Informazione
Il giorno di San Vito (28 giugno) e' una data fondamentale nella
storia balcanica, per i Serbi in particolare.
Il 28 giugno 2001 il governo-fantoccio di Zoran Djindjic, con
decisione anticostituzionale, ordinava il trasferimento di Slobodan
Milosevic all'Aia. Di seguito il testo della Corte Costituzionale
Federale, pubblicato sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale jugoslava, nel quale si
spiegano i motivi per cui la decisione di Djindjic e' ritenuta
illegale.
---
Subject: LAWYERS ALLERT: Constitutional
Court on Djindjic decree
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:23:43 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
---
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF FR YUGOSLAVIA
No.19 Friday, April 12, 2002
DECISION
On constitutionality and legality test of
the Decision of the Government of
the Republic of Serbia: 05 Reference
713-6483/ 21 June 2001
I
1. The Federal Constitutional
Court, at the session on 5 December
2001, further to the provisions of Article
15, par 1 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Federal constitutional
court ("Official Gazette of FRY"
Nos.44/93 and 25/95) established that the
Patriotic Alliance of Yugoslavia,
from Belgrade, filed the request to the
Court to test constitutionality and
legality of the Decision of the Government
of the Republic of Serbia: 05
Reference 713-6483/21 June 2001, dated 28
June 2001 ("Official Gazette of
FRY" No.37/2001), and left the period of
30 days of the date of service of
the request to the Government of the
Republic of Serbia to provide its
reply.
The Court, acting under Article
14 of the Rule of Procedure of the
Federal Constitutional Court, decided to
enjoin the initiative of the Fund
for Democracy Development in Belgrade, by
lawyers Dragoslav Ognjanovic,
Branimir Gugl and Momcilo Bulatovic of
Belgrade to start the procedure
testing constitutionality and legality of
the decision mentioned to the
proposal filed and proceed in a single
adjudication of one and single
decision.
2. The proposal filed and the
initiative have substantially
alleged: that the contested Decision is
contrary to the Constitution of FRY
and the Law on Criminal Process ("Official
Gazette of FRY" Nos.27/92 and
24/94) because the Government of the
Republic of Serbia has no competence
to: prescribe the process of criminal
prosecution, and consequently to
prescribe the cases and the procedure of
apprehension, because the
Constitution of FRY explicitly provides
that no one shall be deprived of his
freedom, except in cases and under the
procedure stipulated in the federal
law and that illegal apprehension shall be
punishable; prescribe the process
for criminal prosecution of individuals
under the procedure provided for
under the Statute and Rules of Procedure
and Evidence of the International
Criminal Tribunal despite the fact that
those acts were not duly published
in the corresponding official papers,
either; prescribe the procedure for
extradition of the Yugoslav citizens, in
spite of the fact that the
Constitution of FRY and the Law on
Criminal Process prohibits such
extradition; prescribe the procedure for
extradition, prosecution,
apprehension and extradition of foreigners
whose rights and obligations are
stipulated through the authorities of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
prescribe that the provisions of the
mentioned Statute and Rules of
extradition or transfer of the indicted or
witnesses to the Hague in the
Netherlands prevail over any legal
barriers existing in the national
legislation or the international treaties
on extradition signed by the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
3. The reply of the Government
of the Republic of Serbia stated
that: under Article 16, par 2 of the FRY
Constitution, the international
treaties confirmed and published in
compliance with the constitution and
generally accepted rules of the
international law have become part of the
internal legal order; that the Security
Council of the United Nations, under
its Resolution 827, decided in 1993 to
found a court officially entitled "
The International Court for Criminal
Prosecution of Persons Responsible for
Grave Violations of the International
Humanitarian Law Committed in the
Territory of Former Yugoslavia between 1
January 1991 till the date to be
subsequently established by the Security
Council once peace shall have been
reestablished"; that the Security Council
approved Statute of the Court at
the same session; that FR of Yugoslavia,
as a member of the United Nations
and signatory of the UN Charter, is bound
to cooperate with the
International Criminal Tribunal in the
Hague; that by virtue of Article 25
of the UN Charter the member states
agreed to accept and enforce the
decisions of the Security Council in
keeping with the Charter; that all the
resolutions of the Security Council and
particularly those approved further
to Chapter VII of the Charter (hence the
Resolution 827 of the United
Nations of 1993) are binding on all the
UN members, including the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia; that,
consequently, the obligation of FR of
Yugoslavia to cooperate with the
International Criminal Tribunal in the
Hague is inbuilt in the UN Charter,
Resolution 827 of the Security Council,
Statute and Rules of Procedure of that
court; that Article 17 par 3 of the
Constitution of FRY, which provides that
no Yugoslav citizen may be deprived
of his citizenship, expelled from his
country or extradited to another
country prohibits the extradition of local
residents to a foreign state,
but not the extradition of the Yugoslav
citizens to the International
Criminal Tribunal; that FR of Yugoslavia
ratified the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court in June 2001,
which should be taken into
account and that the provision of Article
80 of the Rome Statute anticipated
the obligation of the state parties to
extradite own nationals to that
Court, and that on the occasion of
ratification of that Statute the issue of
non compliance thereof with the
Constitution of FR Yugoslavia was raised;
that on the above grounds the contested
Decision of the Government of the
Republic of Serbia, having envisaged the
application of the Statute and
Rules of the International Criminal
Tribunal in the Hague is not contrary to
Article 17, par 3 of the Constitution of
FR Yugoslavia; that the confirmed
and published international treaties and
generally accepted rules of the
international law are in legal force under
Article 124 par 1 point 2) of the
Constitution of FRY which supersedes the
federal laws, hence the Criminal
Process Law, alike; that in view of the
above stated, it ensues that the
cooperation with the international
Criminal Tribunal in the Hague may
proceed even directly, by virtue of the
Statute and Rules of that tribunal,
as recognized by the contested Decision;
that in view of the fact that FR of
Yugoslavia, failed to abide by its
international obligations via its organs,
and cooperate with the International
Criminal Tribunal in the Hague; that
failure to comply with the international
obligations, particularly the ones
based on the UN SC Resolutions entails
serious consequences, which threaten
the interest of the republic of Serbia, as
a constituent republic of FR
Yugoslavia; the Government of the Republic
of Serbia was compelled to enact
the contested Decision to protect the
interest of the Republic of Serbia,
acting under the provisions of Article
135, par 2 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Serbia, which provides that
the organs of the Republic of Serbia
shall apply the procedure defined in the
Statute and the Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal in the
Hague, since Article 135 par 2 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
stipulates that the republic
authorities shall enact the acts for the
protection of interest of the
Republic of Serbia in case that the acts
of the federal authorities (which
include non doing, namely non
implementation of the international
obligations) threaten its interests; and
that the contested Decision of the
Government of the Republic of Serbia only
effectuated the obligation
enshrined in the Constitution of the
Republic of Serbia.
4. The Contested Decision of the
Government of the Republic of
Serbia stipulated that in the enforcement
of the obligations and generally
accepted rules of the international law on
the activity of the International
tribunal for the criminal prosecution of
the persons responsible for serious
violations of the international
humanitarian law perpetrated in the
territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991
the authorities of the Republic of
Serbia shall follow the procedure set out
in the Statute and Rule of
procedure and evidence of that Tribunal
and that the stated Decision shall
become effective as of the date of its
publication in the "Official Gazette
of RS".
The provisions of Article 29 of
the Statute of the International
Tribunal for criminal prosecution of
persons responsible for grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law committed in the
territory
of former Yugoslavia since 1991
(hereinafter: The International Tribunal)
set out that: the states shall cooperate
with the International Tribunal in
investigation and criminal persecution of
persons indicted for serious
violations of the international
humanitarian law, that the states shall,
without unnecessary delay, gratify any
request for assistance or order of
the trial chamber, including inter alia
also (a) identification and location
of temporary residence of the persons; (b)
taking of statements and finding
evidence;(c) submission of documents;
(d)transfer of convicts or extradition
to the International Tribunal.
The provisions of Article 58 of
the Rules on Proceedings and
Evidence of the International Tribunal
stipulated the following:" The
obligations contained in Article 29 of the
Statute shall prevail over any
legal obstacles to extradition or transfer
of the indicted or witnesses to
the International Tribunal existing in the
national legislations or
international treaties on extradition
signed by the state concerned".
Hence, the contested Decision
implies that the Government of the
Republic of Serbia ordered, under that
Decision, to all the organs of the
Republic of Serbia, to act under the
procedure set out in the stated Statute
and Rules of Proceedings of the
International Tribunal, if such Tribunal
shall have submitted the request, despite
the fact that the Statute and Rule
of Proceedings and Evidence, even if they
were international legal acts with
the binding norms, are not implemented
into the legal system of FR of
Yugoslavia by the competent federal
authority in the manner provided for in
the Constitution of FRY. The Statute and
Rule of Proceedings and Evidence of
the International Tribunal were not even
published as are general acts of
the national law or international law
which by ratification by the competent
authority became part of the local law,
which based on Article 176 of the
Constitution of FRY is a condition for
enforcement of any general act.
5. The provisions of the
Constitution of FRY set out that: the
constituent republic shall be sovereign in
all the matters which were not
tackled by the Constitution of FRY as
falling within the competence of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and that
the constituent Republic shall
autonomously regulate its governance under
its own Constitution(Article 6,
par 2 and 3); that the executive and
judicial branches are bound under the
law which must comply with the
Constitution (Article 9 par 2 and 3); that
the power in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia is organized on the
principle of division to legislative,
executive and judicial branches
(Article 12); that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia has fulfilled its
obligations under the international
treaties signed in good faith and that
the international treaties, confirmed and
published are in line with the
constitution and generally accepted rules
of the international law the
integral parts of the internal legal
system (Article 16); that no Yugoslav
citizen may be deprived of its
citizenship or extradited to another state
(Article 17); that everybody is entitled
to personal freedom and no one may
be deprived of his freedom, except in case
and under the procedure defined
under the federal law and that illegal
deprivation of freedom shall be
punishable (Article 23, par.1, 2 and 6);
that everyone shall be entitled to
equal protection of his rights under the
legally defined procedure ( Article
26, par.1)that no one may be punished for
an offence which before its
commission was not envisaged under the law
or regulation stemming from the
law as a punishable offence, or may a
sentence be pronounced which was not
envisaged for such an act (Article 27, par
1); that no one may be sentenced
again or punished for an offence if the
proceedings were legally suspended,
or the incrimination against him was duly
dismissed, or if he was acquitted
or sentenced under the final decision
(Article 28); that an expatriate may
be extradited to another state only in
cases anticipated under the
international treaties binding on the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
that the right to asylum is guaranteed to
a foreign citizen and stateless
person who is prosecuted for his advocacy
of democratic views and for
participation in the movements for social
and national liberation, for
freedom and rights of human personality or
for freedom of scientific or
artistic creation (Article 66 par 2 and
3); that only the law may prescribe
the manner of accomplishment of individual
freedoms and rights of man and
citizen when so set out under the
Constitution of FRY or when necessary for
their implementation and that the freedoms
and rights recognized and
guaranteed under the Constitution of FRY
shall enjoy court protection
(Article 67 par 2 and 4).
The provisions of Chapters XXX
and XXXI of the Criminal Process
Law ("Official Gazette of FRY" No. 4/77,
14/85, 74/87, 57/89, 3/90 and
"Official Gazette of FRY" No.27/92 and
24/94) the procedure for
international legal assistance and
enforcement of international treaties in
criminal matters as well as the procedure
for extradition of the indicted
and sentenced persons. Those provisions,
inter alia, prescribed territorial
and actual jurisdiction of the local
courts and other state authorities in
the proceedings requested by a foreign
authority and also in cases when the
requests concerns criminal act for which
under the local regulations no
extradition is allowed, even if the
presumptions for extradition of
incriminated or convicted individuals was
set out, namely that a person
whose surrender is requested is not the
Yugoslav citizen and that the
competent court shall rule on the
requested extradition of the requested
person.
Even the Criminal Process Law
("Official Gazette of FRY" No.70/01)
which shall become effective on 29 March
2002, also proscribed as one of the
presumptions for extradition (surrender)
of incriminated and convicted
persons, that the person requested is no
Yugoslav citizen while the other
conditions for extradition and procedure
for the same are almost identical
as in the old law.
6. The Federal Constitutional
Court, starting from the quoted
provisions of the Constitution of FRY and
the Criminal Process Law, found
that the contested Decision is not in
compliance with the Constitution of
FRY and the Criminal Process Law.
1) Firstly, the contested Decision is
not in compliance with the
Constitution of FRY, because it governs
the procedure (manner) of exercising
individual human and civil rights set out
in the Constitution of FRY but it
is void of power. Namely, by virtue of the
provision of Article 67 par 2 of
the Constitution of FRY, only law can
prescribe the manner (procedure) of
exercising individual human and civil
freedoms and rights provided only that
it has been stipulated by the Constitution
of FRY or when required for their
exercise. The provision of Article 26, par
1 of the Constitution of FRY
further set out that any one has the right
to equal protection of its rights
in the legally prescribed process.
However, the Government of the Republic
of Serbia, as an authority of executive
power, stipulated in a secondary
legal act the manner (procedure) of
exercise, limitation and protection of
individual human and civil rights and
freedom, despite the fact that such
issues are governed by the Criminal
Process Law by the defined legislative
authorities under the Constitution, such
as: arrest or detention of persons;
time for issuance of decision on
detention; appeal to the decision on
detention; timeframe for issuance of
decision on the complaint; duration on
the detention; transfer of the
incriminated and sentenced and the
similar.
In the same vein the Constitution of FRY
stipulates that everyone shall be
entitled to personal freedom and that no
one may be deprived of freedom
except in the cases and under the
procedure established by the federal law
(Article 23). Consequently, any
apprehension of an individual based on the
contested Decision would constitute
violation of the mentioned Article of
the Constitution.
Having prescribed the application of the
Statute of the International
Tribunal and its Rules of Proceedings and
Evidence of that court by the
courts and other state authorities of the
Republic of Serbia, the Government
of the Republic of Serbia overstepped its
authorities conferred by the
Constitution as an executive body of
authority of one republic constituent
of FRY. Because, confirmation of the
international legal acts and their
integration into the internal legal
system, further to Article 78 of the
Constitution of FRY, falls exclusively
within the competence of the Federal
Parliament as legislative and
representative authority of the citizens
of FR
of Yugoslavia and its constituent
republics. Moreover, obligatory
application of the Statute and the Rules
of Proceedings and Evidence of the
International Tribunal which were not even
published in the official gazette
is also inconsistent with Article 116 of
the Constitution of FRY, which says
that laws, other regulations and general
acts become enforceable on the
eighth day of their publication, at the
earliest, except when due to
specific reasons defined when enacted, it
shall stipulate an earlier date of
enforcement.
2) Apart from the above stated non
compliance with the Constitution of
FRY, the contested Decision is contrary to
the Constitution because it
opened up the possibility of extradition
of Yugoslav citizens outside the
area of territorial jurisdiction of the
Yugoslav justice and other state
authorities, despite the fact that the
Constitution of FRY in its Article
17, par 3 such a possibility is expressly
prohibited. Contrary to that,
foreign citizens may be extradited but
only in the cases and under the
procedure set out in the Constitution of
FRY, the Criminal Process Law and
international treaties. The Federal
Constitutional Court is of the view that
the Constitution of FRY, namely its
Article 17, par 3 prohibits the
extradition of the Yugoslav citizens
irrespective of whether the request for
extradition is submitted by an ad hoc body
with judicial function which was
established of the Constitution of FRY by
an act of the international
organization, namely its organ, because
the provisions of the Constitution
of FRY, as the basic law of the FR of
Yugoslavia, in the hierarchy of legal
regulations, is the norm of the highest
legal strength.
This legal standpoint was explicated in
detailed by the Federal
Constitutional Court in its Decision No.
IV ? No.103/01 to 138/01, 150/01
and 152/01 dated 6 November 2001.
3) Under the provisions of Article 16
of the Constitution of FRY the
international agreements confirmed and
published in keeping with the
Constitution and generally accepted rules
of the international law, are the
integral parts of the internal legal
system. Therefore the international
treaties and generally accepted rules of
the international law, in their
legal strength in the legal system of FRY
supersede the federal law.
Within this context in the judgment of the
Federal Constitutional Court it
is necessary to make a distinction between
the obligations of states towards
the international community as a whole and
the international obligations
towards an individual state or groups of
states. The confirmed and published
international treaties represent an
international obligation of FRY beyond
any doubt to all the states signatories
thereof (they act inter partes)
while the generally accepted rules of the
international law concern all the
states in the international legal system
ad all the personalities of the
international law are bound and have
interest to protect the (the rules of
ius cogens have effect as erga omnes).
Besides, in the case of noncompliance
with the international legal norms, the
sanctions will be primarily of legal
nature unlike political agreements where
sanctions will not be legal but
political or otherwise.
Generally accepted rules of the
international law constitute legal
principles and norms derived from common
rules that are shared by all the
states or known in most of the legal
systems of the world. Such rules have
general, absolute and objective character.
But, they have dynamic character
too, namely they are permanently evolving.
In this context, opinion differ
as to their identification, scope but also
the character of their change,
both in practice of states and
international organizations and in the
doctrine of the international law. Higher
is the consent of their
identification, particularly in the
process law, as are the principles: "
reasonable time frame", "fair trial"
"degrading treatment", "unilateral
apprehension", "assumption of innocence",
"timely pronunciation of
judgment", "right to appeal" and other
general principle of court
proceedings.
The Federal Constitutional Court, starting
from the character of the very
contested act, its contents and maker, is
not involved in the procedure of
ruling on its constitutionality and
legality in the reasoning and approving
the final legal standpoints about the
legal nature of the International
Criminal Tribunal, or the procedure of
performance of obligations
established in the Resolution of the
Security Council. In that sense the
Federal Constitutional Court is of the
view that the concrete constitutional
dispute is of no decisive importance,
otherwise a major issue, whether the
Security Council as one of the main bodies
of the United Nations under the
Charter of UN, and which is primarily
responsible to maintain international
peace and security and which in performing
this duty has to act in
compliance with objectives and principles
of United Nations (Article 24 of
the Charter), by establishing the
International Criminal Tribunal acted in
keeping with the UN Character or
overstepped its powers, namely acted ultra
vires. Also, whether the establishment of
the International Criminal
Tribunal, as an ad hoc measure should, via
criminal prosecution of
individuals responsible of grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law, enable reestablishment
of peace disturbed in the territory
of former SFRY and its maintenance, in
keeping with the measures that the
Security Council may pass with the view of
maintaining international peace
and security in keeping with the Charter
and Rules of order of the Security
Council.
The Federal Constitutional Court is of the
view that the Resolution of the
Security Council No.827 on the
establishment of the International
Criminal
Tribunal does not fall in the
international law, which makes an integral
part of the internal legal system under
Article 16 of the Constitution of
FRY. This is because an ad hoc measure
approved by the Security Council
under that Resolution- the establishment
of the International Criminal
Tribunal for criminal prosecution of
persons responsible for grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law - contains no
international
legal norms which produce 'legal validity'
namely which have "binding legal
strength". Without such properties, this
resolution represents but a
political act which produces political
obligations, but the legal validity
of which is achieved only by giving it
legal strength by the legitimate and
legal organ in the individual legal system
of each country. The Court is
also of the view that there is another
possibility, customary in creating
obligatory international legal acts:
signing and ratification of
international treaties and
inter-governmental treaties as was done in
the
case of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Curt, approved in
17
July 1998 in Rome.
Namely, member states of the United
Nations, having accepted the
Charter, consented to legal validity of
all its norms and legal acts enacted
by the UN organs, in keeping with and in
the manner anticipated under that
Charter. However, the Federal
Constitutional Court is of the view that
member states have not vested to UN bodies
the judicial powers, naturally,
except those explicitly laid down in the
Statute of the International Court
of Justice, foreseen in Chapter XIV of the
Charter, This is not the case of
the International Criminal tribunal. That
is the very reason why the
Security Council in the relevant
resolution 827 in point 4 anticipated, in
the judgment of this Court, political
obligation of all the UN members
states "to fully cooperate with the
international criminal tribunal
and....all the states take adequate
measures in line with their national
legislation to implement the provisions"
of that Resolution. Hence, only in
legal procedure of translating the
obligations under the mentioned
Resolution of Security Council into the
legal norm in keeping with the
national legislation of individual states
the Statute and the Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal can obtain
normative character, which
produces legal validity. Without it, the
Resolution of the Security Council
is but a particular political obligation,
the observance of which, may cause
very serious consequences on individual
states.
4) Legal acts of the Federal government
or the governments of the
republics as well as the federal and
republic laws that contain legal
regulations contrary to the Constitution
of FRY ate not in compliance with
the Constitution of FRY. Neither the
legal act confirming or assuming
international obligations is part of the
internal legal system unless
enacted in keeping with the Constitution
of FRY. Even if the Statute and the
Rules of the International Tribunal were
enacted in line with the
authorization of the Security Council
established under the Charter of the
United Nations they were not ex lege
integral part of the internal law, nor
as such supersede the Constitution,
confirmed and published international
treaty and the law. Cooperation of FR of
Yugoslavia, even cooperation of a
constituent republic with the
International Tribunal, may legally
proceed
when the acts of the international
authorities implemented into the legal
system of the country in keeping with the
basic law of the country that
concerns certain international
obligations. That is why the member states
of
the United Nations, that have or may have
the obligations towards the
International Tribunal, enacted special
laws on cooperation and procedure in
such cooperation. Some of such states
changed their constitutions to legally
enable extradition of their citizens to
the mentioned tribunal (e.g.
Republic of Croatia), while other have
enacted act of cooperation without
extradition of their citizens to the
tribunal because there is no such a
possibility under their respective
constitution (e.g. Germany). Such
actions indicates beyond doubt that UN
member states are not of the view
that the UN SC Resolution 827 establishing
the international criminal
tribunal or the Statute and the Rules of
that tribunal are the integral part
of the internal law. That international
practice of implementation of the
mentioned Resolution of the Security
Council testifies to the fact that the
acts of the competent state authorities,
enabling the implementation of the
Resolution, Statute and the Rules of the
International Tribunal must be
enacted in compliance with the
constitution of the UN member states in
formal and material terms and that the
acts of the Security Council, due to
that fact, have no legal merit for direct
implementation by the bare fact of
their adoption. Their implementation into
the legal system of every UN
member state must be decided in the
constitutionally prescribed manner of
such a state by the designated competent
authority.
5) The Federal Constitutional Court is
of the view that it need be said
that the contested Decision did
anticipated no procedure for enforcement
of
the obligation which the Republic of
Serbia is to effect towards the
Tribunal. Nonexistence of the procedure
for enforcement of the acts
anticipated under Article 29 of the
Statute of the International Tribunal
resulted and may result in violation
namely non-observance of basic human
rights of the accused or potential
witnesses before the Tribunal, as absence
of any rules in the process of
identification and establishment of
residence
of the indicted and other persons
implicated, in obtaining the statement by
the indicted, witnesses and tracing the
evidence, submission of documents of
evidence, apprehension and detention of
the indicted, relocation of the
convicts or extradition (surrender) of the
indicted to the International
Tribunal. Without such a procedure, which
as was mentioned above, other UN
member states have regulated in keeping
with their national legislation, the
citizens of FRY, but other persons in the
territory of FRY affected by the
contested Decision may be deprived of the
protection of their fundamental
human and civil rights, guaranteed, apart
from FRY Constitution also by
international conventions making up the
generally accepted rules of the
international law.
Thus, Article 9 of the International
Covenant of civic and political rights
(ratified by FRY and published in the
"Official Gazette of SFRY" No. 17/71
explicitly set out that no body may be
deprived of freedom except on the
grounds and in keeping with the procedure
under the law. The same Article
the Covenant guarantees the right to every
detainee to be informed at the
moment of apprehension of the reason
thereof, and at the shortest possible
notice in writing, of each charge against
him. Every apprehended person
must be surrendered to the judicial or
another authority within the shortest
period practicable, which is authorized
under the law to execute judicial
authority, provided however it shall have
the right to file a complaint to
the court about the legality of
apprehension (pronunciation of detention)
and that such a court shall be obliged to
issue ruling on such a complaint
without delay.
Non-existence of the prearranged
procedure for cooperation with
the International Tribunal is contrary to
Article 5 of the European
Convention on the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedom, which
is the basic document of the Council of
Europe. Despite the fact that FRY is
not a member of The Council of Europe or
is a signatory to the Convention,
the same establishes the legal standards,
which make the generally accepted
rules of the international law. The stated
Article 5 of the Convention
guarantees the right that apprehension of
any individual may be foreseen
only in special cases, in keeping with the
procedure prescribed by the law.
Apprehension, under the Convention, shall
be possible only if undertaken
with the view of taking the person to the
competent court authority and
every apprehended person must be
immediately taken before the judge or
another authority authorized by the law to
carry out the judicial
authorities.
In view of the above the Court
found that the Decision of the
Government of the Republic of Serbia is
not in compliance with either the
international conventions which guarantee
and protect human and civic rights
and fundamental freedoms, particularly
with the provisions governing the
legal institute of Habeas Corpus
inalienability of personal freedom.
7. Although irrelevant for the assessment
of constitutionality of the
contested Decision and its compliance with
the federal law, the fact that
legal merit for enactment of the contested
Decision is derived from Article
135 par 2 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Serbia, as stated in the
reply of the government of the Republic of
Serbia, according to the Federal
Constitutional Court, has no significance
attached. Namely, that provision
of the Constitution of the Republic of
Serbia provided for the protection of
interests of the Republic of Serbia which
were established under the former
Constitution of the then Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, as a
multi-member Federation, but not the
protection of interest determined under
the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia. By the way, the
mentioned Article of the Constitution of
the Republic of Serbia, explicitly
says that Republic of Serbia "is within
the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia" as well as that it shall be
entitled "to enact the acts for the
protection of interest of the Republic of
Serbia under its own constitution"
, when "the acts of the federal
authorities or acts of another Republic,
contrary to the rights and obligations it
has under the Constitution of the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
undermines the equality of the
Republic of Serbia, or otherwise threaten
its interest, whereby no
compensation is provided."
