ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA
by www.artel.co.yu

office@...
Datum:14 juni 2002

===

AMERICA STAKES ON FORCE

by Valentin KUNIN, political observer
RIA Novosti
Moscow, June 14, 2002.

Following the concepts of "humanitarian intervention" and
"limited sovereignty" invented in Washington the United States
seems to be about to "please" the international community with
a new innovation. The George Bush administration is presently
developing a new strategic doctrine stipulating the
possibility of making "preventive strikes" against those
states which, according to Washington, threaten to use weapons
of mass destruction against the USA.
Referring to sources in the Bush administration, the
Washington Post reported that the new US national security
doctrine will be published in a few months. According to some
consultants from the US Department of Defence, by working out
the new doctrine George Bush attempts "to prepare the US
people for a certain preventive step" against Iraq. However,
strategists from the White House and the Pentagon are hardly
likely to reduce the "defensive intervention" concept to such
a limit.
By provoking the North Atlantic Alliance to stage an
unsanctioned aggression against Yugoslavia the Americans
clearly demonstrated what the "humanitarian intervention"
concept means in practice.
The result is world-known-thousands of civilians were killed,
a severe damage was done to the Yugoslav economy, Albanian
nationalists and militant leaders from the terrorist
organisation Kosovo Liberation Army came to power and the
situation in neighbouring Macedonia got destabilised.
However, the concepts of "humanitarian intervention" and
"limited sovereignty" just like the notorious thesis about the
"axis of evil" are becoming too "tight" for Washington.
Now the US should give more universal grounds for military
operations against any state if its policy does not for some
reasons suit the US administration. In a broader sense,
foundation is needed for the US policy aimed at taking the
world's power lead. It has been increasingly clear of late
that the incumbent US administration is prosecuting this very
policy without taking into consideration that it contradicts
the interests of the international community and the global
strategic stability.
The events of the past 18 months the George Bush
administration has been in office of the White House are
convincing of that. The first signal was the 2003 draft
federal budget Bush submitted to Congress past January. It
marked a sharp militarisation spiral of the country's economy.
The President proposed the largest over the past 20 years
increase in assignments for defence. Next year the Pentagon is
to be given $379 billion. This sum is to reach $451 billion in
2007. Bush's decision to abrogate the 1972 Soviet-US ABM
Treaty and to develop a national missile defence system is
also aimed at enhancing the US military power. Indeed, this
May the United States signed an agreement with Russia on
strategic offensive arms cuts under which both sides should
reduce their warheads to 1,700-2,200 by the year 2012.
However, next year the Pentagon is to receive tens of billions
of dollars for the purchase of new armaments, including
high-precision arms, which, according to experts, might in the
future replace ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. By
2010 the US Department of Defence plans to develop a few tens
of thousands of cruise long-range missiles which experts
classify as high-precision weapons.
It's an open secret that the Bush administration has refused
to submit the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty for
ratification to Congress. In this context, the Pentagon's
repeated allegations concerning an urgent need to resume
nuclear tests and develop low-power nuclear munitions, which
are quite likely to be used in regional conflicts against
countries without nuclear potential, sound increasingly
alarming. It's hardly worth proving that such plans are
fraught with lowering the level of the possible use of nuclear
arms as a result of which the very approach to this problem
might change. If that happens, the new strategy may change the
status of nuclear weapons from deterrence means to tactical
munitions.
Together with regional instability, this approach of
Washington to the nuclear weapons use poses a great danger to
the whole international security system.
All these facts make the danger of the US administration's
intention to include provisions stipulating possible
"preventive strikes" and "defensive intervention" in the new
strategic doctrine being drafted now only too evident.

===

RIA "Novosti": AMERIKA STAVLJA AKCENAT NA SILU

Ruska informativna agencija RIA "Novosti"
Specijalno za ARTEL
(Moskva, 14. juna, RIA "Novosti")

Odmah nakon vasingtonskih izuma koncepcija "humanitarne
intervencije" i "ogranicenog suvereniteta" Sjedinjene Drzave
nameracile su da "obraduju" svetsku zajednicu jos jednom
novacijom: administracija Dzordza Bussa danas razradjuje novu
stratesku doktrinu, koja predvidja mogucnost nanosenja
"preventivnih udara" i ostvarivanje "odbrambene intervencije"
u odnosu na one drzave koje, po misljenju Vasingtona, prete da
ce primeniti oruzje za masovno unistavanje.
Ovo je, pozivajuci se na izvore u Bussovoj administraciji,
saopstio list "Vasington post", po cijim podacima ce nova
doktrina nacionalne bezbednosti SAD biti objavljena kroz
nekoliko meseci.
Po misljneju nekih konsultanata Ministarstva odbrane
Sjedinjenih Drzava, izradom nove doktrine Dzordz Buss
"pokusava da pripremi americki narod na nekakav preventivni
korak" protiv Iraka. Misljenja smo, medjutim, da stratezi Bele
kuce i Pentagona niposto ne planiraju da koncepciju
"odbrambene doktrine" ogranicavaju nekakvim lokalnim okvirima.

Sta prakticno znaci pojam "humanitarna intervencija"
Amerikanci su ocigledno demonstrirali, iniciravsi niccim
isprovociranu agresiju Severnoatlantske alijanse protiv
Jugoslavije. Rezultat je svima dobro poznat - hiljade
poginulih mirnih gradjana, gigantska steta ekonomici zemlje,
dolazak na vlast na Kosovu albanskih nacionalista i glavesina
terorista iz teroristicke organizacije "OVK", destabilizacija
situacije u susednoj Makedoniji.
Koncepcije "humanitarne intervencije" i "ogranicenog
suvereniteta", podjednako kao i zloglasna teza o "osovini zla"
po svoj prilici su za Vasington u najtesnjoj sprezi.
Potrebna je kudikamo univerzalnija argumentacija za svaku
vojnu akciju Sjedinjenih Drzava protiv ove ili one drzave,
cija politika se iz ovih ili onih razloga ne dopada americkoj
administraciji. A jos na sirem planu - argumentacija za kurs
aktuelne americke administracije koji se sve vise ispoljava u
pravcu vojne dominacije Sjedinjenih Drzava u svetu, bez
osvrtanja na to sto taj kurs otvoreno protivureci interesima
medjunarodnog mira i globalne strateske bezbednosti.
Dogadjaji iz osamnaest meseci koliko se Dzordz Buss i njegov
tim nalaze u Beloj kuci, svedoce o tome prilicno ubedljivo.
Prvi signal bio je upuceni u januaru ove godine od strane
Dzordza Bussa kongresu nacrt federalnog budzeta za 2003.
finansijsku godinu, koji je oznacio drasticnu spiralu
militarizacije americke ekonomike. Predsednik je predlozio
najvece u poslednje dve decenije povecanje izdvajanja za
odbranu. U iducoj godini Pentagon treba da dobije za svoje
potrebe 379 milijardi dolara. A u narednih pet godina ta suma
ce prema planu biti povecana za jos 125 milijardi dolara, tako
da ce vec 2007. godine izneti 451 milijardu dolara. U
kontekstu povecanja americke vojne moci lezi i odluka Bussove
administracije o istupanju iz sovjetsko-americkog sporazuma o
ogranicenju sistema protivraketne odbrane iz 1972. godine, i
stvaranje nacionalnog sistema protivraketne odbrane.
Da, Sjedinjene Americke Drzave potpisle su maja ove godine
sporazum sa Rusijom o uzajamnom radikalnom smanjenju
strateskih ofanzivnih potencijala do 2012. godine do nivoa
1700-2200 nuklearnih bojevih glava. Medjutim, Pentagon vec u
iducoj godini treba da dobije na desetine milijardi dolara za
kupovinu novog naoruzanja, pored ostalog visokosofisticiranog,
koje kako smatraju eksperti u perspektivi moze u potpunosti
zameniti balisticke rakete sa nuklearnim bojevim glavama. Do
2010. godine Ministarstvo odbrane SAD planira da instalira
nekoliko desetina hiljada krstarecih raketa velikog dometa,
koje strucnjaci svrstavaju u red visokopreciznog naoruzanja.
Kao sto je poznato, Bussova administracija odbila je da uputi
na ratifikovanje u kongresu Sporazum o sveobuhvatnoj zabrani
nuklearnih proba. S tim u vezi mora da nas navede na oprez
cinjenica, da se u poslednje vreme iz Pentagona sve cesce cuju
izjave o neophodnosti obnavljanja nuklearnih proba, o razradi
novih nuklearnih bojevih glava manjeg kapaciteta i mogucnosti
njihove primene protiv nenuklearnih drzava i u regionalnim
konfliktima.
Nije potrebno dokazivati da su ovakvi planovi bremeniti
snizavanjem praga eventualne primene nuklearnog oruzja, usled
cega se moze promeniti i sam prilaz tom problemu. A u tom
slucaju apsolutno je realna i promena strategije, kada se
nuklearno oruzje iz sredstva za zadrzavanje spusta na nivo
taktickog oruzja operativne primene.
U kombinaciji sa regionalnom nestabilnoscu, slican prilaz
Vasingtona eventualnom koriscenju nuklearnog oruzja
predstavlja ogromnu opasnost po citav sistem medjunarodne
bezbednosti.
U kontekstu svih tih cinjenica postaje ocigledna i sva
opasnost od namera americke administracije da u sada
razradjivanu novu stratesku doktrinu SAD ukljuci odrednice
kojima se predvidja mogucnost nanosenja "preventivnih udara" i
realizacija "odbrambene intervencije".

