Geoffrey Nice of the
UK. In these 95 days, 124 witnesses were called, both
public/open and "secret"/anonymous witnesses, while
chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte assembled over 300
exhibits, consisting of maps, charts, photographs, video
tapes, and statements. What is the result of the Kosovo
phase? The trial has been a total, complete, and
unmitigated failure and disaster. The trial has been
exposed as a political show trial orchestrated by the
US/NATO. Fundamental and elementary principles of due
process have been egregiously violated. News coverage of
the trial has been censored, suppressed, and
manipulated. The trial has been a useful propaganda tool
of US/NATO. Legally the trial is a travesty of justice.
The trial of the century is a lynching, exposing the
so-called Western justice as a sham.

What have legal analysts and the so-called mainstream
media concluded about the Kosovo phase of the trial of
the century? In The Independent (UK), September 11,
2002, Stephen Castle concluded that the prosecution
"fails to make vital link" in "Case against Milosevic
fails to make vital link". The prosecution needed to
prove command responsibility on the part of Slobodan
Milosevic. But this was not done. Castle concluded: "It
says [the prosecution] proves Mr. Milosevic must have
known of the murder and deportation of ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo, and he therefore bears command
responsibility." Ian Black in "Milosevic protests as
curtain falls on first act of his trial" in The Guardian
(UK), September 12, 2002, concluded: "If there were a
jury in this trial, it would probably be deeply divided
at this stage."

Lynching or Justice?

Is the ICTY trial of Slobodan Milosevic an example of
justice or is it a lynching? Edward L. Greenspan, QC, a
Toronto attorney in The National Post Online for March
13, 2002 concluded: "This is a lynching!" Due process
was violated as well as fundamental fairness and
elementary legal rules. Slobodan Milosevic was prevented
by Judge May from conducting a complete and thorough
cross-examination. May has set time limitations on the
Milosevic cross-examinations and has restricted their
scope. This is a blatant violation of an accused's right
to cross-examination. As Judge Learned Hand noted: "Thou
shalt not ration justice." Justice is rationed when a
time limit is set for cross-examination. Greenspan noted
the political nature of the trial and its function as a
show trial masterminded and organized by the US/NATO.
Greenspan concluded that the trial of the century was
nothing short of a lynching:

This is a lynching. Normally, lynchings are done
outdoors. Here, the lynching has been brought indoors.
Instead of a tree and rope, there are May and Del Ponte.
The problem with lynching is that it's flawed as a
process, whether the man who gets hanged is innocent or
guilty. The result is certain. A kangaroo court is one
in which legal procedures are largely a show, and the
action "jumps" from accusation to sentencing without due
process. No matter how long a trial takes, if the result
is inevitable, then it's a show trial. The accusers
might as well shoot Milosevic. At least it doesn't soil
the process.

Lynchings have a long history in American "justice".
Between 1882 and 1951, 4,730 persons were lynched in the
United States, 1,293 white, 3,437 black, by vigilantes
or vigilance groups. "Lynch law" or swamp law consists
in the administration of justice by a self-appointed and
self-constituted court that imposes sentence on a person
without due process. The goal is political and social
submission. Various explanations have been offered for
the derivation of the term "lynching". One explanation
bases the derivation from Colonel Charles Lynch
(1736-1796), a Virginia planter and justice of the
peace, who harassed Tories during the American
Revolutionary War. Summary punishment, usually hanging,
was imposed by a self-appointed commission without a
trial based in law. The punishment of persons suspected
of crime without due process of law is the gravamen of
the definition. Another derivation bases the term on
Captain William lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania
County, Virginia, who made an agreement to punish
criminals without due process of law. Nation of Islam
Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March
maintained lynching was derived from William Lynch, a
British slave-owner in the West Indies who later settled
in the United States. Lynch was alleged to have made a
speech in 1712 to US slave owners advising them on how
to control and subjugate their slaves.

How did the ICTY obtain jurisdiction over Slobodan
Milosevic? Due to intense military, economic, and
political pressure by the US and NATO amounting to
"blackmail", Milosevic was arrested and extradited to
the Hague Tribunal in 2001. The US/NATO blackmail
included arming and training the UCK/KLA/UCMPB Greater
Albanian "terrorists", "guerrillas", "insurgents", and
planning military operations on their behalf in Southern
Serbia. The US/NATO sent this KLA proxy army from
US/NATO occupied Kosovo into Serbia where they murdered
and mutilated the bodies of several Serbian policemen
and soldiers and occupied Serbian towns and villages.
Was this terror campaign by the US meant to achieve
"greater rights" for the Albanian minority in
Yugoslavia? That was the official propaganda or "party
line" spewed forth by US propaganda outlets like
National Public Radio (NPR), the "Radio Free America",
and RFE/RE. But the actual motive was to exert blackmail
on the Serbian government. Dead and mutilated corpses of
Serbian police and soldiers would only stop if Milosevic
was extradited to the Hague. That was the price. The
US/NATO moreover withheld economic aid to Yugoslavia
unless Milosevic was extradited. Using military,
economic, and political blackmail is prohibited by the
United Nations and international legal guidelines. But
NPR and RFE/RL and the mainstream media of the US/NATO
countries never seemed to notice or to care. Laws exist
to be broken. The ends justified the means.