The provisions of Article 135 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
may be no legal merit for the organs of
the Republic of Serbia for non
observance of the Constitution of FRY and
organs of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, namely enactment of the acts
for the protection of interest of
the Republic of Serbia, because under the
Constitution of FRY in force the
set protection mechanisms of the interests
of constituent republics as well
as the competent authorities which secure
those interest (two-chamber
decision making in the Federal
Parliament), the constitutional status of
the
Chamber of republics, the Supreme Defense
Council, the rule that the
president of the Republic and president of
the Federal Government are not
from the same member republic, etc.). Such
a ruling of the Court, in the
given case, does not mean that the Court
is of the view that non compliance
of individual provisions of the
constitutions of the member republics with
the Constitution of FRY, either in line
with the principle of the rule of
law and single legal order in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
II
8. The Federal Constitutional
Court, by virtue of the provisions
of Article 124 par 1 item 2) and 3) and
Article 68 par 1 item 2) and 4) of
the Law on the Federal Constitutional
Court ("Official Gazette of FRY" No,
36/92, at its session of 26 March 2002, by
majority vote approved the
following
Decision
It has been found that the
Decision of the Government of the
Republic of Serbia, 05 no.713-6483/2001 of
28 June 2001 ("Official Gazette
of RS" No. 37/2001) is not in compliance
with the Constitution of FRY and
the Criminal Process Law ("Official
Gazette if SFRY" No.4/77, 14/85. 74/87.
57/89, 3/90 and the "Official Gazette FRY"
No. 27/92 and 24/94).
The Federal Constitutional Court
passed this Decision in
attendance of: acting President of the
Federal Constitutional Court Judge
Milan Vesovic and Judges: Milorad Gogic,
prof.dr.Momcilo Grubac, Milomir
Jakovlejvic, LLD, Veselin lekic and
Aleksandar Simic.
Judge Prof.Dr/ Momcilo Grubac
dissented.
III U No/139/01. 151/01. 154/01 Acting
President
168/01 and 242/01
Federal Constitutional Court
26 March 2002
Judge Milan Vesovic, sgd
Belgrade
---
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)
storia balcanica, per i Serbi in particolare.
Il 28 giugno 2001 il governo-fantoccio di Zoran Djindjic, con
decisione anticostituzionale, ordinava il trasferimento di Slobodan
Milosevic all'Aia. Di seguito il testo della Corte Costituzionale
Federale, pubblicato sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale jugoslava, nel quale si
spiegano i motivi per cui la decisione di Djindjic e' ritenuta
illegale.
---
Subject: LAWYERS ALLERT: Constitutional
Court on Djindjic decree
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:23:43 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
---
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF FR YUGOSLAVIA
No.19 Friday, April 12, 2002
DECISION
On constitutionality and legality test of
the Decision of the Government of
the Republic of Serbia: 05 Reference
713-6483/ 21 June 2001
I
1. The Federal Constitutional
Court, at the session on 5 December
2001, further to the provisions of Article
15, par 1 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Federal constitutional
court ("Official Gazette of FRY"
Nos.44/93 and 25/95) established that the
Patriotic Alliance of Yugoslavia,
from Belgrade, filed the request to the
Court to test constitutionality and
legality of the Decision of the Government
of the Republic of Serbia: 05
Reference 713-6483/21 June 2001, dated 28
June 2001 ("Official Gazette of
FRY" No.37/2001), and left the period of
30 days of the date of service of
the request to the Government of the
Republic of Serbia to provide its
reply.
The Court, acting under Article
14 of the Rule of Procedure of the
Federal Constitutional Court, decided to
enjoin the initiative of the Fund
for Democracy Development in Belgrade, by
lawyers Dragoslav Ognjanovic,
Branimir Gugl and Momcilo Bulatovic of
Belgrade to start the procedure
testing constitutionality and legality of
the decision mentioned to the
proposal filed and proceed in a single
adjudication of one and single
decision.
2. The proposal filed and the
initiative have substantially
alleged: that the contested Decision is
contrary to the Constitution of FRY
and the Law on Criminal Process ("Official
Gazette of FRY" Nos.27/92 and
24/94) because the Government of the
Republic of Serbia has no competence
to: prescribe the process of criminal
prosecution, and consequently to
prescribe the cases and the procedure of
apprehension, because the
Constitution of FRY explicitly provides
that no one shall be deprived of his
freedom, except in cases and under the
procedure stipulated in the federal
law and that illegal apprehension shall be
punishable; prescribe the process
for criminal prosecution of individuals
under the procedure provided for
under the Statute and Rules of Procedure
and Evidence of the International
Criminal Tribunal despite the fact that
those acts were not duly published
in the corresponding official papers,
either; prescribe the procedure for
extradition of the Yugoslav citizens, in
spite of the fact that the
Constitution of FRY and the Law on
Criminal Process prohibits such
extradition; prescribe the procedure for
extradition, prosecution,
apprehension and extradition of foreigners
whose rights and obligations are
stipulated through the authorities of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
prescribe that the provisions of the
mentioned Statute and Rules of
extradition or transfer of the indicted or
witnesses to the Hague in the
Netherlands prevail over any legal
barriers existing in the national
legislation or the international treaties
on extradition signed by the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
3. The reply of the Government
of the Republic of Serbia stated
that: under Article 16, par 2 of the FRY
Constitution, the international
treaties confirmed and published in
compliance with the constitution and
generally accepted rules of the
international law have become part of the
internal legal order; that the Security
Council of the United Nations, under
its Resolution 827, decided in 1993 to
found a court officially entitled "
The International Court for Criminal
Prosecution of Persons Responsible for
Grave Violations of the International
Humanitarian Law Committed in the
Territory of Former Yugoslavia between 1
January 1991 till the date to be
subsequently established by the Security
Council once peace shall have been
reestablished"; that the Security Council
approved Statute of the Court at
the same session; that FR of Yugoslavia,
as a member of the United Nations
and signatory of the UN Charter, is bound
to cooperate with the
International Criminal Tribunal in the
Hague; that by virtue of Article 25
of the UN Charter the member states
agreed to accept and enforce the
decisions of the Security Council in
keeping with the Charter; that all the
resolutions of the Security Council and
particularly those approved further
to Chapter VII of the Charter (hence the
Resolution 827 of the United
Nations of 1993) are binding on all the
UN members, including the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia; that,
consequently, the obligation of FR of
Yugoslavia to cooperate with the
International Criminal Tribunal in the
Hague is inbuilt in the UN Charter,
Resolution 827 of the Security Council,
Statute and Rules of Procedure of that
court; that Article 17 par 3 of the
Constitution of FRY, which provides that
no Yugoslav citizen may be deprived
of his citizenship, expelled from his
country or extradited to another
country prohibits the extradition of local
residents to a foreign state,
but not the extradition of the Yugoslav
citizens to the International
Criminal Tribunal; that FR of Yugoslavia
ratified the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court in June 2001,
which should be taken into
account and that the provision of Article
80 of the Rome Statute anticipated
the obligation of the state parties to
extradite own nationals to that
Court, and that on the occasion of
ratification of that Statute the issue of
non compliance thereof with the
Constitution of FR Yugoslavia was raised;
that on the above grounds the contested
Decision of the Government of the
Republic of Serbia, having envisaged the
application of the Statute and
Rules of the International Criminal
Tribunal in the Hague is not contrary to
Article 17, par 3 of the Constitution of
FR Yugoslavia; that the confirmed
and published international treaties and
generally accepted rules of the
international law are in legal force under
Article 124 par 1 point 2) of the
Constitution of FRY which supersedes the
federal laws, hence the Criminal
Process Law, alike; that in view of the
above stated, it ensues that the
cooperation with the international
Criminal Tribunal in the Hague may
proceed even directly, by virtue of the
Statute and Rules of that tribunal,
as recognized by the contested Decision;
that in view of the fact that FR of
Yugoslavia, failed to abide by its
international obligations via its organs,
and cooperate with the International
Criminal Tribunal in the Hague; that
failure to comply with the international
obligations, particularly the ones
based on the UN SC Resolutions entails
serious consequences, which threaten
the interest of the republic of Serbia, as
a constituent republic of FR
Yugoslavia; the Government of the Republic
of Serbia was compelled to enact
the contested Decision to protect the
interest of the Republic of Serbia,
acting under the provisions of Article
135, par 2 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Serbia, which provides that
the organs of the Republic of Serbia
shall apply the procedure defined in the
Statute and the Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal in the
Hague, since Article 135 par 2 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
stipulates that the republic
authorities shall enact the acts for the
protection of interest of the
Republic of Serbia in case that the acts
of the federal authorities (which
include non doing, namely non
implementation of the international
obligations) threaten its interests; and
that the contested Decision of the
Government of the Republic of Serbia only
effectuated the obligation
enshrined in the Constitution of the
Republic of Serbia.
4. The Contested Decision of the
Government of the Republic of
Serbia stipulated that in the enforcement
of the obligations and generally
accepted rules of the international law on
the activity of the International
tribunal for the criminal prosecution of
the persons responsible for serious
violations of the international
humanitarian law perpetrated in the
territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991
the authorities of the Republic of
Serbia shall follow the procedure set out
in the Statute and Rule of
procedure and evidence of that Tribunal
and that the stated Decision shall
become effective as of the date of its
publication in the "Official Gazette
of RS".
The provisions of Article 29 of
the Statute of the International
Tribunal for criminal prosecution of
persons responsible for grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law committed in the
territory
of former Yugoslavia since 1991
(hereinafter: The International Tribunal)
set out that: the states shall cooperate
with the International Tribunal in
investigation and criminal persecution of
persons indicted for serious
violations of the international
humanitarian law, that the states shall,
without unnecessary delay, gratify any
request for assistance or order of
the trial chamber, including inter alia
also (a) identification and location
of temporary residence of the persons; (b)
taking of statements and finding
evidence;(c) submission of documents;
(d)transfer of convicts or extradition
to the International Tribunal.
The provisions of Article 58 of
the Rules on Proceedings and
Evidence of the International Tribunal
stipulated the following:" The
obligations contained in Article 29 of the
Statute shall prevail over any
legal obstacles to extradition or transfer
of the indicted or witnesses to
the International Tribunal existing in the
national legislations or
international treaties on extradition
signed by the state concerned".
Hence, the contested Decision
implies that the Government of the
Republic of Serbia ordered, under that
Decision, to all the organs of the
Republic of Serbia, to act under the
procedure set out in the stated Statute
and Rules of Proceedings of the
International Tribunal, if such Tribunal
shall have submitted the request, despite
the fact that the Statute and Rule
of Proceedings and Evidence, even if they
were international legal acts with
the binding norms, are not implemented
into the legal system of FR of
Yugoslavia by the competent federal
authority in the manner provided for in
the Constitution of FRY. The Statute and
Rule of Proceedings and Evidence of
the International Tribunal were not even
published as are general acts of
the national law or international law
which by ratification by the competent
authority became part of the local law,
which based on Article 176 of the
Constitution of FRY is a condition for
enforcement of any general act.
5. The provisions of the
Constitution of FRY set out that: the
constituent republic shall be sovereign in
all the matters which were not
tackled by the Constitution of FRY as
falling within the competence of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and that
the constituent Republic shall
autonomously regulate its governance under
its own Constitution(Article 6,
par 2 and 3); that the executive and
judicial branches are bound under the
law which must comply with the
Constitution (Article 9 par 2 and 3); that
the power in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia is organized on the
principle of division to legislative,
executive and judicial branches
(Article 12); that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia has fulfilled its
obligations under the international
treaties signed in good faith and that
the international treaties, confirmed and
published are in line with the
constitution and generally accepted rules
of the international law the
integral parts of the internal legal
system (Article 16); that no Yugoslav
citizen may be deprived of its
citizenship or extradited to another state
(Article 17); that everybody is entitled
to personal freedom and no one may
be deprived of his freedom, except in case
and under the procedure defined
under the federal law and that illegal
deprivation of freedom shall be
punishable (Article 23, par.1, 2 and 6);
that everyone shall be entitled to
equal protection of his rights under the
legally defined procedure ( Article
26, par.1)that no one may be punished for
an offence which before its
commission was not envisaged under the law
or regulation stemming from the
law as a punishable offence, or may a
sentence be pronounced which was not
envisaged for such an act (Article 27, par
1); that no one may be sentenced
again or punished for an offence if the
proceedings were legally suspended,
or the incrimination against him was duly
dismissed, or if he was acquitted
or sentenced under the final decision
(Article 28); that an expatriate may
be extradited to another state only in
cases anticipated under the
international treaties binding on the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
that the right to asylum is guaranteed to
a foreign citizen and stateless
person who is prosecuted for his advocacy
of democratic views and for
participation in the movements for social
and national liberation, for
freedom and rights of human personality or
for freedom of scientific or
artistic creation (Article 66 par 2 and
3); that only the law may prescribe
the manner of accomplishment of individual
freedoms and rights of man and
citizen when so set out under the
Constitution of FRY or when necessary for
their implementation and that the freedoms
and rights recognized and
guaranteed under the Constitution of FRY
shall enjoy court protection
(Article 67 par 2 and 4).
The provisions of Chapters XXX
and XXXI of the Criminal Process
Law ("Official Gazette of FRY" No. 4/77,
14/85, 74/87, 57/89, 3/90 and
"Official Gazette of FRY" No.27/92 and
24/94) the procedure for
international legal assistance and
enforcement of international treaties in
criminal matters as well as the procedure
for extradition of the indicted
and sentenced persons. Those provisions,
inter alia, prescribed territorial
and actual jurisdiction of the local
courts and other state authorities in
the proceedings requested by a foreign
authority and also in cases when the
requests concerns criminal act for which
under the local regulations no
extradition is allowed, even if the
presumptions for extradition of
incriminated or convicted individuals was
set out, namely that a person
whose surrender is requested is not the
Yugoslav citizen and that the
competent court shall rule on the
requested extradition of the requested
person.
Even the Criminal Process Law
("Official Gazette of FRY" No.70/01)
which shall become effective on 29 March
2002, also proscribed as one of the
presumptions for extradition (surrender)
of incriminated and convicted
persons, that the person requested is no
Yugoslav citizen while the other
conditions for extradition and procedure
for the same are almost identical
as in the old law.
6. The Federal Constitutional
Court, starting from the quoted
provisions of the Constitution of FRY and
the Criminal Process Law, found
that the contested Decision is not in
compliance with the Constitution of
FRY and the Criminal Process Law.
1) Firstly, the contested Decision is
not in compliance with the
Constitution of FRY, because it governs
the procedure (manner) of exercising
individual human and civil rights set out
in the Constitution of FRY but it
is void of power. Namely, by virtue of the
provision of Article 67 par 2 of
the Constitution of FRY, only law can
prescribe the manner (procedure) of
exercising individual human and civil
freedoms and rights provided only that
it has been stipulated by the Constitution
of FRY or when required for their
exercise. The provision of Article 26, par
1 of the Constitution of FRY
further set out that any one has the right
to equal protection of its rights
in the legally prescribed process.
However, the Government of the Republic
of Serbia, as an authority of executive
power, stipulated in a secondary
legal act the manner (procedure) of
exercise, limitation and protection of
individual human and civil rights and
freedom, despite the fact that such
issues are governed by the Criminal
Process Law by the defined legislative
authorities under the Constitution, such
as: arrest or detention of persons;
time for issuance of decision on
detention; appeal to the decision on
detention; timeframe for issuance of
decision on the complaint; duration on
the detention; transfer of the
incriminated and sentenced and the
similar.
In the same vein the Constitution of FRY
stipulates that everyone shall be
entitled to personal freedom and that no
one may be deprived of freedom
except in the cases and under the
procedure established by the federal law
(Article 23). Consequently, any
apprehension of an individual based on the
contested Decision would constitute
violation of the mentioned Article of
the Constitution.
Having prescribed the application of the
Statute of the International
Tribunal and its Rules of Proceedings and
Evidence of that court by the
courts and other state authorities of the
Republic of Serbia, the Government
of the Republic of Serbia overstepped its
authorities conferred by the
Constitution as an executive body of
authority of one republic constituent
of FRY. Because, confirmation of the
international legal acts and their
integration into the internal legal
system, further to Article 78 of the
Constitution of FRY, falls exclusively
within the competence of the Federal
Parliament as legislative and
representative authority of the citizens
of FR
of Yugoslavia and its constituent
republics. Moreover, obligatory
application of the Statute and the Rules
of Proceedings and Evidence of the
International Tribunal which were not even
published in the official gazette
is also inconsistent with Article 116 of
the Constitution of FRY, which says
that laws, other regulations and general
acts become enforceable on the
eighth day of their publication, at the
earliest, except when due to
specific reasons defined when enacted, it
shall stipulate an earlier date of
enforcement.
2) Apart from the above stated non
compliance with the Constitution of
FRY, the contested Decision is contrary to
the Constitution because it
opened up the possibility of extradition
of Yugoslav citizens outside the
area of territorial jurisdiction of the
Yugoslav justice and other state
authorities, despite the fact that the
Constitution of FRY in its Article
17, par 3 such a possibility is expressly
prohibited. Contrary to that,
foreign citizens may be extradited but
only in the cases and under the
procedure set out in the Constitution of
FRY, the Criminal Process Law and
international treaties. The Federal
Constitutional Court is of the view that
the Constitution of FRY, namely its
Article 17, par 3 prohibits the
extradition of the Yugoslav citizens
irrespective of whether the request for
extradition is submitted by an ad hoc body
with judicial function which was
established of the Constitution of FRY by
an act of the international
organization, namely its organ, because
the provisions of the Constitution
of FRY, as the basic law of the FR of
Yugoslavia, in the hierarchy of legal
regulations, is the norm of the highest
legal strength.
This legal standpoint was explicated in
detailed by the Federal
Constitutional Court in its Decision No.
IV ? No.103/01 to 138/01, 150/01
and 152/01 dated 6 November 2001.
3) Under the provisions of Article 16
of the Constitution of FRY the
international agreements confirmed and
published in keeping with the
Constitution and generally accepted rules
of the international law, are the
integral parts of the internal legal
system. Therefore the international
treaties and generally accepted rules of
the international law, in their
legal strength in the legal system of FRY
supersede the federal law.
Within this context in the judgment of the
Federal Constitutional Court it
is necessary to make a distinction between
the obligations of states towards
the international community as a whole and
the international obligations
towards an individual state or groups of
states. The confirmed and published
international treaties represent an
international obligation of FRY beyond
any doubt to all the states signatories
thereof (they act inter partes)
while the generally accepted rules of the
international law concern all the
states in the international legal system
ad all the personalities of the
international law are bound and have
interest to protect the (the rules of
ius cogens have effect as erga omnes).
Besides, in the case of noncompliance
with the international legal norms, the
sanctions will be primarily of legal
nature unlike political agreements where
sanctions will not be legal but
political or otherwise.
Generally accepted rules of the
international law constitute legal
principles and norms derived from common
rules that are shared by all the
states or known in most of the legal
systems of the world. Such rules have
general, absolute and objective character.
But, they have dynamic character
too, namely they are permanently evolving.
In this context, opinion differ
as to their identification, scope but also
the character of their change,
both in practice of states and
international organizations and in the
doctrine of the international law. Higher
is the consent of their
identification, particularly in the
process law, as are the principles: "
reasonable time frame", "fair trial"
"degrading treatment", "unilateral
apprehension", "assumption of innocence",
"timely pronunciation of
judgment", "right to appeal" and other
general principle of court
proceedings.
The Federal Constitutional Court, starting
from the character of the very
contested act, its contents and maker, is
not involved in the procedure of
ruling on its constitutionality and
legality in the reasoning and approving
the final legal standpoints about the
legal nature of the International
Criminal Tribunal, or the procedure of
performance of obligations
established in the Resolution of the
Security Council. In that sense the
Federal Constitutional Court is of the
view that the concrete constitutional
dispute is of no decisive importance,
otherwise a major issue, whether the
Security Council as one of the main bodies
of the United Nations under the
Charter of UN, and which is primarily
responsible to maintain international
peace and security and which in performing
this duty has to act in
compliance with objectives and principles
of United Nations (Article 24 of
the Charter), by establishing the
International Criminal Tribunal acted in
keeping with the UN Character or
overstepped its powers, namely acted ultra
vires. Also, whether the establishment of
the International Criminal
Tribunal, as an ad hoc measure should, via
criminal prosecution of
individuals responsible of grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law, enable reestablishment
of peace disturbed in the territory
of former SFRY and its maintenance, in
keeping with the measures that the
Security Council may pass with the view of
maintaining international peace
and security in keeping with the Charter
and Rules of order of the Security
Council.
The Federal Constitutional Court is of the
view that the Resolution of the
Security Council No.827 on the
establishment of the International
Criminal
Tribunal does not fall in the
international law, which makes an integral
part of the internal legal system under
Article 16 of the Constitution of
FRY. This is because an ad hoc measure
approved by the Security Council
under that Resolution- the establishment
of the International Criminal
Tribunal for criminal prosecution of
persons responsible for grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law - contains no
international
legal norms which produce 'legal validity'
namely which have "binding legal
strength". Without such properties, this
resolution represents but a
political act which produces political
obligations, but the legal validity
of which is achieved only by giving it
legal strength by the legitimate and
legal organ in the individual legal system
of each country. The Court is
also of the view that there is another
possibility, customary in creating
obligatory international legal acts:
signing and ratification of
international treaties and
inter-governmental treaties as was done in
the
case of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Curt, approved in
17
July 1998 in Rome.
Namely, member states of the United
Nations, having accepted the
Charter, consented to legal validity of
all its norms and legal acts enacted
by the UN organs, in keeping with and in
the manner anticipated under that
Charter. However, the Federal
Constitutional Court is of the view that
member states have not vested to UN bodies
the judicial powers, naturally,
except those explicitly laid down in the
Statute of the International Court
of Justice, foreseen in Chapter XIV of the
Charter, This is not the case of
the International Criminal tribunal. That
is the very reason why the
Security Council in the relevant
resolution 827 in point 4 anticipated, in
the judgment of this Court, political
obligation of all the UN members
states "to fully cooperate with the
international criminal tribunal
and....all the states take adequate
measures in line with their national
legislation to implement the provisions"
of that Resolution. Hence, only in
legal procedure of translating the
obligations under the mentioned
Resolution of Security Council into the
legal norm in keeping with the
national legislation of individual states
the Statute and the Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal can obtain
normative character, which
produces legal validity. Without it, the
Resolution of the Security Council
is but a particular political obligation,
the observance of which, may cause
very serious consequences on individual
states.
4) Legal acts of the Federal government
or the governments of the
republics as well as the federal and
republic laws that contain legal
regulations contrary to the Constitution
of FRY ate not in compliance with
the Constitution of FRY. Neither the
legal act confirming or assuming
international obligations is part of the
internal legal system unless
enacted in keeping with the Constitution
of FRY. Even if the Statute and the
Rules of the International Tribunal were
enacted in line with the
authorization of the Security Council
established under the Charter of the
United Nations they were not ex lege
integral part of the internal law, nor
as such supersede the Constitution,
confirmed and published international
treaty and the law. Cooperation of FR of
Yugoslavia, even cooperation of a
constituent republic with the
International Tribunal, may legally
proceed
when the acts of the international
authorities implemented into the legal
system of the country in keeping with the
basic law of the country that
concerns certain international
obligations. That is why the member states
of
the United Nations, that have or may have
the obligations towards the
International Tribunal, enacted special
laws on cooperation and procedure in
such cooperation. Some of such states
changed their constitutions to legally
enable extradition of their citizens to
the mentioned tribunal (e.g.
Republic of Croatia), while other have
enacted act of cooperation without
extradition of their citizens to the
tribunal because there is no such a
possibility under their respective
constitution (e.g. Germany). Such
actions indicates beyond doubt that UN
member states are not of the view
that the UN SC Resolution 827 establishing
the international criminal
tribunal or the Statute and the Rules of
that tribunal are the integral part
of the internal law. That international
practice of implementation of the
mentioned Resolution of the Security
Council testifies to the fact that the
acts of the competent state authorities,
enabling the implementation of the
Resolution, Statute and the Rules of the
International Tribunal must be
enacted in compliance with the
constitution of the UN member states in
formal and material terms and that the
acts of the Security Council, due to
that fact, have no legal merit for direct
implementation by the bare fact of
their adoption. Their implementation into
the legal system of every UN
member state must be decided in the
constitutionally prescribed manner of
such a state by the designated competent
authority.
5) The Federal Constitutional Court is
of the view that it need be said
that the contested Decision did
anticipated no procedure for enforcement
of
the obligation which the Republic of
Serbia is to effect towards the
Tribunal. Nonexistence of the procedure
for enforcement of the acts
anticipated under Article 29 of the
Statute of the International Tribunal
resulted and may result in violation
namely non-observance of basic human
rights of the accused or potential
witnesses before the Tribunal, as absence
of any rules in the process of
identification and establishment of
residence
of the indicted and other persons
implicated, in obtaining the statement by
the indicted, witnesses and tracing the
evidence, submission of documents of
evidence, apprehension and detention of
the indicted, relocation of the
convicts or extradition (surrender) of the
indicted to the International
Tribunal. Without such a procedure, which
as was mentioned above, other UN
member states have regulated in keeping
with their national legislation, the
citizens of FRY, but other persons in the
territory of FRY affected by the
contested Decision may be deprived of the
protection of their fundamental
human and civil rights, guaranteed, apart
from FRY Constitution also by
international conventions making up the
generally accepted rules of the
international law.
