Subject: 9-11: The Missing Link
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:04:58 -0400
From: Michel Chossudovsky


Was it an intelligence failure? to give red carpet treatment to the
"money man" behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply
"routine"?

POLITICAL DECEPTION: THE MISSING LINK BEHIND 9-11

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Outlook, No. 2. Summer 2002 at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),
http://www.globalresearch.ca, 20 June 2002

The URL of this article is
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html



The foreknowledge issue is a Red Herring: "A Red Herring is a
fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert
attention from the original issue."


ON May 16th The New York Post dropped what appeared to be
a bombshell: "Bush Knew . . . " Hoping to score politically, the
Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White
House to come clean on two "top-secret documents" made
available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning
"advance knowledge" of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the U.S.
media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: "Yes, there
were warnings" and "clues" of possible terrorist attacks, but
"there was no way President Bush could have known" what was
going to happen. The Democrats agreed to "keep the cat inside
the bag" by saying: "Osama is at war with the U.S." and the FBI
and the CIA knew something was cooking but "failed to connect
the dots." In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard
Gephardt:

"This is not blame-placing. . . . We support the President on the
war against terrorism have and will. But we've got to do better
in preventing terrorist attacks." 1

The media's spotlight on 'foreknowledge' and so-called "FBI
lapses" served to distract public attention from the broader issue
of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning
the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War
era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as
part of its covert operations.

Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring.
The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard
CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset".
Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S.
foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to
participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the
World.2 These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone
era, as suggested by the mainstream media.

The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al
Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war
in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo.3 More recently in
Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S.
military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries
financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the
auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same
terrorist paramilitary formation.4

The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply
documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always
known.5 Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA.6 In other words,
there were no "intelligence failures"! In the nature of a well-led
intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates
(wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in
relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts
consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam.

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role,
the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the
top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and
the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

The foreknowledge issue focussing on "FBI lapses" is an
obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to
underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive
U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in
support of the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.

FEAR AND DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN

The Bush Administration through the personal initiative of Vice
President Dick Cheney chose not only to foreclose the
possibility of a public inquiry, but also to trigger a fear and
disinformation campaign:

"I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are
almost a certainty. . . . It could happen tomorrow, it could
happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep
trying. And we have to be prepared." 7

What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset",
which we created, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA
creature" was planning new terrorist attacks, you would expect
that the CIA would be first to know about it. In all likelihood, the
CIA also controls the so-called 'warnings' emanating from CIA
sources on "future terrorist attacks" on American soil.

CAREFULLY PLANNED INTELLIGENCE OPERATION

The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide
hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence
operation. The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by
Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-services Intelligence
(ISI). Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA:

"With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of
U.S. military aid, the ISI developed [since the early 1980s] into a
parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of
government....The ISI had a staff composed of military and
intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and
informers estimated at 150,000."8

The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to
perform the role of a `go-between' in numerous intelligence
operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and
finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al
Qaeda.

THE MISSING LINK

The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC
News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader,
Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in
Pakistan:

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News
they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in
Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected
hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time
Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the
days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people
connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a
successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high
commander, the money men, the planners and the
mastermind."9

The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly
who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the
findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse
(AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian
intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington).
According to these two reports, the money used to finance the
9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker
Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the
instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]." 10
According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

"The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider
range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue
general to some misplaced act of terrorism." 11

PAKISTAN'S CHIEF SPY VISITS WASHINGTON

Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the
alleged "money man" behind 9-11, was in the U.S. when the
attacks occurred. He arrived on the 4th of September, one week
before 9-11, on what was described as a routine visit of
consultations with his U.S. counterparts. According to Pakistani
journalist, Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on the
September 10):

"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in
Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his
mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security
Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA
Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official
sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long
parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the
Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc
Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred
around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden. What added
interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin
Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's
government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within
days." 12

Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf.
General Mahmoud Ahmad, who became the head of the ISI,
played a key role in the military coup.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE'S PRESS CONFERENCE

In the course of Condoleezza Rice's May 16 press conference
(which took place barely a few hours after the publication of the
"Bush Knew" headlines in The New York Post), an accredited
Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General
Mahmoud Ahmad:

Q: Dr. Rice?

Ms RICE: Yes?

Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was
in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th
$100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this
area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or
anybody in the Administration?

Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not
meeting with me.13

Although there is no official confirmation that General Mahmoud
Ahmad met Dr. Rice, she must have been fully aware of the
$100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had been
confirmed by the FBI. Lost in the barrage of media reports on
`foreknowledge', this crucial piece of information, on the ISI's
role in 9-11, implicates key members of the Bush Administration
including: CIA Director George Tenet, Deputy Secretary of
State, Richard Armitage, Under-Secretary, Marc Grossman, as
well as Senator Sam Biden, Chairman of the powerful Senate
Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the
13th of September).14

The Bush Administration had not only provided red carpet
treatment to the alleged "money man" behind the 9-11 attacks, it
also had sought his `cooperation' in the "war on terrorism". The
precise terms of this `cooperation' were agreed upon between
General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani
government and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in
meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In
other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake
of 9-11, to seek the `cooperation' of Pakistan's ISI in "going after
Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI
was financing and abetting the 9-11 terrorists. Contradictory?
One might say that it's like "asking the Devil to go after Dracula."


CIA OVERSHADOWS THE PRESIDENCY

Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 press
conference, is an obvious cover-up. While General Ahmad was
talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had
allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the
September 11 terrorists. What this suggests is that key
individuals within the U.S. military-intelligence establishment
knew about these ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist
`ring leader', Mohammed Atta, and failed to act. But this
conclusion is, in fact, an understatement. Everything indicates
that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General
Mahmoud Ahmad, had established a close working
relationship. General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to
September 11 for consultations with George Tenet. Bear in
mind that the CIA's George Tenet, also has a close personal
relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet
would meet the President nearly every morning at 8:00 a.m.
sharp, for about half an hour. 15 A document, known as the
President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is prepared at Langley by
the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with
Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally
during his early morning meeting with Bush." 16 This practice of
"oral intelligence briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's
predecessors at the White House, received a written briefing:

"With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in
attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could
be direct, even irreverent and earthy."17


THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR

Was it an `intelligence failure' to give red carpet treatment to
the `money man' behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply
`routine'? At meetings of the National Security Council and in
the so-called "War Cabinet", on September 11, 12 and 13, CIA
Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the
Commander-in-Chief's approval to the launching of the "war on
terrorism."

George W. Bush's Timeline September 11 (from 9.45am in the
wake of the WTC-Pentagon Attacks to midnight)
Circa 9:45 a.m.: Bush's motorcade leaves the Booker
Elementary School, Sarasota, Florida.

9:55 a.m: President Bush boards "Air Force One" bound for
Washington.18 Following what was as a "false report" that Air
Force One would be attacked, Vice-President Dick Cheney had
urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in
Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was
diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on orders emanating from Washington) to
Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A couple of hours later
(1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was
transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at U.S. Strategic
Command Headquarters.

3:30 p.m.: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC)
was convened, with members of the NSC communicating with
the President from Washington by secure video.19 In the
course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George
Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet
stated that "he was virtually certain that bin Laden and his
network were behind the attacks. ?"20

The President responded to these statements, quite
spontaneously, off the cuff, with little or no discussion and with
an apparent misunderstanding of their implications. In the
course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an
hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the
Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the "war on terrorism". Very
much on the spur of the moment, the "green light" was given by
video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President
Bush: "We will find these people. They will pay. And I don't want
you to have any doubt about it." 21

4:36 p.m.: (One hour and six minutes later . . .) Air Force One
departed for Washington. Back in the White House, that same
evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting of the full NSC took
place, together with Secretary of State Colin Powell who had
returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which
lasted for half an hour) was followed by the first meeting of the
so-called "war cabinet". The latter was made up of a smaller
group of top officials and key advisers.

9:30 p.m.: At the war cabinet: "Discussion turned around
whether bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and
the same thing. Tenet said they were." 22 By the end of that
historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush
Administration had decided to embark upon a military
adventure which now threatens the collective future of
humanity. our civilization.

DID BUSH KNOW?

Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy
issues, know all the details regarding General Mahmoud and
the "ISI connection"? Did Tenet and Cheney distort the facts, so
as to get the Commander-in-Chief's "thumbs up" for a military
operation which was already in the pipeline? In a bitter irony, a
meeting between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage
and General Mahmoud, the 9-11 "money man", was scheduled
at the State Department for the morning after September 11 to
discuss their strategy.


NOTES

1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.

2. There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt
the links between Al Qaeda and successive U.S.
administrations. See Centre for Research on Globalisation,
Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and
documents, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html
May 2002, section 3.

3. U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers
Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party
Committee, Congressional Press Release, Congress, 16
January 1997, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
See also Michel Chossudovsky, ?Osamagate', Centre for
Research on Globalisation,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html , 9
October 2001.

4. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of
9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section
3. See articles by Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott
Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel Chossudovsky, Umberto
Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies.

5. See Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11, CBS Evening
News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for
Research on Globalisation (CRG)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html Alexandra
Richard, The CIA met bin Laden while undergoing treatment at
an American Hospital last July in Dubai, Le Figaro.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html


6. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.

7. Fox News, 18 May 2002.

8. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign
Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel
Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No.
1, 2002.

9. Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to
him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.

10. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001. 11. AFP, 10
October 2001.

12. Amir Mateen, ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington,
News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.

13. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White
House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the
words "ISI chief" were transcribed respectively by a blank "--"
and "(inaudible)" . Federal News Service Inc. which is
transcription Service of official documents provided a correct
transcription, with a minor error in punctua6tion, which we
corrected. The White House transcript is at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html
All three transcripts were verified by the author and are
available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also
available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/

14. New York Times, 14 September 2002,"According to Biden,
[Ahmad] pledged Pakistan's cooperation".

15. The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.

16. Washington Post, 17 May 2002.

17. Washington Post 29 January 2002.

18. Washington Post, 27 January 2002.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

Copyright © Michel Chossudovsky and Global Outlook 2002.
Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial
community internet sites, provided the original source and the
URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright
note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other
forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact
Global Outlook , at editor@...

This article was published in Global Outlook , Issue No 2
9-11: Foreknowledge or Deception? Stop the Nuclear Threat.
Now available. Details at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html

Order by phone from publisher. Call (toll free) 1-888-713-8500.
Mail-or Fax-in order form.

Srpskohrvatska verzija na:
> http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1810
English text:
> http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1819

La lettera che segue prende spunto dalle dichiarazioni del senatore
USA Biden, secondo il quale i serbi, colpevoli di tutto quanto
successo nei Balcani negli scorsi anni, devono chiedere scusa
formalmente ai loro vicini. Si veda:
> http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1791



"TANTE SCUSE" DA PARTE DEI SERBI

di Bane Popovic
Belgrado, 27 maggio 2002
(fonte: ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA)

Le scuse da parte dei serbi sono mancate al recente arrivo del
signor Josef Biden, presidente del Comitato per la politica
estera del Senato americano. Al posto di Kostunica o Djindjic
sarò io allora a presentarle (anch'io sono un serbo, in fondo...).