The Serbian and Yugoslav constitutions prohibited the
extradition of Milosevic. Nevertheless, the US/NATO and
the ICTY urged the violation of the both the Serbian and
Yugoslav constitutions. The Vojislav Kostunica/Zoran
Djinjic regime complied. Milosevic was
unconstitutionally extradited to the Hague in violation
of the constitutions.

Milosevic attacked the jurisdiction and legitimacy of
the ICTY tribunal. "Defiant Milosevic rejects 'lynch
law'" was the headline by Neil Tweedie at the Hague for
February 2, 2002 in the Telegraph. In a February 13,
2002 Reuters article by Andrew Roche, "Milosevic Scorns
War Crimes Trial as 'Lynching'", Milosevic accused the
trial of being a "lynching":

This tribunal does not have the right to try me because
it has not been established lawfully. We cannot speak of
a fair or equitable trial here. The prosecutor is not
only biased but has already publicized my judgment. From
your prosecutor's office a media campaign has been
orchestrated as a parallel lynching.

Is this a valid characterization of the international
trial of the century? Is it a lynching? What is a
lynching?

Fundamental and elementary standards of due process are
violated in the ICTY: 1) an accused has no right to bail
or to a speedy trial; 2) defendants can be tried and
convicted for the same crime twice, no double jeopardy
safeguards; 3) there is no
distinction/separation/division between the judge and
prosecution; 4) there is no clear burden of proof for
conviction; 5) there is no independent appeal body or
process; 6) suspects can be held for 90 days without
trial; 7) hearsay evidence is admissible; 8) witnesses
can testify anonymously and maintain "secret"
identities, i.e., K41, K32; 9) confessions are assumed
to be free and voluntarily given unless otherwise shown;
and, 10) secret indictments are allowed. Protagonists of
the ICTY argue that strict adherence to due process
guidelines is not possible because no nation wants to
see its citizens prosecuted. Moreover, political and
military leaders can use their influence and immunity to
avoid prosecution. Due process must be sacrificed in the
interests of expediency.

NATO is immune from prosecution for war crimes. The 6th
Convention of the Nuremberg prohibited targeting
civilian targets not based on "military necessity". NATO
systematically targeted Serbian civilian targets. ICTY
prosecutor Louise Arbour initially charged Milosevic
with war crimes at the behest of NATO and to support and
buttress the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia.
Louise Arbour made the charges at the apex of the NATO
bombing campaign when NATO was bombing Serbian civilian
targets in violation of the Nuremberg conventions. NATO
targeted Serbian television, power grids, oil
refineries, bridges, passenger trains, busses,
automobiles, nursing homes, Orthodox churches, and
hospitals. Thus, the initial charges were lodged as a
cover for NATO war crimes. Indeed, even before the NATO
bombing, Paddy Ashdown had threatened that Milosevic
would be indicted by NATO for war crimes if he did not
allow NATO troops to occupy Yugoslavia. Ian Black, in
the September 12, 2002 "Hectoring interventions" in The
Guardian (UK), quoted Ashdown as follows when he
testified against Milosevic at the Tribunal: "I said
that you would end up in this court, and here you are."
Indeed, NATO was able to write its own script and
dictate events at will. Milosevic opposed NATO
occupation of Yugoslavia. Now he paid the price for
opposing NATO. Exactly as Ashdown threatened. The ICTY
is just a NATO/US tribunal.

The ICTY prosecution seeks to establish command
responsibility or superior authority over subordinates
based on the theory of joint criminal enterprise a
criminal conspiracy theory. If a group is engaged in a
criminal operation then guilt is imputed to all members
of that group so long as they are members of the group
and seek to advance the goals or objectives of the
operation or enterprise. Under this quasi-conspiracy
theory, command responsibility can be imputed to
Milosevic as the member holding the top command
authority. Milosevic need not have direct knowledge of
all the events carried out in the commission of the
scheme. Knowledge can be inferred or imputed. But a
criminal enterprise must first be established. And the
ICTY prosecution has not shown this. Anonymous Witness
K41 testified that he had executed 15 Albanian civilians
including the killing of a baby. But does this show a
criminal enterprise? K41 should turn himself in to the
Yugoslav police and be prosecuted for the crimes he
personally committed. What have the actions of K41 to do
with Milosevic? No link has been established whatsoever.