Thus, Article 9 of the International
Covenant of civic and political rights
(ratified by FRY and published in the
"Official Gazette of SFRY" No. 17/71
explicitly set out that no body may be
deprived of freedom except on the
grounds and in keeping with the procedure
under the law. The same Article
the Covenant guarantees the right to every
detainee to be informed at the
moment of apprehension of the reason
thereof, and at the shortest possible
notice in writing, of each charge against
him. Every apprehended person
must be surrendered to the judicial or
another authority within the shortest
period practicable, which is authorized
under the law to execute judicial
authority, provided however it shall have
the right to file a complaint to
the court about the legality of
apprehension (pronunciation of detention)
and that such a court shall be obliged to
issue ruling on such a complaint
without delay.
Non-existence of the prearranged
procedure for cooperation with
the International Tribunal is contrary to
Article 5 of the European
Convention on the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedom, which
is the basic document of the Council of
Europe. Despite the fact that FRY is
not a member of The Council of Europe or
is a signatory to the Convention,
the same establishes the legal standards,
which make the generally accepted
rules of the international law. The stated
Article 5 of the Convention
guarantees the right that apprehension of
any individual may be foreseen
only in special cases, in keeping with the
procedure prescribed by the law.
Apprehension, under the Convention, shall
be possible only if undertaken
with the view of taking the person to the
competent court authority and
every apprehended person must be
immediately taken before the judge or
another authority authorized by the law to
carry out the judicial
authorities.
In view of the above the Court
found that the Decision of the
Government of the Republic of Serbia is
not in compliance with either the
international conventions which guarantee
and protect human and civic rights
and fundamental freedoms, particularly
with the provisions governing the
legal institute of Habeas Corpus
inalienability of personal freedom.
7. Although irrelevant for the assessment
of constitutionality of the
contested Decision and its compliance with
the federal law, the fact that
legal merit for enactment of the contested
Decision is derived from Article
135 par 2 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Serbia, as stated in the
reply of the government of the Republic of
Serbia, according to the Federal
Constitutional Court, has no significance
attached. Namely, that provision
of the Constitution of the Republic of
Serbia provided for the protection of
interests of the Republic of Serbia which
were established under the former
Constitution of the then Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, as a
multi-member Federation, but not the
protection of interest determined under
the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia. By the way, the
mentioned Article of the Constitution of
the Republic of Serbia, explicitly
says that Republic of Serbia "is within
the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia" as well as that it shall be
entitled "to enact the acts for the
protection of interest of the Republic of
Serbia under its own constitution"
, when "the acts of the federal
authorities or acts of another Republic,
contrary to the rights and obligations it
has under the Constitution of the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
undermines the equality of the
Republic of Serbia, or otherwise threaten
its interest, whereby no
compensation is provided."
The provisions of Article 135 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
may be no legal merit for the organs of
the Republic of Serbia for non
observance of the Constitution of FRY and
organs of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, namely enactment of the acts
for the protection of interest of
the Republic of Serbia, because under the
Constitution of FRY in force the
set protection mechanisms of the interests
of constituent republics as well
as the competent authorities which secure
those interest (two-chamber
decision making in the Federal
Parliament), the constitutional status of
the
Chamber of republics, the Supreme Defense
Council, the rule that the
president of the Republic and president of
the Federal Government are not
from the same member republic, etc.). Such
a ruling of the Court, in the
given case, does not mean that the Court
is of the view that non compliance
of individual provisions of the
constitutions of the member republics with
the Constitution of FRY, either in line
with the principle of the rule of
law and single legal order in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
II
8. The Federal Constitutional
Court, by virtue of the provisions
of Article 124 par 1 item 2) and 3) and
Article 68 par 1 item 2) and 4) of
the Law on the Federal Constitutional
Court ("Official Gazette of FRY" No,
36/92, at its session of 26 March 2002, by
majority vote approved the
following
Decision
It has been found that the
Decision of the Government of the
Republic of Serbia, 05 no.713-6483/2001 of
28 June 2001 ("Official Gazette
of RS" No. 37/2001) is not in compliance
with the Constitution of FRY and
the Criminal Process Law ("Official
Gazette if SFRY" No.4/77, 14/85. 74/87.
57/89, 3/90 and the "Official Gazette FRY"
No. 27/92 and 24/94).
The Federal Constitutional Court
passed this Decision in
attendance of: acting President of the
Federal Constitutional Court Judge
Milan Vesovic and Judges: Milorad Gogic,
prof.dr.Momcilo Grubac, Milomir
Jakovlejvic, LLD, Veselin lekic and
Aleksandar Simic.
Judge Prof.Dr/ Momcilo Grubac
dissented.
III U No/139/01. 151/01. 154/01 Acting
President
168/01 and 242/01
Federal Constitutional Court
26 March 2002
Judge Milan Vesovic, sgd
Belgrade
---
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)
"Dopo la tempesta"
FOTOGRAFIE, QUADRI, MUSICA E SPETTACOLI
dalla Jugoslavia e dai paesi della ex Jugoslavia
Dal 1 al 30 giugno 2002
Basilica di S. Celso
Corso Italia 39
MILANO
Direzione artistica: Zorica Petrovic e Valentina Carrera
Organizzazione: Apollo e Dioniso, tel. 02-57504104
***
Programma:
Mostre (tutte a ingresso libero)
1-14 giugno, navata centrale e laterale: DIPINTI E DISEGNI
Opere di Safet Zec, Damian Djakov, Marija Maja Jankovic, Natasa
Karanovic, Marija Donkovic
1-14 giugno, navata laterale: DIPINTI E SCULTURE
Opere di Igor Radin, Iva Kontic, Chiara Boniari e altri
Mostra di giovani artisti dalla Croazia, Serbia e Montenegro
15-21 giugno, navata centrale: HILANDAR: NOVE SECOLI DI SPIRITUALITA'
SERBA
Fotografie di Slavomir Matejic, sul monastero di Hilandar, presentata
dal Prof. Slobodan Mileusnic. A cura del Museo della Chiesa ortodossa
di Belgrado. Contemporaneamente l'esposizione dell'iconografo
Branislav Culjkovic.
15-21 giugno, navata laterale: KOSOVO, APRILE 2001
Fotografie di Ester D. Dondè e Mara Puglia
15-21 giugno, navata laterale: PAESAGGI CROATI
Fotografie di Maja Mizor
22-30 giugno, navata centrale e laterali: DOPO LA TEMPESTA: VITA
QUOTIDIANA NELLA SERBIA E NELLA CROAZIA DI OGGI
Fotografie di Valentina Carrera
1-30 giugno, navata laterale: MOSTRA DI ARTIGIANATO ARTISTICO
Spettacoli e concerti
domenica 16 giugno, ore 21: CONCERTO DI MUSICA LIRICA
di autori jugoslavi, con Dzemil Redzepi (baritono) e Usisama Hiromi
(mezzosoprano)
venerdì 21 giugno, ore 21: CONCERTO DI MUSICA CLASSICA
con Maja Jokanovic (violino) e Alberto Intrieri (pianoforte)
domenica 16 giugno, ore 21: MUSICA ANTICA DEI BALCANI
con il gruppo Teatrum Instrumentorum; direttore: Aleksandar Sasa
Karlic
venerdì 28 giugno, ore 21: CASSANDRA - passi di danza tra le macerie
di una guerra
di Christine Pruner. Regia di Virgilio Patarini
Conferenze (tutte a ingresso libero)
giovedì 13 giugno, ore 21: "Profumo di donna"
Presentazione dell'omonimo romanzo, con l'autrice Mileva Pavlovic
Dzomba
sabato 15 giugno, ore 21: La vita spirituale in Serbia
a cura del Prof. Slobodan Mileusnic, direttore del Museo della Chiesa
ortodossa di Belgrado
giovedì 20 giugno, ore 21: Il cinema dei Balcani
Video conferenza a cura del critico Tiziano Sossi e presentazione del
libro Il cinema dell'Est, Appolo e Dionisio Edizioni
===========================================
PER NON DIMENTICARE
E' finalmente pronta la versione sottotitolata in italiano di tre
cortometraggi, inediti in Italia, sui crimini di NATO ed UCK in
Kosovo-Metohija e Serbia meridionale.
I filmati sono in parte basati su immagini della TV americana ARTN e
della britannica REUTERS TV. Si noti che in Italia non era finora
circolata nessuna documentazione video sulle stragi compiute da
NATO/UCK in Kosmet dopo la occupazione (giugno 1999).
Titoli dei tre cortometraggi:
"PAPA', DOVE DORMIREMO DI SERA?"
sugli effetti del bombardamento della cittadina rurale di Aleksinac
KOSOVO - IL LUOGO DEL DELITTO
immagini della provincia dopo l'arrivo della KFOR
C'ERA UNA VOLTA LA FATTORIA GARIC
"...tra Djakovica e Decani, la casa dei Garic era l'unico focolare
serbo rimasto..."
primo premio al Festival del cortometraggio di Belgrado, giugno 2000
produzione RF di Jugoslavia, 1999-2000
Per il lavoro di sottotitolazione il CNJ deve sostenere un costo non
indifferente, pertanto chiediamo alle realta' locali che vogliono
avere le prime copie del video una sottoscrizione adeguata, mentre PER
I SINGOLI IL PREZZO CHE ABBIAMO FISSATO E' DI 15 EURO.
PER ORDINARE IL VIDEO INVIARE UN FAX AL NUMERO: 06-4828957
indicando l'indirizzo al quale spedire la cassetta e le modalita' con
cui viene effettuato il versamento.
Ricordiamo che per i versamenti a favore del CNJ e' stato aperto il
seguente conto postale:
Conto Bancoposta n.73542037 (ABI 07601 CAB 03200 CIN N)
intestato a Gallucci E. e Pavicevac I., Roma
FOTOGRAFIE, QUADRI, MUSICA E SPETTACOLI
dalla Jugoslavia e dai paesi della ex Jugoslavia
Dal 1 al 30 giugno 2002
Basilica di S. Celso
Corso Italia 39
MILANO
Direzione artistica: Zorica Petrovic e Valentina Carrera
Organizzazione: Apollo e Dioniso, tel. 02-57504104
***
Programma:
Mostre (tutte a ingresso libero)
1-14 giugno, navata centrale e laterale: DIPINTI E DISEGNI
Opere di Safet Zec, Damian Djakov, Marija Maja Jankovic, Natasa
Karanovic, Marija Donkovic
1-14 giugno, navata laterale: DIPINTI E SCULTURE
Opere di Igor Radin, Iva Kontic, Chiara Boniari e altri
Mostra di giovani artisti dalla Croazia, Serbia e Montenegro
15-21 giugno, navata centrale: HILANDAR: NOVE SECOLI DI SPIRITUALITA'
SERBA
Fotografie di Slavomir Matejic, sul monastero di Hilandar, presentata
dal Prof. Slobodan Mileusnic. A cura del Museo della Chiesa ortodossa
di Belgrado. Contemporaneamente l'esposizione dell'iconografo
Branislav Culjkovic.
15-21 giugno, navata laterale: KOSOVO, APRILE 2001
Fotografie di Ester D. Dondè e Mara Puglia
15-21 giugno, navata laterale: PAESAGGI CROATI
Fotografie di Maja Mizor
22-30 giugno, navata centrale e laterali: DOPO LA TEMPESTA: VITA
QUOTIDIANA NELLA SERBIA E NELLA CROAZIA DI OGGI
Fotografie di Valentina Carrera
1-30 giugno, navata laterale: MOSTRA DI ARTIGIANATO ARTISTICO
Spettacoli e concerti
domenica 16 giugno, ore 21: CONCERTO DI MUSICA LIRICA
di autori jugoslavi, con Dzemil Redzepi (baritono) e Usisama Hiromi
(mezzosoprano)
venerdì 21 giugno, ore 21: CONCERTO DI MUSICA CLASSICA
con Maja Jokanovic (violino) e Alberto Intrieri (pianoforte)
domenica 16 giugno, ore 21: MUSICA ANTICA DEI BALCANI
con il gruppo Teatrum Instrumentorum; direttore: Aleksandar Sasa
Karlic
venerdì 28 giugno, ore 21: CASSANDRA - passi di danza tra le macerie
di una guerra
di Christine Pruner. Regia di Virgilio Patarini
Conferenze (tutte a ingresso libero)
giovedì 13 giugno, ore 21: "Profumo di donna"
Presentazione dell'omonimo romanzo, con l'autrice Mileva Pavlovic
Dzomba
sabato 15 giugno, ore 21: La vita spirituale in Serbia
a cura del Prof. Slobodan Mileusnic, direttore del Museo della Chiesa
ortodossa di Belgrado
giovedì 20 giugno, ore 21: Il cinema dei Balcani
Video conferenza a cura del critico Tiziano Sossi e presentazione del
libro Il cinema dell'Est, Appolo e Dionisio Edizioni
===========================================
PER NON DIMENTICARE
E' finalmente pronta la versione sottotitolata in italiano di tre
cortometraggi, inediti in Italia, sui crimini di NATO ed UCK in
Kosovo-Metohija e Serbia meridionale.
I filmati sono in parte basati su immagini della TV americana ARTN e
della britannica REUTERS TV. Si noti che in Italia non era finora
circolata nessuna documentazione video sulle stragi compiute da
NATO/UCK in Kosmet dopo la occupazione (giugno 1999).
Titoli dei tre cortometraggi:
"PAPA', DOVE DORMIREMO DI SERA?"
sugli effetti del bombardamento della cittadina rurale di Aleksinac
KOSOVO - IL LUOGO DEL DELITTO
immagini della provincia dopo l'arrivo della KFOR
C'ERA UNA VOLTA LA FATTORIA GARIC
"...tra Djakovica e Decani, la casa dei Garic era l'unico focolare
serbo rimasto..."
primo premio al Festival del cortometraggio di Belgrado, giugno 2000
produzione RF di Jugoslavia, 1999-2000
Per il lavoro di sottotitolazione il CNJ deve sostenere un costo non
indifferente, pertanto chiediamo alle realta' locali che vogliono
avere le prime copie del video una sottoscrizione adeguata, mentre PER
I SINGOLI IL PREZZO CHE ABBIAMO FISSATO E' DI 15 EURO.
PER ORDINARE IL VIDEO INVIARE UN FAX AL NUMERO: 06-4828957
indicando l'indirizzo al quale spedire la cassetta e le modalita' con
cui viene effettuato il versamento.
Ricordiamo che per i versamenti a favore del CNJ e' stato aperto il
seguente conto postale:
Conto Bancoposta n.73542037 (ABI 07601 CAB 03200 CIN N)
intestato a Gallucci E. e Pavicevac I., Roma
Na srpskohrvatskom:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1797
---
Subject: EPF: Milosevic case and the struggle for peace and
against imperialist globalization
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:33:21 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Declaration by the Athens Congress of the European Peace Forum
At the close of an academic colloquium about
the topic "The wars in the Balkans and the case of
Milosevic", the following declaration was passed:
In few weeks time, it will be a year ago that
the chairman of the Socialist Party of Serbia and
former president of Serbia and the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, was handed over to
the so-called International Tribunal for the
Prosecution of War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia.
The handing over, in fact a kidnapping staged by
secret services, as well as the present trial before
the tribunal in The Hague, are an event unprecedented
in the history of international relations and in
international law.
Facts speak for themselves:
1.It was at the time of the criminal NATO war of
aggression that Milosevic was charged with war
crimes. Aggressors were bringing charges
against the head of the attacked state, violent
criminals charged the victims of their
violence.
2.After the war, the aggressors used pressure and
blackmail to force the rulers of the attacked
state to arrest the president who had been
brought down with massive assistance of NATO,
and to extradite him, in violation of the
constitution of Yugoslavia and in disregard of
the ruling of the constitutional court.
3.Finally, the aggressors took the former
president of the attacked state to an
illegitimate court, a tribunal established,
staffed anf funded under the United Nations'
direction, in violation of their Charter.
That gross reversal of all legal and ethical
standards aims at whitewashing NATO, justifying a
posteriori its war of aggression against Yugoslavia
and, thus, enabling repetitions of such or similar
wars. It is the large-scale attempt to demonstrate to
the world that resistance against the global claim
for hegemony of the United States and NATO will not
be tolerated, and will be severely punished.
That is the essence of the trial against the former
Yugoslav president and his co-defendants, the essence
of the case of Milosevic.
In the court of The Hague, the case in point is
not an individual of whom one may think whatever one
deems right. It is rather a matter of untruth or
truth, of right or wrong. It is a matter of an
individual who, for numerous reasons, has become the
symbol of resistance against NATO's
conflict-fomenting policy of intervention into the
internal affairs of Yugoslavia and against the NATO
war. In the eyes of NATO, the war will be only be
won, and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia only
accomplished, if and when this symbol has been
brought into discredit.
If only for those reasons, the trial in The Hague
cannot leave partisans of peace and opponents of
imperialist globalization indifferent.
Those who rose up against the NATO war and the 78
days of terrorist bombings in Yugoslavia cannot
remain silent in view of this pseudo-legal sequel.
By now, the course of the trial in The Hague has
borne out the far-reaching political intentions of
its organizers, but they have not yet been able to
achieve their goals. The judges' obvious bias, the
prosecutors' paltriness and lack of evidence,
Slobodan Milosevic's initial speech, and the debacle
of the witnesses in the cross-examinations he carried
out, have made it more and more difficult for the
managers of the trial to achieve their aims.
The man accused by NATO has become the accuser of
NATO, and what was intended to become a show trial
has more and more become a secret trial. Being unable
to to break Slobodan Milosevic's morale, the
management of the trial is now attempting to weaken
him physically, to wreck his health and resistance by
unbearable prison and procedural conditions, by
bringing forth more and more new "witnesses", by
almost incessant proceedings. The arbitrariness of
this illegitimate court must be stopped.
Joining this international protest we claim:
* the immediate discontinuance of the trial against
Slobodan Milosevic and the other Yugoslav defendants,
and their prompt release;
* the dissolution of the criminal tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, established in violation of the
United Nations Charter;
* the earliest possible ratification of the treaty of
Rome on the establishment of a standing global
criminal tribunal in accordance with international
law, by all states, in particular the United States,
as well as the incorporation of crimes against peace
and aggression into the court's scope of authority;
* the punishment of those responsible for the NATO
war of aggression against Yugoslavia;
* the payment of war reparations to the Yugoslav
state and of damages to the Yugoslav war victims.
Athens, May 19, 2002
NOTE: Annual Congress of the European Peace Forum has been
held in Athens last weekend, under slogan "FOR A EUROPEAN
PEACE ORDER AGAINST THE MILITARIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
POLICY BY THE USA & NATO" and with participation of more than
60 representatives of peace movements and progressive
organizations and associations from Austria, Belarus,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine and
Yugoslavia. Besides the general Declaration, the Congress has
adopted the above one.
The European Peace Forum is founded on March 24, 2001 in
Berlin, on the second anniversary of NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia. Among the founders, together with representatives
of numerous European organizations were also German admiral
Elmar Schmaehling, great Ukrainian poet Boris Oliynik, Czech
publicist and humanist Dr Rajko Dolecek, Chairman of the
Italian "Nino Pasti" Foundation Paolo Pioppi, known Bulgarian
politician and human rights activist Professor Velko Volkanov
and other renown personalities - politicians, scientists,
lawyers, parliamentarians.
---
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)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1797
---
Subject: EPF: Milosevic case and the struggle for peace and
against imperialist globalization
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:33:21 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Declaration by the Athens Congress of the European Peace Forum
At the close of an academic colloquium about
the topic "The wars in the Balkans and the case of
Milosevic", the following declaration was passed:
In few weeks time, it will be a year ago that
the chairman of the Socialist Party of Serbia and
former president of Serbia and the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, was handed over to
the so-called International Tribunal for the
Prosecution of War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia.
The handing over, in fact a kidnapping staged by
secret services, as well as the present trial before
the tribunal in The Hague, are an event unprecedented
in the history of international relations and in
international law.
Facts speak for themselves:
1.It was at the time of the criminal NATO war of
aggression that Milosevic was charged with war
crimes. Aggressors were bringing charges
against the head of the attacked state, violent
criminals charged the victims of their
violence.
2.After the war, the aggressors used pressure and
blackmail to force the rulers of the attacked
state to arrest the president who had been
brought down with massive assistance of NATO,
and to extradite him, in violation of the
constitution of Yugoslavia and in disregard of
the ruling of the constitutional court.
3.Finally, the aggressors took the former
president of the attacked state to an
illegitimate court, a tribunal established,
staffed anf funded under the United Nations'
direction, in violation of their Charter.
That gross reversal of all legal and ethical
standards aims at whitewashing NATO, justifying a
posteriori its war of aggression against Yugoslavia
and, thus, enabling repetitions of such or similar
wars. It is the large-scale attempt to demonstrate to
the world that resistance against the global claim
for hegemony of the United States and NATO will not
be tolerated, and will be severely punished.
That is the essence of the trial against the former
Yugoslav president and his co-defendants, the essence
of the case of Milosevic.
In the court of The Hague, the case in point is
not an individual of whom one may think whatever one
deems right. It is rather a matter of untruth or
truth, of right or wrong. It is a matter of an
individual who, for numerous reasons, has become the
symbol of resistance against NATO's
conflict-fomenting policy of intervention into the
internal affairs of Yugoslavia and against the NATO
war. In the eyes of NATO, the war will be only be
won, and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia only
accomplished, if and when this symbol has been
brought into discredit.
If only for those reasons, the trial in The Hague
cannot leave partisans of peace and opponents of
imperialist globalization indifferent.
Those who rose up against the NATO war and the 78
days of terrorist bombings in Yugoslavia cannot
remain silent in view of this pseudo-legal sequel.
By now, the course of the trial in The Hague has
borne out the far-reaching political intentions of
its organizers, but they have not yet been able to
achieve their goals. The judges' obvious bias, the
prosecutors' paltriness and lack of evidence,
Slobodan Milosevic's initial speech, and the debacle
of the witnesses in the cross-examinations he carried
out, have made it more and more difficult for the
managers of the trial to achieve their aims.
The man accused by NATO has become the accuser of
NATO, and what was intended to become a show trial
has more and more become a secret trial. Being unable
to to break Slobodan Milosevic's morale, the
management of the trial is now attempting to weaken
him physically, to wreck his health and resistance by
unbearable prison and procedural conditions, by
bringing forth more and more new "witnesses", by
almost incessant proceedings. The arbitrariness of
this illegitimate court must be stopped.
Joining this international protest we claim:
* the immediate discontinuance of the trial against
Slobodan Milosevic and the other Yugoslav defendants,
and their prompt release;
* the dissolution of the criminal tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, established in violation of the
United Nations Charter;
* the earliest possible ratification of the treaty of
Rome on the establishment of a standing global
criminal tribunal in accordance with international
law, by all states, in particular the United States,
as well as the incorporation of crimes against peace
and aggression into the court's scope of authority;
* the punishment of those responsible for the NATO
war of aggression against Yugoslavia;
* the payment of war reparations to the Yugoslav
state and of damages to the Yugoslav war victims.
Athens, May 19, 2002
NOTE: Annual Congress of the European Peace Forum has been
held in Athens last weekend, under slogan "FOR A EUROPEAN
PEACE ORDER AGAINST THE MILITARIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
POLICY BY THE USA & NATO" and with participation of more than
60 representatives of peace movements and progressive
organizations and associations from Austria, Belarus,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Romania, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine and
Yugoslavia. Besides the general Declaration, the Congress has
adopted the above one.
The European Peace Forum is founded on March 24, 2001 in
Berlin, on the second anniversary of NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia. Among the founders, together with representatives
of numerous European organizations were also German admiral
Elmar Schmaehling, great Ukrainian poet Boris Oliynik, Czech
publicist and humanist Dr Rajko Dolecek, Chairman of the
Italian "Nino Pasti" Foundation Paolo Pioppi, known Bulgarian
politician and human rights activist Professor Velko Volkanov
and other renown personalities - politicians, scientists,
lawyers, parliamentarians.
---
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)
Da "Contropiano", FEBBRAIO 1995
JUGOSLAVIA: UNA REALTA' DEFORMATA DAI MEDIA
Reportage su Sarajevo e dintorni. Se questo è un assedio...
"1000 giorni bastano". L'urgenza della verità sulla guerra
in Jugoslavia
JUGOSLAVIA: UNA REALTA' DEFORMATA DAI MEDIA
Reportage su Sarajevo e dintorni. Se questo è un assedio...
"1000 giorni bastano". L'urgenza della verità sulla guerra
in Jugoslavia
Il 28 maggio scorso, in concomitanza con il vertice NATO a Pratica
di Mare e relative manifestazioni di protesta in vari paesi, si e'
tenuta a Belgrado una grande manifestazione contro la NATO guidata
dal principale partito di opposizione, il Partito Socialista della
Serbia.
Di questa manifestazione non ha parlato nessun organo di stampa
italiano; su alcuni giornali della sinistra italiana, invece, sono
apparsi nei giorni successivi gli echi della polemica interna al
cosiddetto "movimento dei movimenti", che mentre organizza grandi
proteste per il vertice FAO rimane sostanzialmente distratto
e disinteressato rispetto al vertice della piu' grande struttura
imperialista mondiale, la piu' minacciosa e pericolosa per la pace.
Nel frattempo, la leadership liberista e filooccidentale di Serbia
e Montenegro compie tutti gli sforzi possibili per legare il paese
alla NATO attraverso la "Partnership for Peace".
(a cura di I. Slavo)
===*===
Subject: Demonstration in Belgrade: SERBS WARN BUSH AND BLAIR!
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:55:30 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>
SERBS WARN BUSH AND BLAIR
DEMONSTRATIONS IN FRONT OF U.S. AND
U.K. EMBASSIES IN BELGRADE
BELGRADE, MAY 28
During the NATO-Russia summit in Rome, Belgrade
had shown that it is still capital of European
resistance. Several thousand of left, right-wing
and non-partisan patriots have demonstrated today
in front of British and US embassies in Belgrade.
They demanded end of the NATO political farce at
The Hague and release of Serbian leader Slobodan
Milosevic. Embassies' representatives received a
letter for their governments from the organizer of
the demonstration - Citizen Association FREEDOM.