MOVIMENTO STUDENDESCO

Gli studenti universitari di Belgrado si sono radunati a centinaia, il
15 giugno, sotto la Facolta' di Filosofia per protestare contro le
altissime tasse universitarie introdotte dal governo ultraliberista di
Djindjic.

La protesta studentesca non viene piu' seguita dalla "sinistra"
occidentale, come fu ad esempio nel 1997, perche' essa non e' piu'
funzionale alla svolta in senso filooccidentale e liberista della
Serbia, svolta che e' gia' avvenuta. Il movimento giovanile OTPOR,
reazionario e squadrista e pagato dagli occidentali, che portava alle
sue manifestazioni le bandiere nere con il pugno chiuso, le bandiere
della Ferrari e della DOS, si trova oggi dalla parte opposta della
barricata rispetto al movimento studentesco.

> +++ Studentenproteste in Belgrad +++
>
> BELGRAD, 15. Juni 2002. Mehrere Hundert Studenten versammelten
> sich heute zu einer Protestkundgebung vor der Philosophischen
> Fakultät im Zentrum Belgrads. Sie forderten die Senkung der
> extrem hohen Studiengebühren, die die ultraliberale
> Djindjic-Regierung eingeführt hat.
>
> TANJUG / AMSELFELD.COM

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_world_8244182_12/06/2002_17507


Kathimerini (Greece)
June 12, 2002


A new 'commodity' in Kosovo
Young, ill-educated women lured and sold as sex slaves
for 700 to 2,500 euros, IOM reports


By Miron Varouhakis - Kathimerini English Edition
Young single women who have little education and are
victims of physical abuse by their parents are being
trafficked into Kosovo from across the Balkans and
ex-Soviet republics as sex slaves, according to a
recent report by the International Organization for
Migration (IOM).
"All around Kosovo trafficking in women for sexual
exploitation is happening," the IOM notes in its
Counter-Trafficking Report, adding that "women from
Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Albania and
Russia are forced into prostitution."
The report, released on June 7, is based on the
testimonies of 303 women and minors assisted by the
IOM in Kosovo from February 2000 to April 2002, and
establishes a detailed socioeconomic profile of the
victims.
In reference to the victims' country of origin, the
report notes that 52 percent of the women assisted by
the IOM came from Moldova, 23 percent from Romania, 13
percent from Ukraine, 5 percent from Bulgaria, 3
percent from Kosovo, 3 percent from Albania and 1
percent from Russia.
In terms of their age, the report reveals that the
average age of the women was 25, while 38 of the 303
victims were minors. Moreover, some of the victims
have a very basic education while only a few are
university graduates. More specifically, slightly more
than 50 percent of the victims had a primary-school
level of education, 16 percent had completed high
school and only 2 percent had been to university.
From their in-depth interviews to the anti-trafficking
unit of the IOM in Kosovo, it appears that the
majority of them had been taken from urban areas in
their countries — as 14 percent of them came from
their country's capital city — 51 percent from urban
areas, and 33 percent from rural areas.
The majority, 65 percent, of the victims were single
when they were lured into trafficking, but almost 38
percent now have children which they are raising on
their own.
The report also found that almost 25 percent of the
victims had experienced physical abuse, and 12.5
percent rape within their family.
"A man from my neighborhood raped me when I was 15. I
went to the police, everyone knew what happened to me.
I started having problems with my friends and my
family. I was ashamed," a 16-year-old girl from Peja
told IOM fieldworkers. Like others, a friend later
told her about a job abroad, a chance as she said, "to
leave all the bad things behind." Little did she know
that the worst was yet to come.
Trafficking methods
The IOM notes that trafficking is often based on
deception and lies, while increasingly networks use
other women and friends to lure their young victims.
"The woman, my neighbor, told me she would find a good
family in Spain where I could work as baby-sitter. She
said I could earn $500 per month," one of the victims
told the IOM.
According to the report, 83 percent of the women fell
into the hands of traffickers as they were pushed to
search for a job abroad due to poverty and lack of job
prospects at home. Some 79 percent were lured abroad
under false promises for a job and almost 9 percent
were kidnapped.
"He is a friend of mine; he was! He invited me over
his place for a coffee and never let me go back to my
family. The day after he sold me to a woman for $200,"
another victim said in her interview with IOM staff in
Kosovo.
The report reveals that in almost 50 percent of the
cases the recruiter was a woman, and in 45 percent the
victim knew the person who tricked them into accepting
a phony job abroad.
"Women are usually offered a job as a baby-sitter,
cleaner, waitress, or as a carer for the elderly,
which normally do not require a high level of
education or language skills," the IOM underlines in
its report, stressing that 41.6 percent of the women
were offered a job in Italy.
A false job promise abroad is usually accompanied by
promises to arrange everything from travel documents,
visas and transportation, to a job and comfortable
accommodation. This in turn explains why 25 percent of
the women assisted by the IOM left their countries
without a passport. Some 47.9 percent of the women
helped by the IOM had never left their countries
before being trafficked.
According to the report, only 23.8 percent of the
women were partially or fully aware of the possibility
of being involved in sex-related activities.
Traffickers appear to prefer crossing into Kosovo from
routes inside the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (FYROM), as 22.3 percent of the women
assisted by the IOM reported that they had used those
specific routes. Other less-preferred routes cross
into Montengero (5 percent) and Albania (4 percent).
In interviews conducted by IOM staff in Kosovo,
trafficked women declared that they were bought and
sold three to six times on their journey to Kosovo.
Many of them are sexually abused or exploited already
in the transit countries where they might remain up to
few months before arriving in Kosovo.
Their "commercial" value in Kosovo varied from 700 to
2,500 euros.
Working conditions
The living conditions while in Kosovo for the
trafficked victims are "dramatic" according to the
IOM, with 77 percent of the women reporting beatings
by their traffickers or exploiters, and 57 percent
saying they had been sexually abused by their
traffickers and exploiters.
"Accommodation is always collective and normally used
also to receive clients," the report states. "In most
of the cases the shared accommodation is in the bar,
sleeping on chairs or sharing a sofa between three to
four women. Hygiene conditions are usually poor and
access to food is limited."
In most cases, 74 percent, profits were not shared
with the women, who never received any payment during
their stay in Kosovo. Only 4 percent of the women
reported receiving regular payments for the services
provided.
Interviews also reveal that in many cases the women
are forced to have unprotected sex, while medical care
is scarce. Specifically, 62 percent of the women were
forced into unprotected sex, and a third of the
victims were completely denied medical care.
"Medical care is normally given on an emergency basis
only, especially when the symptoms could affect the
'performance'," the report states, adding that 33
percent of the women were denied medical attention.
The majority of the women assisted by the IOM were
found to have vaginal infections and other sexually
transmitted diseases when examined once back in their
countries of origin.
The report notes that more than 63 percent of the
victims were rescued during police raids on bars and
nightclubs which operate as brothels. At the same
time, an increasing number of victims, 33.6 percent,
managed to escape and seek help from authorities.