The ICTY appointed three amici curiae, friends of the
court, lawyers to assist Milosevic in his defense and to
ensure that the trial is fair, Branislav Tapuskovic from
Yugoslavia, Steven Kay from the UK, and Mikhail
Wladimiroff from the Netherlands. Wladimiroff, a Dutch
lawyer, gave a newspaper interview in which he claimed
that there was enough evidence to convict Milosevic.
Vladimiroff was quoted in a Bulgarian newspaper of
saying that Milosevic had a "zero" chance of being
acquitted. He was appointed to assist in Milosevic's
defense and to ensure that justice was maintained. But
with only the Kosovo phase concluded, he was making his
opinion known. Indeed, why even bother with a trial?
Just hang Milosevic now? But he overreacted in his
eagerness and called his hand and thereby exposed the
"trial of the century" as a sham and farce. As everyone
already knew, the verdict had been reached in advance:
Guilty. The pathetic and shameful aspect of this
incident is that Vladimiroff announced this to the press
as a revelation or bombshell. Only problem was that the
cat was out of the bag. Everyone knew the so-called
trial was a lynching and political show trial. What is
the great mystery here? Of course Milosevic is guilty.
Why even have a trial at all? Lynch the scoundrel
immediately! Hang the "Balkan Hitler" from the nearest
tree or lamppost. Show everyone how Western justice
really works? The ICTY dismissed Vladimiroff because his
statements were supposed to have compromised the
impartiality of the tribunal. But there was no
impartiality to compromise.

Mainstream media accounts of the Kosovo phase of the
trial of the century were self-congratulatory. The US
media parroted this propaganda line. The Los Angeles
Times for September 13, 2002 had this headline:
"Compelling Case Seen Against Milosevic". The Fresno Bee
for September 10, 2002 stated that: "Military expert
says Milosevic responsible for war crimes".

Common sense told a different story. In the WSWS
analysis for September 11, 2002, "The Milosevic Trial:
Key prosecution witness backs deposed Yugoslav
president" by Keith Lee and Paul Mitchell concluded:
"The fact is that the prosecution has not been able to
produce any evidence that Milosevic was directly
responsible for war crimes." Moreover, they noted that
"officials used threats to extract testimony, ex-spy
chief says" referring to the exculpatory testimony of
Rade Markovic, who under oath stated that he was coerced
to testify against Milosevic. Milosevic then accused the
ICTY prosecutors of using "torture" in violation of UN
conventions to extract and compel Markovic's testimony.
Judge May, however, concluded that this testimony of
alleged torture was irrelevant to the main charge of war
crimes in Kosovo so he prevented Milosevic from
cross-examining Markovic further on this crucial issue.
The final ICTY prosecution witness during the Kosovo
phase was Canadian "military expert" on Yugoslavia,
Phillip Coo, who testified that Milosevic held ultimate
responsibility for decisions made by the Yugoslav
government. The conclusion was that this testimony
"failed to prove the charges" against Milosevic.
Initially, NATO charged Milosevic with causing the
planned murder of over 100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. This
was revealed and exposed to be a NATO hoax, part of the
massive and systematic NATO propaganda war against
Serbia/Yugoslavia. The ICTY had no choice but to reduce
the numbers allegedly killed to figures based on the
evidence or facts. The ICTY accused Milosevic for being
"responsible for the murder of hundreds of Albanians
from Kosovo." Absurdly, the so-called genocide was
reduced from the murder of 100,000 Albanians to the
murder of hundreds of Albanians. In fact, NATO bombing,
"collateral damage", killed more Albanian civilians than
Milosevic's forces did. NATO killed more Albanians than
Milosevic did. Who is guilty of war crimes then?

NATO Kills a Baby

NATO killed more babies and children than Milosevic did.
On April 10, 1999, at 11:55 PM, a NATO attack on Merdare
and Mirovac on the Kosovo-Serbia border killed an
eleven-month-old Serbian baby in Kosovo as was reported
in a Tanjug news report for April 11. 1999, "NATO Kills
a Baby". On the 18th day of the NATO bombardment, on
Orthodox Easter, Bojana Tosovic, who was an 11 month old
baby, was killed along with her father, Bozin Tosovic,
from Kursumlija, 30 years of age, and her mother Marija
Tosovic was seriously injured. On April 18, 3 year old
Milica Rakic of Batajnica was killed by NATO bombing.
NATO used cluster bombs, banned by international
agreements. The New York Times wrote, "in Merdare, NATO
bombs and anti-personnel cluster bombs demolished four
houses early Sunday morning, killing five." The New York
Times noted that: "A number of pigs and cows were
killed." The New York Times is more concerned for the
welfare of pigs and cows than the killing of a Serbian
baby. This is the epitome of dehumanization. The New
York Times has reduced propaganda to a science. There
was nothing about the killing of a Serbian baby by NATO.
And nothing about the illegality of using cluster bombs.
General Wesley Clark called it an "uncanny accident"
when 20 civilians were killed.