Written by Belgrade law professors, letter focuses
on numerous misuses of law and violations of
international documents on protection of human
rights, including the "Tribunal"'s own Rules in
the "trial" of Slobodan Milosevic and demands his
release.
Once again, US/NATO aggression in Europe has been
condemned. Following line of President Milosevic,
demonstrators called for people's unity and
broadening on protest actions against the present
corrupted and undemocratic regime in Belgrade,
which serves only to foreign interests and has
completely lost popular support. "Our only goal is
freedom" - said one of the speakers, chairman of
the Association of Veterans of Wars since 1990
Ratko Zecevic. Former famous basketball player for
the Yugoslav national team and now known activist
Ljubodrag Simonovic Duci blamed capitalist
arrogance and aggression for global oppression and
stated that 'their stupid and ignorant Hague
machinery is ashamed and in panic after clever and
courageous appearance of President Milosevic, who
expresses much higher civilizational level'.
Messages from Russia have also been read and
President Milosevic was called not only Serbian
leader, but also a leader of a free world.
Demonstrations have been supported by Socialist
Party of Serbia, Serbian Radical Party, Yugoslav
Left, New Communist Party of Yugoslavia and
numerous organizations from Serbia, Montenegro,
Republic of Srpska, Macedonia as well as by
organizations of expelled persons from Kosovo,
Bosnia and Croatia.
Culmination of the wave of protests in Serbia is
expected on June 28, on St. Vitus Day and
anniversary of abduction of President Milosevic.
Almost all opposition parties have scheduled its
mass rallies on that day in Belgrade, which is
expected to be a 'day of truth' for the present
regime and future of Serbia.
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)
===*===
From: Anti Imperialist Camp
Serbs warn Bush and Blair
by SPS, Yugoslavia
Demonstrations in front of US and UK Embassies in Belgrade
During the NATO-Russia summit in Rome, Belgrade had
shown that it is still capital of European resistance.
Several thousand of left, right-wing and non-partisan
patriots have demonstrated today in front of British
and US embassies in Belgrade. They demanded end of
the NATO political farce at The Hague and release of
Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Embassies'
representatives received a letter for their governments from
the organizer of the demonstration - Citizen Association
FREEDOM. Written by Belgrade law professors, letter
focuses on numerous misuses of law and violations of
international documents on protection of human rights,
including the "Tribunal"'s own Rules in the "trial" of
Slobodan Milosevic and demands his release.
entire article:
http://antiimperialista.com.westserver.net/view.shtml?category=all&id=10226=
18397&keyword=+
===*===
http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2002/05/28-02.html
SRBIJU POROBLJAVAJU - RODOLJUBIMA SUDE!
slobodan Slobodan - slobodna Srbija!
DEMONSTRACIJE PRED AMERICKOM I BRITANSKOM AMBASADOM U
BEOGRADU
BEOGRAD, 28. juna 2002.
Nekoliko hiljada demonstranata okupilo se
danas ispred ambasada Velike Britanije i SAD u
Beogradu, protestujuci protiv politickog i pravnog
nasilja tzv. tribunala u Hagu i zahtevajuci slobodu
za Slobodana Milosevica i prekid rada ovog kaznenog
instrumenta NATO. Izrazen je i snazan protest protiv
kriminalne klike na vlasti u Beogradu i njihovih
stranih pokrovitelja i pozvano na jedinstvo i otpor
naroda, kako bi rezim bio prinudjen da ode sa vlasti
i raspise prevremene izbore.
Predstavnicima obe ambasade uruceno je
pismo za njihove vlade u kojem se ukazuje na sve
zloupotrebe prava, nasilje i torturu koje primenjuje
haski kazamat i zahteva obustavljanje ove prakse i
oslobodjenje Slobodana Milosevica.
Demonstracije je organizovalo Udruzenje
SLOBODA, a na njih su pozvane sve patriotske partije,
organizacije i pojedinci. Izmedju ostalih odazvali su
se SPS, SRS, JUL, NKPJ, Patriotski savez Jugoslavije,
Udruzenja boraca iz svih ratova, organizacije Srba iz
Bosne i Hercegovine, Hrvatske, Makedonije, kao i vise
organizacija i pojedinaca iz Crne Gore i sa Kosmeta.
Zbog poziva na jedinstvo naroda u borbi
za slobodu, na skupu nisu govorili stranacki prvaci i
profesionalni politicari, vec istaknuti javni radnici
i predstavnici drustvenih organizacija. Ispred
britanske ambasade gradjanima su se obratili Ljuba
Popovic, prof. Boro Cetkovic iz Crne Gore i Dragisa
Miletic iz Makedonije, a ispred americke crnogorski
narodni tribun Kiro Radovic, poznati sportski veteran
i angazovani drustveni radnik Dr Ljubodrag Duci
Simonovic i predstavnik udruzenja boraca ratova od
1990. Ratko Zecevic.
Govornici su istakli da je haska NATO
masinerija zasnovana na novcu i moci ponizena i
posramljena nepokolebljivim i umnim istupanjima
predsednika Milosevica. Jos vise je potucen nenarodni
rezim, protiv koga je vecina gradjana, kojima su
probudjeni nada i samopouzdanje. U situaciji kada je
ceo svet izlozen brutalnoj agresiji i diktaturi,
lider srpskog naroda Slobodan Milosevic sve vise
postaje lider slobodoljubivog covecanstva. Protesti u
Srbiji ce se nastaviti, a ocekuje se da na Vidovdan i
godisnjicu sramne otmice predsednika Milosevica, svi
gradjani izadju na ulice da svom narodu i drzavi
povrate slobodu i dostojanstvo.
Protest je organizovan pred britanskom
ambasadom, jer ova zemlja i njene tajne sluzbe igraju
glavnu ulogu u haskoj inkviziciji - od pisanja
"optuznice", do kontrole procesa, preko glavnog
sudije, odgovornog tuzioca i jednog od "amicus
curiae". SAD su naravno i dalje najodgovornije za
tragediju na Balkanu i njeno nastavljanje - u Hagu i
preko rezima u Beogradu kojim upravlja americka
ambasada.
Sledi tekst pisma urucenog ambasadama SAD i Velike
Britanije:
Gospodo,
U postupku koji se protiv Slobodana Milosevica
vodi pred nelegalnim, suprotno Povelji UN
uspostavljenim Ha¹kim tribunalom, sve vi¹e se
razotkriva prava priroda ove instititucije,
zastra¹ujuce maligne izrasline na civilizaciskom
tkivu koje je covecanstvo vekovima stvaralo i
ozbiljne uvrede za pravo i pravdu kojima su
generacije i generacije stremile i mukotrpno ih
izgradjivale.
Doveden u corsokak i osramocen sve ociglednijom
besmisleno¹cu optuzbi protiv Slobodana Milo¹evica,
potpunom nesposobno¹cu Tuzila¹tva i lakrdijom u koju
se pretvorio ?dokazni postupak?? u kome do sada ni
jedno jedino svedocenje nije imalo gotovo nikakvu
pravnu i dokaznu vrednost i zbog koga svaki, cak i
najnezainteresovaniji posmatrac ne moze da ne dozivi
osecanje posramljenosti, Ha¹ki tribunal, olicen u
pretresnom vecu kojim predsedava sve nervozniji
sudija Ricard Mej, sve vi¹e odustaje i od onog u
pocetku ?sudjenja? prisutnog privida drzanja do forme
i sve ozbiljnije i drasticnije gazi prava Slobodana
Milo¹evica koja mu garantuje medjunarodno pravo i
koja propisuju cak i Statut i Pravila o postupku i
dokazivanju ovog nelegalnog suda.
Pored iscrpljujuceg ritma sudjenja i iznurivanja
bezvrednim dokazima, uz ogranicavanje
najelementarnijih prava i potreba, poput adekvatnog
odmora, ¹etnje na svezem vazduhu, redovne i
blagovremene ishrane itd., ¹to sve poprima karakter
torture (zabranjene clanom 7 Medjunarodnog pakta o
gradjanskim i politickim pravima i nizom drugih
medjunarodnih dokumenata), pored ogranicavanja
vremena za ispitivanje svedoka i intervencija
predsedavajuceg Veca svaki put kada bi svedoci upali
u pote¹koce zbog nelogicnosti i kontradiktornosti
njihovih laznih iskaza, cime se (suprotno clanu 14
Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i politickim
pravima) vredja nacelo kotradiktornosti i pravo na
odbranu, pored prihvatanja i neodstranjivanja
svedoka koji nemaju nikakvih neposrednih saznanja o
temama o kojima svedoce (gotovo svi svedoci su takvi,
a da je pri tom samo jedno svedocenje zbog
posrednosti eliminisano), pored naru¹avanja
prezumpcije nevinosti (predvidjene clanom 14
Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i politickim
pravima) dokazivanjem jednih navodnih krivicnih dela
drugim, od suda neutvrdjenim krivicnim delima (npr.
?ekspert? statisticar Patrik Bol je ?statistickim
metodama? dokazivao da su kretanja albanskog
stanovni¹tva sa Kosova i Metohije prouzrokovana
terorom i ubistvima od strane vojske i policije, a da
ta ubistva ne samo da ni u kakvom sudskom postupku
nisu utvrdjena, vec su njihovo ?postojanje? i
?mesta? na kojima su se ?odigrala? zapravo samo
?pretpostavljeni? kori¹cenjem ?statistickih? metoda?
- pri tom, prema pre¹iroko postavljenom sistemu
komandne odogovornosti koji se primenjuje pred
Tribunalom, sva ta imaginarna dela i njihove navodne
posledice automatski padaju na teret tada¹njeg
Predsednika Republike), pored veoma kasnog
dostavljanja dokumenata i obelodanjivanja identiteta
svedoka i sadrzaja njihovih iskaza i pored naglih
promena redosleda svedocenja, cime se ogranicava
pravo na odbranu (predvidjeno clanom 14 Medjunarodnog
pakta o gradanskim i politickim pravima), Ha¹ki
tribunal u poslednje vreme dostavlja Slobodanu
Milo¹evicu veoma obimne i slozene dokumente vazne za
sudjenje, pa i za njegovu odbranu, samo na engleskom
jeziku bez prevoda na srpski, cime se vredja njegovo
pravo predvidjeno clanom 14 Medjunarodnog pakta o
gradjanskim i politickim pravima, kao i clanovima 21
Statuta Ha¹kog tribunala i 66 Pravila o postupku i
dokazivanju ovog nelegalnog suda. Tako je citavih 38
registara sa materijalima vezanim za ekshumacije
le¹eva, sa veoma slozenom i strucnom terminologijom,
dostavljeno Slobodanu Milo¹evicu samo na engleskom
jeziku, pri cemu su fotografije sadrzane u tim
registrima date ?okrivljenom? u vidu fotokopija, u
crno-beloj tehnici i stoga nejasnih, a ne u boji
kakvi su inace originali kojima raspolazu Tuzila¹tvo
i Sud. Na osnovu dokumentacije iz tih registara
sacinjen je nalaz ve¹taka dr Erika Bakara, koji je
svedocio pred Sudom i koga je Slobodan Milo¹evic
morao da ispituje bez mogucnosti adekvatne
pripreme za odbranu.
Ovaj poslednji slucaj kr¹enja prava Slobodana
Milo¹evica predstavlja vi¹e nego ozbiljno upozorenje
da ovaj nelegalni postupak pred nelegalnim sudom
prerasta u otvoreno nasilje nad ?okrivljenim?,
nasilje koje ce po svemu sudeci biti sve vece, jer
vreme i tok ?postupka? sve vi¹e i vi¹e razotkrivaju
laznost i iskonstruisanost svih optuzbi protiv
Slobodana Milo¹evica.
Imajuci sve napred navedeno u vidu, a posebno
poslednja kr¹enja prava Slobodana Milo¹evica,
pozivamo svu pravdoljubivu javnost i sve faktore
odlucivanja u Jugoslaviji i svetu da se suprotstave
nasilju nad Slobodanom Milo¹evicem i da se zaloze
za ostvarenje onoga ¹to pravo i pravda nalazu, a to
je:
SLOBODA ZA SLOBODANA MILO©EVICA
===*===
NATO, top Yugoslav officials hold secret meeting in Serbia
Mon May 13, 2:40 PM ET
By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia - A NATO delegation and top
Yugoslav officials discussed this Balkan country's
chances of becoming a member of a military cooperation
program at a secret meeting last week, a senior
government official said Monday.
Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic confirmed
the meeting, saying it "was very productive ... as it
built confidence between NATO and our country."
It was the first in a series of talks meant to bring
Yugoslavia closer to membership in NATO's Partnership
for Peace Program. The program allows countries to
participate in many NATO activities and aims to forge
stronger military cooperation between its
participants.
Media were barred from the event at the Yugoslav army
hunting lodge in Morovic, 100 kilometers (60 miles)
northwest of the capital, Belgrade.
A NATO spokeswoman, speaking on condition of
anonymity, confirmed that the meeting took place last
week, but said it was informal and not high-level.
Yugoslavia took the first step in applying for the
NATO program in April, three years after the military
alliance fought Yugoslavia in a 78-day air war to stop
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from
cracking down on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
NATO and the United Nations have run the southern
Yugoslav province in the three years since Milosevic's
forces were ousted.
Milosevic was ousted in a popular uprising and was
later arrested and extradited to the U.N. war crimes
tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. He is now facing
war crimes and genocide charges stemming from the
conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.
Once they assumed power in October 2000, Yugoslavia's
new leaders started sending signals that the country
was ready to improve relations with the alliance.
Talks on Yugoslavia's admission to Partnership for Peace
held last week
BELGRADE, May 13 (Tanjug) - Yugoslav Foreign Minister
Goran Svilanovic confirmed Monday that talks were held
last week on Yugoslavia's admission to the Partnership
for Peace program and its integration in a wide security
system involving all countries in the region.
The talks held last Thursday and Friday were very good,
Svilanovic told Radio B92, expressing hope that they would
be pursued in the future in order to gradually build up
confidence between Yugoslav Army and NATO officers.
The talks were held on May 9 and 10 in Morovic, near the
Yugoslav-Croatian border, behind closed doors, and were
organized by the Yugoslav Atlantic Council.
Svilanovic confirmed that the talks focused on the conditions
NATO has laid for Yugoslavia's admission to the Partnership
for Peace - cooperation with the UN war crimes tribunal and
civilian and democratic control of the Yugoslav Army.
The talks were attended by Svilanovic, Deputy Chief of Staff
General Branko Krga and security advisors of Yugoslav President
Vojislav Kostunica and of Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic,
among others.
Romania urges Yugoslavia's admission to Partnership for Peace
BUCHAREST, May 13 (Tanjug) - Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana
said he would urge for the admission of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-
Herzegovina to the Partnership for Peace program and NATO as soon
as possible at the NATO Council meeting Tuesday in Reykjavik.
Geoana gave a press conference in Bucharest after signing in Bulgaria
with his Bulgarian counterpart Solomon Pasi a joint declaration
reaffirming the two countries' commitment to continue bilateral
cooperation aimed at integration in NATO.
The declaration underlines that Romania and Bulgaria are accepted
as de facto NATO members in the international anti-terrorism
coalition. It also underlines that southeastern Europe now has a
key role in the new international situation, which gives hope to
Romania and Bulgaria that they will be invited to join NATO at
its forthcoming summit next November in Prague.
Romania and Bulgaria are candidates for NATO membership along with
Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
YUGOSLAVIA IN PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE BY JUNE 2003, SVILANOVIC
BELGRADE,June 4 (Beta) - Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic
has said Yugoslavia could be admitted to the Partnership for peace
by June of 2003, adding that the country is on the way to meeting
conditions for Council of Europe membership.
In an interview, Svilanovic told BETA he was sure the Council of
Europe
would admit Yugoslavia and stressed that he had been serious when he
recently promised to resign if that did not happen by the end of the
year. "I hope the U.S. will begin unblocking frozen Yugoslav funds
in the next several weeks," he said, adding that U.S. President George
W. Bush's recent decree "has created confusion" but "is behind us."
Commenting on reports that Belgrade would be asked to apologize to the
former Yugoslav republics for the war that broke out in the earlier
1990s,
Svilanovic said: "The Serbian nation's politicians have a duty to do
so, but the current government will have a hard time with this because
the events were very recent."
di Mare e relative manifestazioni di protesta in vari paesi, si e'
tenuta a Belgrado una grande manifestazione contro la NATO guidata
dal principale partito di opposizione, il Partito Socialista della
Serbia.
Di questa manifestazione non ha parlato nessun organo di stampa
italiano; su alcuni giornali della sinistra italiana, invece, sono
apparsi nei giorni successivi gli echi della polemica interna al
cosiddetto "movimento dei movimenti", che mentre organizza grandi
proteste per il vertice FAO rimane sostanzialmente distratto
e disinteressato rispetto al vertice della piu' grande struttura
imperialista mondiale, la piu' minacciosa e pericolosa per la pace.
Nel frattempo, la leadership liberista e filooccidentale di Serbia
e Montenegro compie tutti gli sforzi possibili per legare il paese
alla NATO attraverso la "Partnership for Peace".
(a cura di I. Slavo)
===*===
Subject: Demonstration in Belgrade: SERBS WARN BUSH AND BLAIR!
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:55:30 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" <vlada@...>
SERBS WARN BUSH AND BLAIR
DEMONSTRATIONS IN FRONT OF U.S. AND
U.K. EMBASSIES IN BELGRADE
BELGRADE, MAY 28
During the NATO-Russia summit in Rome, Belgrade
had shown that it is still capital of European
resistance. Several thousand of left, right-wing
and non-partisan patriots have demonstrated today
in front of British and US embassies in Belgrade.
They demanded end of the NATO political farce at
The Hague and release of Serbian leader Slobodan
Milosevic. Embassies' representatives received a
letter for their governments from the organizer of
the demonstration - Citizen Association FREEDOM.
Written by Belgrade law professors, letter focuses
on numerous misuses of law and violations of
international documents on protection of human
rights, including the "Tribunal"'s own Rules in
the "trial" of Slobodan Milosevic and demands his
release.
Once again, US/NATO aggression in Europe has been
condemned. Following line of President Milosevic,
demonstrators called for people's unity and
broadening on protest actions against the present
corrupted and undemocratic regime in Belgrade,
which serves only to foreign interests and has
completely lost popular support. "Our only goal is
freedom" - said one of the speakers, chairman of
the Association of Veterans of Wars since 1990
Ratko Zecevic. Former famous basketball player for
the Yugoslav national team and now known activist
Ljubodrag Simonovic Duci blamed capitalist
arrogance and aggression for global oppression and
stated that 'their stupid and ignorant Hague
machinery is ashamed and in panic after clever and
courageous appearance of President Milosevic, who
expresses much higher civilizational level'.
Messages from Russia have also been read and
President Milosevic was called not only Serbian
leader, but also a leader of a free world.
Demonstrations have been supported by Socialist
Party of Serbia, Serbian Radical Party, Yugoslav
Left, New Communist Party of Yugoslavia and
numerous organizations from Serbia, Montenegro,
Republic of Srpska, Macedonia as well as by
organizations of expelled persons from Kosovo,
Bosnia and Croatia.
Culmination of the wave of protests in Serbia is
expected on June 28, on St. Vitus Day and
anniversary of abduction of President Milosevic.
Almost all opposition parties have scheduled its
mass rallies on that day in Belgrade, which is
expected to be a 'day of truth' for the present
regime and future of Serbia.
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)
===*===
From: Anti Imperialist Camp
Serbs warn Bush and Blair
by SPS, Yugoslavia
Demonstrations in front of US and UK Embassies in Belgrade
During the NATO-Russia summit in Rome, Belgrade had
shown that it is still capital of European resistance.
Several thousand of left, right-wing and non-partisan
patriots have demonstrated today in front of British
and US embassies in Belgrade. They demanded end of
the NATO political farce at The Hague and release of
Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Embassies'
representatives received a letter for their governments from
the organizer of the demonstration - Citizen Association
FREEDOM. Written by Belgrade law professors, letter
focuses on numerous misuses of law and violations of
international documents on protection of human rights,
including the "Tribunal"'s own Rules in the "trial" of
Slobodan Milosevic and demands his release.
entire article:
http://antiimperialista.com.westserver.net/view.shtml?category=all&id=10226=
18397&keyword=+
===*===
http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2002/05/28-02.html
SRBIJU POROBLJAVAJU - RODOLJUBIMA SUDE!
slobodan Slobodan - slobodna Srbija!
DEMONSTRACIJE PRED AMERICKOM I BRITANSKOM AMBASADOM U
BEOGRADU
BEOGRAD, 28. juna 2002.
Nekoliko hiljada demonstranata okupilo se
danas ispred ambasada Velike Britanije i SAD u
Beogradu, protestujuci protiv politickog i pravnog
nasilja tzv. tribunala u Hagu i zahtevajuci slobodu
za Slobodana Milosevica i prekid rada ovog kaznenog
instrumenta NATO. Izrazen je i snazan protest protiv
kriminalne klike na vlasti u Beogradu i njihovih
stranih pokrovitelja i pozvano na jedinstvo i otpor
naroda, kako bi rezim bio prinudjen da ode sa vlasti
i raspise prevremene izbore.
Predstavnicima obe ambasade uruceno je
pismo za njihove vlade u kojem se ukazuje na sve
zloupotrebe prava, nasilje i torturu koje primenjuje
haski kazamat i zahteva obustavljanje ove prakse i
oslobodjenje Slobodana Milosevica.
Demonstracije je organizovalo Udruzenje
SLOBODA, a na njih su pozvane sve patriotske partije,
organizacije i pojedinci. Izmedju ostalih odazvali su
se SPS, SRS, JUL, NKPJ, Patriotski savez Jugoslavije,
Udruzenja boraca iz svih ratova, organizacije Srba iz
Bosne i Hercegovine, Hrvatske, Makedonije, kao i vise
organizacija i pojedinaca iz Crne Gore i sa Kosmeta.
Zbog poziva na jedinstvo naroda u borbi
za slobodu, na skupu nisu govorili stranacki prvaci i
profesionalni politicari, vec istaknuti javni radnici
i predstavnici drustvenih organizacija. Ispred
britanske ambasade gradjanima su se obratili Ljuba
Popovic, prof. Boro Cetkovic iz Crne Gore i Dragisa
Miletic iz Makedonije, a ispred americke crnogorski
narodni tribun Kiro Radovic, poznati sportski veteran
i angazovani drustveni radnik Dr Ljubodrag Duci
Simonovic i predstavnik udruzenja boraca ratova od
1990. Ratko Zecevic.
Govornici su istakli da je haska NATO
masinerija zasnovana na novcu i moci ponizena i
posramljena nepokolebljivim i umnim istupanjima
predsednika Milosevica. Jos vise je potucen nenarodni
rezim, protiv koga je vecina gradjana, kojima su
probudjeni nada i samopouzdanje. U situaciji kada je
ceo svet izlozen brutalnoj agresiji i diktaturi,
lider srpskog naroda Slobodan Milosevic sve vise
postaje lider slobodoljubivog covecanstva. Protesti u
Srbiji ce se nastaviti, a ocekuje se da na Vidovdan i
godisnjicu sramne otmice predsednika Milosevica, svi
gradjani izadju na ulice da svom narodu i drzavi
povrate slobodu i dostojanstvo.
Protest je organizovan pred britanskom
ambasadom, jer ova zemlja i njene tajne sluzbe igraju
glavnu ulogu u haskoj inkviziciji - od pisanja
"optuznice", do kontrole procesa, preko glavnog
sudije, odgovornog tuzioca i jednog od "amicus
curiae". SAD su naravno i dalje najodgovornije za
tragediju na Balkanu i njeno nastavljanje - u Hagu i
preko rezima u Beogradu kojim upravlja americka
ambasada.
Sledi tekst pisma urucenog ambasadama SAD i Velike
Britanije:
Gospodo,
U postupku koji se protiv Slobodana Milosevica
vodi pred nelegalnim, suprotno Povelji UN
uspostavljenim Ha¹kim tribunalom, sve vi¹e se
razotkriva prava priroda ove instititucije,
zastra¹ujuce maligne izrasline na civilizaciskom
tkivu koje je covecanstvo vekovima stvaralo i
ozbiljne uvrede za pravo i pravdu kojima su
generacije i generacije stremile i mukotrpno ih
izgradjivale.
Doveden u corsokak i osramocen sve ociglednijom
besmisleno¹cu optuzbi protiv Slobodana Milo¹evica,
potpunom nesposobno¹cu Tuzila¹tva i lakrdijom u koju
se pretvorio ?dokazni postupak?? u kome do sada ni
jedno jedino svedocenje nije imalo gotovo nikakvu
pravnu i dokaznu vrednost i zbog koga svaki, cak i
najnezainteresovaniji posmatrac ne moze da ne dozivi
osecanje posramljenosti, Ha¹ki tribunal, olicen u
pretresnom vecu kojim predsedava sve nervozniji
sudija Ricard Mej, sve vi¹e odustaje i od onog u
pocetku ?sudjenja? prisutnog privida drzanja do forme
i sve ozbiljnije i drasticnije gazi prava Slobodana
Milo¹evica koja mu garantuje medjunarodno pravo i
koja propisuju cak i Statut i Pravila o postupku i
dokazivanju ovog nelegalnog suda.