Subject: New texte on ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA- Bane
Popovivc A Serb Apology
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 00:26:12 -0700
From: "Artel"

ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu

office@...
Date:08 June 2002

Bane Popovic: A Serb Apology

A Serb Apology Demanded recently by Sen. Joseph
Byden,
U. S. Senate's Foreign Policy Committee Chairman
Belgrade, May 27, 2002

A Serb Apology Demanded recently by Sen. Joseph
Byden, U. S. Senate's Foreign Policy Committee
Chairman, compiled instead of Mr. Vojislav Kostunica
and Mr. Zoran Djindjic, who were not brave enough to
state the following:
On behalf of all Serbs we, a group of Serb patriots,
solemnly apologize for:
- Defending ourselves from the breaking-up of Tito's
Yugoslavia by the anti-communist activities of CIA
and other Western secret services, and then from
Croat, Slovene, Muslim and Albanian separatisms.
- Responding to the hasty recognition of Croatia,
Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia & Herzegovina by the
USA and their satellites with the continuity of FR
Yugoslavia with the historically (since the end of
the 19th Century) recognized states of Serbia and
Montenegro.
- Being for several years subjected to cruel
economic sanctions of USA and their satellites,
following the false accusation against FR Yugoslavia
of committing aggression on Bosnia & Herzegovina, no
matter that, on the day of implementation of the
embargo, FR Yugoslavia had no soldiers on Bosnian
territory, while Croatia kept there several tens of
thousands of armed personnel.
- Having witnessed horrific massacres of civilians
and a genocidal ethnic cleansing of hundreds of
thousands of Serbs during Croatian military actions
- in the Medak pocket in 1993 or "Lightning" and
"Storm" in 1995.
- Pointing out to the World public opinion that
secret services of USA and their satellites were the
main organizers of the staged shelling of Vase
Miskina Street in 1992 and Markale Marketplace in
1995 in Sarajevo, for which the Serbian side was
blamed and sanctions were imposed on the Bosnian,
Serbs who were also heavily bombed.
- Becoming victims of the conditions, imposed by the
US administration, by which several injustices
toward Serbs were committed - southern part of
predominantly inhabited by Serbs Bosnian Krayina was
given to the Croats, territory of Republika Srpska
cut in two by the creation of the "Brcko District",
advantage given to the Croatian concept of solving
the issue of Prevlaka peninsula instead of
respecting the wholeness and sovereignty of the Bay
of Kotor within Montenegro and FR Yugoslavia, Kosovo
and Metohia Province occupied although being an
inseparable part of Serbia.
- Being subjected to an "outer wall of sanctions" by
USA and their satellites by: a) not letting FR
Yugoslavia's return to UN, IMF, World Bank and other
international organizations, b) isolating the
legally elected authorities of Serbia and FR
Yugoslavia from travelling abroad, c) meddling into
internal affairs of FR Yugoslavia (by financing the
quisling opposition in Serbia and
depending-from-foreign-aid media, turning
Montenegrin authorities against Serbian ones,
imposing a media demonization of Serbian nation and
authorities, as well as by interminably conditioning
Belgrade - The Hague "tribunal", succession process
of Former Yugoslavia, Kosovo and Metohia, South of
Serbia).
- Being subjected to American-led and financed
Albanian secessionist movement in Kosovo and
Metohia, a staged by William Walker and his KVM's
Racak "massacre", the U. S. ultimatum to Serbia and
FR Yugoslavia at the false negotiations in
Rambouillet.
- Defending ourselves from Albanian terrorism in
Kosovo and Metohia and resisting to the savage
bombardment of FR Yugoslavia by NATO aviation (for
which there was no grounds in international law), by
which was physically destroyed our economic,
transport and media infrastructure, while our piece
of the earth has been poisoned with radioactive and
toxic weapons.
- Being humiliated as a nation with the injustice
taking place in the so-called Hague tribunal, where
are being submitted to trial only the highest
political and military leaders of our nation (from
FR Yugoslavia, Serbia and Republic of Srpska), who
stood up against such actions of USA, their
satellites and their Yugoslav quislings, aiming to
conceal their own heavy responsibility for all
crimes committed against the Serb nation.
- As a nation currently being under occupation of
USA and the West, who have imposed to the Serb
nation a quisling leadership with the task to
completely fulfill the American Diktat of breaking
up the independent Serbian state and in such way
help the decades-long policy of pushing the Serbs
into the "New World Order" under American control to
be finally realized.

Ciao,

desideriamo farti sapere che, nella sezione File del gruppo
crj-mailinglist, troverai un nuovo file appena caricato.

File : /slobo.jpg
Caricato da : itajug <jugocoord@...>
Descrizione : Milosevic's Portrait, from "Politika", June 2, 2002 (artist: D.Stojanovic)

Puoi accedere al file dal seguente indirizzo:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/files/slobo.jpg

Per ulteriori informazioni su come condividere i file con gli altri
iscritti al tuo gruppo, vai invece alla sezione di Aiuto al seguente
indirizzo:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/it/groups/files


Cordiali saluti,

itajug <jugocoord@...>

1. NATO E JUGOSLAVIA: come lo smantellamento del socialismo non sia
stato poi così pacifico (J. Catalinotto, WW News service, 6/6/2002)

2. "La RF di Jugoslavia e la NATO" (Vladislav Jovanovic, ex ministro
degli Esteri, Contributo per il Forum di Belgrado, 2 ottobre 2001)


===1===


NATO E JUGOSLAVIA:
come lo smantellamento del socialismo non sia stato poi così pacifico

Di John Catalinotto

Workers World News Service, 6 June 2002

Quale la relazione tra la <<guerra senza fine al terrorismo>> di
Washington, l'espansione della Nato, e il cosiddetto processo per
crimini di guerra che si sta svolgendo in Olanda nei confronti di
Slobodan Milosevic?