Serbian civilians and the civilian infrastructure of
Yugoslavia/Serbia were purposely targeted by US/NATO.
Passenger trains, automobiles, tractors, factories,
automotive plants, electricity power grids, nursing
homes, hospitals, residential areas were systematically
and methodically targeted by the US/NATO. A Spanish
pilot in NATO even confessed that civilian targets were
systematically and purposely targeted. The Serbian
civilian population was the target. An unexploded shell
had this written on it by US troops: "You still wanna be
a Serb now!!"

NATO bombed a passenger train that killed 23 civilians.
Was this by accident and due to a mistake? The NATO
pilot in cold blood waited until the passenger train
crossed the bridge and then bombed the train along with
the bridge to kill as many Serbian civilians as
possible. Isn't this a war crime? The way NATO explained
this systematic killing of Serbian civilians was that
the bridge itself was targeted only, while it is only a
coincidence that the passenger train happened to be
passing over it just when NATO jets bombed it. How
plausible is this? NATO not only committed war crimes by
targeting civilians but also by concealing its blatant
and egregious war crimes in Yugoslavia. NATO sped up
film footage of the attack on the passenger train to
make it appear as if it was by accident. NATO wanted to
create the illusion that the NATO pilot did not have
time to react to the passenger train. NATO knew it was
committing war crimes which were subsequently
covered-up. NATO spokesman Jamie Shea functioned as a
Joseph Goebbels-style "information" or propaganda
mouthpiece. When NATO killed approximately 100 Albanian
civilians who were in a tractor convoy, Shea stated
first that the Yugoslav/Serbian military forces had
massacred them. Then Shea stated that the Yugoslav
forces had tricked NATO into bombing Albanian civilians.
Finally, Shea admitted NATO pilots killed the Albanian
civilians, but argued that it was by mistake and by
accident, i.e., "collateral damage". Shea did Joseph
Goebbels proud! The NATO bombing of Yugoslav targets was
the purposeful, planned, and systematic targeting of
civilians. NATO violated the Nuremberg Convention and
committed war crimes. Why isn't NATO prosecuted? The
Milosevic trial was meant to cover up these NATO war
crimes.

The dead babies propaganda of the ICTY demonstrates the
moral hypocrisy and selective morality of the US/NATO.
The US/NATO sanctioned the murder of two-year-old Kosovo
Serb Danilo Cokic, his father Njegos, and his mother
Snezana. The entire Cokic family was murdered. The
US/NATO dismissed this mass murder as a "revenge"
killing. The mass murder of a Kosovo Serbian family was
a planned, premeditated murder carried out by Kosovo
Albanians. The Cokic family was on a bus traveling
through Kosovo when Albanians detonated a
remote-controlled bomb killing 11 Kosovo Serbs. The
suspected Albanian murderers were allowed to escape by
US/NATO forces and no one was prosecuted. Kosovo Serb
Branko Jovic, 70, and his wife Saveta, 65, were
bludgeoned to death with an axe by Albanian attackers.
The US/NATO dismissed this murder as a "revenge"
killing. Moreover, approximately 230,000 Kosovo Serbs,
Roma, Turks, and Jews were expelled from Kosovo in an
officially sanctioned expulsion by US/NATO. Human rights
and international humanitarian law have nothing to do
with the Kosovo conflict. The ICTY and US/NATO are using
the dead babies propaganda merely to demonize Milosevic
and by implication the Serbian Orthodox. NATO/US and
ICTY engage in selective morality and moral hypocrisy.

Conclusion

The Slobodan Milosevic "trial of the century" has
absolutely nothing to do with international law, war
crimes, or justice. The "international trial of the
century" is a travesty of justice and international law,
the legal travesty of the century, "The Lie of the
Century", a US/NATO political show trial. President Bill
Clinton explained the motives for the Kosovo conflict
and the attendant "trial of the century" in The Nation
for April 19, 1999:

If we're going to have a strong economic relationship
that includes our ability to sell around the world..
That's what this Kosovo thing is all about.

The Kosovo conflict thus has nothing to do with human
rights or international humanitarian law or war crimes.
The Kosovo crisis was merely a pretext for expanding US
economic/political/military penetration of Eastern
Europe. In other words, it was all about markets and
spheres of influence, economic expansion and
exploitation with concomitant military expansion.
Coca-Cola diplomacy. The goal was to ensure that US
corporations and the Pentagon were allowed to expand
into the Balkans. Is this something new or original?
Absolutely not. This is merely an instance of Gun Boat
diplomacy, the Policy of the Big Stick, the Banana
Republic paradigm of South and Central America, the
"military-industrial complex". It is business as usual.
So in other words we do not need to sweat the small
stuff. Just enjoy your Big Mac and French Fries and your
Coke and your SUV and your mini-van. Enjoy your freedom.
Do not worry about the Slobodan Milosevic trial. We are
building McDonald's restaurants and Kentucky Fried
Chicken and Burger King franchises all over the world
now. Enjoy.