Pored iscrpljujuceg ritma sudjenja i iznurivanja
bezvrednim dokazima, uz ogranicavanje
najelementarnijih prava i potreba, poput adekvatnog
odmora, ¹etnje na svezem vazduhu, redovne i
blagovremene ishrane itd., ¹to sve poprima karakter
torture (zabranjene clanom 7 Medjunarodnog pakta o
gradjanskim i politickim pravima i nizom drugih
medjunarodnih dokumenata), pored ogranicavanja
vremena za ispitivanje svedoka i intervencija
predsedavajuceg Veca svaki put kada bi svedoci upali
u pote¹koce zbog nelogicnosti i kontradiktornosti
njihovih laznih iskaza, cime se (suprotno clanu 14
Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i politickim
pravima) vredja nacelo kotradiktornosti i pravo na
odbranu, pored prihvatanja i neodstranjivanja
svedoka koji nemaju nikakvih neposrednih saznanja o
temama o kojima svedoce (gotovo svi svedoci su takvi,
a da je pri tom samo jedno svedocenje zbog
posrednosti eliminisano), pored naru¹avanja
prezumpcije nevinosti (predvidjene clanom 14
Medjunarodnog pakta o gradjanskim i politickim
pravima) dokazivanjem jednih navodnih krivicnih dela
drugim, od suda neutvrdjenim krivicnim delima (npr.
?ekspert? statisticar Patrik Bol je ?statistickim
metodama? dokazivao da su kretanja albanskog
stanovni¹tva sa Kosova i Metohije prouzrokovana
terorom i ubistvima od strane vojske i policije, a da
ta ubistva ne samo da ni u kakvom sudskom postupku
nisu utvrdjena, vec su njihovo ?postojanje? i
?mesta? na kojima su se ?odigrala? zapravo samo
?pretpostavljeni? kori¹cenjem ?statistickih? metoda?
- pri tom, prema pre¹iroko postavljenom sistemu
komandne odogovornosti koji se primenjuje pred
Tribunalom, sva ta imaginarna dela i njihove navodne
posledice automatski padaju na teret tada¹njeg
Predsednika Republike), pored veoma kasnog
dostavljanja dokumenata i obelodanjivanja identiteta
svedoka i sadrzaja njihovih iskaza i pored naglih
promena redosleda svedocenja, cime se ogranicava
pravo na odbranu (predvidjeno clanom 14 Medjunarodnog
pakta o gradanskim i politickim pravima), Ha¹ki
tribunal u poslednje vreme dostavlja Slobodanu
Milo¹evicu veoma obimne i slozene dokumente vazne za
sudjenje, pa i za njegovu odbranu, samo na engleskom
jeziku bez prevoda na srpski, cime se vredja njegovo
pravo predvidjeno clanom 14 Medjunarodnog pakta o
gradjanskim i politickim pravima, kao i clanovima 21
Statuta Ha¹kog tribunala i 66 Pravila o postupku i
dokazivanju ovog nelegalnog suda. Tako je citavih 38
registara sa materijalima vezanim za ekshumacije
le¹eva, sa veoma slozenom i strucnom terminologijom,
dostavljeno Slobodanu Milo¹evicu samo na engleskom
jeziku, pri cemu su fotografije sadrzane u tim
registrima date ?okrivljenom? u vidu fotokopija, u
crno-beloj tehnici i stoga nejasnih, a ne u boji
kakvi su inace originali kojima raspolazu Tuzila¹tvo
i Sud. Na osnovu dokumentacije iz tih registara
sacinjen je nalaz ve¹taka dr Erika Bakara, koji je
svedocio pred Sudom i koga je Slobodan Milo¹evic
morao da ispituje bez mogucnosti adekvatne
pripreme za odbranu.
Ovaj poslednji slucaj kr¹enja prava Slobodana
Milo¹evica predstavlja vi¹e nego ozbiljno upozorenje
da ovaj nelegalni postupak pred nelegalnim sudom
prerasta u otvoreno nasilje nad ?okrivljenim?,
nasilje koje ce po svemu sudeci biti sve vece, jer
vreme i tok ?postupka? sve vi¹e i vi¹e razotkrivaju
laznost i iskonstruisanost svih optuzbi protiv
Slobodana Milo¹evica.
Imajuci sve napred navedeno u vidu, a posebno
poslednja kr¹enja prava Slobodana Milo¹evica,
pozivamo svu pravdoljubivu javnost i sve faktore
odlucivanja u Jugoslaviji i svetu da se suprotstave
nasilju nad Slobodanom Milo¹evicem i da se zaloze
za ostvarenje onoga ¹to pravo i pravda nalazu, a to
je:
SLOBODA ZA SLOBODANA MILO©EVICA
===*===
NATO, top Yugoslav officials hold secret meeting in Serbia
Mon May 13, 2:40 PM ET
By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer
BELGRADE, Yugoslavia - A NATO delegation and top
Yugoslav officials discussed this Balkan country's
chances of becoming a member of a military cooperation
program at a secret meeting last week, a senior
government official said Monday.
Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic confirmed
the meeting, saying it "was very productive ... as it
built confidence between NATO and our country."
It was the first in a series of talks meant to bring
Yugoslavia closer to membership in NATO's Partnership
for Peace Program. The program allows countries to
participate in many NATO activities and aims to forge
stronger military cooperation between its
participants.
Media were barred from the event at the Yugoslav army
hunting lodge in Morovic, 100 kilometers (60 miles)
northwest of the capital, Belgrade.
A NATO spokeswoman, speaking on condition of
anonymity, confirmed that the meeting took place last
week, but said it was informal and not high-level.
Yugoslavia took the first step in applying for the
NATO program in April, three years after the military
alliance fought Yugoslavia in a 78-day air war to stop
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from
cracking down on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
NATO and the United Nations have run the southern
Yugoslav province in the three years since Milosevic's
forces were ousted.
Milosevic was ousted in a popular uprising and was
later arrested and extradited to the U.N. war crimes
tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. He is now facing
war crimes and genocide charges stemming from the
conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.
Once they assumed power in October 2000, Yugoslavia's
new leaders started sending signals that the country
was ready to improve relations with the alliance.
Talks on Yugoslavia's admission to Partnership for Peace
held last week
BELGRADE, May 13 (Tanjug) - Yugoslav Foreign Minister
Goran Svilanovic confirmed Monday that talks were held
last week on Yugoslavia's admission to the Partnership
for Peace program and its integration in a wide security
system involving all countries in the region.
The talks held last Thursday and Friday were very good,
Svilanovic told Radio B92, expressing hope that they would
be pursued in the future in order to gradually build up
confidence between Yugoslav Army and NATO officers.
The talks were held on May 9 and 10 in Morovic, near the
Yugoslav-Croatian border, behind closed doors, and were
organized by the Yugoslav Atlantic Council.
Svilanovic confirmed that the talks focused on the conditions
NATO has laid for Yugoslavia's admission to the Partnership
for Peace - cooperation with the UN war crimes tribunal and
civilian and democratic control of the Yugoslav Army.
The talks were attended by Svilanovic, Deputy Chief of Staff
General Branko Krga and security advisors of Yugoslav President
Vojislav Kostunica and of Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic,
among others.
Romania urges Yugoslavia's admission to Partnership for Peace
BUCHAREST, May 13 (Tanjug) - Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana
said he would urge for the admission of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-
Herzegovina to the Partnership for Peace program and NATO as soon
as possible at the NATO Council meeting Tuesday in Reykjavik.
Geoana gave a press conference in Bucharest after signing in Bulgaria
with his Bulgarian counterpart Solomon Pasi a joint declaration
reaffirming the two countries' commitment to continue bilateral
cooperation aimed at integration in NATO.
The declaration underlines that Romania and Bulgaria are accepted
as de facto NATO members in the international anti-terrorism
coalition. It also underlines that southeastern Europe now has a
key role in the new international situation, which gives hope to
Romania and Bulgaria that they will be invited to join NATO at
its forthcoming summit next November in Prague.
Romania and Bulgaria are candidates for NATO membership along with
Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
YUGOSLAVIA IN PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE BY JUNE 2003, SVILANOVIC
BELGRADE,June 4 (Beta) - Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic
has said Yugoslavia could be admitted to the Partnership for peace
by June of 2003, adding that the country is on the way to meeting
conditions for Council of Europe membership.
In an interview, Svilanovic told BETA he was sure the Council of
Europe
would admit Yugoslavia and stressed that he had been serious when he
recently promised to resign if that did not happen by the end of the
year. "I hope the U.S. will begin unblocking frozen Yugoslav funds
in the next several weeks," he said, adding that U.S. President George
W. Bush's recent decree "has created confusion" but "is behind us."
Commenting on reports that Belgrade would be asked to apologize to the
former Yugoslav republics for the war that broke out in the earlier
1990s,
Svilanovic said: "The Serbian nation's politicians have a duty to do
so, but the current government will have a hard time with this because
the events were very recent."
Subject: Novi tekst na ARTEL GEOPOLITICI- Beogradski
forum- Vladislav Jovanovic: "SRJ i NATO"
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:40:16 -0700
From: "Artel"
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA
by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:23 maj 2002
Vladislav Jovanovi?: Izlaganje na Beogradskom forumu
na temu "SRJ i Evroatlantske vojne i politi?ke
organizacije
VLADISLAV JOVANOVI?
Bivsi MIP SRJ
"SRJ i NATO"
02. oktobar 2001. godine
(do sada neobjavljen tekst)
Gleda?u da budem kratak i prakti?an, ne ponavljaju?i ovo sto
su uva?eni predstavnici ve? rekli.
Prvo, sadasnji NATO nije isti kao [to je to bio donedavni
NATO . NATO je bio odbrambeni savez, a danas je NATO
ofanzivna, politi?ka i vojna alijansa koja, kao sto je
izri?ito re?eno na sastanku u Vasingtonu, ima da brani
vrednosti i interese zapadnih razvijenijih zemalja svuda u
svetu gde su oni ugro?eni. Prema tome, ne treba da imamo
iluziju da ulaze?i u taj savez dobijamo samo odbrambeni
kisobran. Ulaze?i u njega, istovremeno se pretvaramo u
najamnike koji ?e taj savez, po volji i ?elji Amerike, da
koristi svuda u svetu kako ho?e.
Drugo, Partnerstvo za mir je, izgleda, svrsena ?injenica. Re?
je o jednoj zakulisnoj radnji sadasnjih vlasti, ne samo
protiv nasih nacionalnih interesa nego i protiv volje bira?a.
Tako va?na ?injenica kao pristupanje Partnerstvu za mir mora
da dobije potvrdu volje bira?a. Sve zemlje koje su pristupile
partnerstvu organizovale su referendum. Zvani?na vlast i ne
pominje tu mogu?nost. Nije diskreciono pravo zvani?ne vlasti
da o tome odlu?uje, mora zemlja u celini da iza toga stane.
S druge strane, ta?no je da smo mi u neprijatnom okru?enju,
da nas je NATO svuda okru?io svojom mre?om Partnerstva za
mir. Ili svojim ?lanstvom. Ali je isto tako ta?no da mi nismo
isti kao druge zemlje koje su zakucale na vrata NATO-u da
udju u Partnerstvo za mir. Mi smo velika ?rtva NATO-a i NATO
je nas veliki du?nik. NATO je oteo od nas deo nase istorijske
dr?ave-Pokrajinu Kosovo. Lisio nas je fakti?kog suvereniteta
nad njim i mi imamo obavezu da ga povratimo. NATO ima obavezu
da nadoknadi materijalnu stetu koju je po?inio kroz
bombardovanje Jugoslavije. NATO nas jos ne tretira
ravnopravno. Ne samo zato sto nas je bombardovao i razrusio,
niti sto nam je uzeo fakti?ki suverenitet nad Kosovom, nego i
sto nas stalno ucenjuje kroz otvorenu listu zahteva i
uslovljavanja. I pre nekoliko dana NATO je odgovorio na nasu
ponudu za Partnerstvo za mir svojim uslovima. Jedan od uslova
je da prekinemo svaku podrsku Srbima u Bosni i Hercegovini.
To zna?i da ih prepustimo da ih NATO utera u unitarnu BiH.
Zbog tih okolnosti nikako ne smemo da budemo strana koja
inicira ulazak u Partnerstvo za mir. Ako to iniciramo, mi
automatski gubimo nas glavni adut, moralnu superiornost, koju
imamo kao ?rtva nelegalne agresije i ulazimo u politi?ki
inferiorni polo?aj, drugim re?ima prihvatamo da pod
neravnopravnim uslovima pregovaramo o ulasku u Partnerstvo za
mir. Prema tome, treba sa?ekati da NATO nas pozove,
ravnopravni polo?aj sa drugima u regionu. Vlast je u?inila
strahovitu, metodsku pogresku sto je prihvatila da o
partnerstvu uopste razgovara pod neravnopravnim uslovima, a
naro?ito da prva zakuca na vrata NATO-u.
Makedonija pokazuje da Partnerstvo za mir ne samo da nije
zastita od strane opasnosti, nego predstavlja opasnost od
ptrznji koje dolaze iznutra. NATO je zastitio Makedoniju od
Jugoslavije za vreme agresije. Ali je nije zastitio od
unutrasnjih opasnosti-terorizma i separatizma. ?ak ga je
podsticao vezuju?i ruke Makedoniji da ne uvozi oru?je iz
inostranstva,dok traje sukob sa teroristima.
Posle teroristi?kih napada na SAD sve ?lanice NATO-a su
morale da se svrstaju pod ?lan 5 Ugovora smatraju?i da je
napad na Ameriku istovremeno i napad na njih. One su time
automatski usle u ratno stanje sa jos neidentifikovanim
neprijateljem Amerike, koji ?e verovatno biti Avganistan, a
mo?da i jos neka zemlja. Ako Amerika to bude zahtevala,
mora?e da joj pru?e vojnu pomo?. Ako bismo sutra usli u NATO,
onda bismo morali SAD da sledimo u ratovima sa drugima. Ne
zaboravimo da su opasnosti za NATO sada izvan evropskih
prostora. Avganistan nije u fokusu pa?nje samo zbog terorizma
nego, pre svega zbog ekonomskih razloga. Otkriveno je ogromno
nalaziste nafte i gasova u isto?nom Turkmenistanu i planira
se naftovod i gasovod kroz zapadni Avganistan i ju?ni
Pakistan. Da bi se to ostvarilo, treba Avganistan politi?ki i
vojno kontrolisati bas onako kako je bila i SRJ bombardovana
kada ju je trebalo kontrolisati.
Ako udjemo u NATO, moramo biti svesni da ?emo biti
upotrebljavani prema odluci drugih, i to ne samo u okolini,
ve? ako treba i u Kaspijskom bazenu, a sutra mo?da i protiv
Kine i negde na drugom mestu. Da li je to nas nacionalni
interes? Da li celokupna nasa istorija to objasnjava i
opravdava? Kada smo mi to bili ekspedicioni korpus drugih?
Samo dva puta. Kraqevi? Marko je morao da ratuje za Turke i
Despot Stefan Lazarevi? je morao da ratuje za sultana
Bajazita pod Angorom, jer su bili vazali. Mi, hvala Bogu, jos
nismo vazali, ali se vrlo brzo trudimo da to postanemo i
bojim se da nekim ljudima mnogo vise odgovara ako bismo to
bili, nego ako ne bismo. Mi ne mo?emo da ignorisemo ?injenicu
da je NATO ogromna politi?ka i vojna ?injenica u Evropi u
svetu, a naro?ito u nasem regionu. Ne smemo to da
zanemarujemo u teku?oj dugoro?noj politici. Tesko da mo?emo
da ka?emo ne na sve zahteve i pritiske NATO i Amerike. Ali
mo?emo da odgovorimo, da- ali, ?ime pritisak sa nas
premestamo na njih. Mi jesmo za NATO, ali koji NATO? Da li
smo za Evropski NATO ili NATO-vsku Evropu? Mi smo za Evropski
NATO. Za kontinentalni sistem bezbednosti u kome ?e sve
dr?ave Evrope da budu jednako sigurne u svoju bezbednost.
Takav Evropski NATO ne bi predstavljao pretnju drugim
dr?avama i narodima u drugim regionima. Sadasnji NATO to
predstavlja. To mu je ispisano na Vasingtonskoj zastavi. Ne
treba da se zavaravamo. Ako bismo dali takav odgovor lakse
bismo se branili od pritisaka i prigovora da ne?emo NATO. U
tom slu?aju, mogli bismo da ra?unamo na aktivno saveznistvo
Ukrajine, Rusije i drugih koji ?ele da sa NATO-om postignu ,
najbolji mogu?i dogovor, a to je da on garantuje jednaku
bezbednost svima u Evropi. A ne da bude za neke jednak, a za
druge nejednak. Na taj na?in mogli bismo da ostvarimo
manevarski prostor i kupimo vreme potrebno za popravljanje
naseg polo?aja u odnosu na NATO, koji je sada vrlo
nepovoljan. Nije ta?no da biti ?lan EU zna?i biti ?lan
NATO-a. Ima 4-5 zemalja ?lanica EU koje ne pomisljaju da budu
?lanice NATO-a, ali se bezbedno ose?aju. Irska, Finska,
Svedska, Austrija, Svajcarska su van NATO. Mi nismo kao oni,
jer smo bili bombardovani, jer nam je oduzet deo teritorije,
jer nas i dalje ucenjuju, ali na nasoj strani imamo moralni
faktor. Taj moralni faktor je nasa velika karta sa kojom bi
trebalo da igramo, pri ?emu bismo mogli da ra?unamo na
razumevanje i podrsku drugih. Ako ve? moramo da se na neki
na?in pomirimo sa Amerikom, i o?ekivanju da NATO postane
Evropski, bolje je da to uradimo kroz jedan bilateralni
sporazum, kao sto je Spanija pod Frankom to bila u?inila,
?ime bismo kupili vreme i tu veliku silu na neki na?in
primirili, a u medjuvremenu da se zajedno sa Rusijom borimo
za Evropski NATO.
forum- Vladislav Jovanovic: "SRJ i NATO"
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:40:16 -0700
From: "Artel"
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA
by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:23 maj 2002
Vladislav Jovanovi?: Izlaganje na Beogradskom forumu
na temu "SRJ i Evroatlantske vojne i politi?ke
organizacije
VLADISLAV JOVANOVI?
Bivsi MIP SRJ
"SRJ i NATO"
02. oktobar 2001. godine
(do sada neobjavljen tekst)
Gleda?u da budem kratak i prakti?an, ne ponavljaju?i ovo sto
su uva?eni predstavnici ve? rekli.
Prvo, sadasnji NATO nije isti kao [to je to bio donedavni
NATO . NATO je bio odbrambeni savez, a danas je NATO
ofanzivna, politi?ka i vojna alijansa koja, kao sto je
izri?ito re?eno na sastanku u Vasingtonu, ima da brani
vrednosti i interese zapadnih razvijenijih zemalja svuda u
svetu gde su oni ugro?eni. Prema tome, ne treba da imamo
iluziju da ulaze?i u taj savez dobijamo samo odbrambeni
kisobran. Ulaze?i u njega, istovremeno se pretvaramo u
najamnike koji ?e taj savez, po volji i ?elji Amerike, da
koristi svuda u svetu kako ho?e.
Drugo, Partnerstvo za mir je, izgleda, svrsena ?injenica. Re?
je o jednoj zakulisnoj radnji sadasnjih vlasti, ne samo
protiv nasih nacionalnih interesa nego i protiv volje bira?a.
Tako va?na ?injenica kao pristupanje Partnerstvu za mir mora
da dobije potvrdu volje bira?a. Sve zemlje koje su pristupile
partnerstvu organizovale su referendum. Zvani?na vlast i ne
pominje tu mogu?nost. Nije diskreciono pravo zvani?ne vlasti
da o tome odlu?uje, mora zemlja u celini da iza toga stane.
S druge strane, ta?no je da smo mi u neprijatnom okru?enju,
da nas je NATO svuda okru?io svojom mre?om Partnerstva za
mir. Ili svojim ?lanstvom. Ali je isto tako ta?no da mi nismo
isti kao druge zemlje koje su zakucale na vrata NATO-u da
udju u Partnerstvo za mir. Mi smo velika ?rtva NATO-a i NATO
je nas veliki du?nik. NATO je oteo od nas deo nase istorijske
dr?ave-Pokrajinu Kosovo. Lisio nas je fakti?kog suvereniteta
nad njim i mi imamo obavezu da ga povratimo. NATO ima obavezu
da nadoknadi materijalnu stetu koju je po?inio kroz
bombardovanje Jugoslavije. NATO nas jos ne tretira
ravnopravno. Ne samo zato sto nas je bombardovao i razrusio,
niti sto nam je uzeo fakti?ki suverenitet nad Kosovom, nego i
sto nas stalno ucenjuje kroz otvorenu listu zahteva i
uslovljavanja. I pre nekoliko dana NATO je odgovorio na nasu
ponudu za Partnerstvo za mir svojim uslovima. Jedan od uslova
je da prekinemo svaku podrsku Srbima u Bosni i Hercegovini.
To zna?i da ih prepustimo da ih NATO utera u unitarnu BiH.
Zbog tih okolnosti nikako ne smemo da budemo strana koja
inicira ulazak u Partnerstvo za mir. Ako to iniciramo, mi
automatski gubimo nas glavni adut, moralnu superiornost, koju
imamo kao ?rtva nelegalne agresije i ulazimo u politi?ki
inferiorni polo?aj, drugim re?ima prihvatamo da pod
neravnopravnim uslovima pregovaramo o ulasku u Partnerstvo za
mir. Prema tome, treba sa?ekati da NATO nas pozove,
ravnopravni polo?aj sa drugima u regionu. Vlast je u?inila
strahovitu, metodsku pogresku sto je prihvatila da o
partnerstvu uopste razgovara pod neravnopravnim uslovima, a
naro?ito da prva zakuca na vrata NATO-u.
Makedonija pokazuje da Partnerstvo za mir ne samo da nije
zastita od strane opasnosti, nego predstavlja opasnost od
ptrznji koje dolaze iznutra. NATO je zastitio Makedoniju od
Jugoslavije za vreme agresije. Ali je nije zastitio od
unutrasnjih opasnosti-terorizma i separatizma. ?ak ga je
podsticao vezuju?i ruke Makedoniji da ne uvozi oru?je iz
inostranstva,dok traje sukob sa teroristima.
Posle teroristi?kih napada na SAD sve ?lanice NATO-a su
morale da se svrstaju pod ?lan 5 Ugovora smatraju?i da je
napad na Ameriku istovremeno i napad na njih. One su time
automatski usle u ratno stanje sa jos neidentifikovanim
neprijateljem Amerike, koji ?e verovatno biti Avganistan, a
mo?da i jos neka zemlja. Ako Amerika to bude zahtevala,
mora?e da joj pru?e vojnu pomo?. Ako bismo sutra usli u NATO,
onda bismo morali SAD da sledimo u ratovima sa drugima. Ne
zaboravimo da su opasnosti za NATO sada izvan evropskih
prostora. Avganistan nije u fokusu pa?nje samo zbog terorizma
nego, pre svega zbog ekonomskih razloga. Otkriveno je ogromno
nalaziste nafte i gasova u isto?nom Turkmenistanu i planira
se naftovod i gasovod kroz zapadni Avganistan i ju?ni
Pakistan. Da bi se to ostvarilo, treba Avganistan politi?ki i
vojno kontrolisati bas onako kako je bila i SRJ bombardovana
kada ju je trebalo kontrolisati.
Ako udjemo u NATO, moramo biti svesni da ?emo biti
upotrebljavani prema odluci drugih, i to ne samo u okolini,
ve? ako treba i u Kaspijskom bazenu, a sutra mo?da i protiv
Kine i negde na drugom mestu. Da li je to nas nacionalni
interes? Da li celokupna nasa istorija to objasnjava i
opravdava? Kada smo mi to bili ekspedicioni korpus drugih?
Samo dva puta. Kraqevi? Marko je morao da ratuje za Turke i
Despot Stefan Lazarevi? je morao da ratuje za sultana
Bajazita pod Angorom, jer su bili vazali. Mi, hvala Bogu, jos
nismo vazali, ali se vrlo brzo trudimo da to postanemo i
bojim se da nekim ljudima mnogo vise odgovara ako bismo to
bili, nego ako ne bismo. Mi ne mo?emo da ignorisemo ?injenicu
da je NATO ogromna politi?ka i vojna ?injenica u Evropi u
svetu, a naro?ito u nasem regionu. Ne smemo to da
zanemarujemo u teku?oj dugoro?noj politici. Tesko da mo?emo
da ka?emo ne na sve zahteve i pritiske NATO i Amerike. Ali
mo?emo da odgovorimo, da- ali, ?ime pritisak sa nas
premestamo na njih. Mi jesmo za NATO, ali koji NATO? Da li
smo za Evropski NATO ili NATO-vsku Evropu? Mi smo za Evropski
NATO. Za kontinentalni sistem bezbednosti u kome ?e sve
dr?ave Evrope da budu jednako sigurne u svoju bezbednost.
Takav Evropski NATO ne bi predstavljao pretnju drugim
dr?avama i narodima u drugim regionima. Sadasnji NATO to
predstavlja. To mu je ispisano na Vasingtonskoj zastavi. Ne
treba da se zavaravamo. Ako bismo dali takav odgovor lakse
bismo se branili od pritisaka i prigovora da ne?emo NATO. U
tom slu?aju, mogli bismo da ra?unamo na aktivno saveznistvo
Ukrajine, Rusije i drugih koji ?ele da sa NATO-om postignu ,
najbolji mogu?i dogovor, a to je da on garantuje jednaku
bezbednost svima u Evropi. A ne da bude za neke jednak, a za
druge nejednak. Na taj na?in mogli bismo da ostvarimo
manevarski prostor i kupimo vreme potrebno za popravljanje
naseg polo?aja u odnosu na NATO, koji je sada vrlo
nepovoljan. Nije ta?no da biti ?lan EU zna?i biti ?lan
NATO-a. Ima 4-5 zemalja ?lanica EU koje ne pomisljaju da budu
?lanice NATO-a, ali se bezbedno ose?aju. Irska, Finska,
Svedska, Austrija, Svajcarska su van NATO. Mi nismo kao oni,
jer smo bili bombardovani, jer nam je oduzet deo teritorije,
jer nas i dalje ucenjuju, ali na nasoj strani imamo moralni
faktor. Taj moralni faktor je nasa velika karta sa kojom bi
trebalo da igramo, pri ?emu bismo mogli da ra?unamo na
razumevanje i podrsku drugih. Ako ve? moramo da se na neki
na?in pomirimo sa Amerikom, i o?ekivanju da NATO postane
Evropski, bolje je da to uradimo kroz jedan bilateralni
sporazum, kao sto je Spanija pod Frankom to bila u?inila,
?ime bismo kupili vreme i tu veliku silu na neki na?in
primirili, a u medjuvremenu da se zajedno sa Rusijom borimo
za Evropski NATO.