Se non fosse stato per il viaggio europeo di Bush, è probabile che ci
si sarebbe dimenticato come l'alleanza militare della Nato sia ancora
attiva. Sebbene agli elementi più aggressivi dell'amministrazione Bush
sarebbe piaciuto evitare ogni consultazione con i propri alleati
atlantici, Washington mantiene ancora una strategia Nato.

Questa strategia mira al completamento di una nuova colonizzazione
dell'Europa Orientale e della vecchia Unione Sovietica. L'espansione
della Nato ha questo obiettivo mentre mantiene l'Europa Occidentale
legata a se come "senior partner" dell'imperialismo statunitense.

Gli analisti del Pentagono hanno reso pubblica tale strategia
lasciandosi sfuggire un documento ai media nel 1992. Questo documento,
pubblicato dal New York Times a marzo, dimostra chiaramente come
Washington cerchi di ottenere l'egemonia in ogni regione, e come abbia
intenzione di mettere in atto tale politica in Europa attraverso la
Nato.

La Jugoslavia è stato l'ultimo dei paesi ex-socialisti a resistere
all'espansione verso est della Nato. Gli Stati Uniti e la Nato hanno
bombardato il governo di Belgrado con l'obiettivo di occupare la
provincia del Kosovo nel 1999. Inoltre l'Occidente ha organizzato un
vero e proprio colpo di stato per rovesciare dal governo il Partito
Socialista nell'ottobre del 2000.

La penetrazione ad est della Nato

Nel 1991, gli Stati Uniti e la Nato non avevano basi in Europa
Orientale. Nel Balcani c'erano solamente le basi della Grecia, paese
membro della Nato. Nell'arco di dieci anni di guerre e sovvertimenti
contro la Repubblica Jugoslava, il Pentagono è riuscito a piazzare i
suoi militari in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Croazia e
Bulgaria. L'Ungheria, la Repubblica Ceca e la Polonia divennero membri
della Nato giusto in tempo per prestare aiuto agli attacchi alla
Iugoslavia.

A partire da quella catastrofe, i regimi favorevoli al capitalismo di
tutti gli altri paesi che un tempo fecero parte del blocco sovietico -
con l'eccezione della Bielorussia - hanno chiesto a gran voce di
potersi congiungere all'alleanza imperialista.

Da novembre, la Nato può chiedere l'allargamento per la Slovenia,
l'Estonia, la Lettonia, la Lituania, la Romania, e in più, forse,
anche per la Slovacchia. Ne hanno fatto richiesta anche l'Albania, la
Macedonia e la Croazia, mentre l'Ucraina lo farà a luglio.

I leader di questi paesi sono ben felici di concedere all'imperialismo
occidentale quella sovranità ristretta che era rimasta loro dopo la
"globalizzazione" delle loro economie nazionali, ovvero dopo essere
state integrate dal mercato mondiale imperialista.

Considerano l'appartenenza alla Nato come una garanzia militare contro
sollevamenti di massa a favore del socialismo. Ma il loro già scarno
bilancio nazionale dovrà ora essere utilizzato per l'acquisto di
armamenti di fabbricazione statunitense invece che stanziare fondi per
la sanità, l'educazione ed il welfare.

La guerra americana all'Afghanistan e le nuove basi militari americane
in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan e Kyrgizstan sono stati dei passi di
ricolonizzazione dell'Asia Centrale e del Medio Oriente. In modo
simile, la guerra alla Jugoslavia e l'espansione della Nato ha
trasformato le vecchie repubbliche socialiste ed indipendenti in
neocolonie.

La Conferenza di Baghdad difende Milosevic

Dalla metà di febbraio, Slobodan Milosevic, che era presidente della
Jugoslavia quando quel paese cercava di resistere all'aggressione
degli Stati Uniti e della Nato, è sotto processo di fronte alla corte
dell'Aja, accusato di crimini di guerra e di genocidio durante le
guerre civili in Kosovo, Bosnia e Croazia.

Sebbene la corte pretenda d'essere imparziale, è stata istituita dalle
potenze Nato per processare solamente esponenti dalla vecchia
Jugoslavia per crimini di guerra. I crimini degli Stati Uniti e della
Nato rimangono opportunamente al di fuori della giurisdizione della
corte.

La settima sessione del Comitato di Controllo e di Coordinamento della
Conferenza di Baghdad, svoltasi dal 7 al 9 maggio, ha prodotto non
solo delle dichiarazioni in condanna della globalizzazione ma ha anche
difeso Milosevic contro questa corte. La Conferenza si componeva di
160 rappresentanti di 90 partiti politici ed organizzazioni da più di
40 paesi, inclusi tutti gli stati arabi.

Ciò che rende questo dato interessante è che mentre Milosevic è stato
accusato soprattutto per crimini contro le popolazioni musulmane del
Kosovo e della Bosnia, queste accuse non hanno confuso i
rappresentanti di paesi che sono per la maggior parte musulmani.

La conferenza ha adottato una dichiarazione che afferma di <<non
riconoscere la legalità del tribunale perché politicamente motivato ed
illegalmente costituito>>, che solamente la popolazione Jugoslava è
competente per giudicare una qualsiasi questione concernente la
Jugoslavia, e che <<il presidente Milosevic dovrebbe essere
immediatamente rilasciato dalla detenzione illegale.>>

In un'altra conferenza, tenuta dallo European Peace Forum ad Atene dal
17 al 19 maggio, i partecipanti di 20 paesi hanno riconosciuto come il
processo a Milosevic fosse stato non solo un attacco individuale ma
anche un attacco rivolto ad <<un individuo, che, per numerose ragioni,
è divenuto il simbolo della resistenza alla bellicoso politica Nato
d'interferenza negli affari interni della Jugoslavia e alla guerra
della Nato.>>

Secondo questa coalizione pacifista: <<Agli occhi della Nato, questa
guerra sarà vinta, e sarà compiuto anche lo smembramento della
Jugoslavia, solamente se e quando questo simbolo sarà discreditato.>>

Milosevic si difende da solo

In altre parole, gli Stati Uniti e la Nato hanno progettato all'Aja un
processo-vetrina per screditare e punire Milosevic, e con ciò
screditare l'intera resistenza jugoslava. Ma Milosevic li ha sorpresi.
Si è rifiutato di riconoscere l'autorità della corte e sta imbastendo
una dura difesa politica e legale.

Nella sua dichiarazione iniziale, in febbraio, il leader Jugoslavo ha
rovesciato politicamente contro la Nato le sue accuse. Ha illustrato
l'attività disgregativa dell'imperialismo tedesco nel riconoscere ed
incitare quegli elementi che tentavano di separarsi dalla Jugoslavia,
fomentando così la guerra civile. Ha poi descritto come gli Stati
Uniti abbiano infine guidato la Nato in una guerra criminale che ha
significato 78 giorni di bombardamento ad alta tecnologia alle
infrastruttura nazionali ed ucciso o ferito migliaia di civili.

L'accusa ha presentato in seguito dei testimoni che hanno cercato di
dimostrare la colpevolezza di Milosevic per crimini di guerra. Il
quotidiano italiano Il Manifesto ha riportato il 27 febbraio che
attraverso il suo controinterrogatorio Milosevic ha screditato cinque
testimoni nelle prime due settimane del processo.

Milosevic ha continuato a sfidare tutti i testimoni nel suo
controinterrogatorio. Alcuni hanno dovuto ritrattare le proprie
dichiarazioni. Altri hanno dovuto ammettere d'essere legati a gruppi
come l'UCK (l'Esercito di Liberazione del Kosovo) che ha combattuto
duramente contro l'autorità con armi fornite dagli Stati Uniti e dalla
Germania.