What about the violations of morality and ethics of the
Milosevic "trial of the century"? Why is the US/NATO
using an updated version of the Jewish Ritual Murder
accusation, the dead babies hoax, to demonize the
Serbian Orthodox? Why is the Racak Massacre Propaganda
of the Deed Hoax being repeated? Is this ethical and
moral? Is it humane? Isn't this racism and a violation
of basic human rights? Isn't the ICTY insulting our
intelligence and dignity as human beings with the dead
babies propaganda? How can we say we have progressed and
advanced when we are witnessing a reversion to the
tactics of the Jewish Ritual Murder hoax? Have we
progressed? Have we advanced? Or have we regressed
instead? Has our moral and ethical sense been degraded?
Has our humanity been deadened by the New World Order?
The ICTY trial of the century of Slobodan Milosevic
answers all of these questions.



Carl Savich is a columnist for Serbianna.com.

LIÈNI STAV
Strani plaæenici

PI©E: KOSTA ÈAVO©KI (Glas Javnosti)

Kao ¹to se i moglo oèekivati, poslednja poseta ha¹kog tu¾ioca Karle
del Ponte dovela je do jo¹ jednog nacionalnog poni¾enja. Iako su na¹i
vlastodr¹ci ispunjavali svaki diktat iz inostranstva, ona ih je
optu¾ila da nedovoljno "saraðuju" s Ha¹kim sudom.

Najpre je pomenula da general Ratko Mladiæ jo¹ nije uhap¹en i izveden
pred Ha¹ki sud, iako ne mo¾e da mu uðe u trag ni nekoliko stotina
stranih obave¹tajaca i plaæenika, koji slobodno vr¹ljaju po na¹oj
zemlji, a kamoli policajci Du¹ka Mihajloviæa, koji veæ du¾e vremena
"prevræu nebo i zemlju".

Potom je zahtevala da se ukine èlan 39. saveznog Zakona o saradnji s
Hagom, kojim se utvrðuje da se Hagu mogu isporuèiti samo oni
optu¾enici protiv kojih je optu¾nica podignuta i potvrðena do dana
kada je ovaj Zakon donet.

Naposletku se po¾alila kako su na¹e arhive, naroèito vojne, jo¹
nedostupne ha¹kim istra¾iteljima. A to je za predsednika Ha¹kog suda
Kloda ®ordu bio dovoljan razlog da od Saveta bezbednosti zatra¾i da
protiv SRJ preduzme mere koje æe je prisiliti da "saraðuje" s ovim
Sudom.

Da bi smo razabrali koliko je ova "saradnja" na¹ih vlastodr¾aca s
Hagom nedovoljna, treba je uporediti sa sliènom saradnjom hrvatskih
vlasti. Na¹i vlastodr¹ci su najpre na Vidovdan 2001. oteli iz zatvora
i isporuèili doskora¹njeg ¹efa dr¾ave Slobodana Milo¹eviæa, po èemu su
veæ u¹li u anale istorije.

Zatim su predhodnog ¹efa dr¾ave Zorana Liliæa uputili u Hag kao
prinudnog "svedoka". A veæ du¾e vremena nagove¹tavaju da æe i treæeg
¹efa dr¾ave Milana Milutinoviæa otpremiti u Hag èim mu istekne
predsednièki mandat.

Uz to su izruèili, a da mu nikakvu za¹titu nisu pru¾ili, i generala
Dragoljuba Ojdaniæa, ratnog naèelnika general¹taba, ¹to takoðe
predstavlja jedinstven primer u novijoj istoriji.

Do sada se od Hrvatske za ¾ivota Franje Tuðmana i kasnije nije tra¾ilo
da izruèi ni svog ¹efa dr¾ave niti bilo kojeg ¹efa vlade, iako su svi
oni, osim Tuðmana, ¾ivi i zdravi. Jedino se posle devet punih godina
zahteva izruèenje negda¹njeg naèelnika general¹taba Janka Bobetka zbog
ratnih zloèina u Medaèkom d¾epu septembra 1993.

Tom prilikom hrvatska soldateska je, prema kazivanju Sedrika
Tornberija, tada¹njeg pomoænika generalnog sekretara UN, primenila
taktiku "spr¾ene zemlje". Sravnjena je svaka kuæa i ubijano je sve ¹to
se kreæe, ukljuèujuæi i domaæe ¾ivotinje, tako da je na prostoru od
100 kvadratnih milja pronaðeno ¾ivo samo jedno pile.

Pa, kako je hrvatska vlada odgovorila na zahtev da izruèi generala
Janka Bobetka? Vajkanjem Ivice Raèana da bi to ugrozilo mladu i jo¹
rovitu hrvatsku "demokraciju" i da to "nije optu¾nica protiv generala
Bobetka, nego protiv Domovinskog rata".

Karla del Ponte je s velikim razumevanjem primila ove hrvatske
razloge, pa Savetu bezbednosti nije podnela pritu¾bu protiv Hrvatske,
nego se èak srdaèno zahvalila zbog dosada¹njeg odziva svedoka iz
Hrvatske, posebno Stipeta Mesiæa, na suðenju Slobodanu Milo¹eviæu.