Jürgen Elsässer:
"MENZOGNE DI GUERRA
Le bugie della NATO e le loro vittime nel conflitto per
il Kosovo"
Traduzione di Mara Oneta
Prefazione di Andrea Catone
Collana "Frontiere del presente"
Ed. La Citta' del Sole, Napoli 2002
ISBN 88-8292-183-2; prezzo 11 euro
Si tratta della versione italiana del libro edito in Germania
con il titolo "Kriegsverbrechen" dalle edizioni KONKRET
(Amburgo 2000), oggi giunto alla quarta edizione.
Si raccomanda la diffusione piu' ampia possibile di
questo testo, che contiene documentazione altrimenti
introvabile nel panorama editoriale italiano (e non solo).
* l'Indice
* la Quarta di copertina
* come ordinare il libro
*** INDICE:
Prefazione (di A. Catone)
L'Oceania fa la guerra (Introduzione)
I. "La rampa di Srebrenica"
La preparazione propagandistica della guerra NATO contro
la Jugoslavia inizio' nel 1995
II. I combattenti per la liberta'
Il terrore dell'UCK prima della guerra e la disinformazione
dell'opinione pubblica occidentale
III. Racak: il silenzio della signora Ranta
I verbali delle autopsie smentiscono la versione NATO di
un massacro serbo
IV. Manovrato
Che cosa accadde a Rambouillet?
V. Wag the dog
Come la NATO escogito' una campagna serba di espulsioni,
l'"Operazione a ferro' di cavallo"
VI. Sesso, bugie e videotape
Le armi miracolose della NATO nella battaglia contro la
propaganda di Milosevic
VII. Dove sono finiti i Killing Fields?
Propaganda bellica tramite comunicati di centinaia di
migliaia di albanesi massacrati
VIII. Fosse comuni dimenticate
Gli "effetti collaterali" della guerra di bombardamento e
il cinismo dei responsabili
IX. Depleted Credibility
La discussione occidentale sulle munizioni all'uranio e'
ipocrita e mira a rendere ancora piu' efficace la propria
condotta bellica
X. Il fascismo albanese
La favola di un futuro multietnico in Kosovo,
protettorato NATO
XI. Epilogo. Droghe ed oleodotti
Con la guerra dei separatisti albanesi contro la Macedonia
si vuole erigere la Grande Albania e controllare le vie
dell'eroina e del petrolio
Appendice I:
"La libanizzazione del paese"
Appendice II:
Montagne di cadaveri per sentito dire. Un'analisi dello
studio OSCE "As seen, as told" sulle violazioni dei diritti
umani in Kosovo
*** Dalla quarta di copertina:
Febbraio 2002: il "New York Times" rivela che il Pentagono
ha elaborato <<un piano di disinformazione rivolto a Paesi
amici e nemici>>, l'"Office of Strategic Influence".
"1984" di George Orwell è ormai superato dalla realtà!
Ma l'<<Ufficio bugie>> lavora già da tempo senza
bisogno di investiture ufficiali e con ottimi risultati,
soprattutto riguardo la Jugoslavia. Non era mai successo
finora che così pochi mentissero a così tanti e così a fondo
come in rapporto alla guerra per il Kosovo!
L'invenzione di una nuova Auschwitz, di un nuovo Genocidio
in piena Europa alle soglie del XXI secolo è stata la trovata
geniale dell'agenzia americana "Ruder&Finn", ingaggiata sin dal
1993 per far coincidere nell'opinione pubblica serbi e nazisti
e giustificare così l'aggressione della NATO, la sua "guerra
celeste", modello Hiroshima: 600 missioni aeree al giorno,
e fu l'uranio e le bombe sulle industrie chimiche di Pancevo,
furono i missili sulla "Zastava di Kragujevac", fu
la distruzione dei ponti e delle centrali elettriche,
degli acquedotti e delle reti fognarie, delle scuole, degli
ospedali, degli ospizi, degli asili, delle stazioni. E nel
Kosovo, occupato dalla NATO e dall'UCK, si è avuta la "pulizia
etnica" di circa 300.000 tra serbi, rom, appartenenti ad altre
etnie non albanesi ed anche albanesi antisecessionisti su cui
è calato "the Sound of Silence", un silenzio mortale di governi
occidentali e mass media.
Questo libro di Jürgen Elsässer, redattore del mensile
tedesco KONKRET, è un utilissimo strumento nella battaglia
di controinformazione, grazie alla ricca - e in buona parte
inedita - documentazione, grazie al meticoloso e dettagliato
smontaggio delle notizie, passate al vaglio dell'analisi
critica e del raffronto tra versioni diverse: un lavoro
filologico accurato e puntiglioso, di passione e ragione,
volto non a costruire una propria verità di comodo, ma a
documentare quanto effettivamente accaduto.
Si illuminano cosi' di luce affatto nuova alcuni episodi-chiave
di cuisi servì la campagna massmediatica per demonizzare e
"nazificare" il governo jugoslavo: Srebrenica (1995), Racak
(1999), la situazione in Kosovo nell'autunno 1998, l'"Operazione a
ferro di cavallo", inventata dal ministro degli esteri tedesco
Scharping.
Passo dopo passo, Elsässer ripercorre i passaggi essenziali
della vicenda e delle rispettive bugie di guerra: il massiccio
sostegno del governo tedesco all'UCK; l'imbroglio delle trattative
di Rambouillet, con il suo allegato B, che avrebbe consegnato
l'intera RFJ alla NATO; le pressioni della Germania - in
"cooperazione antagonistica" con Washington - per un immediato
intervento militare contro la Jugoslavia; la trasformazione del
Kosovo in un protettorato in cui spadroneggiano le bande dell'UCK
e narcotrafficanti, in effettiva continuita' storica con
il fascismo pan-albanese, collaborazionista delle truppe
di occupazione italiane e tedesche, che semino' analogo terrore
durante la II Guerra Mondiale.
(In copertina: Hieronymus Bosch, "Trittico delle
tentazioni". Particolare delle "Tentazioni di Sant'Antonio".
Lisbona, Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga)
*** Per ordinare il libro:
Edizioni "La Citta' del Sole"
Via Giovanni Ninni 34, 80135 Napoli
Tel. 081-4206374, fax 081-7041804
"MENZOGNE DI GUERRA
Le bugie della NATO e le loro vittime nel conflitto per
il Kosovo"
Traduzione di Mara Oneta
Prefazione di Andrea Catone
Collana "Frontiere del presente"
Ed. La Citta' del Sole, Napoli 2002
ISBN 88-8292-183-2; prezzo 11 euro
Si tratta della versione italiana del libro edito in Germania
con il titolo "Kriegsverbrechen" dalle edizioni KONKRET
(Amburgo 2000), oggi giunto alla quarta edizione.
Si raccomanda la diffusione piu' ampia possibile di
questo testo, che contiene documentazione altrimenti
introvabile nel panorama editoriale italiano (e non solo).
* l'Indice
* la Quarta di copertina
* come ordinare il libro
*** INDICE:
Prefazione (di A. Catone)
L'Oceania fa la guerra (Introduzione)
I. "La rampa di Srebrenica"
La preparazione propagandistica della guerra NATO contro
la Jugoslavia inizio' nel 1995
II. I combattenti per la liberta'
Il terrore dell'UCK prima della guerra e la disinformazione
dell'opinione pubblica occidentale
III. Racak: il silenzio della signora Ranta
I verbali delle autopsie smentiscono la versione NATO di
un massacro serbo
IV. Manovrato
Che cosa accadde a Rambouillet?
V. Wag the dog
Come la NATO escogito' una campagna serba di espulsioni,
l'"Operazione a ferro' di cavallo"
VI. Sesso, bugie e videotape
Le armi miracolose della NATO nella battaglia contro la
propaganda di Milosevic
VII. Dove sono finiti i Killing Fields?
Propaganda bellica tramite comunicati di centinaia di
migliaia di albanesi massacrati
VIII. Fosse comuni dimenticate
Gli "effetti collaterali" della guerra di bombardamento e
il cinismo dei responsabili
IX. Depleted Credibility
La discussione occidentale sulle munizioni all'uranio e'
ipocrita e mira a rendere ancora piu' efficace la propria
condotta bellica
X. Il fascismo albanese
La favola di un futuro multietnico in Kosovo,
protettorato NATO
XI. Epilogo. Droghe ed oleodotti
Con la guerra dei separatisti albanesi contro la Macedonia
si vuole erigere la Grande Albania e controllare le vie
dell'eroina e del petrolio
Appendice I:
"La libanizzazione del paese"
Appendice II:
Montagne di cadaveri per sentito dire. Un'analisi dello
studio OSCE "As seen, as told" sulle violazioni dei diritti
umani in Kosovo
*** Dalla quarta di copertina:
Febbraio 2002: il "New York Times" rivela che il Pentagono
ha elaborato <<un piano di disinformazione rivolto a Paesi
amici e nemici>>, l'"Office of Strategic Influence".
"1984" di George Orwell è ormai superato dalla realtà!
Ma l'<<Ufficio bugie>> lavora già da tempo senza
bisogno di investiture ufficiali e con ottimi risultati,
soprattutto riguardo la Jugoslavia. Non era mai successo
finora che così pochi mentissero a così tanti e così a fondo
come in rapporto alla guerra per il Kosovo!
L'invenzione di una nuova Auschwitz, di un nuovo Genocidio
in piena Europa alle soglie del XXI secolo è stata la trovata
geniale dell'agenzia americana "Ruder&Finn", ingaggiata sin dal
1993 per far coincidere nell'opinione pubblica serbi e nazisti
e giustificare così l'aggressione della NATO, la sua "guerra
celeste", modello Hiroshima: 600 missioni aeree al giorno,
e fu l'uranio e le bombe sulle industrie chimiche di Pancevo,
furono i missili sulla "Zastava di Kragujevac", fu
la distruzione dei ponti e delle centrali elettriche,
degli acquedotti e delle reti fognarie, delle scuole, degli
ospedali, degli ospizi, degli asili, delle stazioni. E nel
Kosovo, occupato dalla NATO e dall'UCK, si è avuta la "pulizia
etnica" di circa 300.000 tra serbi, rom, appartenenti ad altre
etnie non albanesi ed anche albanesi antisecessionisti su cui
è calato "the Sound of Silence", un silenzio mortale di governi
occidentali e mass media.
Questo libro di Jürgen Elsässer, redattore del mensile
tedesco KONKRET, è un utilissimo strumento nella battaglia
di controinformazione, grazie alla ricca - e in buona parte
inedita - documentazione, grazie al meticoloso e dettagliato
smontaggio delle notizie, passate al vaglio dell'analisi
critica e del raffronto tra versioni diverse: un lavoro
filologico accurato e puntiglioso, di passione e ragione,
volto non a costruire una propria verità di comodo, ma a
documentare quanto effettivamente accaduto.
Si illuminano cosi' di luce affatto nuova alcuni episodi-chiave
di cuisi servì la campagna massmediatica per demonizzare e
"nazificare" il governo jugoslavo: Srebrenica (1995), Racak
(1999), la situazione in Kosovo nell'autunno 1998, l'"Operazione a
ferro di cavallo", inventata dal ministro degli esteri tedesco
Scharping.
Passo dopo passo, Elsässer ripercorre i passaggi essenziali
della vicenda e delle rispettive bugie di guerra: il massiccio
sostegno del governo tedesco all'UCK; l'imbroglio delle trattative
di Rambouillet, con il suo allegato B, che avrebbe consegnato
l'intera RFJ alla NATO; le pressioni della Germania - in
"cooperazione antagonistica" con Washington - per un immediato
intervento militare contro la Jugoslavia; la trasformazione del
Kosovo in un protettorato in cui spadroneggiano le bande dell'UCK
e narcotrafficanti, in effettiva continuita' storica con
il fascismo pan-albanese, collaborazionista delle truppe
di occupazione italiane e tedesche, che semino' analogo terrore
durante la II Guerra Mondiale.
(In copertina: Hieronymus Bosch, "Trittico delle
tentazioni". Particolare delle "Tentazioni di Sant'Antonio".
Lisbona, Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga)
*** Per ordinare il libro:
Edizioni "La Citta' del Sole"
Via Giovanni Ninni 34, 80135 Napoli
Tel. 081-4206374, fax 081-7041804
1. Recensione del libro di M. Nava "Imputato Milosevic" (S. Romano)
2. Milosevic=Hitler, ma sara vero ??? (lettera pervenutaci)
===1===
da "Il Corriere della Sera", 28 maggio 2002,
sezione Cultura, pag. 35
CRIMINI DI GUERRA
In un saggio Massimo Nava denuncia che il processo all'ex
presidente serbo rischia di oscurare le colpe di altri
personaggi
Milosevic, il «cattivo» dei Balcani pagherà per tutti
Come un sovrano prima dell'esilio, nei suoi ultimi giorni
alla Casa Bianca il presidente uscente svuota i cassetti,
si congeda dai collaboratori e concede la grazia a qualche
detenuto eccellente. Bill Clinton fece di più: firmò il
trattato che aveva istituito a Roma nel 1998 il tribunale
penale internazionale per i crimini di guerra. Fu un gesto
simbolico e provocatorio. Non aveva firmato l'accordo al
momento della sua conclusione e sapeva perfettamente che il
Congresso non lo avrebbe mai ratificato. Forse volle mettere
in imbarazzo il suo successore, forse volle aggiungere una
pennellata al proprio autoritratto e trasmettere ai posteri
un segno della politica che avrebbe fatto se fosse stato
libero di agire. George W. Bush, dal canto suo, lasciò passare
sedici mesi e revocò la firma. Esiste così, nel campo del
nuovo diritto umanitario internazionale, una singolare
contraddizione. L'America ha approvato i tribunali regionali
per i crimini di guerra in Ruanda e nella ex Jugoslavia,
ma non intende sottoscrivere l'accordo per il tribunale
penale internazionale. L'America ha duramente imposto al
governo di Belgrado, con una specie di ricatto finanziario,
l'estradizione di Slobodan Milosevic, ma non accetta
organismi internazionali che potrebbero processare un giorno
cittadini americani.
Questa è soltanto una delle contraddizioni che emergono
dal libro di Massimo Nava ( Imputato Milosevic ) sul processo
che si sta celebrando in Olanda contro l'ex presidente
jugoslavo. Ve ne sono altre, non meno interessanti. Per
ammissione degli stessi americani Milosevic ebbe un ruolo
decisivo nei negoziati con cui terminarono a Dayton, alla
fine del 1995, la guerra di Croazia e quella di Bosnia. Se
ebbe responsabilità in quelle vicende, le sue colpe furono
quindi largamente «amnistiate» dai riconoscimenti che gli
vennero tributati in quella occasione. È giusto
processarlo ora per i fatti croati di quegli anni?
Nel periodo che precedette l'intervento della Nato in Kosovo,
l'Uck (esercito di liberazione kosovaro) fu considerato
dagli americani una organizzazione terroristica. È giusto,
soprattutto dopo gli avvenimenti dell'11 settembre,
processare Milosevic per avere combattuto il terrorismo a
casa sua?
In questi ultimi mesi l'America ha ripetutamente approvato
le misure militari disposte dal premier israeliano Ariel
Sharon per demolire le «infrastrutture del terrorismo» nei
territori occupati. E' giusto processare Milosevic per
avere fatto, sia pure con maggiore durezza, la stessa
politica? Per avere la collaborazione della Russia nella
guerra afghana, l'America ha smesso da qualche mese di
criticare le dure repressioni dell'esercito russo in
Cecenia. È giusto processare Milosevic e associare Putin
ai lavori della Nato?
Ma Nava non si limita a segnalare queste contraddizioni.
Ha assistito, come inviato del Corriere, alle vicende
balcaniche degli anni Novanta, conosce l'imbroglio jugoslavo,
ricorda quanti governi e uomini politici abbiano contribuito
a creare le condizioni del dramma che si è consumato nella
penisola fra il 1991 e il 1999. Sa, ad esempio, che il
riconoscimento tedesco delle prime due repubbliche
secessioniste (Slovenia e Croazia) fu imprudente e
intempestivo. Sa che il premier bosniaco Alija Izetbegovic
faceva, sin dall'inizio degli anni Novanta, una aggressiva
politica islamica. Sa che gli americani favorirono il
rafforzamento dell'esercito croato e aiutarono Franjo
Tudjiman, uno dei maggiori responsabili della grande crisi
balcanica. Il processo dell'Aja (è questa una delle
conclusioni a cui giunge il libro di Nava) ha l'effetto di
oscurare queste vicende. Nel grande dramma jugoslavo
esiste ormai un solo «cattivo»: Slobodan Milosevic.
Non so se questa possa definirsi «giustizia» . So che da
questa vicenda giudiziaria la storia del dramma jugoslavo
rischia di uscire falsata e incomprensibile.
Il libro: Massimo Nava, «Imputato Milosevic. Il processo
ai vinti e l'eticadella guerra», Editore Fazi, pp. 237,
euro 14,00
Sergio Romano
===2===
Milosevic=Hitler, ma sara vero ???
Non c'e' alcun dubbio sui tentativi - peraltro riusciti - di
demonizzare i Serbi comparandoli ai Nazisti: basta "navigare"
in rete per imbattersi in centinaia se non migliaia di "servizi"
che si riferiscono a questo.
La verita' opposta risulta invece piu' convincente:
Proviamo a paragonare Clinton/Blair/Nato ed i loro affiliati
a Hitler ed ai Nazisti.
E sorgono quindi spontanee le domande:
C'e differenza tra la campagna di terrore scatenata dai Nazisti
per annettersi i Sudeti nel 1938 e quella dell' UCK nel Kosovo
nel 1998 ??
Chi si invento' le atrocita' allo scopo di attaccare impunemente
la Polonia nel 1939, e la Yugoslavia nel 1999 con la "guerra
lampo" (Blitzkrieg) usando RACAK come pretesto ???
Chi bombardo' Belgrado nel 1941 e ancora Belgrado nel 1999 ??
Chi ha messo in moto una tale macchina di propaganda dalle
proporzioni "Kafkiane" se non Goebbels nel decennio 1930 e la
Nato nel 1990 ???
Chi impiego' i V1, V2 per terrorizzare dall' alto la popolazione
indifesa in Inghilterra, e chi riverso' dai 5000 metri le bombe
a grappolo, l'uranio impoverito, e lancio' da centinaia di Km
lontano i missili Cruise e Tomahawk sulle popolazioni,sugli ospedali,
sulle fabbriche, sui ponti e su altri obiettivi che non avevano
nessun nesso con le operazioni militari in Kosovo, se non per
portare TERRORE ???
Chi stipulo' il trattato di Monaco nel 1938 (con l'intenzione
di non rispettarlo), e chi impose nel 1999 la Risoluzione del
Consiglio di Sicurezza 1244 (con l'intenzione di non onorarla)??
Chi usurpo' i poteri degli Stati sovrani con la scusa di andare
in soccorso alle popolazioni se non per abusarne successivamente??
E quale era la strategia nel 1930 "Drang nach Osten" (Colpo verso
l'Est), e quella del 1990 per la conquista di territori d'influenza??
Chi teorizzava nel "MEIN KAMPF" la supremazia dei Tedeschi, e quale
e' oggi la dottrina della supremazia USA sul mondo se non quella
del NUOVO ORDINE MONDIALE, a cui tutti i popoli devono sottostare
- pena l'esclusione e l'annichilimento ???
Alla fine della sua lunga lettera di denuncia agli attuali
dirigenti Serbi per lo sfacelo economico, l'impoverimento
del popolo, lo smembramento dello stato sociale, l'asservimento
alle potenze occidentali, Vlajko Stoljikovic (ricercato dal TPI
per genocidio - al tempo dei fatti Ministro dell'interno) spiega
la motivazione del suo gesto estremo davanti al Parlamento yugoslavo:
" L'uomo e' nato per vivere una sola volta,
Il suo onore e la dignita' sono eterni."
Sergio <sergbru@...>
2. Milosevic=Hitler, ma sara vero ??? (lettera pervenutaci)
===1===
da "Il Corriere della Sera", 28 maggio 2002,
sezione Cultura, pag. 35
CRIMINI DI GUERRA
In un saggio Massimo Nava denuncia che il processo all'ex
presidente serbo rischia di oscurare le colpe di altri
personaggi
Milosevic, il «cattivo» dei Balcani pagherà per tutti
Come un sovrano prima dell'esilio, nei suoi ultimi giorni
alla Casa Bianca il presidente uscente svuota i cassetti,
si congeda dai collaboratori e concede la grazia a qualche
detenuto eccellente. Bill Clinton fece di più: firmò il
trattato che aveva istituito a Roma nel 1998 il tribunale
penale internazionale per i crimini di guerra. Fu un gesto
simbolico e provocatorio. Non aveva firmato l'accordo al
momento della sua conclusione e sapeva perfettamente che il
Congresso non lo avrebbe mai ratificato. Forse volle mettere
in imbarazzo il suo successore, forse volle aggiungere una
pennellata al proprio autoritratto e trasmettere ai posteri
un segno della politica che avrebbe fatto se fosse stato
libero di agire. George W. Bush, dal canto suo, lasciò passare
sedici mesi e revocò la firma. Esiste così, nel campo del
nuovo diritto umanitario internazionale, una singolare
contraddizione. L'America ha approvato i tribunali regionali
per i crimini di guerra in Ruanda e nella ex Jugoslavia,
ma non intende sottoscrivere l'accordo per il tribunale
penale internazionale. L'America ha duramente imposto al
governo di Belgrado, con una specie di ricatto finanziario,
l'estradizione di Slobodan Milosevic, ma non accetta
organismi internazionali che potrebbero processare un giorno
cittadini americani.
Questa è soltanto una delle contraddizioni che emergono
dal libro di Massimo Nava ( Imputato Milosevic ) sul processo
che si sta celebrando in Olanda contro l'ex presidente
jugoslavo. Ve ne sono altre, non meno interessanti. Per
ammissione degli stessi americani Milosevic ebbe un ruolo
decisivo nei negoziati con cui terminarono a Dayton, alla
fine del 1995, la guerra di Croazia e quella di Bosnia. Se
ebbe responsabilità in quelle vicende, le sue colpe furono
quindi largamente «amnistiate» dai riconoscimenti che gli
vennero tributati in quella occasione. È giusto
processarlo ora per i fatti croati di quegli anni?
Nel periodo che precedette l'intervento della Nato in Kosovo,
l'Uck (esercito di liberazione kosovaro) fu considerato
dagli americani una organizzazione terroristica. È giusto,
soprattutto dopo gli avvenimenti dell'11 settembre,
processare Milosevic per avere combattuto il terrorismo a
casa sua?
In questi ultimi mesi l'America ha ripetutamente approvato
le misure militari disposte dal premier israeliano Ariel
Sharon per demolire le «infrastrutture del terrorismo» nei
territori occupati. E' giusto processare Milosevic per
avere fatto, sia pure con maggiore durezza, la stessa
politica? Per avere la collaborazione della Russia nella
guerra afghana, l'America ha smesso da qualche mese di
criticare le dure repressioni dell'esercito russo in
Cecenia. È giusto processare Milosevic e associare Putin
ai lavori della Nato?
Ma Nava non si limita a segnalare queste contraddizioni.
Ha assistito, come inviato del Corriere, alle vicende
balcaniche degli anni Novanta, conosce l'imbroglio jugoslavo,
ricorda quanti governi e uomini politici abbiano contribuito
a creare le condizioni del dramma che si è consumato nella
penisola fra il 1991 e il 1999. Sa, ad esempio, che il
riconoscimento tedesco delle prime due repubbliche
secessioniste (Slovenia e Croazia) fu imprudente e
intempestivo. Sa che il premier bosniaco Alija Izetbegovic
faceva, sin dall'inizio degli anni Novanta, una aggressiva
politica islamica. Sa che gli americani favorirono il
rafforzamento dell'esercito croato e aiutarono Franjo
Tudjiman, uno dei maggiori responsabili della grande crisi
balcanica. Il processo dell'Aja (è questa una delle
conclusioni a cui giunge il libro di Nava) ha l'effetto di
oscurare queste vicende. Nel grande dramma jugoslavo
esiste ormai un solo «cattivo»: Slobodan Milosevic.
Non so se questa possa definirsi «giustizia» . So che da
questa vicenda giudiziaria la storia del dramma jugoslavo
rischia di uscire falsata e incomprensibile.
Il libro: Massimo Nava, «Imputato Milosevic. Il processo
ai vinti e l'eticadella guerra», Editore Fazi, pp. 237,
euro 14,00
Sergio Romano
===2===
Milosevic=Hitler, ma sara vero ???
Non c'e' alcun dubbio sui tentativi - peraltro riusciti - di
demonizzare i Serbi comparandoli ai Nazisti: basta "navigare"
in rete per imbattersi in centinaia se non migliaia di "servizi"
che si riferiscono a questo.
La verita' opposta risulta invece piu' convincente:
Proviamo a paragonare Clinton/Blair/Nato ed i loro affiliati
a Hitler ed ai Nazisti.
E sorgono quindi spontanee le domande:
C'e differenza tra la campagna di terrore scatenata dai Nazisti
per annettersi i Sudeti nel 1938 e quella dell' UCK nel Kosovo
nel 1998 ??
Chi si invento' le atrocita' allo scopo di attaccare impunemente
la Polonia nel 1939, e la Yugoslavia nel 1999 con la "guerra
lampo" (Blitzkrieg) usando RACAK come pretesto ???
Chi bombardo' Belgrado nel 1941 e ancora Belgrado nel 1999 ??