Durante tutto questo, il Partito Socialista di Serbia non era più nel
potere. Milosevic preparava la sua difesa in una cella di 3 metri per
4,5 con l'unico supporto di una linea telefonica incerta.
Ciononostante è stato capace di preparare la difesa grazie ad un
forte appoggio fornito da ricercatori ed esperti in Serbia che
simpatizzavano con la sua resistenza, se non sostenevano direttamente
la sua politica. Già questo è stato un segnale che all'interno della
Jugoslavia lo spirito di resistenza all'imperialismo non è scomparso.

Perfino i suoi nemici politici sono stati costretti a riconoscere nei
media che Milosevic stava ottenendo solidarietà ed aiuto, specialmente
in Serbia, ma anche dovunque i suoi argomenti hanno ottenuto
visibilità. Un articolo del primo marzo sul San Francisco Chronicle
che <<i serbi che seguono il processo dicono che Milosevic stia
vincendo.>>

Con uno staff di 1100 uomini e tutto il potere della Nato a sostegno,
gli accusatori del Tribunale Internazionale per i crimini
nell'ex-Jugoslavia dell'Aja, finora non sono stati capaci di
costringere Milosevic sulla difensiva. Di fronte a questa situazione,
i media hanno semplicemente smesso di aggiornare sull'andamento del
processo. Sui giornali statunitensi apparirà al massimo una volta alla
settimana. È un processo-vetrina senza la vetrina, perché solo in
pochi potrebbero convincersi della colpevolezza di Milosevic.

L'unico articolo recente di una certa importanza, scritto il 30 maggio
sul New Yorker da Joseph Lelyveld, ex-direttore esecutivo del New York
Times, era un evidente attacco a Milosevic. Lelyveld accusava l'ex
presidente Jugoslavo d'"intimorire" i testimoni, nonostante fosse
totalmente privo di potere reale.

Lelyveld scrisse che il generale statunitense Wesley Clark stava
considerando di presentarsi come testimone al processo e "sembrava che
si divertisse alla prospettiva d'essere controinterrogato da
Milosevic." Chiunque abbia letto il libro di Clark, "Modern Warfare",
sa che vi si ammette praticamente la natura coloniale della guerra
intrapresa dalla Nato contro la Jugoslavia e che lo scopo dei
bombardamenti era d'intimidire i civili ed obbligarli alla resa.

Molte persone che si sono opposte all'aggressione statunitense e Nato
alla Jugoslavia sperano probabilmente che il generale Clark rispetti
la sua promessa. Così, almeno per una volta, un vero criminale di
guerra siederà davanti alla corte. Sarà anche l'occasione per
dimostrare come la guerra mondiale di Bush sia la continuazione
dell'aggressione di Clinton alla Jugoslavia.


Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 ww@...
Traduzione italiana di fokista@...


===2===



Vladislav Jovanovic, ex ministro degli Esteri
"La RF di Jugoslavia e la NATO"

Contributo per il Forum di Belgrado, sul tema "La RFJ e
l'Organizzazione politica e militare nordatlantica",
2 ottobre 2001 (testo finora inedito).