E dunque, noi serbi solennemente ci scusiamo:

- Per esserci opposti alla distruzione della Jugoslavia titina da
parte della eversione anticomunista della CIA e degli altri servizi
segreti occidentali, e poi dal separatismo croato, sloveno,
musulmano-bosniaco e schipetaro.
- Per l'artificioso riconoscimento di Croazia, Slovenia, Macedonia
e Bosnia-Erzegovina da parte degli USA e dei suoi satelliti, con
il quale si è voluta sostenere in pratica la secessione armata di
queste repubbliche. E per avere risposto affermando la continuità
della RF di Jugoslavia, con la storica (ancora dalla fine del 19.
secolo) unione dei due Stati riconosciuti, e cioè la Serbia e il
Montenegro.
- Per essere stati sottoposti per due anni ad un brutale embargo
economico da parte degli USA e dei loro satelliti, in base alla
falsa accusa contro la Jugoslavia di avere aggredito la Bosnia-
Erzegovina, benche' nel giorno della introduzione dell'embargo
la RF di Jugoslavia non avesse nemmeno piu' soldati su quel
territorio, mentre viceversa la Croazia ne teneva alcune decine
di migliaia.
- Per avere sperimentato sulla nostra pelle che la Croazia, durante
le azioni belliche di "Medacki dzep", e poi le operazioni "Lampo"
e "Tempesta", commise terribili crimini contro i civili ed esegui'
la cacciata genocida di alcune centinaia di migliaia di serbi
dalla Croazia.
- Chiediamo venia all'opinione pubblica mondiale per avere indicato
come i servizi segreti degli USA e dei loro paesi satelliti fossero
i principali organizzatori della messa in scena della strage in via
Miskina e di quelle al mercato Markale, a Sarajevo, e come, usando
la falsa attribuzione di responsabilita' contro i serbi, abbiano
introdotto sanzioni e bombardato i serbi della Bosnia.
- Per essere stati vittime dell'imposizione da parte degli USA del-
l'accordo di Dayton e delle sue conseguenze, con il quale si sono
realizzate le piu' grandi ingiustizie verso i serbi.
- Chiediamo umilmente scusa anche in quanto ai croati è stato
consegnato in toto il territorio sud della Bosanska Krajina, che
fino ad allora era popolata prevalentemente da serbi, e per la
spaccatura in due parti del territorio della Repubblica Serba di
Bosnia, attraverso la creazione del "distretto di Brcko".
- Chiediamo scusa perché è stata data la priorità al punto di
vista croato nella risoluzione della questione del promontorio di
Prevlaka, invece di prendere in considerazione l'integrità e la
sovranità sulle Bocche di Cattaro. Chiediamo scusa perche' il Kosmet
(Kosovo e Metohija), parte indivisibile dello stato della Serbia,
è stato occupato.
- Per essere stati sottomessi al "muro esterno" delle sanzioni da
parte degli USA e dei loro satelliti.
- Per non essere stata re-inserita, la Jugoslavia, nelle NU, nel
FMI, nella Banca mondiale e nelle altre organizzazioni
internazionali.
- Per l'isolamento della delegazione estera, come anche per
l'ingerenza continua nei processi interni della RF di Jugoslavia.
- Per il finanziamento fornito alla opposizione globalista interna
(quisling) ed ai media subalterni.
- Per il modo in cui la dirigenza montenegrina e' stata aizzata
contro quella serba.
- Per la faziosita' dei principali media del pianeta, impegnati
a demonizzare il governo serbo ed il suo popolo, come anche per
le continue condizioni imposte a Belgrado (dal Tribunale dell'Aia,
alle secessioni dalla ex Jugoslavia, al Kosmet).
- Per avere dovuto sopportare il finanziamento e il sostegno
americano al movimento secessionista schipetaro nel Kosovo e
Metohija, per la messinscena del cosiddetto massacro di Racak
da parte dell'americano Walker, per l'ultimatum contro la Serbia
e la RF di Jugoslavia con gli accordi-farsa di Rambouillet.
- Ci scusiamo tanto per esserci difesi dal terrorismo schipetaro
nel Kosmet, per esserci opposti alla non-applicazione del diritto
internazionale nel caso del bombardamento selvaggio da parte
della aviazione NATO, con il quale sono state materialmente
distrutte l'economia e le infrastrutture del trasporto e delle
comunicazioni, e la stessa Jugoslavia e' stata contaminata
fisicamente da materiale radioattivo e tossico.
- Scusateci tanto se tocca a noi provare l'ingiustizia del
cosiddetto tribunale dell'Aia, dove oggi si giudicano soltamente
i più alti rappresentanti politici e militari della nostra
nazione (della Repubblica Srpska della Bosnia, della Serbia e
della RF di Jugoslavia), che si sono opposti a questo attacco
degli USA, dei loro satelliti e dei quisling locali nostrani,
con i quali gli USA e i loro satelliti cercano di mettere a
tacere la propria grande responsabilità per tutti i crimini
commessi contro la nazione serba.
- Scusateci perché oggi, da nazione sotto occupazione USA ed
occidentale, avendo imposto al popolo serbo un governo
collaborazionista col compito di adempiere completamente al
diktat americano che vuole definitivamente spaccare lo Stato
indipendente serbo e finalmente realizzare la politica decennale
di cacciata dei serbi nell'ovile del "Nuovo ordine mondiale"
sotto il controllo degli USA.

"Ci scusiamo, ci scusiamo tantissimo..."

Per tutto cio', finito così tragicamente, perché centinaia di
migliaia di persone sono rimaste senza i loro beni, senza il
loro tetto, senza patria, senza prospettive, per tutti quei
morti, questo è chiaro.

Perché noi serbi siamo i maggiori perdenti di tutte le guerre
provocate per la distruzione della Repubblica Socialista Federativa
di Jugoslavia, perché siamo le vittime della distruzione della
Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia, come dovrebbe vedere ogni
osservatore onesto, perché questa è la pura verità, se tale
osservatore vuole essere almeno un po' obiettivo.
Mentre la colpa e' dalla parte di quelli che hanno voluto essere
indipendenti a discapito del popolo che più ha contribuito
nel passato alla loro stessa emancipazione e maturazione come
nazioni. Anche questa dovrebbe essere una semplice verità.
La colpa è anche di quei fattori esterni che hanno intravisto la
possibilità della realizzazione definitiva dei loro interessi
geopolitici ed economici di lunga data, e perciò hanno fomentato
la guerra civile jugoslava partecipandovi loro stessi, con il
tragico obiettivo di distruggere la nazione serba. A dire il vero,
la tragica divisione ed il disaccordo tra i serbi ha contribuito
a questa, per noi serbi, infausta soluzione.

E che tra i serbi ci sia della mala erba, come in ogni grano,
è anche questa una triste verità.

=

(Tradotto da Ivan Pavicevac per il CNJ)

UNO STUDIO SCIENTIFICO

Poiche' il "tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia ha recentemente
commissionato uno studio dal titolo "Il nazionalismo serbo
nel XX secolo", si ritiene sia giunto il momento per preparare
un lavoro sul tema, altrettanto importante:
"Come distruggere una nazione: il linciaggio storiografico
dei serbi presso la corte americana dell'Aia - errori di fatto
ed interpretazioni tendenziose; il ruolo delle ONG e del neo-
imperialismo."
Cercansi magnati della finanza, istituti universitari o governi
interessati a sovvenzionare questo lavoro.

Von: Boba
Datum: 2002/06/15 Sa PM 11:48:12 GMT+02:00
Betreff: Pls. Fwd // Boba // Re: Reported
study commissioned by the American court in the Hague

Dear All:

With regard to the reported study by
Audrey Helfant Bading "Serb
Nationalism in the Twentieth Century"
commissioned by the ICFY in the Hague,
I believe that the time has come for a
study with the following theme:

"A Guide to How to Destroy a Nation :
Historiographic lynching of the Serbs at
the American court in
Europe - factual errors and malicious
interpretations; and the role of NGOs
of the New Imperialism."

Is there any rich person, or the
government out there who would like to pay
for a study like this one?

Boba B.
petar@...

DOPO LE "RIFORME"

In Serbia, oggi, piu' del 60 % della popolazione vive con meno di
due dollari al giorno a persona; un altro 20 % dispone invece di meno
di un dollaro. Questo a fronte di prezzi e tariffe che ormai sono
attestate
pienamente sugli "standard" dell'Europa occidentale. Da quando la DOS
ha preso il potere, nell'ottobre 2000, i prezzi al consumo sono infatti
aumentati in media del 450 %, mentre circa il 20 % dei lavoratori ha
perso il posto nel quadro delle "riforme strutturali" imposte da FMI e
BM,
che prevedono la liquidazione del sistema produttivo e finanziario
pubblico.
Un bilancio parziale della crisi economica e sociale in Serbia e' stato
tracciato in uno studio recentemente presentato con il nome di "Carta
sociale della Serbia".


+++ Serbien ärmer denn je +++

BELGRAD, 16. Juni 2002. Die Armut in Serbien hat in
Friedenszeiten noch nie dagawesene Ausmasse genommen. Mehr als
60% der Bevölkerung muss mit weniger als 2 US-Dollar täglich pro
Person auskommen, und weitere 20% mit weniger als 1 US-Dollar,
bei einem Preisniveu, das mit Westeuropa vergleichbar ist, heißt
es in einer unter dem Namen "Soziale Karte Serbiens"
flächenddeckend durchgeführten empirischen Studie, die heute in
Belgrad veröffentlicht wurde. Seit der Machtübernahme durch DOS
im Oktober 2000 sind Verbraucherpreise um durchschnittlich 450%
gestiegen und mehr als 20% aller Beschäftigten in Serbien
verloren im Zuge der "Reformen" ihre Arbeitsplätze.

STIMME KOSOVOS / AMSELFELD.COM

> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/06/19/30625_.html

2002.06.19/11:00
ALBANIA: TRAFFIC IN CHILDREN INCREASES

The Albanian Mafia gangs are actively involved in
trafficking of children to Italy, where they are exploited in
clandestine operations, some of which are
suspected of holding the victims in practices of sexual
exploitation.
Ostensibly smuggled into Italy for fruit-picking, the
thousands of children (usually between 12 and 17 years of age)
pour out of Albania?s poorer interiorr regions in search of
a fortune in the European Union. The dream soon turns into a
nightmare for many, who find themselves grid-locked in
Mafia-controlled criminal activities from which the only
escape in many cases is death.
The alert has been raised by the Catholic charitable
organisation, Caritas, which issued a report on the
phenomenon at the end of 2001. Father Cesare
Lodeserto, of the Regina Pacis Centre, said that ?In Albania
there is the rumour that children are untouchable in Italy?..
Maybe by Italians, but the Albanian Mafia, many of whom
were formerly active in the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army, or UCK -
Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves in Albanian) has been known to
operate prostitution rings both inside Kosovo and Albania and
abroad. Many of the Kosovar woman supposedly fleeing from
the Serbs, were later discovered to have been running away
from the UCK, which were rounding up the prettier girls
to ship off to Italy.
In the last four years, the Italian carabinieri in
Tricarico have rounded up 100 women trafficked into Italy
to work in clandestine prostitution rings, and seventy
children, although captain Tusa declared that ?there is a
decrease in the number of women and an increase in the
phenomenon of the children?.
Captain Tusa added that ?the Mafia which control
immigration have changed their practices because the sign
given by the Italian state is the dismembering of
street prostitution and prostitution of minors, which will
not be allowed in Tricarico. The Italian police are extending
their operations to the cities of final
destination in northern Italy.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

PRAVDA.Ru
©1999 "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials in whole
or in part, reference to Pravda.RU should be made.

===*===

Subject: Crimes Against Humanity: NATO-Sanctioned
Sex Slavery In Bosnia, Kosovo
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Rozoff <r_rozoff@...>


[As actions, particularly consistent and
institutionally-sanctioned actions, speak much louder
than words, the obligatory disclaimers of Jacques
Klein and his ilk should be taken at their proper valuation.]

BBC
Friday, 14 June, 2002, 17:39 GMT 18:39 UK
Boys will be boys

It has become a tragic inevitability that whenever
international peacekeepers are sent to bring law and
order to a war torn country, a vast and exploitative
sex industry, allegedly follows close behind.
Correspondent looks at Bosnia and Kosovo where girls
as young as 15 have been duped into working in
brothels and forced to have sex with UN personnel. We
find that the boys will be boys culture prevails and
that international soldiers and police officers at the
highest level are turning a blind eye. It is a
shameful and disturbing tale. Sue Lloyd-Roberts
reports.
------------------------------------------------
Correspondent website,
Exclusive interviews:
Bosnian police officer denounces corruption UN
recommendation: Practice safe sex
------------------------------------------------
Sold into sex slavery
Like thousands of young women in the impoverished
countries of the Eastern bloc Monica, a
19-year-old Romanian, leapt at the chance when her
boyfriend said he had arranged a job as a waitress for
her in Italy.
The Vila Bar - a place of both hope and disgust
She would work for a year and put the money towards
their wedding. She was taken to the Vila Bar in
Bosnia.
Monica was led upstairs to a bedroom where Elena,
another Romanian girl, explained the routine.
Her shift lasted from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. during which
she would have to dance and service up to eight
clients a night.
Monica reacted with disgust and outrage at the
betrayal.
Her boyfriend had sold her for 3000 Deutsch Marks,
around £1000.
She asked about the clients. Elena said: "There are
many foreigners, soldiers and policemen". Monica saw a
glimmer of hope.
A graduate of the Bucharest Language Institute, she
spoke French and English.
She would simply tell one of the foreigners that there
had been a mistake and ask for help.
The men know they are running a risk
"Most of them were Americans and German", Monica said.
"Of course, I appealed to them for help, the soldiers
and the policemen. But all of them said that they
shouldn't be there and they would get into trouble if
they helped."
Monica tells how in the end she befriended a local
taxi driver who agreed to drive her to the border in
return, of course, for sex.
International peacekeeping customers
In her testimony to the police, Monica identified four
officers from the International Police Task Force
(IPTF) and four Nato soldiers among her customers.
There are hundreds of premises selling sex in Bosnia,
employing on average ten girls each.
If Monica's foreign clientele of eight is an average
for the region, a lot of "peacekeepers" must be using
such services. Monk: "These are embarrassing and
damaging matters"
Richard Monk, is a respected British policeman and
former Deputy Commissioner of the Devon and Cornwall
Police. He was head of the IPTF in Bosnia for two
years from
1998.
He says "I knew of one case where a 14 year old girl
was actually living with an international police
officer. I had to set up an internal affairs branch to
manage investigations against my own police officers.
There was nothing more embarrassing and damaging to
the work that we were trying to do."
The Head of U.N. Mission in Sarajevo, Jacques Paul
Klein, says the situation is now under control.
He says: "We have a zero tolerance policy here. Any
officer, anywhere using the service of a prostitute,
will be fired immediately and sent home."
How many has he sent home for sexual misconduct since
he arrived in 1999? He is not sure. He thinks about
fifteen.
Unacceptable behaviour
Is it simply a case of "boys will be boys" and is it
hopeless to expect thousands of men posted away from
home not to take advantage of the perks on offer?
Poverty leads to desperate measures on the streets
Richard Monk has no sympathy, "I cannot see how you
can possibly go into a country representing an
international organisation like the United Nations or
Nato and behave in this way."
Monk suggests that all international police officers
and soldiers should be told that it is "totally
unacceptable for you to consort with all prostitutes,
as you may not know the difference between prostitutes
and trafficked girls. So, quite simply, this is an
offence and you will be court-martialled if you're
caught."
But while those in charge debate about what should be
done, there may be thousands of young women, like
Monica, still being held as sex slaves in Bosnia.
Boys will be boys: Sunday 16 June 2002 on BBC Two at
1915 BST
Reporter: Sue Lloyd-Roberts
Producer: Lode Desmet
Deputy Editor: Farah Durrani
Editor: Karen O'Connor

===*===

Subject: Review Of BBC Documentary On Sex Trade In Bosnia, Kosovo
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Rozoff <r_rozoff@...>
To: r_rozoff@...