Posebnu pa¾nju zaslu¾uje pritu¾ba Karle del Ponte da joj nisu dostupni
na¹i arhivi, posebno vojni. Kad je, meðutim, njena komisija na èelu s
Vilijamom Fenrikom, kanadskim kapetanom fregate u vreme oru¾ane
agresije Atlantskog pakta na na¹u zemlju, pravila izve¹taj kojim je
ovaj savez oslobodila svake odgovornosti za poèinjene ratne zloèine,
ona to nije uèinila na osnovu uvida u tajne vojne arhive, nego na
osnovu izjava za ¹tampu èelnika Atlanskog pakta.

Ostaje jo¹ da se ka¾e kakvi su, za razliku od hrvatskih, na¹i
vlastodr¹ci koji ispunjavaju svaki diktat iz inostranstva. U intervjuu
sarajevskom listu "Dani" od 23. februara 2001. Srða Popoviæ, koji je
izvrsno upuæen u to odakle su i kome su godinama dolazile pare iz
inostranstva, veli da je "Madlen Olbrajt ujedinila opoziciju, da im je
Amerika platila kampanju, da je Amerika plaæala sve te nevladine
organizacije..., platila i godina plaæala opozicione medije...

" Tako smo se jo¹ jednom suoèili sa surovom istinom da su danas na
vlasti strani plaæenici - ljudi koji bez stida i srama upuæuju u Hag
svakog na koga Karla del Ponte prstom uka¾e.

http://www.glas-javnosti.co.yu/danas/srpski/T02102702.shtml



=== * ===




Bosko Todorovic

Dusan Vilic



ZASTO SU OPTUZENI 2

(odgovor na haske "optuznice" za Hrvatsku i BiH protiv
Slobodana Milosevica)



Izdavac: GRAFOMARK, Beograd, 2002.

1. Jared Israel Interrogates Hague "Tribunal" Prosecutor Blewitt

2. Attack on Life of President Milosevic (SLOBODA Association,
5/10/2002)
3. Return Milosevic! (SLOBODA Association, 13/10/2002)
4. Petition for Health and Life (25/10/2002)


MORE LINKS:

> http://emperors-clothes.com/petition/states.htm

Signers of "Free Milosevic!" Petition Speak Out

>http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=339343
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2419

NATO used the same old trick when it made Milosevic an offer he could
only refuse (by Robert Fisk)

> http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/intlcourt0919.php

Protecting mass murderers: Why Washington battles the International
Criminal Court (by John Catalinotto)

> http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/milosevic0926.php

Kosovo phase of Milosevic 'trial' ends (by John Catalinotto)

> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/30/37444.html

The Hague's Nightmare: Milosevic Strikes Above the Belt (by Sergey
Yugov)

> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/03/37672.html

Biljana Plavsic Turns Traitor; Milosevic Stands Up (by Sergey
Stefanov)

> http://emperors-clothes.com/news/milosevi2.html

Miloshevich's Speech to the Nation
Delivered Monday, October 2, 2000




=== 1 ===


> http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm

Jared Israel Interrogates Hague "Tribunal" Prosecutor Blewitt

Jared Israel, Vice chairman of the ICDSM and editor of Emperor's
Clothes interrogated the Deputy Prosecutor of the so-called Hague
"Tribunal" regarding the testimony of the former security chief of
Serbia, Radomir Markovic.
Mr. Markovic had testified that he was pressured and tortured by
Serbian security officials who work with the "tribunal".
How did Mr. Blewitt respond to these charges? See for yourself.

With commentary by Andy Wilcoxson [27 September 2002]

Blewitt Interview (5.8 MB RealAudio File)
To just play the interview, go to
> http://emperor.vwh.net/Audio/blewitt.rm

To save the interview to your hard drive you must be reading this text
at the ICDSM website at
> http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm

Once you are at http://www.icdsm.org/more/blewitt.htm you can
right-click on "Blewitt Interview" (above) and select "Save Target As"

RealPlayer is required to play this file. If you don't have RealPlayer
you can download it for free at
http://www.real.com


=== 2 ===


Subject: ATTACK ON LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 23:02:08 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"


SAVE HIS LIFE!


WHOLE-DAY-LONG 'COURT' PROCEEDINGS HAVE STARTED AGAIN!

IT IS AN INTENTIONAL ATTACK ON LIFE OF
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC BY NATO TRIBUNAL!

RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED!



After more than three months the "trial" of
President Milosevic was going on only in
morning sessions, last Thursday the "trial
chamber" returned to earlier practice of
whole-day-long hearings. This was after the
same "trial chamber" weeks ago publicly
admitted existence of serious health and life
risks for President Milosevic and declared that
tempo of the "trial" will be slowed down and
President Milosevic will have more days for
rest.

President Milosevic, with malignant
hypertension and heart damages, still has no
specialists' medical care.