Chi ha messo in moto una tale macchina di propaganda dalle
proporzioni "Kafkiane" se non Goebbels nel decennio 1930 e la
Nato nel 1990 ???
Chi impiego' i V1, V2 per terrorizzare dall' alto la popolazione
indifesa in Inghilterra, e chi riverso' dai 5000 metri le bombe
a grappolo, l'uranio impoverito, e lancio' da centinaia di Km
lontano i missili Cruise e Tomahawk sulle popolazioni,sugli ospedali,
sulle fabbriche, sui ponti e su altri obiettivi che non avevano
nessun nesso con le operazioni militari in Kosovo, se non per
portare TERRORE ???
Chi stipulo' il trattato di Monaco nel 1938 (con l'intenzione
di non rispettarlo), e chi impose nel 1999 la Risoluzione del
Consiglio di Sicurezza 1244 (con l'intenzione di non onorarla)??
Chi usurpo' i poteri degli Stati sovrani con la scusa di andare
in soccorso alle popolazioni se non per abusarne successivamente??
E quale era la strategia nel 1930 "Drang nach Osten" (Colpo verso
l'Est), e quella del 1990 per la conquista di territori d'influenza??
Chi teorizzava nel "MEIN KAMPF" la supremazia dei Tedeschi, e quale
e' oggi la dottrina della supremazia USA sul mondo se non quella
del NUOVO ORDINE MONDIALE, a cui tutti i popoli devono sottostare
- pena l'esclusione e l'annichilimento ???
Alla fine della sua lunga lettera di denuncia agli attuali
dirigenti Serbi per lo sfacelo economico, l'impoverimento
del popolo, lo smembramento dello stato sociale, l'asservimento
alle potenze occidentali, Vlajko Stoljikovic (ricercato dal TPI
per genocidio - al tempo dei fatti Ministro dell'interno) spiega
la motivazione del suo gesto estremo davanti al Parlamento yugoslavo:
" L'uomo e' nato per vivere una sola volta,
Il suo onore e la dignita' sono eterni."
Sergio <sergbru@...>
Subject: Novi tekst na ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA- Bane
Popovic: Srpska izvinjotina
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:52:30 -0700
From: "Artel" <artel@...>
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:29. maj 2002
Bane Popovic: Srpska izvinjotina
Beograd, 27 maj 2002.
Srpska izvinjotina koja je nedavno naru?ena od strane
gospodina D?ozefa Bajdena, predsednika Komiteta za
spoljnu politiku ameri?kog Senata. Umesto Kostunice ili
Djindji?a, u?ini?u to ja (i ja sam nekakav Srbin!).
I tako, Mi, Srbi, sve?ano se izvinjavamo, zato sto smo:
- se branili od razbijanja titovske Jugoslavije od
antikomunisti?kog podriva?kog delovanja CIA i ostalih
zapadnih tajnih slu?bi, a zatim od hrvatskog, slovena?kog,
muslimanskog i siptarskog separatizma.
- na ishitreno priznanje Hrvatske, Slovenije, Makedonije i
BiH od strane SAD i njihovih satelita, ?ime je podr?ana
poglavito oru?ana secesija tih republika, odgovorili
kontinuitetom SR Jugoslavije sa istorijski (jos od kraja
19. veka) priznatim dr?avama Srbijer i Crne Gore.
- bili podvrgnuti dugogodisnjim surovim ekonomskim
sankcijama SAD i njhovih satelita nakon la?ne optu?be
protiv SR Jugoslavije da je izvrsila agresiju na BiH, iako
na dan uvodjenja embarga SR Jugoslavija nije imala vojnike
na toj teritoriji, dok ih je Hrvatska tamo dr?ala vise
desetina hiljada.
- do?iveli da Hrvatska izvrsi, tokom akcija u "Meda?kom
d?epu", zatim "Bljesak" i "Oluja", stravi?ne pokolje
civila i genocidnog progona nekoliko stotina hiljada Srba
iz Hrvatske.
- svetskoj javnosti ukazali da su tajne sluzbe SAD i
njhovih satelita bile glavni organizator insceniranih
granatiranja ulice Vase Miskina i sarajevske pijace
Markale, a za to optu?ile srpsku stranu, pa iskoristile za
uvodjenje sankcija i bombardovanje Srba u BiH.
- bili ?rtve nametanja uslova Dejtonskog sporazuma od
strane SAD, kojim je ostvareno vise nepravdi prema Srbima
- dat Hrvatima ju?ni deo do tada poglavito Srbima
naseljene Bosanske krajine, teritorija RS pocepana na dva
dela stvaranjem "Distrikta Br?ko", data prednost hrvatskom
konceptu resavanja pitanja poluostrva Prevlaka umesto
uva?avanja celovitosti i suvereniteta Bokokotorskog
zaliva, okupiran Kosmet kao neodvojiv deo dr?ave Srbije.
- bili podrgnuti nametanju spoljnog zida sankcija od
strane SAD i njihovih satelita - nedopustanje povratka SRJ
u OUN, MMF, Svetsku banku i druge medjunarodne
organizacije, izolacija izabranog rukovodstva da putuje u
inostranstvo, kao i mesanju u unutrasnje procese u SR
Jugoslaviji - finansiranje kvislinsko-kosmopolitske
opozicije i sebi pod?injenih medija, okretanje crnogorskog
rukovodstva protiv srpskog, upu?ivanje svetskih vode?ih
medija na demonizaciju srpskih vlasti i naroda, kao i
neprestana uslovljavanja Beograda (Haski sud, sukcesija
eks-Jugoslavije, KiM).
- trpeli ameri?ko vodjenje i finansiranje siptarskog
secesionisti?kog pokreta na Kosovu i Metohiji,
insceniranje tzv. masakra u Ra?ku od strane Amerikanca
Vokera, ameri?ki ultimatum Srbiji i SR Jugoslaviji na
la?nim pregovorima u Rambujeu.
- branili od siptarskog terorizma na Kosmetu, oduprli se u
medjunarodnom pravu neutemeljenom i divlja?kom
bombardovanju SR Jugoslavije od strane NATO avijacije,
kojim je fizi?ki unistavana privreda, saobra?ajna i
medijska infrastruktura zemlje, te ista fizi?ki zatrovana
radioaktivnim i toksi?nim materijama.
- do?iveli takvu nepravdu da se u takozvanom Haskom
tribunalu danas sudi jedino najvssim politi?kim i vojnim
liderima nsse nacije (iz Republike Srpske, Srbije i SR
Jugoslavije), koji su se suprotstavili ovakvom delovanju
SAD, njhovih satelita i njihovih jugoslovenskih pomaga?a,
?ime SAD i njihovi sateliti nameravaju da zataskaju
sopstvenu tesku odgovornost za sve zlo?ine koje su
po?inili protiv srpske nacije.
- danas kao nacija pod okupacijom SAD i Zapada, koji su
srpskom narodu nametnuli kvislinsko rukovodstvo koje je
dobilo zadatak da u potpunosti ispuni ameri?ki diktat,
?ime se ?eli definitivno razbiti nezavisna srpska dr?ava i
kona?no realizovati decenijska politika uterivanja Srba u
tor "Novog svetskog poretka" pod kontrolom SAD.
"Izvinjavamo se, mnogo se izvinjavamo..."
Da nam je ?ao sto se sve ovako tragi?no desilo, sto su
stotine hiljada ljudi ostale bez ?ivota, bez imovine, bez
krova nad glavom, bez domovine, bez perspektive, to je
sasvim jasno.
Da smo mi Srbi najve?i gubitnici svih ratova nastalih u
cilju razbijanja SFR Jugoslavije, da smo ?rtve razbijanja
SR Jugoslavije, to bi trebalo svaki posteni posmatra? da
prihvati, jer je to istina koja se jasno vidi, ukoliko je
taj posmatra? iole objektivan.
A da je krivica na strani onih, koji su hteli da budu
nezavisni na stetu nacije koja je u proslosti najvise
doprinela njihovoj nacionalnoj emancipaciji i sazrevanju
kao nacije, takodje bi trebalo da bude jasna istina.
Krivica je i na strani onih spoljnih faktora, koji su
videli sansu za kona?no ostvarivanje svojih dugoro?nih
geopoliti?kih i ekonomskih interesa, pa su jugoslovenski
gradjanski rat potpirivali i direktno u njemu u?estvovali,
sa ?alosnim ciljem da skrse dr?avnu tvorevinu srpske
nacije.
Doduse, tragicna rascepkanost i nesloga medju Srbima
doprineli su ovakvom po Srbe nepovoljnom raspletu.
A sto i medju Srbima ima kukolja, kao u svakom ?itu, tu?na
je istina...
Popovic: Srpska izvinjotina
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:52:30 -0700
From: "Artel" <artel@...>
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:29. maj 2002
Bane Popovic: Srpska izvinjotina
Beograd, 27 maj 2002.
Srpska izvinjotina koja je nedavno naru?ena od strane
gospodina D?ozefa Bajdena, predsednika Komiteta za
spoljnu politiku ameri?kog Senata. Umesto Kostunice ili
Djindji?a, u?ini?u to ja (i ja sam nekakav Srbin!).
I tako, Mi, Srbi, sve?ano se izvinjavamo, zato sto smo:
- se branili od razbijanja titovske Jugoslavije od
antikomunisti?kog podriva?kog delovanja CIA i ostalih
zapadnih tajnih slu?bi, a zatim od hrvatskog, slovena?kog,
muslimanskog i siptarskog separatizma.
- na ishitreno priznanje Hrvatske, Slovenije, Makedonije i
BiH od strane SAD i njihovih satelita, ?ime je podr?ana
poglavito oru?ana secesija tih republika, odgovorili
kontinuitetom SR Jugoslavije sa istorijski (jos od kraja
19. veka) priznatim dr?avama Srbijer i Crne Gore.
- bili podvrgnuti dugogodisnjim surovim ekonomskim
sankcijama SAD i njhovih satelita nakon la?ne optu?be
protiv SR Jugoslavije da je izvrsila agresiju na BiH, iako
na dan uvodjenja embarga SR Jugoslavija nije imala vojnike
na toj teritoriji, dok ih je Hrvatska tamo dr?ala vise
desetina hiljada.
- do?iveli da Hrvatska izvrsi, tokom akcija u "Meda?kom
d?epu", zatim "Bljesak" i "Oluja", stravi?ne pokolje
civila i genocidnog progona nekoliko stotina hiljada Srba
iz Hrvatske.
- svetskoj javnosti ukazali da su tajne sluzbe SAD i
njhovih satelita bile glavni organizator insceniranih
granatiranja ulice Vase Miskina i sarajevske pijace
Markale, a za to optu?ile srpsku stranu, pa iskoristile za
uvodjenje sankcija i bombardovanje Srba u BiH.
- bili ?rtve nametanja uslova Dejtonskog sporazuma od
strane SAD, kojim je ostvareno vise nepravdi prema Srbima
- dat Hrvatima ju?ni deo do tada poglavito Srbima
naseljene Bosanske krajine, teritorija RS pocepana na dva
dela stvaranjem "Distrikta Br?ko", data prednost hrvatskom
konceptu resavanja pitanja poluostrva Prevlaka umesto
uva?avanja celovitosti i suvereniteta Bokokotorskog
zaliva, okupiran Kosmet kao neodvojiv deo dr?ave Srbije.
- bili podrgnuti nametanju spoljnog zida sankcija od
strane SAD i njihovih satelita - nedopustanje povratka SRJ
u OUN, MMF, Svetsku banku i druge medjunarodne
organizacije, izolacija izabranog rukovodstva da putuje u
inostranstvo, kao i mesanju u unutrasnje procese u SR
Jugoslaviji - finansiranje kvislinsko-kosmopolitske
opozicije i sebi pod?injenih medija, okretanje crnogorskog
rukovodstva protiv srpskog, upu?ivanje svetskih vode?ih
medija na demonizaciju srpskih vlasti i naroda, kao i
neprestana uslovljavanja Beograda (Haski sud, sukcesija
eks-Jugoslavije, KiM).
- trpeli ameri?ko vodjenje i finansiranje siptarskog
secesionisti?kog pokreta na Kosovu i Metohiji,
insceniranje tzv. masakra u Ra?ku od strane Amerikanca
Vokera, ameri?ki ultimatum Srbiji i SR Jugoslaviji na
la?nim pregovorima u Rambujeu.
- branili od siptarskog terorizma na Kosmetu, oduprli se u
medjunarodnom pravu neutemeljenom i divlja?kom
bombardovanju SR Jugoslavije od strane NATO avijacije,
kojim je fizi?ki unistavana privreda, saobra?ajna i
medijska infrastruktura zemlje, te ista fizi?ki zatrovana
radioaktivnim i toksi?nim materijama.
- do?iveli takvu nepravdu da se u takozvanom Haskom
tribunalu danas sudi jedino najvssim politi?kim i vojnim
liderima nsse nacije (iz Republike Srpske, Srbije i SR
Jugoslavije), koji su se suprotstavili ovakvom delovanju
SAD, njhovih satelita i njihovih jugoslovenskih pomaga?a,
?ime SAD i njihovi sateliti nameravaju da zataskaju
sopstvenu tesku odgovornost za sve zlo?ine koje su
po?inili protiv srpske nacije.
- danas kao nacija pod okupacijom SAD i Zapada, koji su
srpskom narodu nametnuli kvislinsko rukovodstvo koje je
dobilo zadatak da u potpunosti ispuni ameri?ki diktat,
?ime se ?eli definitivno razbiti nezavisna srpska dr?ava i
kona?no realizovati decenijska politika uterivanja Srba u
tor "Novog svetskog poretka" pod kontrolom SAD.
"Izvinjavamo se, mnogo se izvinjavamo..."
Da nam je ?ao sto se sve ovako tragi?no desilo, sto su
stotine hiljada ljudi ostale bez ?ivota, bez imovine, bez
krova nad glavom, bez domovine, bez perspektive, to je
sasvim jasno.
Da smo mi Srbi najve?i gubitnici svih ratova nastalih u
cilju razbijanja SFR Jugoslavije, da smo ?rtve razbijanja
SR Jugoslavije, to bi trebalo svaki posteni posmatra? da
prihvati, jer je to istina koja se jasno vidi, ukoliko je
taj posmatra? iole objektivan.
A da je krivica na strani onih, koji su hteli da budu
nezavisni na stetu nacije koja je u proslosti najvise
doprinela njihovoj nacionalnoj emancipaciji i sazrevanju
kao nacije, takodje bi trebalo da bude jasna istina.
Krivica je i na strani onih spoljnih faktora, koji su
videli sansu za kona?no ostvarivanje svojih dugoro?nih
geopoliti?kih i ekonomskih interesa, pa su jugoslovenski
gradjanski rat potpirivali i direktno u njemu u?estvovali,
sa ?alosnim ciljem da skrse dr?avnu tvorevinu srpske
nacije.
Doduse, tragicna rascepkanost i nesloga medju Srbima
doprineli su ovakvom po Srbe nepovoljnom raspletu.
A sto i medju Srbima ima kukolja, kao u svakom ?itu, tu?na
je istina...
--- In Ova adresa el. pošte je zaštićena od spambotova. Omogućite JavaScript da biste je videli., Rick Rozoff wrote:
From: "Petar Makara"
Who said "Never again"? We live in a world where a
Nazi officer got to be no less then Secretary General
of the United Nations! During WWII, Kurt Waldheim was
in Bosnia where he supervised extermination of Serbs,
Jews and Gypsies.
On our web site http://srpska-mreza.com we will not
stop fighting for the truth and against the world's
Nazis. Please, read the attached note of how our web
site was destroyed recently. Despite the odds we
managed to revive the site.
(British) The Independent
Ex-Nazi Waldheim gives foreign relations prize
By Robert Fisk in Beirut
31 May 2002
A former Wehrmacht lieutenant, a certain Kurt
Waldheim, has arrived in Lebanon.
Those who enjoy the "where-are-they-now?" school of
journalism may be interested to know that the
ex-intelligence officer of the Nazi army's Kampfgruppe
Westbosnien - for the former UN secretary general and
Austrian president spent part of the Second World War
in Bosnia
- has endowed an annual academic prize in his own
name, for a student or researcher at the Lebanese
University who wins a contest in international
relations.
Mr Waldheim managed, in his own thesis (University
of Vienna) to recall only his military service in
Russia and omitted his role in the Wehrmacht's Army
Group E, whose commander, General Löhr, was executed
for war crimes.
Some horrific crimes took place in Yugoslavia,
where Bosnia became part of the pro-Nazi Croatian
Ustashi's territory. Although he denied knowledge of
atrocities against Serbs and Jews in Yugoslavia, one
of his intelligence offices was metres away from an
execution ground and a few miles from an extermination
camp.
In Berlin archives, an Austrian researcher found
the account of an interrogation of a British commando
captured in the Balkans. It was signed "W" in Mr
Waldheim's own hand. He always denied he interrogated
the man, who was later killed by the Gestapo.
The first "Waldheim Award" will be granted at the
Lebanese University's school of dentistry today. In
international relations, of course.
© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
The original link to the above story can be found at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=300756
NOTE: Serbian web site http://www.srpska-mreza.com is
up and running. The web site was down for more than a
month.
In a few words here is what happened:
Our Canadian provider softcomca.com have issued a 24
HOUR ULTIMATUM on April 4, 2002 that we should remove
page:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/LM/LM102_ITN/LM102_Dope.html
The note said:
At this time we feel it necessary for you to
remove the contents within a 24 hour period. If you
choose not to remove the information we will have no
choice but to close down your account with us.
Without waiting for our answer, 24 hours later the
provider sent another note: Your account has been
TERMINATED. All your web contents and its related
services have been REMOVED from our servers. Thank you
for your business.
Just like that - the contract was breached. Our web
site - vanished! The site was the result of hard work
of half a dozen Serbian intellectuals over a five
years period. This happened despite the fact that we
paid our dues regularly.
Is this what is meant by Western Democracy? Right of
Speech?
Our web site, http://www.srpska-mreza.com is one of
the rare places where one can still read excerpts from
Western books printed BEFORE 1991 (i.e. before the
Western media organized hysteria against the Serbian
people and Eastern Orthodoxy in general). The page is
at:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/library.html
In exactly ORWELLIAN FASHION - all the books that used
to tell the truth about Balkans and the Serbian people
- are vanishing from Western libraries. Other than our
web site where would you be able to read about the
Ustashi - the Croat Nazi's? (
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/ustashi.html
)
For the last 600 years the Serbs had to defend their
families, property and their way of life from foreign
invaders. Now, we are facing one of the most vicious
enemy of all - the one that does atrocities, ethnic
cleansing... all under the banners of "democracy" and
"human rights." To that extent the original Nazis were
more honest in telling what their goals were.
It is evident from the story about Kurt Waldheim (who
supervised extermination of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in
the Balkans) Nazism was never eradicated. It only got
new home.
We will not stop now. At stake is not just future of
the Balkan peoples. At stake is the future of all our
children. Of freedom.
The future of this planet.
For http://www.Srpska-Mreza.com
Petar Makara
From: "Petar Makara"
Who said "Never again"? We live in a world where a
Nazi officer got to be no less then Secretary General
of the United Nations! During WWII, Kurt Waldheim was
in Bosnia where he supervised extermination of Serbs,
Jews and Gypsies.
On our web site http://srpska-mreza.com we will not
stop fighting for the truth and against the world's
Nazis. Please, read the attached note of how our web
site was destroyed recently. Despite the odds we
managed to revive the site.
(British) The Independent
Ex-Nazi Waldheim gives foreign relations prize
By Robert Fisk in Beirut
31 May 2002
A former Wehrmacht lieutenant, a certain Kurt
Waldheim, has arrived in Lebanon.
Those who enjoy the "where-are-they-now?" school of
journalism may be interested to know that the
ex-intelligence officer of the Nazi army's Kampfgruppe
Westbosnien - for the former UN secretary general and
Austrian president spent part of the Second World War
in Bosnia
- has endowed an annual academic prize in his own
name, for a student or researcher at the Lebanese
University who wins a contest in international
relations.
Mr Waldheim managed, in his own thesis (University
of Vienna) to recall only his military service in
Russia and omitted his role in the Wehrmacht's Army
Group E, whose commander, General Löhr, was executed
for war crimes.
Some horrific crimes took place in Yugoslavia,
where Bosnia became part of the pro-Nazi Croatian
Ustashi's territory. Although he denied knowledge of
atrocities against Serbs and Jews in Yugoslavia, one
of his intelligence offices was metres away from an
execution ground and a few miles from an extermination
camp.
In Berlin archives, an Austrian researcher found
the account of an interrogation of a British commando
captured in the Balkans. It was signed "W" in Mr
Waldheim's own hand. He always denied he interrogated
the man, who was later killed by the Gestapo.
The first "Waldheim Award" will be granted at the
Lebanese University's school of dentistry today. In
international relations, of course.
© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
The original link to the above story can be found at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=300756
NOTE: Serbian web site http://www.srpska-mreza.com is
up and running. The web site was down for more than a
month.
In a few words here is what happened:
Our Canadian provider softcomca.com have issued a 24
HOUR ULTIMATUM on April 4, 2002 that we should remove
page:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/LM/LM102_ITN/LM102_Dope.html
The note said:
At this time we feel it necessary for you to
remove the contents within a 24 hour period. If you
choose not to remove the information we will have no
choice but to close down your account with us.
Without waiting for our answer, 24 hours later the
provider sent another note: Your account has been
TERMINATED. All your web contents and its related
services have been REMOVED from our servers. Thank you
for your business.
Just like that - the contract was breached. Our web
site - vanished! The site was the result of hard work
of half a dozen Serbian intellectuals over a five
years period. This happened despite the fact that we
paid our dues regularly.
Is this what is meant by Western Democracy? Right of
Speech?
Our web site, http://www.srpska-mreza.com is one of
the rare places where one can still read excerpts from
Western books printed BEFORE 1991 (i.e. before the
Western media organized hysteria against the Serbian
people and Eastern Orthodoxy in general). The page is
at:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/library.html
In exactly ORWELLIAN FASHION - all the books that used
to tell the truth about Balkans and the Serbian people
- are vanishing from Western libraries. Other than our
web site where would you be able to read about the
Ustashi - the Croat Nazi's? (
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/ustashi.html
)
For the last 600 years the Serbs had to defend their
families, property and their way of life from foreign
invaders. Now, we are facing one of the most vicious
enemy of all - the one that does atrocities, ethnic
cleansing... all under the banners of "democracy" and
"human rights." To that extent the original Nazis were
more honest in telling what their goals were.
It is evident from the story about Kurt Waldheim (who
supervised extermination of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in
the Balkans) Nazism was never eradicated. It only got
new home.
We will not stop now. At stake is not just future of
the Balkan peoples. At stake is the future of all our
children. Of freedom.
The future of this planet.
For http://www.Srpska-Mreza.com
Petar Makara
I GRANDI LEADER ALBANESI
Su invito del Mufti di Pristina, Hodja Redzep Boja,
gli albanesi del Kosovo-Metohija si apprestano ad
erigere una grande statua raffigurante Tony Blair,
ritenuto artefice della loro vittoria contro lo Stato
jugoslavo e della prossima formale secessione della
provincia. La statua di Blair sara' alta almeno 25 metri
e sara' collocata a Pristina, dove una strada e' gia'
stata intitolata a Tony Blair, e dove nemmeno il recente
monumento a Skanderbeg e' tanto imponente. La notizia,
dopo essere rimbalzata sui media jugoslavi, e' stata
riportata anche dal Sunday Times di Londra.
Dal giugno 1999, quando le truppe KFOR hanno occupato il
territorio, numerosi monumenti e testimonianze della
Guerra Popolare di Liberazione, come le targhe commemorative
dei partigiani serbi ed albanesi, sono stati distrutti dai
nazionalisti vicini all'UCK sotto gli occhi "vigili" delle
truppe occidentali.
===*===
+++ Albaner errichten ein Denkmal für Tony Blair +++
PRISITINA, 03. Juni 2002. Die ethnischen Albaner in
Kosovo und Metochien wollen ein Denkmal zu Ehren des
britischen Premierminister Tony Blair errichten,
berichtet die Londoner "Sunday Times". Der Initiator
der dieser Aktion ist der extrem eingestellte Hodja
Redzep Boja, der Mufti von Pristina. Die Statue soll 25
Meter hoch sein und damit höher als das vor kurzem
erhobene Denkmal, zu Ehren des albanischen Volkshelden
Skenderbeg aus den Türkenkriegen sein. In Pristina gibt
es bereits eine Straße die nach Tony Blaire benannt
ist.
BEOGRAD.COM / INET.NEWS / AMSELFELD.COM
Su invito del Mufti di Pristina, Hodja Redzep Boja,
gli albanesi del Kosovo-Metohija si apprestano ad
erigere una grande statua raffigurante Tony Blair,
ritenuto artefice della loro vittoria contro lo Stato
jugoslavo e della prossima formale secessione della
provincia. La statua di Blair sara' alta almeno 25 metri
e sara' collocata a Pristina, dove una strada e' gia'
stata intitolata a Tony Blair, e dove nemmeno il recente
monumento a Skanderbeg e' tanto imponente. La notizia,
dopo essere rimbalzata sui media jugoslavi, e' stata
riportata anche dal Sunday Times di Londra.
Dal giugno 1999, quando le truppe KFOR hanno occupato il
territorio, numerosi monumenti e testimonianze della
Guerra Popolare di Liberazione, come le targhe commemorative
dei partigiani serbi ed albanesi, sono stati distrutti dai
nazionalisti vicini all'UCK sotto gli occhi "vigili" delle
truppe occidentali.