[This is a personal, in every sense of the word,
review of a recent BBC documentary on the epidemic sex
slave trade introduced under the auspices of NATO
occupation in Bosnia and the Serbian province of
Kosovo.
The very title of this halfhearted expose is painful
to read, as it trivializes crimes against humanity and
against women in particular that are auguably the
worst in the world currently.
Several aid agencies have estimated that 500,000
Eastern European girls and young women are duped and
abducted into the brutal and dehumanizing sex slave
industry based primarily in NATO-administered Bosnia
and Kosovo every year.
Every year.
If a single, say, American or English girl were to
suffer this fate the world press would feature
screaming headlines condemning this sordid practice, a
blot on the conscience of humankind.
But when Russian, Romanian, Moldovan, Bulgarian and
other impoverished nations have hundreds of thousands
of their daughters kidnapped, raped, drugged,
tormented, violated and sold like so much cheap
chattel the so-called civilized world is conspicuously
silent about it, especailly as the perpetrators of
these unspeakable crimes are more often than not
Western clients on whose behalf the US and NATO have
gone to war against innocent nations and peoples.
Particularly absent among those expressing concern
over this plague of modern slavery are the New York
and London based 'human rights' professionals, who are
adept at urging on the bombing of sovereign nations,
but who immediatey lose interest in the victims once
the aggression has ended.]


I saw the documentary: Boys Will Be Boys (BBC
2-Correspondent) on Sunday. I must admit that I felt
phisically sick. Every single native confirmed that
all that mess started after the 'liberators' moved in.
And Mr Klein lied about the accusations of the young
Romanian girl ( she has indentified 17 men out of 20
from the photos Mr Klein showed her during his visit
in Romania on other business, but he had just drooped
by?!) who was saved by an Argentinian official serving
in Bosnia at the time of her enslavement. And guess
what: The Latino was dismissed and sent back to his
country. The girl was bewildered. First a man of Mr
Klein's position does not do this sort of thing that
he did with the girl, and that is against the
procedure. What happend to the real culprits? Nothing.
Most of them are Americans, and Mr Klein is a US
citizen, and in a high position, and he went
personally to Romania and lied to the journalist who
made this programme, and did not want to show the
document (he claims existed) about his 'interview' of
the Romanian girl.
In the meantime the whole enterprise is booming in
Bosnia & Kosovo, and soon in Afghanistan,...
All that made me so sick, apart from my real physical
conditions these days (which are very bad)
Is all this misery ever going to be fought against and
defeated?
D

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

"FRIEDENS"-PREIS FÜR DEL PONTE -
EINE VERHÖHNUNG ALLER FRIEDENSKRÄFTE!
Von Klaus von Raussendorff
(Der Artikel erscheint voraussichtlich in junge Welt, UZ und Zeitung
vum
Letzebuerger Vollek; Nachdruck erwünscht)
- Anl. 1 -

FREEDOM ASSOCIATION BULLETIN Nr. 1 bis 8
Tag für Tag Berichterstattung vom Milosevic-"Prozess" in deutscher
Übersetzung
(ab 7. Mai 2002) unter www.free-slobo.de :
Bisherige Folgen:
07.05.02 Kronzeuge Rugova tut sich schwer (1)
08.05.02 Wackelige Zeugen (2)
13.05.02 General als Chef der OSZE-Verifikationsmission schlecht
informiert
(3)
14.05.02 Terroristenkommandeur zugleich auch Zivilist (4)
15.05.02 "Geschützter Zeuge" Tanic - Mitautor der Anklageschrift (5)
16.05.02 Anklage in Nöten (6)
21.05.02 Zeuge Tanic diskreditiert die Anklage (7)
22.05.02 Forensische Wissenschaft keine Stütze der Anklage (8)
- Anl. 2 -

REISE NACH SOLANIEN
Von Jürgen Elsässer
Quelle: konkret 5/02, S 22-24
- Anl. 3 -

Unter:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/
friedenspreis.txt
zu lesen.

---

Anti-Imperialistische Korrespondenz (AIK), Redaktion: Klaus von
Raussendorff
Postfach 210172, 53156 Bonn; Tel.&Fax: 0228 - 34.68.50;
Email: redaktion@...

Anti-Imperialistische Online-Korrespondenz; Webmaster: Dieter Vogel
http://www.aikor.de; Email: webmaster@...

AIK-Infos können auf der Seite http://www.aikor.de
unter "Info-Dienst der AIK" runtergeladen werden


===*===


23.03.2002

Ausland
Ralph Hartmann / Aleksandar Sinowjew

Globalisierung als neuer Weltkrieg

Drei Jahre nach Kriegsbeginn: Warum ein
Sieg über den ehemaligen Präsidenten
Jugoslawiens für die USA und die NATO so
wichtig ist. Vorabdruck aus »Der
Fall osevic«

Anläßlich des dritten Jahrestages des
NATO-Krieges gegen Jugoslawien erscheint am
24. März im Dietz-Verlag das Buch »Der Fall
Milosevic«. Herausgeber ist Ralph Hartmann,
ehemaliger Botschafter der DDR in
Jugoslawien. junge Welt veröffentlicht im
folgenden Auszüge aus den Beiträgen von
Ralph Hartmann und Aleksandar Sinowjew


Ralph Hartmann:

Es war exakt 9.30 Uhr, als sich am
Dienstag, den 12. Februar 2002, im
nüchternen, mit hochmoderner
Computertechnik ausgestatteten ersten
Gerichtssaal des Haager Tribunals am
Churchillplatz Nr. 1 der Vorhang hob und
das Schauspiel begann: der Prozeß gegen
Slobodan Milosevic, langjähriger Präsident
Serbiens und Jugoslawiens, angeklagt in 66
Punkten der Verbrechen gegen die
Menschlichkeit und schwerer
Kriegsverbrechen in Kosovo, in Kroatien und
in Bosnien-Herzegowina, im letzteren auch
des Völkermordes.

Der mittelgroße, in grelles Neonlicht
getauchte Saal war bis auf den letzten
Platz besetzt. An seiner Stirnseite hatten
der britische Richter Richard May und seine
wie er in respekterheischende rote Roben
gekleideten Kollegen Patrick Robinson aus
Jamaica und O-Gon Kvon aus Südkorea auf
blauen Sesseln vor blauem Hintergrund Platz
genommen, links von ihnen das im
traurig-festlichen Schwarz gewandete halbe
Dutzend der Anklagevertreter mit Carla del
Ponte an der Spitze und diesen gegenüber,
eingerahmt von zwei blau uniformierten
Wächtern, der 60jährige Angeklagte im
dunklen Anzug mit hellblauem Hemd und
passender Krawatte. Der Platz für die
Zeugen war noch frei, über dreihundert
sollen in den nächsten zwei bis drei
Jahren, so lange soll das Verfahren dauern,
aufmarschieren.

Im und um das Gerichtsgebäude war die
höchste Sicherheitsstufe ausgerufen, und
neben der Polizei hatten zahllose
Fernseh-Übertragungswagen einen dichten
Schutzwall um das Gerichtsgebäude gelegt.
1200 Medienvertreter aus aller Welt hatten
sich zum ersten Gerichtstermin eingefunden,
nur einige Dutzend auserwählte hatten unter
den Zuschauern Platz nehmen können, der
Rest verfolgte den Prozeßauftakt in
Nebenräumen auf großen Videoschirmen.

Nach der Eröffnung durch Richter May gab
die Chefanklägerin del Ponte, mit beiden
Händen das Lesepult umklammernd, ihr
einleitendes Statement ab. Sie, die es
vehement abgelehnt hatte, in Sachen
Kriegsverbrechen der NATO im 78tägigen
Bombardement auf jugoslawische Städte und
Dörfer, Chemie- und andere
Industrieanlagen, auf Elektrizitätswerke,
Rundfunk- und Fernsehstationen, Brücken,
Krankenhäuser, Schulen, Kirchen und Klöster
auch nur zu ermitteln, erklärte: »Dieses
Tribunal und dieser Prozeß demonstrieren
machtvoll, daß niemand über den Gesetzen
steht und niemand der internationalen
Justiz entkommt.« Den Angeklagten beschrieb
sie als machtbesessenen Kriegsherrn ohne
Ideale, in dessen Verbrechen sie eine
»nahezu mittelalterliche Barbarei« zu sehen
meinte. Die Details der Schilderung der
Karriere des Kriegsherrn und seiner
Barbarei überließ sie ihren Vertretern.

Einer von ihnen, Staatsanwalt Geoffrey
Nice, rein zufälligerweise wie der neutrale
Richter May aus dem
Jugoslawien-kriegserfahrenen NATO-Land
Großbritannien kommend, hielt ein nicht
endenwollendes Eröffnungsplädoyer, in dem
er nachzuweisen versuchte, daß den Untaten
des Ex-Präsidenten, den drei Anklagen für
Kroatien, Bosnien-Herzegowina und Kosovo
»das Verbrechen der gewaltsamen Beseitigung
der Nichtserben« zugrunde liegt, »damit
Milosevic einen zentralistisch-serbischen
Staat erhält und kontrolliert«. Da war er,
der Mythos »Großserbien«, endlich vor die
Schranken des Haager Gerichts gebracht, und
der leitende Staatsanwalt Nice, der die
Oberaufsicht über das begonnene Verfahren
hat, schilderte ihn ausführlich und
beredsam, von Zeit zu Zeit auf
Tonaufzeichnungen, Fotos und Videos
zurückgreifend, so daß sein Plädoyer
streckenweise
zu einem Lichtbildervortrag geriet. Zur
emotionalen Einstimmung des
Publikums und als Beweis für die Schuld des
Angeklagten wurden die in den
vergangenen Jahren auf dem Boden der
früheren jugoslawischen Föderation
geschehenen und noch heute erschütternden
Greuel in Erinnerung gerufen,
darunter selbst die umstrittensten
Massaker, wie z. B. das von
US-Botschafter William Walker in Racak in
Szene gesetzte. Fast keines der
antiserbischen Klischees der letzten zehn
Jahre blieb unerwähnt, uralte
Legenden wurden wieder ausgekramt, so, als
seien sie in vielen
dokumentarischen Materialien, in
zahlreichen Büchern und anderen
Publikationen nicht längst widerlegt
worden, ganz zu schweigen von den
während des Internationalen Europäischen
Tribunals über den NATO-Krieg gegen
Jugoslawien und der ihm vorangegangenen
Hearings nachgewiesenen Tatsachen.
Selbst in die Fälscher-Fußstapfen des
deutschen Verteidigungsministers
Rudolf Scharping trat der leitende
Staatsanwalt, als er die Rede von
Milosevic zum 600. Jahrestag der Schlacht
auf dem Amselfeld durch ein aus
dem Zusammenhang gerissenes Zitat
entstellte, ihre Aussagen in ihr Gegenteil
verkehrte und zum Beweisstück der Anklage
machte.

Weder der getragene Tonfall, die
wohlformulierten Sätze, noch die perfekt
unterdrückten Tränen der Rührung über die
auf Video gezeigten Greueltaten
konnten verdecken, daß hier ein Mann seines
Amtes waltete, dem die
komplizierte, widersprüchliche, tragische
Geschichte der Zerschlagung der
früheren jugoslawischen Föderation trotz
aller Einarbeitungsbemühungen und
fremder Hilfestellung ziemlich fremd
geblieben ist und der nur eines im
Sinne hatte, den Angeklagten in gewählten
Worten
ls »Balkanmonster« hinzustellen. Kein Wort
dagegen fand er erwartungsgemäß
zur Verurteilung des NATO-Krieges.