Death of six prisoners (all of them were Serbs)
was caused by the "tribunal" - in three cases
it was due to lack of medical assistance or due
to improper medical care.

We call all supporters of freedom and all
National Committees to mobilize medical doctors
and lawyers to react to this criminal practice
at The Hague.

UN is still giving auspices to the criminal
NATO martial court.

Address your government, which is UN member!

Address UN Security Council and Secretary
General!

They are being involved in a crime!

Save the life of President Milosevic!

Send copies of your letters of protest and
demands to protect humanity to the "tribunal"
as well. Here is their address:



ICTY

Churchillplein 1, 2517 JW The Hague
P.O. Box 13888 EW The Hague
The Netherlands
Fax No. +31 70 512 8637

People of Serbia and Yugoslavia require your
urgent reaction!

SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association


=== 3 ===


Subject: RETURN MILOSEVIC!
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:46:27 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"



Belgrade, October 13, 2002
Mr. Claude JORDA, President


ICTY
The Hague
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Jorda,

Please find here enclosed the statement of
Mr. Bogoljub Bjelica, the Chairman of the Freedom Association.

After our several letters to ICTY and many
appeals of organizations and individuals from Yugoslavia and other
countries, aiming to secure the proper life and health conditions for
President Slobodan Milosevic, we came to the conclusion that the
whole construction of the process against President Milosevic has as
one of its intentions to break the health and threaten the life of
President Milosevic. In spite of the oral promises of Mr. Richard May
and the Trial Chamber that recommendations of the ICTY appointed
physicians that President Milosevic should get a cardiologic
check-up, appropriate health monitoring and therapy, as well as that
intensity of the process should be slowed down, the only thing that
happened is that the Trial Chamber has returned the whole-day-long
proceedings.

That is why we demand release of President
Milosevic and his return to Yugoslavia for recovery and appropriate
specialists' medical treatment.

Yours sincerely,


Chairman of the Assembly
of the Freedom Association

Igor Raicevic



Belgrade, October 13, 2002

PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY

RETURNED TO YUGOSLAVIA!

The Hague tribunal intentionally continues to threaten
the life of President Slobodan Milosevic.

Despite the numerous appeals and warnings from our
country and from abroad, this unacceptable criminal activity
continues. The whole-day-long proceedings at The Hague are back to
practice. In addition to the time spent in the court room, President
Milosevic is forced to spend more hours in the tribunal building
without food, rest and fresh air. The process is still indefinitely
prolonged with series of false witnesses, whose order has being
changed last minute, but who are followed by tens of thousand pages
of printed material.

With all the mentioned conditions, there is lack of not
only proper therapy, but even of any medical monitoring over the
health of President Milosevic. There was no cardiologic check-up, in
spite of the recommendation of the Dutch physicians appointed by the
tribunal, who made the one and only check-up of President Milosevic.

For that reason the total untruths in the statement of
the tribunal spokesman Jim Landale for the Yugoslav press (daily
"Nacional", October 11, 2002) - that President Milosevic has
permanent medical monitoring and proper therapy, cause our increased
worry.

Domestic and international public is aware that the
permanent over-human efforts and inhuman conditions President
Milosevic faces in the tribunal and in the prison, combined with
hearth damages and malignant hypertension, are the permanent threat
to his life.

The public is also aware that already several tribunal
prisoners lost their lives after the dramatic worsening of their
health in detention.

For all these reasons we demand that President Milosevic
should be immediately returned to Yugoslavia for recovery and
necessary medical treatment by an appropriate medical institution. It
is the only way to remove the threat to his life!

Bogoljub Bjelica,
Chairman of the Freedom Association -
Yugoslav Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic


=== 4 ===


Subject: PETITION FOR HEALTH AND LIFE
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:33:03 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"


c o u r t e s y t r a n s l a t i o n


-TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS H.E. Kofi Annan

-TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

-TO THE "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA"

Mr. Claude Jorda, president

Mr. Richard May, president of the Trial Chamber



D E M A N D

to protect rights for health and life of Slobodan Milosevic



We draw attention of all people of good will, and of our
colleagues - medical doctors in particular, the same way as to you -
high officials of the Organization of United Nations and of the
Tribunal at The Hague, that the different means of modern torture
have been applied against Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, since the first day
of his stay in the UN Detention Unit at The Hague. Mr. Milosevic
faces different kinds of physical and psychological exhaustion aimed
to worsen his already damaged health condition.

This torture started with strong light of the reflectors
switched on during 24 hours in his prison cell, it continued with
permanent video-camera monitoring of his prison cell, violating his
privacy and basic human integrity. It is allowed to the
representatives of the Prosecution to supply Mr. Milosevic with
hundreds of thousand pages of text and more than thousand video and
audio tapes, as well as to make last minute changes in the indefinite
order of witnesses, whom Mr. Milosevic has to cross examine, which all
requires from him enormous additional effort in the preparation for
the process. Above all that, instead of four hours as reasonable
length of daily proceedings, which would enable Mr. Milosevic with
some time for preparation, as well as with time for daily walk in
fresh air, regular meals and protection of general physical condition,
the unbearable practice of daily proceedings lasting from 9 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. has been imposed again. If one has in mind that Mr.
Milosevic is forced to be in the Tribunal building one hour before
until one hour after the proceedings, and that the proceedings take
place every working day, it becomes clear that he is deprived of all
conditions necessary for protection of normal health condition.