Cercherò di essere breve e concreto, senza ripetere quello che gli
stimati relatori hanno già detto.
In primo luogo, la NATO di oggi non è la stessa che e' stata finora.
Prima la Nato era un'alleanza difensiva, oggi la NATO è un'alleanza
politico-militare offensiva, e come è stato esplicitamente detto a
Washington, il suo compito è di difendere i valori e gli interessi dei
paesi sviluppati occidentali in tutto il mondo dove essi sono
minacciati. Perciò non dobbiamo avere illusioni sul fatto che entrando
in questa alleanza finiremmo soltanto sotto un ombrello difensivo.
Entrando in essa diventiamo contemporaneamente mercenari che, secondo
il suo volere e desiderio, l'America usa in tutto il mondo come vuole.
Secondo : la adesione alla Partnership per la pace sembra essere per
tutti un fatto compiuto. Ma si tratta di un atto compiuto dietro le
quinte dall'attuale governo, non soltanto contro i nostri interessi
nazionali ma anche contro la volonta' dei propri elettori. Una
decisione cosi importante come l'adesione alla Partnership per la pace
deve avere il consenso degli elettori. Tutti i paesi che hanno aderito
alla Partnership hanno organizzato un referendum. Il Governo ufficiale
non nomina nemmeno questa possibilità. Non c'e' un diritto
discrezionale perché il governo ufficiale decida in merito, ma lo
deve fare tutto il paese. D'altra parte è vero che ci troviamo
circondati da nemici, che la stessa NATO ci ha circondato con la rete
della Partnership, oppure con i suoi membri. Ma è anche vero che noi
non siamo come gli altri paesi che hanno bussato alle porte della NATO
per far parte della Partnership. Noi siamo la grande vittima della
NATO e la NATO è nostro grande debitore. La NATO ha espropriato una
parte storica del nostro paese - la regione del Kosovo e Metohija. Ci
ha praticamente escluso dalla sovranità su di essa e noi abbiamo il
dovere di riprenderla. La NATO ha il dovere di risarcire i danni
materiali che ha causato coi bombardamenti sulla Jugoslavia. La NATO
non ci tratta ancora alla pari. Non soltanto perché ci ha bombardato e
distrutto, e neanche perché ci ha sottratto di fatto la sovranità sul
Kosovo, ma perché continuamente ci ricatta con un elenco di richieste
e condizioni. Alcuni giorni fa la NATO ha risposto alla nostra
richiesta per la Partnership dicendo che una delle condizioni per
farne parte è sottrarre ogni sostegno ai serbi della Bosnia ed
Erzegovina. Questo significa che li dobbiamo abbandonare perché la
NATO possa obbligarli a far parte della Bosnia ed Erzegovina
unitaria. Perciò noi assolutamente non dobbiamo chiedere per primi di
far parte della Partnership. Altrimenti noi automaticamente perdiamo
la nostra vera forza, la superiorità morale che abbiamo come vittime
di una aggressione illegale, e ci collochiamo invece in una posizione
politica d'inferiorita'. In altre parole accetteremmo di trattare, a
condizioni ingiuste, per entrare a far parte della Partnership. Perciò
dobbiamo attendere che sia la NATO ad invitarci, sullo stesso piano
degli altri paesi nella regione. Il Governo ha fatto uno sbaglio di
metodo perché ha accettato di parlare a condizioni impari per entrare
a far parte della Partnership per la pace, ed in particolare perche'
ha bussato per primo alla porta della NATO.
La Macedonia dimostra che aderire alla Partnership per la pace non
soltanto non significa essere difesi dal pericolo estraneo, ma puo'
significare essere sottoposti ad un pericolo che proviene
dall'interno. La NATO ha difeso la Macedonia dalla Jugoslavia durante
l'aggressione ma non l'ha difesa dal pericolo terrorista -
separatista interno. Anzi l'ha istigato, legando cosi le mani alla
Macedonia che non puo' importare armi dall'estero fintantoché durano
gli scontri con i terroristi.
Dopo gli attacchi terroristici contro gli USA, tutti i paesi membri
della NATO si sono dovuti sottomettere all'art. 5 della Alleanza,
secondo il quale un attacco all'America e' contemporaneamente un
attacco a tutti loro. I Paesi membri sono automaticamente entrati in
allerta militare contro un non identificato nemico dell'America, che
sicuramente sarà individuato nell'Afganistan e forse in qualche altro
Stato. Se l'America lo chiede, i membri dell'Alleanza dovranno dare ad
essa l'aiuto militare.
Se un domani entriamo a far parte della NATO, dovremo seguire gli USA
e tutti gli altri nella guerra. Non dimentichiamo che i pericoli ora
per la NATO sono al di fuori dell'area europea. L'Afganistan non è nel
centro dell'attenzione soltanto a causa del terrorismo ma innanzitutto
per ragioni economiche. E' stato scoperto un grande giacimento di
petrolio e metano nell'est del Turkmenistan, e si progettano
l'oleodotto e il gasdotto che dovrebbero attraversare l'ovest
dell'Afganistan e il sud del Pakistan. Per realizzare ciò l'Afganistan
deve essere sotto controllo politicamente e militarmente, proprio come
è stato per la Jugoslavia quando è stata bombardata per poter essere
poi controllata.
Se entriamo nella NATO, dobbiamo sapere che saremo usati secondo la
volonta' altrui e questo non soltanto nelle vicinanze bensi', se
servira', anche nel bacino del Caspio, ed un domani forse anche
contro la Cina, o in qualche altro luogo. E' questo il nostro
interesse nazionale ?
Tutto questo sarebbe chiarito e giustificato in base a tutta la nostra
storia ? Siamo mai stati, noi, corpo di spedizione per gli altri ? E'
successo soltanto due volte. Marko Kraljevic [eroe popolare] dovette
combattere per i turchi, ed il despota Stefan Lazarevic dovette
combattere per il sultano Bajasit sotto l'Angora, perche' erano
vassalli. Noi, per fortuna, non siamo vassalli, ma ci stiamo
adoperando per diventarlo molto presto, ed ho paura che ad alcune
persone farebbe comodo di piu' se lo fossimo anziche' no. Noi non
dobbiamo ignorare che la NATO e' un dato di fatto politico-militare
enorme, in Europa e nel mondo, e particolarmente nella nostra regione.
Non dobbiamo trascurare questo nella politica corrente per il lungo
termine. E' difficile poter dire "no" a tutte le richieste e
pressioni della NATO e dell'America. Ma possiamo rispondere "si,
pero'", e far rimbalzare le pressioni da noi verso di loro. Noi siamo
per la NATO, ma quale NATO ? Siamo per una NATO europea, oppure per
una Europa della NATO ? Noi siamo per una NATO europea. Noi siamo per
un sistema di sicurezza continentale, nel quale tutti gli Stati
dell'Europa debbano essere sullo stesso piano e garantiti nella loro
sicurezza. Una simile NATO europea non rappresenterebbe una minaccia
verso gli Stati e verso i popoli delle altre regioni. La attuale NATO
invece rappresenta questo. Questo e' scritto sulla bandiera di
Washington. Non dobbiamo ingannarci.
Se dessimo una tale risposta, ci difenderemmo meglio dalle pressioni e
dalle contestazioni di chi dice che non vogliamo la NATO. In questo
caso, potremmo contare su di una alleanza attiva con Ucraina, Russia,
ed altri che vogliono ottenere la migliore risposta possibile dalla
NATO, e cioe' che essa garantisca uguale sicurezza a tutti in Europa,
e non "uguale per alcuni, e non per altri"... In questo modo potremmo
realizzare uno spazio di manovra ed acquisire il tempo necessario a
migliorare la nostra posizione in relazione alla NATO, che e' adesso
molto sfavorevole.
Non e' vero che essere membri dell'Unione Europea significhi essere
anche membri della NATO. Ci sono quattro o cinque membri dell'Unione
Europea che non pensano a diventare membri della NATO, ma si sentono
egualmente sicuri. L'Irlanda, la Finlandia, la Svezia, l'Austria, la
Svizzera sono fuori della NATO. Noi non siamo come loro, perche'
siamo stati bombardati, perche' ci e' stata sottratta una parte del
territorio, perche' continuano a ricattarci. Pero' dalla nostra
parte abbiamo il fattore morale. E' questa la nostra grande carta,
che dovremmo giocare, sulla quale potremmo contare per ottenere
comprensione e sostegno dagli altri. Se proprio dobbiamo in qualche
modo rappacificarci con l'America, e nell'attesa che la NATO diventi
europea, e' meglio che lo facciamo tramite un accordo bilaterale,
come lo fece la Spagna ai tempi di Franco, accordo tramite il quale
guadagnare tempo e tranquillizzare anche questa grande potenza, e nel
frattempo, insieme alla Russia, lottare per una NATO europea.

ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA

by www.artel.co.yu - <office@...>

1. IZLAGANJE SAMIJA SADOUNA, ambasadora Iraka u SRJ, O TERORIZMU I
TERORISTIMA
2. HUAN SANCHEZ MONRO, Ambasador Kube U SRJ: Terorizam - sta je to?


===1===

IZLAGANJE SAMIJA SADOUNA, ambasadora Iraka u SRJ,
O TERORIZMU I TERORISTIMA

BEOGRADSKI FORUM ZA SVET RAVNOPRAVNIH
OKRUGLI STO: MEDJUNARODNI TERORIZAM
22. januar 2002.