Slobodan Milosevic, dem alle Schrecken der
jugoslawischen Bürgerkriege und
die in ihrem Verlauf begangenen
Grausamkeiten, einschließlich selbst der
grauenhaften Folgen des NATO-Luftterrors,
zur Last gelegt wurden, verfolgte
den Prozeßauftakt aufmerksam. Auch im
Blitzlichtgewitter und grellen Licht
der Scheinwerfer, unter den scharfen
Blicken der Richter, Ankläger,
Journalisten, die nach jeder Geste der
Unsicherheit, nach dem leisesten
Anzeichen, das Aufregung oder gar Angst
verraten könnte, spähten, zeigte er
sich wie gewohnt gelassen und beherrscht.

Von dieser Zurückhaltung war nichts mehr zu
spüren, als er am dritten
Prozeßtag das Wort zur Gegenrede bekam.
Entschieden und wohl begründet
kennzeichnete er das Verfahren als
politischen Prozeß und die Anklagen der
Carla del Ponte und ihrer Kollegen als ein
»Meer von Lügen und bewußten
Fälschungen, die das Opfer einer
kriminellen Aggression als kriminellen
Täter darstellen sollen«. Detailliert ging
er auf den Angriff der
NATO-Länder, »der 19 am höchsten
entwickelten Länder, die zusammen 676mal
stärker als Jugoslawien sind«, ein und warf
ihnen »Völkermord, Verbrechen
gegen die Menschlichkeit und Verstöße gegen
die Genfer Konvention« vor,
wobei er, dem Beispiel seiner Ankläger
folgend, seine Ausführungen mit
Fotodokumenten über die NATO-Verbrechen,
allerdings in diesem Fall eindeutig
zuzuordnender, untermauerte: zerstörte
Häuser, Fabriken, Krankenhäuser,
Leichen, Leichenteile, verkohlte Körper,
darunter von NATO-Raketen zerfetzte
albanische Flüchtlinge. Selbst
Korrespondenten von Nachrichtenagenturen
aus
NATO-Ländern stellten fest, daß Milosevic
so vom Angeklagten zum Ankläger
wurde.

Doch, so meinen zumindest Kenner des Haager
Gerichtes, seiner Entstehung,
seiner Akteure und Auftraggeber, wird ihm
dieser Rollentausch im
Gerichtssaal vorerst wenig nützen.
Milosevic selbst weiß um seine
Lage: »Dieser Prozeß«, so stellte er fest,
»ist nicht fair: Auf der einen
Seite steht ein riesiger Apparat, sind die
Medien und (Nachrichten)-Dienste,
und ich habe nur eine öffentliche
Telefonzelle, um gegen die größten
Verleumdungen zu kämpfen. Ihr möchtet, daß
ich mit gebundenen Händen und
Füßen an einem Schwimmwettkampf über 100
Meter teilnehme. Dies ist ein
Wettkampf zwischen Recht und
echt.«

Elektronische Kameras trugen den Beginn
dieser Auseinandersetzung, die Szenen der
Eröffnung des Verfahrens in die Welt
hinaus, bis in die letzten Winkel der Erde
und lösten gar unterschiedliche
Empfindungen aus: Genugtuung und Jubel bei
den Verantwortlichen für den NATO-Krieg
gegen Jugoslawien und den notorischen
Serbenhassern, gedämpfte Freude und
Unbehagen bei denen, die ihn der NATO
auslieferten, Beklommenheit und
selbstrechtfertigende Gedanken bei denen,
die wider besseren Wissens den Bruch
nationalen und internationalen Rechtes bei
der Entführung des Angeklagten nach Den
Haag schweigend oder gar billigend
hingenommen hatten, Verbitterung und Zorn
bei vielen Gegnern der NATO-Aggression und
schließlich Nachdenklichkeit und
Beunruhigung bei denen, die wie letztere
über den Tag hinaus denken und die um das
zivilisierte und von den Normen des
Völkerrechts geregelte Zusammenleben der
Völker und Staaten im Zeitalter der von den
USA dominierten Globalisierung zutiefst
besorgt sind.

Allein schon die unterschiedlichen
Reaktionen machen deutlich, daß es im
Haager Gerichtssaal nicht um eine
Privatperson geht, zu der jeder stehen
kann, wie er will und es für richtig hält,
nicht um einen gewöhnlichen Prozeß, wenn
auch gegen ein ehemaliges Staatsoberhaupt,
sondern um einen Fall von größter
politischer Brisanz und Tragweite. Der
»Fall Milosevic«, der Prozeß vor dem Haager
Tribunal ist die Fortsetzung des
NATO-Krieges gegen Jugoslawien mit
pseudo-juristischen Mitteln. Und er ist
mehr: Mit ihm wollen die Herren der neuen
Weltordnung und der Globalisierung einen
für alle Zeit geltenden Präzedenzfall für
den Umgang mit Politikern schaffen, die es
wagen, ihnen die Stirn zu bieten ...



Rede des Schriftstellers und Philosophen
Aleksandar Sinowjew, Vorsitzender des
Russischen Gesellschaftlichen Komitees zur
Verteidigung von Slobodan Milosevic, am 23.
August 2001 auf einer Festveranstaltung in
Moskau zum 60. Geburtstag des
jugoslawischen Ex-Präsidenten.


Über die Globalisierung spricht man
gewöhnlich als von irgendeinem objektiven
Prozeß der Vereinigung der Menschheit zu
einem einheitlichen Ganzen und zum
Wohlergehen der gesamten Menschheit. Aber
das ist eine ideologische Lüge. Die
Globalisierung entwickelt sich nicht von
selbst, sie wird von bestimmten Leuten
verwirklicht, von Leuten, die aktiv
handeln, die sie mit bestimmten Methoden,
als Gesamtheit vorher geplanter und
dirigierter Operationen im Interesse nur
eines bestimmten Teils der Menschheit und
zum Schaden des anderen, unvergleichlich
größeren Teils durchsetzen. Die
Globalisierung stellt nach ihrem sozialen
Wesen einen Krieg neuen Typs dar, einen
Krieg, der bereits den ganzen Planeten
erfaßt hat. Sein aktives Subjekt ist der
globale westliche Überbau, dessen Metropole
sich in den USA konzentriert hat und der
die ganze Macht der westlichen Welt in
seinem Interesse mobilisiert. Sein Ziel ist
die Unterwerfung der gesamten Menschheit
und ihre Organisierung nach dem eigenen
westl


ichen Vorbild und im Interesse der
Herstellung der eigenen Welthegemonie. In
diesem Krieg gibt es keine Grenzen zwischen
»friedlichen« und speziell militärischen
Mitteln, es gibt keine Grenzen zwischen der
Front und dem Hinterland, es gibt keine
Grenzen zwischen Zivilisten und
professionellen Militärpersonen. Dieser
Krieg ist einzigartig, einheitlich und
umfassend. Er differenziert sich in einer
großen Zahl von Operationen auf dem
gesamten Planeten, einschließlich
militärischer im gewöhnlichen Sinne des
Wortes (wie zum Beispiel auf dem Balkan),
die sich auf diese oder andere Art zu einem
einheitlichen Krieg mit dem Stab in den
USA, in »Washington«, vereinigen. Wenn
dieser fundamentale Faktor des
gegenwärtigen Lebens der Menschheit
ignoriert wird, kann man objektiv nicht ein
einziges mehr oder weniger bedeutendes
Ereignis auf dem Planeten begreifen.

Davon, von dieser nach meiner Auffassung
offensichtlichen und unbestreitbaren
Tatsache ausgehend, schätze ich das
Phänomen Slobodan Milosevic und sein
persönliches Schicksal ein.

Im Verlauf der Globalisierung als neuer
Weltkrieg entstand eine solche Situation,
daß Jugosl
awien den letzten ernsthaften Widerstand
gegen das Voranschreiten der
Globalisatoren in Europa leistete. Wie das
geschah, ist allgemein bekannt,
und ich werde über dieses Thema nicht
reden. Ich möchte nur das Folgende
unterstreichen und die Aufmerksamkeit
darauf lenken. Der kürzlich
beendete »heiße« Teil des Krieges der USA
und der NATO gegen Jugoslawien war
ein wichtiger Teil der Globalisierung. Er
hatte nicht die Zerschlagung des
im »heißen« Sinne militärischen
Widerstandes zum Ziel - einen solchen gab
es
überhaupt nicht -, sondern des
psychologischen, moralischen und
ideologischen Widerstandes gegen die
Globalisierung, nicht nur und nicht
einmal so sehr in Jugoslawien selbst als
vielmehr des Widerstandes in ganz
Europa, einschließlich Westeuropas und
Rußlands.

Slobodan Milosevic wurde das Symbol dieses
Widerstandes. Mit der Beendigung
des »heißen« Teiles ist der Krieg nicht zu
Ende. Er wird mit anderen Mitteln
fortgesetzt, die Ihnen ebenfalls gut
bekannt sind: Spaltung der Bevölkerung
Serbiens, Verwandlung eines Teils in eine
Opposition gegen die Macht von
Slobodan Milosevic und faktisch in die »5.
Kolonne« der NATO und der USA,
die Beseitigung von Slobodan Milosevic von
der Macht als erste Etappe einer
groben Abrechnung mit ihm, die
diversantenmäßige Operation der Entführung
Milosevics und seine Übergabe in die Hände
des sogenannten Haager Tribunals,
das ein Organ Washingtons und der NATO ist.
Übrig geblieben ist die letzte
Etappe des Krieges, in der die USA und die
NATO das Ziel haben, die Schuld
für ihre Verbrechen auf dem Balkan auf die
Opfer ihrer Verbrechen zu wälzen,
und in erster Linie - auf den Menschen, der
zum historischen Symbol des
Widerstandes gegen ihren kriminellen Krieg
geworden ist.

In keinem Fall darf man die Wichtigkeit
dieser letzten Etappe der
jugoslawischen Episode der Globalisierung
unterschätzen. Man darf sie nicht
nur als eine Episode des persönlichen
Lebens einer Privatperson betrachten.
Im Kontext der gesamten Globalisierung
bedeutet sie viel mehr als alle
vorangegangenen Etappen und Episoden. Wenn
sie für die USA und die NATO
nicht erfolgreich endet, dann kann man das,
was sie früher machten, in den
Augen der öffentlichen Meinung und vor dem
Urteil der Geschichte nicht als
ihren Erfolg betrachten. Der Krieg bleibt
ein unvollendeter Sieg, wenn das
Symbol des Widerstandes erhalten bleibt -
Slobodan Milosevic. Eines der
wichtigsten Merkmale des Krieges neuen Typs
- und die Globalisierung, und
ich bekräftige und unterstreiche es, ist
das - einschließlich des Krieges in
Jugoslawien, besteht in der
außerordentlichen Wichtigkeit und Wirkung
gerade
symbolischer Erscheinungen. Ein Sieg über
Slobodan Milosevic als einer
symbolischen Person für die USA und die
NATO ist in der entstandenen
Situation in der Welt sogar wichtiger als
alles andere, was sie in der
ganzen Periode des Krieges auf dem Balkan
erreicht haben.

* Ralph Hartmann: Der Fall Milosevic. Dietz
Verlag Berlin 2002, 256 Seiten,
12,80 Euro, ISBN: 3-320-02034-X (bei
amazon.de nicht gelistet)

ROSSO XXI°

Periodico del Movimento per la Confederazione dei Comunisti
http://www.confederazionecomunisti.it/ROSSOXXI.htm
N° 11 - GIUGNO 2002

IL "PROCESSO MILOSEVIC" E L'IMPERIALISMO

di Aldo Bernardini
(prima parte)