The Trial Chamber at The Hague has been acquainted in
detail with the health condition of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, not only
on the basis of the submitted previous medical documentation, but as
well on the basis of findings of the medical check-up performed at
The Hague by three medical doctors appointed by the Tribunal.

Bearing in mind the provisions of the UN General
Assembly Resolution No. 3794 of December 18, 1982, which established
the duty of medical doctors and other medical personnel to provide
persons in prison or in detention "with therapy of the same quality
and in accordance with the same norms as for the persons who are not
in prison or in detention";

Recalling the Article 6 of the Codex of behavior of
persons responsible for application of the law, adopted by the UN
General Assembly on December 17, 1979, constituting the obligation of
all courts, from which the Hague Tribunal can not be excluded, to
take care about the complete protection of the health of persons
under its jurisdiction, in this case of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, and
in particular to perform all necessary measures of medical care of
the same quality and based on the same standards as for the persons
who are not in detention or in prison;

Emphasizing the right for heath and right for life as
basic human rights;

Remaining faithful to the Hypocrates oath to which we all
as medicine doctors swore;



We demand:



1) To cease immediately the physical and intellectual
exhausting that seriously damages the health of Mr. Slobodan
Milosevic;

2) That Trial Chamber at The Hague determines such
schedule of the process that would enable Mr. Milosevic with at least
four days of recess after each two weeks of proceedings, as proposed
by our colleagues who made check-up of Mr. Milosevic at The Hague;

3) That daily proceedings before the Trial Chamber should
not be longer than four hours during a working day, so that besides
of preparation for the next day proceedings, Mr. Milosevic would have
time necessary for protection of his health condition (walk on fresh
air, regular meals, regular sleep, physical exercises etc.). We also
hereby require decrease of the amount of documentation supplied by
the Prosecution, especially since it is in large part irrelevant for
the role of Mr. Milosevic. The amount of documentation which has
currently been submitted, contributes to physical and intellectual
exhaustion of Mr. Milosevic, who is standing for his own case before
the Tribunal's Trial Chamber;

4) To secure all necessary medical protection for Mr.
Slobodan Milosevic, including regular check-ups by Yugoslav medical
doctors of his own choice.



We, the undersigned medical doctors, consider that
defense from freedom would be the most appropriate way to protect
health and life of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic. In that sense, our demands
1) - 4) constitute only a minimum of preconditions to avoid further
serious deterioration of his health and to avoid endangering of his
life.

Done in Belgrade, October 2002



S i g n e d b y:

1. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SVETOLIK AVRAMOV, surgeon

2. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VUKASIN ANDRIC, otorinolaringologist

3. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VASO ANTUNOVIC, neuro-surgeon, Member of
the Scientific Society of Serbia

4. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MOMCILO BABIC, specialist in social
medicine

5. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. JOVAN BUKELIC, neuro-psychiatrist,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society

6. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGAN DELIC, infectologist

7. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VASILIJE DRECUN, internist-pulmologist

8. LJUBOMIR DURKOVIC, MD, primarius, specialist in social medicine

9. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGOLJUB DJOKIC, specialist in social
medicine

10. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MIODRAG DJORDJEVIC, onco-epidemiologist

11. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VLADIMIR DJUKIC, surgeon

12. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SLAVICA DJUKIC-DEJANOVIC,
neuro-psychiatrist

13. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MILOS JANICIJEVIC, neuro-surgeon,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society

14. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. RATKO KALJALOVIC, infectologist, Ordinary
Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian Physicians'
Society

15. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. MIROSLAV KOVACEVIC, neuro-psychiatrist

16. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. GORAN LUKIC, internist

17. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. CASLAV MILIC, internist

18. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SRECKO NEDELJKOVIC,
internist-cardiologist, Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences of the Serbian Physicians' Society

19. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. LAZAR RANIN, microbiologist

20. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. ZARKO RANKOVIC, infectologist

21. PERISA SIMONOVIC, MD, neuro-psychiatrist

22. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VLADA SLAVKOVIC, internist

23. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. SVETOMIR STOZINIC,
internist-cardiologist, Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences of the Serbian Physicians' Society, Member of the National
Bulgarian Medical Academy, Member of the Russian Medical Academy

24. SLAVICA TASIC, MD, MS, specialist in general medicine

25. Dr. Sci. Med. DRAGAN CANOVIC, surgeon

26. Professor Dr. Sci. Med. VOJISLAV SUVAKOVIC, infectologist,
Ordinary Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian
Physicians' Society





To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)