"Terorizam", "teroristi" i "dr?ava terora" su termini koji
su u?estali u opticaju, posebno od dogadjaja 11. septembra
u SAD-u i dalje - ubrzanim razvojem koji se zavrsio ratom
protiv Avganistana, koji je nazvan svetskim stecistem
terora.Rat koji se i dalje nastavlja uprkos stradanju na
desetine hiljada nevinih ljudi koji su ?rtve ameri?ke
masinerije smrti sa izgovorom "borba protiv terora i
terorista".
Mo?da posebo privla?i pa?nju ?injenica da uprkos poznatom
shvatanju i zna?enju, u re?enicima i politi?kim
enciklopedijama: zna?enje koje i sada vlada (ameri?ko
zna?enje) ovog termina, jer zbog velike u?estalosti preko
gigantskih ameri?kih i zapadnih medija gotovo da je pravo
shvatanje i zna?enje ovog termina izgubljeno posto su mu
amerikanci dali ruho koje odgovara njihovoj politici sa
ciljem (amerikanizacijom sveta), odnosno "ameri?kom
hegemonijom".
Terorista je onaj ko ne izrazi sau?es?e Americi i koji ne
ka?e Busu: "?ao mi je zbog doga|aja 11. septembra ... ";
terorista je ?ak i onaj koji je izrazio sau?es?e
porodicama ?rtava. Savet Busovoj administraciji da ne ?uri
sa optu?bama koje upu?uje ovamo ili onamo i da bude blaga
i precizna, i da bez ?urbe vrsi istragu radi otkrivanja
zlo?ina i da se razumno i mudro ponasa sticajem neoborivih
dokaza, i da izbegava ihitren odgovor nasiljem jer to samo
vodi do jos ve?eg nasilja, kao sto je uradio Irak uputivsi
tri poruke od strane predsednika Sadama Huseina vladarima
i narodima Amerike i Zapada.
Busova administracija svrstava ga u onu drugu grupu, a to
je grupa terorista. Prema ovakvom ameri?kom shvatanju
terorizma i terorista ameri?ki predsednik D?ord? Bus
mladji je podelio svet na dva dela i nema tre?eg, onog
koji je sa Amerikom protiv terorizma i nije terorista. Sa
druge strane imamo teroristu, a to su oni koji nisu
izrazili stav koji zna?i poni?enje i zadovoljava vladare
Bele ku?e. Zvuci zla prate ameri?ki rat ?ija je prva ?rtva
Avganistan na dugom i otovrenom spisku.
Ovo ameri?ko shvatanje terorizma i terorista, ne ?udi
ljude koji su upoznati sa istorijom i pravom slikom
Amerike i kako je ona nastala. Politi?ari i donosioci
odluka u Vasingtonu se di?e time da su nasilje i
kolonijalisti?ki ekspanzionizam deo ameri?kog nasledja na
kome po?iva SAD.
Ameri?ki analiti?ar za strateske studije Benjamin Swarter
daje primer isterivanja starosedelaca Amerike, Indijanaca
i okupiranje njihove zemlje. Ameri?ki lideri se ose?aju da
su superiorniji i da ceo svet mora da ih slusa i kle?i
pred njima, sto je i bivsi ameri?ki sekretar Olbrajtova
izrazila na Samitu 7 velikih 1997. g. kada je rekla: "Mi
stojimo na ve?oj visini i vidimo dalje od onog sto drugi
vide", i dodala: "Amerika je dr?ava bez koje svet ne mo?e
i svet mora prihvatiti univerzalno liderstvo".
Mo?da su okolnosti koje su sledile posle hladnog rata
pove?ale ose?aj siline kod vladara Vasingtona do te mere
da je Predsednik Sadam Husein opisao:
"To je sila koja je nadvladala ameri?ki um pa su izgubili
razum i da su se opili razornim, praznim i slepim
zadovoljstvom da svet poklekne i prihati njihove ruke".
Zatim su po?inili strasnu agresiju protiv Iraka 1991. g. i
nametnuli razornu blokadu koja jos traje. Posle toga
ameri?ki svetski terorizam se oslobodio i intevrenisao u
niz zemalja medju njima Somalija, Panama, Ruanda, Burundi,
?e?enija i Jugoslavija , na koju je uticao u raspar?avanju
na vise malih dr?ava i napao je zajedno sa NATO-om 1999.
g. i nametnuo katastrofalnu blokadu, sto je rezultiralo
razornim posledicama.
Ono sto je Amerika ?inila u razli?itim krajevima sveta od
kada je ostala sama na medjunarodnoj sceni kao lider
koriste?i svoju perfidnu snagu za tzv. "Novi svet" - to
Amerika ne naziva terorizmom i smatra ga potrebnim radi
zastite svog nacionalnog interesa?! A nju nije briga za
interese drugih. Tu se jasno pojavljuju i dupli standardi
u ameri?koj politici. Ko slepo slusa nju, je veliki
demokrata i nema veze sa terorizmom, iako je diktator, a
njegov re?im se ni najmanje ne bazira na demokratskim
principima slobode i postovanja ljudskih prava?! A ko se
ponosi svojom politi?kom voljom i brani nezavisnost i ?ast
svoje zemlje, Vasington ga stavlja na vrh spiska
terorista?! Isto kao sto se desilo bivsem predsedniku
Slobodanu Milosevi?u koji je poslat u Hag u opasnom
medjunarodnom presedanu. Mo?da jedan od na?ina
omalova?avanja celog sveta od strane vladara Vasingtona je
da Ameri?ki kongres stavlja nacionalni i lokalni zakon nad
medjunarodnim zakonom i medjunarodnom bilateralnom
saradnjom i zapo?eo saradnju sa dr?avama kao da pripadaju
Americi i nad njima primenjuje svoj lokalni zakon. Donosi
niz ilegalnih interventnih zakona, mdj|u njima Zakon o
dr?avama koje su se odmetnule od zakona, Zakon zastite
religije i verskih zajednica, Zakon o postovanju ljudskih
prava, Zakon o terorizmu i zemljama pokroviteljima
terorizma, Zakon o oslobadjanju Iraka koji predstavlja
otvoren primer zavere protiv Iraka. Medju ostalim izdatim
zakonima je jedan koji dozvoljava sudjenje optu?enih
terorista pred vojnim sudovima i Zakon o odobrenju
ameri?koj armiji da intevrenise u bilo kom delu sveta. Svi
ti zakoni su u stvari nepobitni dokazi je Amerika dr?ava
koja se bavi terorizmom kao i da je njen pokrovitelj,
upotrebljivaju?i svoju perfidnu snagu protiv onoga ko se
suprotstavqa njenoj politici ?iji je cilj apsolutna
dominacija nad svetom i njegovim bogatstvom.
Ko je osim Amerike poslao svoje vojne snage preko okeana
da bi bacili 110 000 tona bombi i projektila na ira?ki
narod i unistili svu infrastrukturu i pobili nevine ljude
i medju njima vise od 1, 25 miliona ira?ke dece agresijom
i strasnom trajnom blokadom?
Ko je upotrebio medjunarodno zabranjeno oru?je osiromaseni
uranijum protiv ira?kog i jugoslovenskog naroda?
Ko podr?ava i stiti izraelske cioniste pod rukovodstvom
Sarona koji svakog dana ubija nevinu decu naseg
nenaoru?anog palestinskog naroda, i rusi ku?e palestinskom
stanovnistvu? Zar to nije Amerika i njeni sateliti? Ti
njeni zlo?ini su pravi terorizam, i ona je prava dr?ava
pokrovitelj terorizma.
Kad pru?amo te dokaze to ne zna?i da smo protiv suzbijanja
terorizma. Niko u svetu vise od naseg miroljubivog naroda
ne stoji toliko protiv terorizma. Arapi i muslimani su
zagovornici mira, bezbednosti i stabilnosti. Islam je vera
vernosti, milosrdja, prijateljstva i mira, isto kao sto je
tolerantna hris?anska vera. Zato nasim narodima je najvise
potreban mir, sigurnost i stabilnost, zato sto smo trpeli
kroz istoriju nepravdu, agresiju i teror velikih dr?avnih
imperija.
Svetu je danas potrebno da definise koncepciju i zna?enje
terorizma pre preduzimanja bilo koje akcije pod plastom
"rat protiv terorizma", sto je Irak zatra?io na zadnjem
zasedanju generalne skupstine i na sastancima Arapske lige
i na drugim medjunarodnim skupovima, upozoravaju?i na
opasnost od raspustenosti bez kontrole, da ?e neke druge
sile upotrebiti to u skladu sa njihovim planovima,
namerama i interesima, kao sto to danas ?ini SAD u
razornom nepravednom ratu protiv avganistanskog
miroljubivog naroda i pretnjom drugim dr?avama radi
politi?kih obra?una razotkrivenim namerama i ciljevima.
Nacionalna i ljudska obaveza zahteva od svih dobrih u
svetu i svih ?asnih i rodoljubivih ozbiljnost u definiciji
i zna?enju i shvatanju terorizma, ina?e ?e lider novog
sveta i njemu sli?ni potopiti svet sa vise krvi nevinih u
ime suzbijanja terorizma.

DR. SAMI SADOUN
Ambasador Iraka u SRJ

===*===

HUAN SAN?EZ MONRO, Ambasador Kube U
SRJ:Terorizam- sta je to?