1. Sullo ?Spiegel? del 25 febbraio 2002 è comparsa una singolare
intervista dell?attuale premier serbo Djindjic, il capo del governo
della
Repubblica federata serba, membro, questa, per ora, insieme al
Montenegro, della (residua) Federazione jugoslava. Una quindicina di
giorni prima, il 12 febbraio, si era aperto formalmente all?Aja il
processo
all?ex presidente jugoslavo Slobodan Milosevic, che proprio Djindjic
nell?estate 2001, dietro il ricatto occidentale basato sui promessi
aiuti
finanziari, aveva illegalmente consegnato al carcere di Scheveningen.
Lamenta il premier serbo che, dell?aiuto immediato promesso per 1,3
miliardi di dollari, erano stati consegnati neppure 500 milioni, laddove
i
danni dei bombardamenti NATO ammontavano a 5 miliardi di dollari:
tutto ciò faceva temere proteste della popolazione, per la crescita
enorme
della disoccupazione, la chiusura di industrie, l?impossibilità della
ricostruzione. L?intervistatore obietta che si potrebbe trattare di un
mezzo
di pressione per ottenere una miglior collaborazione con il Tribunale
dell?Aja. A questo punto Djindjic, mentre ritiene impossibili (vedremo,
per
allora?) consegne ulteriori di incriminati dal Tribunale dell?Aja,
perché ciò
?avrebbe determinato sollevazioni popolari?, è indotto a precisare: ?Il
Tribunale senza dubbio non ha più alcuna potenzialità?, pur se ricerca
ancora taluni incriminati serbo-bosniaci e starebbe forse, secondo lui,
allargando le indagini in altre direzioni. Possiamo domandarci: che cosa
è
avvenuto? Lo dice lo stesso intervistatore: ?Il 40% [in realtà sembra si
tratti del 70%, n.d.r.] della popolazione serba è entusiasta
dell?atteggiamento di Milosevic davanti al Tribunale dell?Aja?, al che
Djindjic: ?Il Tribunale ha perduto ogni credibilità fra la nostra
popolazione.
Perfino avversari di Milosevic manifestano ora simpatia per lui e mi
domandano: perché lo abbiamo consegnato? Molti sono addirittura
convinti che egli abbia avuto successo nel mostrare la NATO quale
criminale principale?. Alla fine un (tentato) colpo canagliesco:
Milosevic
si sarebbe reso colpevole di guerre ?etniche? per fondare il proprio
potere,
pur se ?cavallerescamente? Djindjic lo ritiene corresponsabile insieme
ai
leaders di altre Repubbliche: ma vi sarebbe da preoccuparsi che alla
fine
?gli autori (degli asseriti crimini) appaiano vittime e la comunità
internazionale colpevole?.
Abbiamo qui una chiave di interpretazione rivelatrice. Djindjic è l?uomo
dell?imperialismo, particolarmente tedesco, e oggi quella che viene
chiamata la comunità internazionale è semplice metafora per indicare i
centri dell?imperialismo. Djindjic lavora per l?integrazione
(ovviamente,
subalterna) dell?attuale Jugoslavia, forse dal suo punto di vista della
sola
Serbia, nell?Europa. Milosevic aveva partecipato nel 1997 a un incontro
a
Creta di capi di stato e di governo balcanici (vi era anche, per
l?Albania,
Fatos Nano) per promuovere un?integrazione paritaria di tali Paesi,
autonoma rispetto all?Europa. Secondo lo stesso Milosevic (me lo disse
il
16 agosto 2001, quando lo visitai nel carcere), ciò sarebbe stato uno
dei
fattori scatenanti della crisi del Kosovo: fu, così mi ricordò, il
ministro
degli esteri francese Védrine a diramare poco dopo una nota nella quale
si
stigmatizzavano asserite persecuzioni contro i kosovaro-albanesi. Il
processo a Milosevic ha la funzione di deterrente contro tutti i popoli
e i
leaders che contrastano i disegni dell?imperialismo tanto con il rifiuto
di
sottomettersi a integrazioni subalterne, quelle tipiche della c.d.
globalizzazione (in realtà, appunto, imperialismo), e dunque perseguendo
la difesa dell?indipendenza e sovranità statale, quanto sul piano del
mantenimento di elementi di socialismo o di stato sociale, pur
oggettivamente affievoliti. E? il caso proprio della Jugoslavia di
Milosevic.
Più specificamente, il processo dell?Aja tende a consolidare il totale
rovesciamento dei fatti e dei principi fondamentali del diritto
internazionale, su cui si è fondata l?azione distruttiva
dell?imperialismo in
Jugoslavia. Il dilemma posto da Djindjic, colpevole Milosevic, perché
non
può esserlo la comunità internazionale, riflette questa enorme
mistificazione.
Di seguito mi limiterò a segnalare alcune fra le più vistose ipotesi di
stravolgimento dei fatti e del diritto nella vicenda jugoslava. Occorre
premettere talune considerazioni generali e una schematica cronologia di
eventi rilevanti.

2. Una gigantesca e sfrontata campagna alla Goebbels ha, dal 1990 in
poi,
rovesciato fatti, responsabilità, dati e principi giuridici nella crisi
jugoslava
voluta, o almeno fortissimamente favorita e fomentata, dall?Occidente:
crimine contro la pace culminato (ma solo inizialmente) nei
riconoscimenti prematuri delle Repubbliche secessioniste quando ancora
esisteva la Federazione socialista jugoslava. Crimine non a caso omesso
nello Statuto dell?illegittimo Tribunale dell?Aja.
La disgregazione della Repubblica federale socialista jugoslava è stata
provocata - nel quadro di un progrediente degrado economico e sociale,
al
quale non sono rimasti estranei il forte indebitamento e le conseguenti
pressioni e operazioni del Fondo monetario internazionale - da elementi
interni che hanno attizzato umori nazionalistici ed etnicistici per
conseguire obiettivi di dominio politico ed economico, anche con la
depredazione della proprietà sociale, l?eliminazione di ostacoli al
dispiegamento pieno di rapporti capitalistici, la separazione delle
regioni
più ricche da quelle meno sviluppate, con il rifiuto da parte delle
prime di
finanziare il fondo federale di riequilibrio. Ma non vi sarebbero state
grandi prospettive di successo senza l?ingerenza di forze estranee,
anzitutto degli Stati dell?Unione europea, evidentemente non tutti in
eguale
misura e in tempi uguali, e del Vaticano e, sin dall?inizio ma con ritmo
crescente, anche degli Stati Uniti: vi erano, forse vi sono ancora, in
Jugoslavia (la vecchia Jugoslavia) forze unitarie e sinergie
unificatrici:
famiglie miste numerosissime, commistioni di etnie conviventi fianco a
fianco e che stavano realizzando integrazioni, elementi dichiaratamente
?jugoslavisti? e, mai dimentichiamolo, una classe operaia (e lavoratori
in
genere) ora certo frammentata e avvilita, ma, chissà, capace di ripresa
dell?iniziativa contro le ?borghesie? vessillifere di nazionalismi
frammentatori, ma estranei al senso di indipendenza, in quanto del tutto
subalterne ai centri imperialistici. Quell?ingerenza esterna - in primo
luogo, con pressioni politiche ed economiche, con massicce campagne
mediatiche - si è manifestata essenzialmente nell?appoggio multiforme
alle pretese secessionistiche dei gruppi dirigenti di talune Repubbliche
federate, Slovenia e Croazia in prima linea, non per caso le più ricche,
e
ha quindi contribuito in misura decisiva all?esplosione dei virulenti
fenomeni nazionalistici.
Il processo controrivoluzionario europeo, nella congiunzione tra forze
imperialistiche mondiali e borghesie interne rigenerate dall?espansione
degli elementi di mercato promossi dalle dirigenze revisionistiche (si
veda
Stalin, Lettera a Ivanov del 1938), si compie anche in Jugoslavia nei
fatali
1989-91.
La Costituzione titina del 1974 aveva introdotto elementi di forte
indebolimento della compagine federale. Lo stesso Partito che
costituiva,
insieme all?Armata popolare (poi federale), il cemento politico
unitario, la
Lega dei comunisti jugoslavi, risentì delle conseguenti spinte
?regionalistiche?.
Si tratta del frutto estremo del revisionismo jugoslavo titino e
dell?illusione
piccolo-borghese delle autogestioni e delle autonomie comunitarie, non
bilanciate da forti elementi unificatori centrali (nonostante i contesti
e le
formulazioni diverse, anche la realtà sovietica e degli altri Paesi
socialisti
venne gradualmente inficiata da questi elementi: ce lo documenta con
studi pertinenti, fra gli altri, Kurt Gossweiler, con scritti recenti
che fanno
tesoro della sua battaglia comunista nella ex Germania democratica). Fra
gli elementi che si riveleranno gravidi di conseguenze negative nelle
modifiche costituzionali titine degli ultimi anni ?60 e del 1974 vanno
segnalate l?attribuzione di uno status di quasi repubbliche federate a
due
province autonome racchiuse nella Repubblica federata di Serbia, e cioè
il
Kosovo-Metohia e la Vojvodina, risultandone dunque alterata la
situazione
di autonomie di secondo grado simili a quella dell?italiana provincia di
Bolzano (Alto Adige-Südtirol), compresa nella regione Trentino-Alto
Adige e l?attribuzione ai musulmani di Bosnia-Erzegovina della qualifica
di popolo costitutivo (un improbabile ?popolo?, basato su un?identità
religiosa) di quella Repubblica federata, accanto ai serbi e ai croati
ivi
stanziati.
Qui occorre spendere qualche parola, necessariamente sommaria, sulla
struttura costituzionale della Jugoslavia federale socialista. Le
Repubbliche federate (Slovenia, Croazia, Bosnia Erzegovina,
Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia) erano in realtà entità amministrative di
decentramento di autonomia molto larga (eccessivamente accresciuta,
come detto, con la Costituzione del ?74): esse si identificavano
peraltro
con riferimento ?storico? a determinati ?popoli? in esse stanziati,
entro un
quadro variegato, caratterizzato ad es. da un popolo assolutamente
principale (come in Slovenia), da tre popoli (dopo il 1974) costitutivi
(come
detto, Bosnia-Erzegovina), da più popoli costitutivi (così in Croazia e
in
Serbia, dove accanto al rispettivo popolo maggioritario
?identificatore?,
quello che dava il nome alla Repubblica federata, vi erano riconosciuti
rispettivamente e reciprocamente come popolo costitutivo anche, nella
prima, i serbi e, nella seconda, i croati). Veri elementi costitutivi
della
Federazione socialista jugoslava, per i quali la Costituzione parlava di
diritto di secessione, pur se non espressamente regolato, dovevano
considerarsi i popoli costitutivi, non le Repubbliche federate, la cui
secessione non era direttamente neppure prevista in Costituzione:
dunque,
realtà eventualmente anche trasversali fra le varie Repubbliche federate
rappresentavano i reali elementi costitutivi della Federazione.
Particolari
garanzie venivano riconosciute, dentro ogni repubblica, ai vari gruppi
etnici minoritari, diversi dai popoli costitutivi, i più consistenti dei
quali
denominati ?nazionalità?: così, in particolare, i kosovaro-albanesi e
gli
ungheresi, la cui massiccia presenza ha giustificato l?istituzione delle
due
ricordate province autonome serbe di Kosovo-Metohia e Vojvodina (può
notarsi che l?attribuzione di un?autonomia di secondo grado è tipica di
situazioni etniche che fanno riferimento a popoli costituiti in Stati
indipendenti al di fuori da quello di riferimento, nel nostro caso la
Jugoslavia, e questo, evidentemente, per contenere spinte
secessionistiche
fomentate dall?esterno).