===*===
+++ Albaner errichten ein Denkmal für Tony Blair +++
PRISITINA, 03. Juni 2002. Die ethnischen Albaner in
Kosovo und Metochien wollen ein Denkmal zu Ehren des
britischen Premierminister Tony Blair errichten,
berichtet die Londoner "Sunday Times". Der Initiator
der dieser Aktion ist der extrem eingestellte Hodja
Redzep Boja, der Mufti von Pristina. Die Statue soll 25
Meter hoch sein und damit höher als das vor kurzem
erhobene Denkmal, zu Ehren des albanischen Volkshelden
Skenderbeg aus den Türkenkriegen sein. In Pristina gibt
es bereits eine Straße die nach Tony Blaire benannt
ist.
BEOGRAD.COM / INET.NEWS / AMSELFELD.COM
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA
by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:30. maj 2002.
Dr MILAN TEPAVAC: "Problem izbeglica u SR
Jugoslaviji i nestalih lica sa Kosova i Metohije"
Izlaganje na okruglom stolu Beogradskog foruma odr?anog
24.maja 2002. u Etnografskom muzeju u Beogradu.
Ja bih se u svojoj diskusiji ukratko osvrnuo na tva-tri
pitanja koja su ovde danas spomenuta, a koja bih ?eleo
elaborirati jer ih smatram jako va?nim.
Pitanje broja Srba u Hrvatskoj pocetkom 1991. godine, dakle
na pocetku njihovog stradanja, a zatim izgona.
Mislim da moramo biti sasvim precizni kada je o tome rec,
jer je rec o ciframa a ne o misljenju, stavovima. Sa pravom
brojkom se manipulise iz raznoraznih razloga, najcesce
prljavih politickih, ali i iz neznanja. Oni koji barataju s
tim ciframa cesto se ne potrude da pogledaju u zvanicne,
nicim osporene podatke. Zato smatram da kao apsolutno tacne
treba da uzmemo podatke iz popisa stanovnistva u SFRJ, i to
onog iz 1981. godine, dakle ne onog iz 1991. Tada, 1991,
takode je bio, kao sto znamo, popis, ali on je odr?an u vec
poremecenim odnosima i podaci se ni u kom slucaju ne mogu
uzeti za verodostojne. Ne zaboravime da su Srbi jos u
decembru prethodne godine, dakle 1990, izbaceni iz Ustava SR
Hrvatske kao narod i slicno. Bilo bi dakle naivno verovati
da su podaci tadasnjeg popisa pozdani. Dakle, prema popisu
stanovnistva u SFRJ 1981. broj Srba u Hrvatskoj je iznosio
531502. Kao "Jugosloveni" se izjasnilo 379.057 lica. Dobro
je poznato da su se kao "Jugosloveni" uglavnom izjasnjavali
Srbi. Necemo dakle pogresiti ako ove dve cifre jednostavno
zbrojimo. Dobije se broj 910.559. Kada postavimo pitanje
koliko je Srba bilo u Hrvatskoj pocetkom 1991. godine - kada
je pocela njihova tragedija - normalno je pretpostaviti da
je taj broj bio nesto veci od broja iz 1981. godine.
Dakle, dolazimo do brojke od oko jedan milion. Treba takode
podsetiti da se jedan znacajan broj Srba pri popisima
izjasnjavao kao "Ne izjasnjava se" (kao sto sam ja licno
cinio, smatrajuci da u jednoj visenacionalnoj zajednici ne
treba akcentirati nacionalnu pripadnopst). Dakle, ako se
hoce biti objektivan i posten pri svakom raspravljanju o
pitanju Srba u Hrvatskoj treba polaziti od tog broja i
navedenih okolnosti.
Jucerasnji zagrebacki "Jutarnji list" pise o popisu
stanovnistva u Hrvatskoj nedavno obavljenom, i navodi da je,
prema tom popisu, sada u Hrvatskoj oko 180.000, sto je, vele
ove novine, 4,05% stanovnistva Hrvatske. Danasnja beogradska
"Politika" pise da srpske organizacije u Hrvatskoj
kategoricno odbacuju ove navode JL, navodeci da je broj Srba
u Hrvatskoj veci. No, bez obzira na to da li je taj podatak
tacan ili ne, vise je nego jasno da je od 1991. do danas
doslo do izgona gotovo celokupnog srpskog stanovnista iz
Hrvatske, dakle do etnickog ciscenja jednog naroda bez
presedana u periodu od Drugog svetskog rata. I to upravo
naroda nad kojim su nacifasisti u toku Drugog svetskog rata
pocinili genocid u tzv. NDH po opsegu i monstruoznosti bez
presedana u istoriji.
Hrvati umanjuju i dalje ce umanjivati stvarni broj Srba iz
cisto politickih razloga. Prema postojecem zakonodavstvu u
toj novokomponovanoj dr?avi obim mnogih prava "nasionalnih
manjina" ovisi o njihovom broju. Otud ?elja za sto manjim
brojem, pored iracionalne mr?nje prema manjinama u
Hrvatskoj, posebno prema srpskoj. Ja ovom priliko ?elim da
budem kategorican u jednoj stvari: zameram svima onima koji
su olako presli preko izmena izvrsenih u Ustavu SR Hrvatske
u decembru 1990. godine kada je iz Ustava izbrisana odredba
o konstitutivnosti, ravnopravnosti srpskog naroda sa
hrvatskim narodom. To se odnosi i na prethodnu vlast u
Jugoslaviji i na sadasnju, i na svakoga onoga ko je
prihvatio taj antidemokratski i anticivilizacijski potez
tadasnjih hrvatskih vlastodr?aca. Svakome ko ?eli da zna
dobro je poznato da je konstitutivnost srpskog naroda u
Hrvatskoj i njegova ravnopravnost u istoriji stalno
potvrdivana jos od pre Marije Terezije, preko stavova
Hrvatskog sabora u 19. veku do odluka ZAVNOH-a i svih ustava
i Hrvatske i Jugoslavije od 1945. godine do tog kobnog dana
u decembru 1990. godine. To se nikada nije smelo prihvatiti
ni prakticno ni teoretski. Mi danas imamo situaciju da cak
okupatorska vlast u Bosni i Hercegovini - olicena u
gaulajteru Volfgangu Petricu - priznaje konstitutivnost
svatri narodsa u BiH. Pa kako se onda mo?e prihvatiti teza
da je konstitutivnost srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj - bez
obzira na smanjenu brojnost - nestala voljom novoustaske
vlasti u Hrvatskoj i njihovih inostranih pokrovitelja? Ja
bih zato predlo?io i zamolio da ovo na odgovarajuci nacin
ude u zavrsni dokument, deklaraciju, ovoga skupa.
U naju?oj vezi sa prethodno recenim je naravno pitanje
povratka izbeglih Srba svojim kucama u Hrvatsku. Ja cu
spomenuti samo jedan aspekt ovog pitanja: pitanje vracanja
stanarskog prava izbeglim Srbima. - Kao sto je dobro
poznato, kada je krajem 1990. i pocetkom 1991. doslo do
povampirenja ustastva u Hrvatskoj, mnogu Srbi iz urbanih
sredina Hrvatske - pamteci i noseci u krvi ono sta se Srbima
dogodilo 1941- 45 godine u NDH - pobegli su iz svojih
stanova u Srbiju ili drugde. Racuna se da je takvih oko
50.000. Ako se uzme prosecnost porodica od samo tri clana -
radi se dakle o oko 150.000 lica, 150.000 tragedija, 150.000
beskucnika koji se, evo vec preko deset godina, zlopate, jer
jos uvek im ti njihovi stanovi nisu vraceni i time, naravno,
sprecen i njihov povratak sto je , ocigledno, i osnovni cilj
hrvatskih vlasti. Kao sto je poznato, u Bosni i Hercegovini
ovo je pitanje reseno. Hrvati ponesto obecavaju ali nista ne
cine u praksi. - Organizacija za evropsku bezbednost i
saradnju (OEBS), koja ima svoje diplomatske misije i u
Beogradu i u Zagrebu, zna da se u javnosti hvali da se ona,
bo?e moj, svojski anga?ovala da se ovo pitanje resi kao
osnovno pitanje ljudskih prava i kao civilizacijsko pitanje
Evrope koja pretenduje da bude nosilac najnaprednijih ideja
kako u oblasti ljudskih prava tako i buducnosti Evrope. Ona
do sada nije nista ucinila, sem obecanja da ce uciniti. A to
je itekako njena ne samo moralna nego i pravna i politicka
du?nost! Zasto to veli? Pa, evo zasto: ova nesretna
organizacija je najzaslu?nija sto su jugoslovenske
secesionisticke republike, pre svih upravo Hrvatska, postale
"nezavisne" dr?ave. Protivno svom osnovnom konstitutivnom i
programskom dokumentu, Finalnom aktu KEBS iz Helsinkija od
1. avgusta 1975. godine, ona je, umesto da pomogne da ne
dode do krvavog komadanja svog suosnivaca i svoje clanice
SFR Jugoslavije - sto je bila du?na po spomenuttom njenom
osnovnom dokumentu da ucini - ucinila sve da raskomada
Jugoslaviju i da sto pre prizna secesionisticke entitete za
dr?ave i da ih br?e-bolje ukljuci u svoje clanstvo!! Otuda,
eto, njena obaveza da bar nesto ljudski moralno ucini: da
prisili Hrvatsku da se bar malo ponasa u skladu sa osnovnim
aktima te po Jugoslaviju i po srpski narod kobne
organizacije. (Ne zaboravimo da je ona mogla, da je htela, -
a bila je i du?na da to ucini!! - da spreci agresiju NATO
pakta na Jugoslaviju i zato sto je na Kosmetu imala svoju
Verifikacionu komisiju. Pokazalo se, kasnije, da su clanovi
te komisije ustvari bili spijuni NATO koji su pripremili
teren za agresiju!!). Posto je Jugoslavija clan te i takve
organizacije, trebalo bi, bar, ciniti sve da ona prinudi
Hrvatsku na civilizacijsko ponasanje kao sto rekoh...Takode
molim da i ovo pitanje nade svoje mesto u deklaraciji sa
ovoga skupa.
Treca stvar na koju bih se osvrnuo bila bi istupanje naseg
prijatelja i patnika Sime Spasica koji je upravo govorio o
sudbini kidnapovanih Srba i drugih nealbanaca na Kosmetu. On
cesto nastupa javno, i uvek naravno emotivno govori, jer
nemoguce je o ovoj temi drukcije govoriti. On i njegovi
drugovi iz Udru?enja po pitanju kidnapovanih naprosto
sagorevaju i kopne na tom pitanju, a ne mogu nista da ucine.
Ja ?elim ovom prilikom da budem kategorican: to pitanje -
pitanje sudbine kidnapovanih preko 1300 - mora postati
pitanje broj jedan ove dr?ave, dr?ave Srbije i dr?ave
Jugoslavije! Ne Sime Spasica i njegovih drugova jer oni po
tom najtu?nijem i najsramnijem pitanju nase stvarnosti ne
mogu bez dr?ave nista da postignu. Ni od takozvane
medunarodne zajednice po ovom pitanju ne mo?emo mnogo
ocekivati. Danas, ovde, dosta smo toga culi kako se ona
odnosi prema srpskim izbeglicama i srpskom stradanju u
celini, ukljucujuci i one naj (ne)odgoivornije medu njima
kao sto su UNHCR, Sagato Ogata, Meri Robinson i slicni.
by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:30. maj 2002.
Dr MILAN TEPAVAC: "Problem izbeglica u SR
Jugoslaviji i nestalih lica sa Kosova i Metohije"
Izlaganje na okruglom stolu Beogradskog foruma odr?anog
24.maja 2002. u Etnografskom muzeju u Beogradu.
Ja bih se u svojoj diskusiji ukratko osvrnuo na tva-tri
pitanja koja su ovde danas spomenuta, a koja bih ?eleo
elaborirati jer ih smatram jako va?nim.
Pitanje broja Srba u Hrvatskoj pocetkom 1991. godine, dakle
na pocetku njihovog stradanja, a zatim izgona.
Mislim da moramo biti sasvim precizni kada je o tome rec,
jer je rec o ciframa a ne o misljenju, stavovima. Sa pravom
brojkom se manipulise iz raznoraznih razloga, najcesce
prljavih politickih, ali i iz neznanja. Oni koji barataju s
tim ciframa cesto se ne potrude da pogledaju u zvanicne,
nicim osporene podatke. Zato smatram da kao apsolutno tacne
treba da uzmemo podatke iz popisa stanovnistva u SFRJ, i to
onog iz 1981. godine, dakle ne onog iz 1991. Tada, 1991,
takode je bio, kao sto znamo, popis, ali on je odr?an u vec
poremecenim odnosima i podaci se ni u kom slucaju ne mogu
uzeti za verodostojne. Ne zaboravime da su Srbi jos u
decembru prethodne godine, dakle 1990, izbaceni iz Ustava SR
Hrvatske kao narod i slicno. Bilo bi dakle naivno verovati
da su podaci tadasnjeg popisa pozdani. Dakle, prema popisu
stanovnistva u SFRJ 1981. broj Srba u Hrvatskoj je iznosio
531502. Kao "Jugosloveni" se izjasnilo 379.057 lica. Dobro
je poznato da su se kao "Jugosloveni" uglavnom izjasnjavali
Srbi. Necemo dakle pogresiti ako ove dve cifre jednostavno
zbrojimo. Dobije se broj 910.559. Kada postavimo pitanje
koliko je Srba bilo u Hrvatskoj pocetkom 1991. godine - kada
je pocela njihova tragedija - normalno je pretpostaviti da
je taj broj bio nesto veci od broja iz 1981. godine.
Dakle, dolazimo do brojke od oko jedan milion. Treba takode
podsetiti da se jedan znacajan broj Srba pri popisima
izjasnjavao kao "Ne izjasnjava se" (kao sto sam ja licno
cinio, smatrajuci da u jednoj visenacionalnoj zajednici ne
treba akcentirati nacionalnu pripadnopst). Dakle, ako se
hoce biti objektivan i posten pri svakom raspravljanju o
pitanju Srba u Hrvatskoj treba polaziti od tog broja i
navedenih okolnosti.
Jucerasnji zagrebacki "Jutarnji list" pise o popisu
stanovnistva u Hrvatskoj nedavno obavljenom, i navodi da je,
prema tom popisu, sada u Hrvatskoj oko 180.000, sto je, vele
ove novine, 4,05% stanovnistva Hrvatske. Danasnja beogradska
"Politika" pise da srpske organizacije u Hrvatskoj
kategoricno odbacuju ove navode JL, navodeci da je broj Srba
u Hrvatskoj veci. No, bez obzira na to da li je taj podatak
tacan ili ne, vise je nego jasno da je od 1991. do danas
doslo do izgona gotovo celokupnog srpskog stanovnista iz
Hrvatske, dakle do etnickog ciscenja jednog naroda bez
presedana u periodu od Drugog svetskog rata. I to upravo
naroda nad kojim su nacifasisti u toku Drugog svetskog rata
pocinili genocid u tzv. NDH po opsegu i monstruoznosti bez
presedana u istoriji.
Hrvati umanjuju i dalje ce umanjivati stvarni broj Srba iz
cisto politickih razloga. Prema postojecem zakonodavstvu u
toj novokomponovanoj dr?avi obim mnogih prava "nasionalnih
manjina" ovisi o njihovom broju. Otud ?elja za sto manjim
brojem, pored iracionalne mr?nje prema manjinama u
Hrvatskoj, posebno prema srpskoj. Ja ovom priliko ?elim da
budem kategorican u jednoj stvari: zameram svima onima koji
su olako presli preko izmena izvrsenih u Ustavu SR Hrvatske
u decembru 1990. godine kada je iz Ustava izbrisana odredba
o konstitutivnosti, ravnopravnosti srpskog naroda sa
hrvatskim narodom. To se odnosi i na prethodnu vlast u
Jugoslaviji i na sadasnju, i na svakoga onoga ko je
prihvatio taj antidemokratski i anticivilizacijski potez
tadasnjih hrvatskih vlastodr?aca. Svakome ko ?eli da zna
dobro je poznato da je konstitutivnost srpskog naroda u
Hrvatskoj i njegova ravnopravnost u istoriji stalno
potvrdivana jos od pre Marije Terezije, preko stavova
Hrvatskog sabora u 19. veku do odluka ZAVNOH-a i svih ustava
i Hrvatske i Jugoslavije od 1945. godine do tog kobnog dana
u decembru 1990. godine. To se nikada nije smelo prihvatiti
ni prakticno ni teoretski. Mi danas imamo situaciju da cak
okupatorska vlast u Bosni i Hercegovini - olicena u
gaulajteru Volfgangu Petricu - priznaje konstitutivnost
svatri narodsa u BiH. Pa kako se onda mo?e prihvatiti teza
da je konstitutivnost srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj - bez
obzira na smanjenu brojnost - nestala voljom novoustaske
vlasti u Hrvatskoj i njihovih inostranih pokrovitelja? Ja
bih zato predlo?io i zamolio da ovo na odgovarajuci nacin
ude u zavrsni dokument, deklaraciju, ovoga skupa.
U naju?oj vezi sa prethodno recenim je naravno pitanje
povratka izbeglih Srba svojim kucama u Hrvatsku. Ja cu
spomenuti samo jedan aspekt ovog pitanja: pitanje vracanja
stanarskog prava izbeglim Srbima. - Kao sto je dobro
poznato, kada je krajem 1990. i pocetkom 1991. doslo do
povampirenja ustastva u Hrvatskoj, mnogu Srbi iz urbanih
sredina Hrvatske - pamteci i noseci u krvi ono sta se Srbima
dogodilo 1941- 45 godine u NDH - pobegli su iz svojih
stanova u Srbiju ili drugde. Racuna se da je takvih oko
50.000. Ako se uzme prosecnost porodica od samo tri clana -
radi se dakle o oko 150.000 lica, 150.000 tragedija, 150.000
beskucnika koji se, evo vec preko deset godina, zlopate, jer
jos uvek im ti njihovi stanovi nisu vraceni i time, naravno,
sprecen i njihov povratak sto je , ocigledno, i osnovni cilj
hrvatskih vlasti. Kao sto je poznato, u Bosni i Hercegovini
ovo je pitanje reseno. Hrvati ponesto obecavaju ali nista ne
cine u praksi. - Organizacija za evropsku bezbednost i
saradnju (OEBS), koja ima svoje diplomatske misije i u
Beogradu i u Zagrebu, zna da se u javnosti hvali da se ona,
bo?e moj, svojski anga?ovala da se ovo pitanje resi kao
osnovno pitanje ljudskih prava i kao civilizacijsko pitanje
Evrope koja pretenduje da bude nosilac najnaprednijih ideja
kako u oblasti ljudskih prava tako i buducnosti Evrope. Ona
do sada nije nista ucinila, sem obecanja da ce uciniti. A to
je itekako njena ne samo moralna nego i pravna i politicka
du?nost! Zasto to veli? Pa, evo zasto: ova nesretna
organizacija je najzaslu?nija sto su jugoslovenske
secesionisticke republike, pre svih upravo Hrvatska, postale
"nezavisne" dr?ave. Protivno svom osnovnom konstitutivnom i
programskom dokumentu, Finalnom aktu KEBS iz Helsinkija od
1. avgusta 1975. godine, ona je, umesto da pomogne da ne
dode do krvavog komadanja svog suosnivaca i svoje clanice
SFR Jugoslavije - sto je bila du?na po spomenuttom njenom
osnovnom dokumentu da ucini - ucinila sve da raskomada
Jugoslaviju i da sto pre prizna secesionisticke entitete za
dr?ave i da ih br?e-bolje ukljuci u svoje clanstvo!! Otuda,
eto, njena obaveza da bar nesto ljudski moralno ucini: da
prisili Hrvatsku da se bar malo ponasa u skladu sa osnovnim
aktima te po Jugoslaviju i po srpski narod kobne
organizacije. (Ne zaboravimo da je ona mogla, da je htela, -
a bila je i du?na da to ucini!! - da spreci agresiju NATO
pakta na Jugoslaviju i zato sto je na Kosmetu imala svoju
Verifikacionu komisiju. Pokazalo se, kasnije, da su clanovi
te komisije ustvari bili spijuni NATO koji su pripremili
teren za agresiju!!). Posto je Jugoslavija clan te i takve
organizacije, trebalo bi, bar, ciniti sve da ona prinudi
Hrvatsku na civilizacijsko ponasanje kao sto rekoh...Takode
molim da i ovo pitanje nade svoje mesto u deklaraciji sa
ovoga skupa.
Treca stvar na koju bih se osvrnuo bila bi istupanje naseg
prijatelja i patnika Sime Spasica koji je upravo govorio o
sudbini kidnapovanih Srba i drugih nealbanaca na Kosmetu. On
cesto nastupa javno, i uvek naravno emotivno govori, jer
nemoguce je o ovoj temi drukcije govoriti. On i njegovi
drugovi iz Udru?enja po pitanju kidnapovanih naprosto
sagorevaju i kopne na tom pitanju, a ne mogu nista da ucine.
Ja ?elim ovom prilikom da budem kategorican: to pitanje -
pitanje sudbine kidnapovanih preko 1300 - mora postati
pitanje broj jedan ove dr?ave, dr?ave Srbije i dr?ave
Jugoslavije! Ne Sime Spasica i njegovih drugova jer oni po
tom najtu?nijem i najsramnijem pitanju nase stvarnosti ne
mogu bez dr?ave nista da postignu. Ni od takozvane
medunarodne zajednice po ovom pitanju ne mo?emo mnogo
ocekivati. Danas, ovde, dosta smo toga culi kako se ona
odnosi prema srpskim izbeglicama i srpskom stradanju u
celini, ukljucujuci i one naj (ne)odgoivornije medu njima
kao sto su UNHCR, Sagato Ogata, Meri Robinson i slicni.
RSS Feed
CNJ Feed
Još novih članaka
-
Capodimonte (VT) 25.7.2024: DRUG GOJKO
(Cultura)
In concomitanza con la tradizionale "pastasciutta antifascista"
-
[9395] Rivoluzioni colorate
(Jugoinfo)
Testi di Laura Ruggeri e dal Simposio internazionale tenuto a Banja Luka nel 2014
-
[9394] G. Merlicco: Una passione balcanica
(Jugoinfo)
Calcio e politica nell’ex Jugoslavia dall’era socialista ai giorni nostri
-
[9393] Videointervista ad A. Martocchia per La Città Futura [VIDEO]
(Jugoinfo)
Temi trattati: intervista al presidente serbo Vučić del settimanale svizzero Die Weltwoche /...
-
[9392] Aspettando Davor [Čekajući Davora, nestalog na Kosovu]
(Jugoinfo)
[srpskohrvatski / italiano] VIDEO sulla storia di Davor Ristic e la questione dei rapiti nel...
-
Roma 28.6.2024: DRUG GOJKO
(Cultura)
Con l'associazione Bosna u srcu / La Bosnia nel cuore
-
[9391] Vučić: la UE entrerà in guerra con la Russia “tra non più di tre o quattro mesi”
(Jugoinfo)
[deutsch / english / italiano] Aleksandar Vučić - intervista al quotidiano svizzero Die Weltwoche - 8...
-
22nd Annual Jasenovac Research Institute Conference
(Documentazione online)
Si è tenuta domenica 19 maggio 2024 in Canada la 22ma Conferenza sulla memoria dello sterminio...
-
[9390] Srebrenica "genocidio" a tutti i costi
(Jugoinfo)
[english / deutsch / srpskohrvatski / français / italiano] Giovedì 23 maggio 2024 si è svolta la...
-
[9389] Re: Jugoslavia e Israele
(Jugoinfo)
[srpskohrvatski / english / italiano] ПОРУКА СОЛИДАРНОСТИ СА НАРОДОМ ПАЛЕСТИНЕ / A LETTER OF...
-
[9388] Serbia–Cina [VIDEO]
(Jugoinfo)
[english / italiano] Xi: la Cina “non dimenticherà mai” il bombardamento Nato della sua ambasciata a...
-
[9387] Jugoslavia e Israele
(Jugoinfo)
[srpskohrvatski / italiano] Dačić: “Siamo sinceri, ISRAELE HA RICONOSCIUTO IL KOSOVO... LA...
-
[9385] Due parole sulla Brigata Ebraica
(Jugoinfo)
1) I millantati crediti della “Brigata Ebraica”. Un po’ di storia che va conosciuta (Alberto...
-
Michel Chossudovsky: The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia
(Documentazione online)
Il libro di Michel Chossudovsky The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia, edito in lingua...
-
Blair’s secret invasion plot to ‘topple Milosevic’ revealed
(Documentazione online)
[lo stesso articolo in lingua italiana] Top secret papers reviewed by The Grayzone reveal Tony...
-
[9383] Michel Chossudovsky: The US-NATO War of Aggression against Yugoslavia
(Jugoinfo)
[Il libro di Michel Chossudovsky, edito in lingua inglese e serbocroata a cura del Forum di...
-
[9380] Il problema russo non è sconfiggere l’Occidente ma cosa farne dopo
(Jugoinfo)
La Russia potrebbe dover affrontare le stesse questioni che gli USA hanno affrontato al momento...
-
[9379] Nord Stream sabotage acts committed by Anglo-Saxons
(Jugoinfo)
[italiano / english. Un ricercatore indipendente che scrive sotto lo pseudonimo di "Mortymer"...
-
[9378] Dieci anni dopo: Come la CIA ha preso possesso dell'Ucraina golpista
(Jugoinfo)
[ ORIGINAL ARTICLE: The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin by Adam Entous and Michael...
-
[9377] 1994: Mit Bosnien-Einsatz wird NATO zu Weltpolizei
(Jugoinfo)
[Quest'anno 2024 cade non solo il venticinquesimo anniversario della aggressione della NATO contro la RF...
Dal giugno 2023 Jugocoord è Ente del Terzo Settore (ETS)
IL COMITATO SCIENTIFICO E ARTISTICO
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebookoperazione trasparenza: IL BILANCIO DI JUGOCOORD
attenzione! i trasferimenti di denaro via Paypal sono soggetti a commissioni salate! per evitarle usate piuttosto il CCP indicato in fondo a questa pagina!
info sulla deduzione o detrazione dei versamenti a Jugocoord