Izlaganje Ambasadora Kube u SRJ, Huan Sancez Monroa, na
okruglom stolu Beogradskog foruma na temu "Medjunarodni
terorizam"
22 januar 2002

Ja bih sa ovog mesta prvo hteo da izrazim svoju najdublju
zahvalnost rukovodstvu Beogradskog foruma koji me je
pozvao na ovaj okrugli sto.
Ovo je jedan akademski skup i zbog toga ne?u mnogo da
govorim o zvani?nom stavu Kube, iako ?u, naravno, dati
nekoliko zvani?nih stavova Kube. Umesto toga bih podelio
sa vama neka razmisljanja na akademskom planu, da bismo
bili podjednaki.
Mislim da ova rasprava ima izuzetan zna?aj jer se
?ove?anstvo nalazi na raskrsnici. Svi mi koji u ovom
tranutku ?ivimo na ovoj planeti, nesumnjivo odlu?ujemo o
sudbini ljudske vrste. Naravno, budu?nost ?ove?anstva nije
u bombama, ve? u inteligenciji. Skupovi, kao sto je ovaj,
doprinose tome da se obogati nasa inteligencija. Zbog toga
?ine deo nase borbe za o?uvanje ljudske vrste. Zbog toga
je i ova debata va?na jer na medjunarodnom planu postoji
jedno veliko odsustvo. A to je odsustvo jedne stvarne i
sadr?ajne definicije sta je to terorizam. A odsustvo takve
definicije nosi sa sobom razne opasnosti. A to je opasnost
da ta tema, ili taj fenomen, bude samo parcijalno ili
selektivno tretiran. Potrebna je jedna integralna vizija
problema terorizma. Danas to ne postoji. Svako ima svoju
viziju. Ali, ako svako ima svoju viziju, ne?emo se slo?iti
oko ove teme. A ta tema je ozbiljna i taj fenomen opasan.
Terorizam nije nov iako se kao fenomen javlja poslednjih
godina. Naravno, ta ?injenica ima veze sa svim onim sto se
desava u svetu, a posebno sa procesom globalizacije i sa
neoliberalnim na?inom koji se name?e tom procesu
globalizacije.
Terorizam nije stran pove?anju siromastva, ni
produbljivanju razlika izmedju siromasih i bogatih
zemalja. Nije stran ni koncentraciji bogatstva u malom
broju ruku. Niti prepotenciji glavne sile ili glavnih sila
sveta. Niti nametanju tudjih vrednosti drugim narodima. Na
primer, ovde se danas govorilo o islamskom
fundamentalizmu. Ja sam dosta razmisljao o tom fenomenu i
svaki put sam sve vise ubedjen da su islamski
fundamentalizam kao i neke aktivnosti ekstremne levice u
nekima od najsiromasnijih zemalja, odgovor odredjenih
sektora koji se opiru nametanju stranih vrednosti
njihovima. Ne mo?e se o?ekivati da muslimanski narodi
promene navike, na?in ?ivota, a da se nista ne dogodi i da
niko od njih ne reaguje protiv toga na neki na?in. Mislim
da je resenje tog problema u primeni principa postovanja
drugih. Mnogo se govori o toleranciji, ja sam protiv tog
termina. Niko ne mora nikoga da tolerise, ali svi treba da
se postujemo. Nedostatak postovanja drugoga je jedno od
glavnih zala sadasnjeg sveta. Veliki i mo?ni zamenjuju
postovanje prepotencijom. Ako im se nesto ne dopada u
Jugoslaviji, oni dodju i bombarduju. Ka?u da je ovde
ubijeno ne zna se koliko nedu?nih kosovskih Albanaca. A
niko ne govori o nedu?nim Srbima, a isto tako i Albancima
sa Kosova koje su ubile NATO bombe.
Ka?e se da su Bin Laden i Talibani ubili ?rtve u Wujorku,
Vasingtonu i Pensilvaniji. Vise od 4 hiljade nedu?nih je
poginulo u tom zaista divlja?kom aktu. Ali se ne ka?e
koliko je nedu?nih Avganistanaca ubijeno od ameri?kih
bombi. Niko tu ne izvla?i ra?unicu. Ta prepotencija vodi u
provaliju, a ne ka resenju problema terorizma.
Preduzet je rat da bi se uhvatila dva ?oveka za koje se ne
zna gde su. Masakriran je jedan narod bez ikakvog
rezultata. Kuba je od po?etka govorila da to nije na?in.
Ali je kubanski glas ostao usamqen u medjunarodnom
kontekstu. Svi su aplaudirali agresiji protiv Avganistana.
To je tu?no, ali je ?injenica. Ali osim toga, prepotencija
velikih ih je dovela do podsticanja terorizma. Danas se
pojavljuju teroristi?ke organizacije koje su delovale u
Jugoslaviji i koje je ameri?ka vlada sada zabranila. Iste
te organizacije kojima su oni pomagali.
U slu?aju Kube ne mo?e biti ilustrativnije. Nedavno smo u
Havani obele?ili 25 godisnjicu divlja?ke diverzije na
jednom avionu Cubane de Aviacion u toku leta. 78 nedu?nih
Kubanaca, Nikaragvanaca i Korejanaca su bili razneti u
komade u vazduhu, zbog bombe koju je postavila jedna
organizacija ?ije je sediste u Sjedinjenim Dr?avama.
Intelektualni autori tog zlo?ina su na slobodi u
Sjedinjenim Dr?avama. A materijalni izvrsilac tog zlo?ina
je od pre godinu i po dana zatvoren u Panami, i to je
gospodin Posada Cariles. Bio je uhva?en tokom organizacije
Iberoameri?kog samita u Panami dok je pripremao atentat na
predsednika Fidela Kastra. A njegov plan je bio da izvs{i
visestruko masovno ubistvo. Jer je usput mogao da ubije i
mnoge druge predsednike iz razli?itih zemalja koji su
prisustvovali Samitu. Danas ?ine sve napore da on bude
oslobodjen iz zatvora. Problem je u tome sto nije zgodno
da gospodin Posada Cariles govori i da se pojavi na sudu.
Vi ste isto tako sigurno ?uli za jedan lanac atentata koji
su pre dve-tri godine bili izvedeni u hotelima na Kubi.
Taj lanac atentata je lisio ?ivota jednog italijanskog
turistu, a nova sredstva koja su koris?ena za to poti?u od
jedne organizacije koja se nalazi u Sjedinjenim Dr?avama.
Niko od ?lanova te organizacije nije izveden pred sud. U
ovom trenutku se u Sjedinjenim Dr?avama nalaze petorica
kubanskih sunarodnika koji su osudjeni na vrlo stroge
kazne zbog tobo?weg zlo?ina spijuna?e, jer su kao deo
kubanske bezbednosti branili nas narod od teroristi?kih
akata.
To je politika dvostrukog morala koju u vezi sa tim
odr?avaju Sjedinjene Dr?ave. Tako da je tim putem, drugovi
i drugarice, jako tesko da se svet oslobodi terorizma i
jos vise da ?ove?anstvo pre?ivi.
Stav Kube o tome je jasan. Mi smo protiv terorizma ma
kakav da je i odakle god da poti?e. To nije stav koji se
izra?ava sada, posle 11. septembra. To je stav koji je
prvi put izra?en 18. oktobra 2000. godine tokom
Iberoameri?kog samita u Panami. Kuba je bila, i jos uvek
je zabrinuta, zbog problema terorizma. Mislimo da je to
pojava protiv koje se treba boriti, kao sto se bori protiv
droge, protiv ilegalnog prometa ljudi, protiv belog roblja
i mnogih drugih svetskih nesre?a koje su se, zahvaljuju?i
neoliberalnoj globalizaciji, pretvorile u socijalnu
pandemiju za ?ove?anstvo. U toj borbi je va?no da budemo
jedinstveni. I da diskutujemo. I da usaglasimo kriterijume
i konceprte, jer taj rat moramo da dobijemo idejama.
Hvala lepo.

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)

"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

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)

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

Opširnije...