3. In un quadro tanto complesso, non può farsi a meno di una lunga, pur
tuttavia sommaria e forse tediosa cronologia, e mi scuso in anticipo di
qualche svista.
Cominciamo proprio da casa nostra. Il 20 settembre 1989, alla Camera dei
deputati, il ministro degli esteri Gianni De Michelis dichiara: ?Il
processo
di integrazione est-ovest si sviluppa principalmente nell?Europa
centro-settentrionale, grazie alla forte attrazione della Germania; è
dunque
interesse e dovere dell?Italia adoperarsi per un equilibrio mediante
l?istituzione di un analogo processo che leghi l?Europa centrale a
quella
meridionale e balcanica?. Lo stesso De Michelis rappresenta l?Italia,
l?11-12 novembre 1989 a Budapest, per la firma insieme ad Austria,
Ungheria e Jugoslavia della c.d. ?quadrangolare? cioè un processo di
integrazione dell?est all?ovest.
Nel gennaio 1990, a fronte di un atteggiamento separatistico di sloveni
e
croati all?ultimo Congresso della Lega, un atteggiamento simile a quello
dei leghisti ?padani? in Italia (almeno sino a qualche tempo fa), anche
i
serbi finiscono per accettare la disgregazione della Lega. Nelle varie
Repubbliche le sezioni ormai autonome di questa si sciolgono poi in
varie
altre formazioni, e nel corso dell?anno si tengono le prime elezioni
multipartitiche: in Montenegro e in Serbia vince il Partito socialista,
principale erede della Lega, guidato in Serbia stessa da Milosevic; in
Slovenia una coalizione liberista (sin dal 27 settembre 1989 vi era
stato
proclamato un diritto di secessione a modifica della Costituzione
repubblicana e contro quella federale); in Croazia, il 30 maggio, si
afferma
il partito di Tudjiman, che addirittura si ricollega agli ustascia di
Ante
Pavelic. Un elemento di ulteriore complicazione risulta dalla questione
del
Kosovo, provincia autonoma della Serbia a (sempre crescente)
maggioranza albanese, sulla quale si dovrà tornare.
E? questo il quadro favorevole all?ingerenza dall?esterno. Nel maggio
1990 De Michelis presiede riunioni della quadrangolare, alla quale si
aggiungono Bulgaria, Romania, Ucraina e Bielorussia e (udite, udite!)
Croazia e Slovenia, mentre ne viene estromessa (!) la Jugoslavia.
Il 2 luglio 1990 il Parlamento di Lubiana e il 25 luglio quello di
Zagabria
introducono modifiche costituzionali, quelle slovene di particolare
gravità,
nel senso della preminenza delle normative locali sulle federali e
l?abolizione della qualifica di ?socialista? per la Repubblica: il 1°
agosto la
Bosnia-Erzegovina si proclama ?stato sovrano democratico?; il 28
settembre in Serbia si approva una nuova Costituzione che, fra l?altro,
introduce il multipartitismo e consacra la restrizione dell?autonomia
delle
due province autonome: su ciò si ritornerà, anche per aspetti positivi.
Ecco poi il prestito alla Croazia (4 ottobre 1990), ad interesse 0, di 2
miliardi di dollari, restituibili entro 10 anni e 1 giorno, da parte del
Sovrano
Ordine di Malta (Vaticano!): le parti interessate hanno smentito il
fatto, ma
ne esisterebbero precisi riscontri. Ancor più: con la legge 101/513 del
5
novembre 1990 il Congresso USA decide di finanziare direttamente le
nuove formazioni jugoslave ?democratiche?, cioè secessioniste, e non per
nulla un rapporto della CIA ?profetizza? la rapida fine della Jugoslavia
(la
notizia verrà pubblicata il 29 novembre, ricorrenza della Festa
nazionale
jugoslava). Il 22 dicembre il Sabor (Parlamento) croato emana la nuova
Costituzione della Croazia, ?patria dei Croati? (e non più dei popoli
costituenti croato e serbo, come nella Costituzione della Repubblica
federata!) e proclama il diritto di secessione.
1991: l?11 gennaio, in seguito ad elezioni, Milosevic diviene presidente
della Serbia. Già nello stesso mese, si formano ed armano milizie
irregolari in Croazia (in Slovenia ciò stava avvenendo da tempo: la
Presidenza federale il 9 gennaio decreta, senza esito, lo scioglimento
di
tali milizie) e si diffondono notizie circa i preparativi di aggressioni
contro
membri dell?esercito federale e in generale contro cittadini di
nazionalità
serba ?sgraditi?. Il 10 febbraio il Parlamento di Lubiana dichiara la
secessione; il 23 quello di Zagabria la preminenza della normativa
croata
su quella federale. A fronte di questi eventi, il 1° marzo viene
annunciata
l?autonomia dei serbi di Krajina, Slavonia, Baranja e Srem occidentale
(in
Croazia); il 12 maggio il referendum in Krajina richiede l?annessione
alla
Serbia. In questi mesi si verificano scontri tra forze croate e federali
e si
attuano misure croate e slovene di consolidamento del distacco dalla
Federazione. Il 15 maggio la votazione sul candidato croato Mesic nella
Presidenza federale collegiale finisce in uno stallo: lo stesso Mesic
rientra
a Zagabria e si autoproclama presidente federale. Il 13 giugno inizia la
?guerra doganale? tra Slovenia e governo federale. Il 25 giugno i
Parlamenti di Slovenia e Croazia proclamano l?indipendenza (il Papa
parla in quei giorni delle ?legittime aspirazioni del popolo croato?: il
25
maggio aveva ricevuto Tudjiman in Vaticano), il 27 giugno l?Armata
jugoslava (federale) si stanzia sulla frontiera esterna (con l?Italia),
conflitti
armati si sviluppano in Slovenia e Croazia (forze croate attaccano
centri
serbi). Una violenta campagna di disinformazione antijugoslava si
scatena
da parte di ambienti italiani e in genere occidentali filosecessionisti.
Il 30
giugno, dietro pressioni occidentali, risulta eletto presidente federale
il
nazionalista croato Stipe Mesic (attuale presidente della Croazia), il
quale
però si adopera complessivamente per la distruzione della Federazione
(se ne è vantato, come viene ricordato da taluno, nel libro ?Come
abbiamo
sfasciato la Jugoslavia?). Alla Conferenza di Brioni, il 7 luglio, gli
occidentali promuovono una sospensione di tre mesi delle dichiarazioni
di
indipendenza di Slovenia e Croazia. Il 6 luglio Milosevic si era
espresso
nel senso che ?senza i paesi che hanno deciso per l?indipendenza, la
Jugoslavia potrà svilupparsi meglio; l?esercito deve difendere solo quei
popoli che accettano di vivere in Jugoslavia?. Ciò entrava in
dialettica,
forse non in diretta contrapposizione, con le persistenti tendenze di
jugoslavismo integrale, presenti soprattutto nell?Armata federale: si
noti
comunque che il riferimento è, in definitiva, ai ?popoli?, non alle
Repubbliche federate. Il Parlamento europeo, invece, il 10 luglio
afferma,
con grave atto di ingerenza, il ?diritto all?autodeterminazione e alla
secessione di tutte le Repubbliche jugoslave?. Il 18 luglio la
Presidenza
federale jugoslava decide per il ritiro militare dalla Slovenia. Dalla
Slavonia (in Croazia) vengono nell?ottobre cacciati 25.000 serbi;
Vukovar
è occupata da milizie irregolari croate nel novembre, ma ripresa
dall?Armata federale dopo qualche settimana (reciproche accuse di
atrocità: ma vi sono elementi che accusano i paramilitari croati). L?8
settembre si era svolto il referendum per l?indipendenza della
Macedonia,
pronta però a rientrare in una Federazione. Tra fine agosto e settembre
si
hanno azioni dell?Aviazione e Marina federali nei confronti della
Croazia:
questa viene definitivamente dichiarata indipendente dal Sabor l?8
ottobre
(scadenza della moratoria di Brioni; lo stesso per la Slovenia). La
Corte
costituzionale federale dichiara illegittime le indipendenze
repubblicane. Il
10 ottobre il Parlamento europeo, rivedendo la precedente posizione,
rigetta la richiesta dell?Unione Europea (organi politici) di
riconoscere
Slovenia e Croazia. Il 15 ottobre il Parlamento bosniaco prefigura,
contro il
voto dei serbi, la secessione della Bosnia-Erzegovina.
I processi di disgregazione non avrebbero potuto mancare di colpire i
supremi vertici statali: il 3 ottobre 1991 a Belgrado i rappresentanti
del
?blocco serbo? (Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo e Montenegro) nella
presidenza federale collegiale, in assenza degli altri e quindi agitando
il
pericolo di paralisi, si erano attribuiti i pieni poteri: il 5 dicembre
Mesic si
dimette affermando che ?la Jugoslavia non esiste più? e viene imitato il
20
dicembre dal primo ministro federale Markovic. Ciò non implica
giuridicamente la fine della Jugoslavia (di allora): si veda il rifiuto
serbo
(alla Conferenza dell?Aja, ripresa il 18 ottobre) del piano Carrington,
che
prevedeva un vincolo molto flessibile fra Stati indipendenti per la
Federazione ed entro le singole Repubbliche ampie autonomie ?nazionali?
per le etnie regionalmente maggioritarie: la Jugoslavia non può essere
cancellata con un tratto di penna, le autonomie ?regionali? sono
questione
puramente interna, opposero i serbi; e vi era pur sempre l?azione
unitaria
dell?Armata federale.
Si mettano queste operazioni in controluce con quanto stava avvenendo
sul piano internazionale: nel quadro delle trattative di Maastricht
(dicembre 1991) venne assunta in definitiva la linea della distruzione
della
Jugoslavia: il documento U.E. 1342, 2° parte, del 6 novembre 1992
confermerà che soprattutto la Germania aveva spinto in quel senso. Già
l?8 novembre 1991 l?U.E. aveva stabilito sanzioni economiche contro la
Jugoslavia (che il 2 dicembre verranno ridimensionate a favore delle
Repubbliche secessioniste), il 10 dicembre la Germania bloccava i
trasporti relativi a Serbia e Montenegro. Si tratta di azioni che
partono dal
presupposto, arbitrariamente assunto, dell?inesistenza dello Stato
federale
jugoslavo.
Il 9 novembre i serbi di Bosnia avevano proclamato di voler comunque
restare in uno Stato unico con Serbia, Montenegro, Krajina, Slavonia
ecc.
e con le nazionalità che avessero espresso simile decisione. Ma il 19
dicembre la Germania decide, e il 23 proclama, di riconoscere, con
effetto
dal 15 gennaio 1992, Slovenia e Croazia nelle loro frontiere
(amministrative!). Lo stesso 19 viene dunque per reazione proclamata, e
il
24 formalmente costituita, la Repubblica serba di Krajina; sempre il 21
dicembre i deputati serbi avevano lasciato il Parlamento di Sarajevo e
proclamavano la Repubblica Srpska di Bosnia con effetto dal Capodanno
ortodosso 1992 mentre il 24 costituiranno l?assemblea del popolo serbo
di
Bosnia-Erzegovina. Profittando di questa situazione, il 24 dicembre
Croazia, Slovenia, Macedonia e Bosnia Erzegovina chiedono alla
Comunità europea il riconoscimento come Stati indipendenti; il 23 un
passo simile era stato compiuto dallo stesso Kosovo entro un quadro che
si
considererà più avanti; il Montenegro annunciava invece di non avere
interesse in proposito.


(Segue. URL: http://www.confederazionecomunisti.it/Il%20processo%20
Milosevic%20e%20l%27imperialismo.htm )

URL for this article:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/ian/day.htm

=======================================
THE JUDGE AS PROSECUTOR: TWO DAYS AT THE
"TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
By Ian Johnson
Leigh, Lancashire * UK
[Posted 19 June 2002]
NOTE: For audio of 'trial' go to
http://hague.bard.edu/video.html
For transcripts, go to
http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm
=======================================

Introduction: Ian Johnson recounts an
incident that occurred while he was
attending the Milosevic 'trial' at The Hague
on June 7th:

"During the morning break I met a young
Dutch lad in the lobby. He was
studying medicine in Vienna but was staying
for the summer with his
grandfather in Holland. He was curious about
the Milosevic case. Of course
he couldn't find it on the television. So
he'd come over to watch with his
own eyes. He saw me taking notes and
approached me. He wanted to see if I
was thinking what he was thinking. His
English was excellent. He said, "I
don't know that much about the issues, but
anyone can see this isn't a
proper trial, is it? The Judge is totally
against him. In fact he's openly
contemptuous of Mr. Milosevic, isn't he?
What's going on here?"

I work as a paralegal in the UK. So for me,
the perversion of justice I had
just witnessed - and with a British judge
presiding! - was infuriating. But
here was this young Dutch lad, not in the
legal profession or involved in
defending Mr. Milosevic at all, but a
thinking person, and he was horrified
as well. He wanted to know why his country
was supporting such a travesty.
This is why they have stopped showing the
proceedings on television.
Because the people, and especially the young
people, wouldn't stand for it,
would they?"

Here is Ian Johnson's account of:

TWO DAYS AT THE "TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC

To spend one day at The Hague Tribunal is
enough to confirm the worst of
suspicions. What is actually taking place in
the heart of 'democratic'
Europe is a show-trial so blatant, so
lacking in legality, that it brings
shame to those who are participating in it
and to those who refuse to
challenge it.

The history of the Tribunal's formation and
funding is well documented.
Originally an idea that emanated from the
United States Department of the
Army, it was brought into being via the UN
Security Council in its
Resolutions 808 and 827 of 1993. Not only
was this act legally invalid,
being that the Security Council had no
authority in judicial matters to
establish such a Tribunal, but its creation
also involved a
reinterpretation of the UN Charter.

Canadian lawyer Christopher Black observed
the following:

"...the UN is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of its
members, a fundamental principle of
international law and the first
guarantee of the right to self-determination
of the world's peoples. If a
people do not have the right of sovereignty,
the right to
self-determination is a sham. This principle
is completely denied by the
creation of the Tribunal. The UN Charter
states that nothing contained in
the Charter shall authorise the UN to
intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state. This fundamental
principle, put in the Charter so that the UN
could not be used by some
members to bully others has also been
fatally undermined by the creation of
the Tribunal. The members of the Security
Council, more precisely, the
permanent members, now hold the opposite
position, and I submit, do so for
reasons connected more with imperialism not
humanitarianism." (1)

The Tribunal's funding exposes its political
character. Much of it comes
from the US government through cash and
equipment, with other notable
contributors being the Rockefeller family,
Time-Warner, who own CNN and
have exclusive rights to broadcast the
trial, and American billionaire
financier George Soros. The Soros connection
is significant. The Coalition
for International Justice (CIJ), founded and
funded by George Soros,
supplies many of the Tribunal's legal staff.
The George Soros foundation,
the Open Society Institute, is one of the
parties that obtain evidence for
the Tribunal, and most tellingly, the Open
Society Institute funds the main
KLA newspaper in Pristina, a fact that has
not been mentioned once by the
western media.

POLITICAL BIAS IN ACTION

Even if one had no knowledge of the
Tribunal's history, a brief visit to
Courtroom One of the Hague Tribunal to
witness the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic would immediately give cause for
concern.

Unlike the practice in criminal courts The
Hague court itself is involved
in the laying of charges and the approval of
one of the trial judges must
be obtained before a charge can be laid.

This extraordinary relationship between the
prosecution and judges
undermines the right of the accused to a
presumption of innocence.
Furthermore this close relationship can be
witnessed in the day to day
proceedings at The Hague.

I visited the Tribunal during the first week
of June 2002 and can bear
witness to the various ways this hand in
glove operation of prosecutor and
judge appears in practice.

I heard the testimony of several prosecution
witnesses during the sessions
I attended.

Each witness gave their, sometimes lengthy,
statements that were then
elaborated on by the prosecution and on
occasions involved photographs and
maps. At no time during this process did the
judge, Richard May, stipulate
a time limit on the prosecution. Yet when it
was the turn of Mr Milosevic
to cross-examine the witness, Judge May
would instruct that a time limit be
put on proceedings. At one point, in
response to protests from Mr
Milosevic, Judge May arrogantly proclaimed,
"We are the judges Mr Milosevic
and we have judged that you will have
forty-five minutes to cross-examine
this witness." (7th June 2002).

Basically a cross-examination should take as
long as it takes, be it ten
minutes or ten hours, especially as the
accused is facing the gravest
charges any human being can face. But in the
peculiar rules and procedures
of this particular court, the trial judges
will ensure that this is not the
case.

Additionally, the Tribunal has been given
the absolute authority to devise
its own rules and procedures, an unheard of
situation in any other
circumstance.

When we come to the way the judges attempt
to 'protect' the prosecution
witnesses from any piercing
cross-examination of their statements the
full
political bias of the court is revealed. I
understand from other reports
that this is a daily occurrence, however I
will limit myself here to what I
personally witnessed.

On the 6th June prosecution witness Mr Buyo,
a KLA commander in the Racak
zone during 1999, in his testimony relating
to events surrounding the
alleged Racak 'massacre', initially claimed
that Serbian security forces
had opened fire first.

However, later in his testimony when
explaining the KLA's actions, he
testified that his own forces had merely
fired warning shots into the air
so as to alert their colleagues of the
approaching Serb forces.

Mr Milosevic seized on this discrepancy and
pointedly asked the witness,
"Why, if it was true that the Serbian
security forces had fired first, was
it necessary to fire warning shots into the
air?" A quite reasonable
assumption one would have thought. If you
are under attack there is no need
for any colleague of yours to fire shots in
the air warning you of an
approaching enemy.

Mr Milosevic attempted to drive home the
significance of this discrepancy
at which point, with the witness clearly in
trouble, Judge May intervened
and instructed, "Move on Mr Milosevic, you
have laboured this point enough.
Go on to another question." Mr Buyo was off
the hook.

A further witness, who admitted his brother
was a member of the KLA,
claimed he was an eyewitness to a 'massacre'
of civilians in his village
near Bela Crkva

He testified that Serb forces had entered
his peaceful village, separated
the women and children from the men and
proceeded to execute seventy men,
women and children.

In his cross-examination (time limit
imposed) Mr Milosevic asked why, if
they killed seventy men, women and children
so indiscriminately, would they
bother separating them in the first place?
After a lengthy silence from the
witness Judge May interjected, "I don't
think you can expect the witness to
know that."

The witness's credibility was further
undermined when he denied any
knowledge of the KLA kidnapping of both Serb
and Albanian residents in his
village just a few weeks earlier, claiming
he must have been away at the
time and upon his return no villagers
mentioned it to him. Up to that date
the kidnapping was the biggest event to
occur in his village for years,
yet, as a life long resident there, he had
never even heard about it.

Proceedings were taking a predictable
course. It didn't take much insight
to grasp the following: A) The witnesses
told a well-rehearsed story. B) If
the witnesses got into difficulties during
the cross-examination the Judge
would intervene.

INADEQUATE WHEN CHALLENGED

This observation was further confirmed with
the appearance of one Mr Ian
Robert Hendrie, a member of the London
Metropolitan Police who had been
seconded to the OSCE and was part of the
verification mission in Racak
headed by William Walker.

Mr Hendrie told of his observations while he
was touring the Racak
'massacre' site, using several photographs
that he had taken personally.

Under cross-examination, when asked if he
toured the site alone or if
somebody had showed him around, he replied
that the latter was the case.
"Who showed you around the site?" enquired
Mr Milosevic. "I don't know,"
was the astonishing response.

Here was a member of the verification team
who could not verify who it was
that told him about the 'massacre' and
showed him the supposed evidence.
But apparently Mr. Hendrie's testimony,
dependent as it was on a guide and
translator whom he could not identify, was
neverthless acceptable, because
Judge May impatiently instructed Mr.
Milosevic to move on to another
question.

However the other questions got Mr Hendrie
into deeper trouble. He could
not explain why his photographs showed only
patches of blood and not pools
as would be expected. Nor could he explain
why no person's blood had
spilled onto another person's body, which it
was logical to assume would
have been the case if all these bodies,
densely packed together, had been
killed simultaneously at this one specific
place.

Enter Judge May. "The witness is not a
forensic expert and cannot be
expected to know these things." In other
words, Mr. Hendrie's expertise had
a dual nature. It was sufficient when he was
testifying against Mr.
Milosevic, but woefully inadequate when he
was challenged.

Comments such as this, which pepper the
trial every day, might be expected
from the prosecution, but from a supposedly
neutral trial Judge?

When asked by the defendant if he had ever
heard of the 'paraffin test', (a
test which can determine if a person had
recently handled a firearm), Mr
Hendrie didn't answer but left it to Judge
May to announce that, "This test
has been discredited" to which Mr Milosevic
added with a touch of sarcasm
"But only in the USA, not in Yugoslavia."

Mr Yemeni was the last prosecution witness I
observed during my June visit.
In his statement he claimed to have
witnessed the killing of civilians in
his village in Kosovo. He claimed he was
hiding in his attic from where he
supposedly witnessed the 'killings' and also
overheard Yugoslav commanders
communicating on mobile phones and comparing
the number of dead with the
number of dead at Racak. Mr Yemeni, at the
age of twenty-four, was Mayor of
his village.

Below I paraphrase excerpts of the
cross-examination:

Mr Milosevic. "Are you a member of the KLA?"

Mr Yemeni. "No."

Mr M. "Are you a member of any political
party?"

Mr Y. "Yes"

Me M. "What is your party called?"

Mr Y. "The Democratic Party"

Mr M. "Who is the leader of your party?"

Mr Y. "Mr. Thaci." [Mr Thaci was a leader of
the KLA in 1999]. ***

Mr M. "When did you join this party?"

Mr Y. "I don't know."

Mr M. "You don't know when you joined? All
right. Approximately when did
you join?"

Mr Y. " I don't know"

Judge May. "Mr Milosevic, move on, it is not
relevant when he joined the
party."

Mr M. "It is very relevant. However. How is
it that you were Mayor of your
village at such a young age? This is very
unusual."

Mr Y. " I was Mayor because I represent
modern civilisation, unlike the
backward Serbs. Modern civilisation that we
are now building in Kosovo
needs leaders like myself to take them out
of the backwardness that Serbs
kept them in. We are building a civilisation
that is modern and we need
intelligent people like me."

Judge May allowed this racist diatribe to go
on without comment.

Mr M. "I didn't know I was talking to an
intellectual. However, let me ask
you about the conversations that you say you
overheard between commanders.
Where were you when you overheard these
conversations?"

Mr Y "Hiding in the attic of my house."

Mr M. "And what was the position of the
soldiers who were using their
phones?"

Mr Y. "On the balcony of a house facing my
attic window."

Mr M. "Which is how far away?"

Mr Y. "Fifteen metres."

Mr Milosevic holds up a photograph for the
witness that shows the houses in
question.

Mr M. "As you can see there is no balcony
facing your attic. And the
nearest house is more like fifty metres
away. Is that right or not?"

Mr Y. "No."

Judge May. "Move on Mr. Milosevic. The
witness has told you his position."

Mr M. "Very well. As there were no KLA in
your village, as you say, and
therefore the villagers saw no reason to
flee, as you say in your
statement, why then did you feel it
necessary to hide in your attic?"

A lengthy silence followed. Then the witness
resumed his anti-Serb rhetoric
of fighting for a modern civilisation
against the darkness of the Serbs. At
no point did Judge May direct the witness to
answer the question or attempt
to stop the racist language being used by Mr
Yemeni.

Mr M. "All right. When the Security Forces
were in your village what was
the atmosphere like?"

Mr Y. "It was frightening. The Serbs were
firing their guns into the air
all the time and shouting and screaming at
the civilians. They were like
wild men."

Mr M. "So above this frightening noise,
above the firing of guns, above the
shouts and the screams you were able, even
from, as you insist, fifteen
metres away, you were able to hear telephone
conversations?"

Mr Y. "We represent a modern civilisation,
that's what intellectuals like
myself are fighting for."

Mr. Milosevic repeated the question.

Judge May. "Have you many more questions for
this witness Mr Milosevic?"

Mr M. "I have about forty more questions."

Judge May. "Well I am giving you ten more
minutes with this witness."

Mr M. "That just shows the bias of this
court as I have said previously."

Turning to the prosecution witness Mr
Milosevic continued.

Mr M. "From what position did you observe
the killing of the civilians?"

Mr Y. "From my attic window."

Mr M. "All the killings took place outside
your attic window?"

Mr Y. "I can observe all the town from my
attic. I can move around."

Mr M. "So with all this killing going on you
felt secure enough, just
fifteen metres away from the Security
forces, to be able to move around
your attic?"

Mr Y. "With all the noise no one could hear
me so I was secure."

Mr M. "So the noise was so great that the
Security forces could not hear
you moving around, but the noise wasn't loud
enough to prevent you from
listening to a telephone conversation at
least fifteen metres away from
your position. Is that right or not?"

Judge May. "Your time is up Mr Milosevic. Mr
Yemeni, I would like to thank
you for coming to give evidence to the
International Tribunal and you are
now free to go."

THE SCALES OF JUSTICE

As I perused Courtroom One with its judges,
lawyers, secretaries and legal
clerks, I realised that these people,
working for this particular Tribunal,
had sold their dignity and the dignity of
their profession to the New World
Order.

The essence of this Tribunal is summed up
perfectly by lawyer Christopher
Black:

"No citizen of any country in the world
would consider themselves fairly
tried before a court that was paid for,
staffed and assisted by private
citizens or corporations which had a direct
stake in the outcome of the
trial and who were, themselves, in practical
terms, immune from that court.
It is a well established principle of law
that a party in a legal action,
whether civil or criminal, is entitled to
ask for the removal of any judge
sitting on the case when there exists a
reasonable apprehension of bias. In
this instance, a compelling argument can be
made that the bias is not only
apprehended, it is real, that it is not of
one judge but of the entire
tribunal, that this is not a judicial body
worthy of international respect
but a kangaroo court, a bogus court, with a
political purpose serving very
powerful and identifiable masters. To be
consistent with my thesis I will
go further and say that as a political
instrument designed to violate, to
destroy the integrity and sovereignty of a
country, its creation is a crime
against peace under the Nuremberg
Principles. Instead of resolving conflict
as it claims, it is used to justify
conflict, instead of creating peace, it
is used to justify war and therefore is an
instrument of war."

During the trial session of Friday 7th June
Mr. Milosevic complained to the
court that he had not as yet received a copy
of the statement made by
William Walker, head of the OSCE and a vital
prosecution witness. Mr Walker
was due in court the following Monday. Judge
May said he would look into
this.

The prosecution has been preparing their
case for years, their witnesses
are well rehearsed, hearsay evidence is
accepted, as is secret testimony,
and cross-examination time is restricted.
Yet, as if that wasn't enough,
witness statements are withheld from the
accused until a few hours
beforehand, giving little time for the
defence to prepare the
cross-examination.

Add to this the physical and psychological
conditions that Mr Milosevic and
other Yugoslav prisoners are subject to.
They are treated as if they have
already been convicted, being kept in cells
and under constant
surveillance, having their mail censored,
family visits restricted, any
communication with their families to be at
their own expense, and
restrictions on what they can see or hear on
radio or television.

And, especially in the case of Mr Milosevic,
a refusal to allow him to meet
with the legal advisors of his choice.
Several prisoners have already died
while in custody and to the shame of
organisations such as Amnesty
International, no investigation into these
deaths has been forthcoming.

Despite all this Mr Milosevic is bravely
using the Tribunal as his
battleground to defend his people and his
country and expose the real
culprits for the wars and break-up of the
Balkans, Nato and the
International Monetary Fund. He stated his
position very clearly in his
11th December 2001 pre-trial appearance: "I
can tell you that I am proud
that I commanded the armed forces of
Yugoslavia..I am here as a punishment
for standing up against the danger of the
biggest tyranny that has
threatened mankind."

The Milosevic trial is expected to last two
years, yet no matter how long a
trial takes, no matter how many
well-rehearsed prosecution witnesses are
wheeled in, if the outcome is predetermined,
then it is a show trial.

The resistance shown by the former President
of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, against overwhelming odds,
should serve as encouragement to all
those who oppose the wars, poverty and
suffering inherent in the creation
of a New World Order.

Ian Johnson June 2002
Mr. Johnson can be reached by email at

***

Join our email list at
http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles posted on Emperor's
Clothes.

Click here to email the link to this article
to a friend.

Further Reading:

1) In 'The Other Side of the Story', two
retired Yugoslav Army generals
refute the charges against Slobodan
Milosevic and other Yugoslav leaders
point-by-point. Their sources include
Yugoslav Army documents never before
available. The original source material and
reasoning refutes the
'tribunal' indictments and at the same time
the narrative is informative,
interesting and hard to put down. You can
download the entire book at
http://www.icdsm.org/more/book.htm
Or load one chapter at a time, starting with
Chapter One at
http://emperors-clothes.com/book/book1.htm

2) "An Impartial Tribunal? Really?" by
Christopher Black. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm

3) 'Unjust from the Start, Part IV: Learning
from the Inquisition,' by
Yugoslav law professor Kosta Cavoski is part
of his series on The Hague
'tribunal.' It can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm


Prof. Cavoski's series is a good
introduction to The Hague 'tribunal.' You
could begin with Part I, "Unjust from the
Start: The War Crimes Tribunal
vs. General Djordje Djukic," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-1.htm

4) Attorney John Philpot wrote in asking if
there was documentation of the
charge that Hague Prosecutor Arbour
conferred with Western regimes before
indicting Pres. Milosevic. Read his letter,
and the documentation at
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/philpot.htm

5) In 'For Whom the Bell Tolls,' editor
Jared Israel warns that the
injustice at The Hague is a communicable
disease...Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm

1.FONTE: Glas Javnosti.
2.TITOLO: Che dicano dove sono i 400.000 Serbi
3.INDICE: Il Comitato Popolare Serbo (SNV) pone condizioni al
riconoscimento del censimento in Croazia.
4.SITO INTERNET:
5.NUMERO DI PAGINE: 2.
6.DATA: 07/06/02.

Secondo l'ultimo censimento in Croazia, fatto l'anno scorso, il numero
dei Serbi è sceso dal 12,6 % degli inizi degli anni 90, al 4,05%
attuale, secondo recenti dati non ufficiali.
Come ha dichiarato Pupovac, presidente del SNV, per "l'Europa Libera,
la risposta alla domanda dove sono spariti i 400.000 cittadini croati
di nazionalità serba, sarebbe piu' chiara se si pubblicasse quale è
il volume della popolazione registrata e quanti sono i cittadini
croati di nazionalità serba non compresi dal censimento, visto che
la nuova metologia esclude tutti quelli che hanno vissuto almeno un
anno al di fuori della Croazia." "Solo nella RFJ sono presenti oltre
130.000 rifugiati con documenti croati", ha ricordato Pupovac, il
quale ha chiesto che siano pubblicati i dati di tutti quelli che
non si sono dichiarati come Serbi visto che avevano paura di farlo,
ed anche che nei risultati del censimento si includano tutti i 48.000
registrati fuori della Croazia e non solo il numero di 6.800 che è stato
riconosciuto. Pupovac ha detto che i risultati del censimento possono
essere riconosciuti dall'SNV solo a condizione che tutte le richieste
siano accettate dal Governo croato. In caso contrario, il SNV chiederà
la difesa della legalità di fronte alla Comunità internazionale.
Pupovac mette in relazione la manipolazione del numero di Serbi "con la
approvazione della Legge costituzionale sui diritti delle minoranze in
Croazia, che si fa adesso in fretta e furia, senza la partecipazione
delle minoranze e senza gli esperti. Gli autori di questa nuova Legge
vogliono mettere la minoranza serba e le altre minoranze, nonchè la
Comunità internazionale, davanti al fatto compiuto".
Le autorità croate hanno annunciato che pubblicheranno i risultati
ufficiali del censimento il 17 giugno. Finalmente si dovrebbe chiarire
come è possibile che di 600.000 Serbi (il numero ufficiale secondo il
censimento del 1991), oggi in Croazia ne risultino solamente 180.000.

(trad. di Z. Nedanovska)

===*===


http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/dj/Qcroatia-census-serbs.Rcxn_CuI.html


Croatian Serbs contest new census showing sharp drop
in their ranks
ZAGREB, June 18 (AFP) - Croatian Serb political
leaders on Tuesday demanded a revision of the Balkan
country's first census since independence, released
the day before, asserting that it seriously
exaggerated the post-war decline in the country's
ethnic Serb population.
"The census should be revised," Milorad Pupovac, head
of the Serb National Council (SNV) umbrella
organisation, told journalists, stating his group
would not recognize the results of the 2001 census.
Pupovac said more Serbs than listed were living in
Croatia, claiming that results had been flawed by
faulty methodology and failure to include returning
refugees.
The new census showed that ethnic Serbs -- the
country's second largest group -- had dropped to 4.54
percent of the population in 2001, down from 12. 16
percent in the last survey in 1991 when Croatia was
still part of the former Yugoslavia.
Pupovac insisted that "the percentage of the Serb
population is higher than six percent," without even
taking refugees into account.
He said some citizens had preferred not to specify
their ethnic affiliation, but said "it is visible to
the naked eye that members of the Serb community
outnumber those who declared themselves so."
The census, officially published Monday, also showed
that Croatia's overall population has fallen 6.1
percent from 1991, to 4,437,460.
Ethnic Croatians make up the vast majority at 89.63
percent.
Ethnic Serbs now account for 201,631 people or 4.54
percent of the population, or a two-thirds decline
since the 1991-95 Serbo-Croatian war touched off by
Zagreb's declaration of independence from Belgrade in
June 1991.
Pupovac also contested the methodology used in the
census, which he said did not include people who have
a legal residence in Croatia but have lived outside
the country for at least a year.
The official statistics bureau says it acted in line
with recommendations from the United Nations and
Eurostat, the EU statistics bureau.
But Pupovac insisted "that is not true," saying the
2001 survey had used the UN and Eurostat methods to
issue figures that "cemented the results of the ethnic
cleansing."
"I do not understand what is Pupovac trying to say by
that. Methodology used by the bureau was derived from
the recommended methodologies for taking a census. It
is a completely different dimension whether it is
politically acceptable of not," statistics chief
Marijan Gredelj told AFP.
He said that censuses recently taken in Slovenia,
Serbia and Poland were using the same methodology.
According to UN figures, some 280,000 Croatian Serbs
fled the country during and after the 1991-95
conflict. So far, almost 95,000 have returned.
Pupovac's group had already reacted angrily in May
when unofficial forecasts hinted at a massive post-war
decline in Serb numbers.
"The SNV will not recognize the results of the
census," Pupovac said, complaining the government did
not reply to a list of its requests that followed
those first unofficial results.
Croatian Serb political leaders notably asked the
census bureau to publish a clear breakdown on what
percentage of the population had been covered by the
survey, as well as the number of Croatians citizens
still living outside the country.
They specifically requested that some 48,000 Croatian
citizens listed as living outside Croatia and another
20,000 who had returned since the census was conducted
in April 2001 should be included in the final results.

===*===

In Kroatien gibt es heute 4,54 % Prozent Serben

ZAGREB, 18. Juni 2002. In Kroatien leben heute noch
201.631 (4,54 %) Serben, dies zeigt das offizielle
Ergebnis der Volkszählung, welches am Montag vom
Statistischen Amt Kroatiens veröffentlicht worden
ist. Die serbischen Flüchtlinge aus Kroatien, die
nach der kroatischen Militäroffensive im Jahre 1995
in der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien (SRJ) Zuflucht
gefunden haben, wurden bei der Zählung nicht
berücksichtigt, erklärte der Leiter des Amtes
Marijan Gredelj. Etwa 400.000 vertriebene
kroatische Serben leben weiterhin unter
erbärmlichen Bedingungen bereits seit 7 Jahren in
der SRJ ohne Hoffnung auf eine baldige Rückkehr.
Kroatien hat eine massive Rückkehr der Serben
bisher verhindert. Nach den Zensusdaten leben auch
4.926 Montenegriner in Kroatien. Der serbische
Bevölkerungsanteil in Kroatien betrug vor dem Krieg
ca. 12 Prozent.

TANJUG / AMSELFELD.COM

Subject: POZIV NA AKCIJU: Ugrozeno zdravlje i
osnovna prava Predsednika Milosevica!
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:37:46 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>



SAOPSTENJE ZA JAVNOST
Jugoslovenskog komiteta za odbranu
Slobodana Milosevica

Udruzenje SLOBODA -
Jugoslovenski komitet za odbranu Slobodana
Milosevica upucuje javni apel svim
gradjanima i svim casnim ljudima i
politickim faktorima u zemlji i svetu da
ustanu u odbranu zivota, zdravlja i
osnovnih prava Predsednika Milosevica, jer
to predstavlja odbranu slobode i
prava svih.
Vest o najnovijem pogorsanju
zdravstvenog stanja Predsednika
Milosevica izaziva najvecu zabrinutost.
Upozoravamo tamnicare koji su do
sada, uprkos brojnim protestima iz zemlje i
sveta, uskracivali pravo
Predsedniku Milosevicu na specijalisticku
zdravstvenu zastitu, da na sebe
preuzimaju tesko breme odgovornosti.
Zahtevamo takodje od svih u ovoj zemlji
koje Ustav na to obavezuje, da pruze
odgovarajucu zastitu prvom gradjaninu
ove zemlje.
Borba Predsednika Slobodana
Milosevica za istinu protiv surove
obavestajno-propagandne masinerije NATO
pakta nevesto zaogrnute u pravnicko
ruho, poprima dimenzije istorijske pravde.
Bezumni pokusaj da lazni sud
NATO pakta presudi da je srpski
narod najveci nosilac nacionalizma,
sovinizma, etnicke mrznje i genocida u
XX veku, a da su za tragediju Jugoslavije
krivi oni koji su je branili, rusi
se pred intelektualnom superiornoscu i
politickom doslednoscu Predsednika
Milosevica, iza kojeg stoje istina i narod.
Panicni strah od poraza u
istorijsko-politickoj bici koja se ne
moze dobiti lazima, nagoni mentore
"tribunala" da se protiv Predsednika
Milosevica bore fizickim iznurivanjem,
zatvorskom torturom i bezocnim
gazenjem njegovih prava.
O ogromnom moralnom posrnucu
govori cinjenica da su lica koja su
kupljena ili ucenjena da sprovode ova
anticivilizacijska gazenja prava,
obucena u odore sudija i tuzilaca. Izgleda
da je odsustvo morala bio
najvazniji uslov za dobijanje zaposlenja u
haskom "tribunalu".
O moralnom i pravnickom liku
tzv. "glavnog tuzioca" Karle del
Ponte vec je sve poznato. Na pijedestalu
bescasca pridruzuju joj se tzv.
"tuzilac" Dzefri Najs i tzv. "sudija"
Ricard Mej. Izvrsavajuci politicki
zadatak za koji primaju ogromne plate, oni
se ne obaziru na pravo.
Industrija lazi, laznih
dokumenata i laznih svedoka koju
predstavlja hasko "tuzilastvo", ne moze se
uporediti ni sa cim u celokupnoj
istoriji pravosudja. Posto posle cetiri
meseca svakodnevnog celodnevnog
"sudjenja" i osamdeset "svedoka", ovo
takozvano "tuzilastvo" nije dokazalo
nista, svaki pravi sudija bi prekinuo ovu
farsu, odbacio "optuznicu" i
oslobodio Predsednika Milosevica.
Umesto toga, takozvani "sudija"
Mej direktno pomaze laznim
svedocima, ogranicava unakrsno ispitivanje
na besmisleno kratko vreme,
prekida ispitivanje kad god pomisli da ce
lazni svedok biti potpuno
kompromitovan, ili kada se iznese neka
cinjenica o zlocinima NATO pakta,
dozvoljava "tuzilastvu" da u poslednjem
trenutku menja redosled "svedoka",
da kao "svedoke" izvodi sopstvene
sluzbenike i saradnike, da dostavlja
hiljade stranica "materijala" bez prevoda
itd.
Povodom ovog moralnog sloma,
sramnog izrugivanja pravu a u prvom
redu zbog opasnog i kriminalnog ugrozavanja
prava Predsednika Milosevica
koje podrazumeva krivicnu odgovornost,
Udruzenje SLOBODA - Jugoslovenski
komitet za odbranu Slobodana Milosevica
uputilo je pismo - apel ambasadama
svih zemalja clanica Saveta Bezbednosti UN
u Beogradu, smatrajuci ovaj organ
svetske organizacije formalno
najodgovornijim da sankcionise bespravlje
haskog "tribunala". Delegacija Udruzenja
SLOBODA posetice i kancelariju
Ujedinjenih Nacija u Beogradu i pismeno i
usmeno ukazati da je svetska
organizacija duzna da u svom interesu i u
interesu svih svojih zemalja
clanica neodlozno reaguje i povuce odlucne
poteze.
Borba za slobodu, prava coveka
i naroda, i za istorijsku pravdu,
koju predvodi Predsednik Slobodan Milosevic
nastavice se do konacne pobede!

Beograd, 17. jun 2002. g.


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)
http://www.jutarnje.co.yu/ ('morning news'
the only Serbian newspaper advocating liberation)