Subject: Ousmane Bin Laden
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 07:43:50 -0400
From: Michel Chossudovsky <chossudovsky@...>
To: (Recipient list suppressed)


WHO IS OUSMANE BIN LADEN?

by Michel Chossudovsky

Professor of Economics,
University of Ottawa


Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) at
http:/globalresearch.ca.

The url of this article is
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html


Posted 12 September 2001

A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre
and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without
supporting evidence, that "Ousmane bin Laden and his al-Qaeda
organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet
stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks
with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called
the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an
evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no
distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and
those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey
pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity
of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former
National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we
will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our
strength and in our retribution."

Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media
mantra has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed
against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of
William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we
reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must
pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral
damage -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's
national hosts".

The following text outlines the history of Ousmane Bin Laden and
the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign
policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.

* * *

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists
attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his
role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Ousmane
bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically
under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA"
was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI
[Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad
into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet
Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries
joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of
thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs.
Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were
directly influenced by the Afghan jihad."3

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and
Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from
the Golden Crescent drug trade:

"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security
Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert
military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret
Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in
Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet
withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a
dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000
tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA
and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters
of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers
to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the
Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was
integrated with the teachings of Islam:

"Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete
socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the
atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of
Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing
the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow."5

PAKISTAN'S INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert
support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani
ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the
Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be
"successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate
objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet
Union.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs".
Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for
Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had
been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was
allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Ousmane bin
Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of
Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman):
"neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic
warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army
on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper
levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in
theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US
military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel
structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of
government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and
intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and
informers, estimated at 150,000. 9

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani
military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

"''Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military
intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General]
Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'...
During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively
anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet
military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI
chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only
agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more
cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United
States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public
posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that
military escalation was the best course."10

THE GOLDEN CRESCENT DRUG TRIANGLE

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related
to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war,
opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to
small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin.
11 In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two
years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the
Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin
producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the
heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2
million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other
nation":12

"CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the
Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they
ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across
the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under
the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of
heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open
drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad
failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had
refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan
allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been
subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995,
the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan,
admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the
Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as
possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or
the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't
think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its
fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main
objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'"13

IN THE WAKE OF THE COLD WAR

\In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only
strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three
quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar
revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions,
intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds
of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion
dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide
annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to
be of the order of $500 billion.14

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium
production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the
production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with
the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet
republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons.15
Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied
with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over
the heroin routes.

The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not
dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to
support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover
initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and
the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus
essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the
Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in
Central Asia." 16.

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi
Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as
well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the
institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American
ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving
Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in
Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being
supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the
government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties
between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with
the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in
Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic
government, they also "handed control of training camps in
Afghanistan over to JUI factions..." 17

And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements
played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans
and the former Soviet Union.

Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban
manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI"
18 In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal
both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert
support through Pakistan's ISI. 19

In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI)
which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic
State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The
Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and
equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and
the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is
evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of
KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.

No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on
the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant
derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for
girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices
and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".20

THE WAR IN CHECHNYA

With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev
and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored
camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef
Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on
Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had
been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International
held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. 21 The summit, was attended
by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani
intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's
ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with
weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are
actually calling the shots in this war". 22

Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and
Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of
Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war
are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for
control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the
Caspian Sea basin.

The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by
Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at
35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also
played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel
army:

"[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for
Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic
indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost
province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the
early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani
warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from
Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar
camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics.
In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military
and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab
Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar,
and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic
causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level
connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.23
Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was
assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the
first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed
extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties
to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security
Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in
Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover
in Yugoslavia" 24

Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of
rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of
Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in
counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See
Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids, 25 Alongside the
extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit
activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of
mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.

During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with
Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who
had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months
after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early
1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of
Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to
Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based
[International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious
organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which
channeled funds into Chechnya".26

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported
Ousmane bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's
"most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.

While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the
Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a
US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against
terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA
which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported
international terrorism through its covert operations.

In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush
Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the
terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon,
these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of
US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former
Soviet Union.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington,
the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together
with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure
which threatens the future of humanity.


ENDNOTES

Hugh Davies, International: `Informers' point the finger at bin
Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers, The Daily
Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998.

See Fred Halliday, "The Un-great game: the Country that lost the
Cold War, Afghanistan, New Republic, 25 March 1996):

Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign
Affairs, November-December 1999.

Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992.

Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21
November 1995.

Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August
1998.

Ibid.

Dipankar Banerjee; Possible Connection of ISI With Drug
Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994.

Ibid

See Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The
Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford university Press,
New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in
International Press Services, 22 August 1995.

Alfred McCoy, Drug fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in
the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive; 1 August 1997.
Ibid

Ibid.

Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a changing World, Technical
document no 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also Report of
the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999,
E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations Publication, Vienna 1999, p
49-51, And Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade,
Financial Times, 24 February 2000.

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, op cit, p
49-51, see also Richard Lapper, op. cit.

International Press Services, 22 August 1995.

Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign
Affairs, November- December, 1999, p. 22.

Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998)

Tim McGirk, Kabul learns to live with its bearded conquerors,
The Independent, London, 6 November1996.

See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India
Abroad, 3 November 1995.

Levon Sevunts, Who's calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds
Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 23 The Gazette,
Montreal, 26 October 1999..

Ibid

Ibid.

See Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, Chechen Front Moves
To Kosovo Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000.

The European, 13 February 1997, See also Itar-Tass, 4-5
January 2000.
BBC, 29 September 1999).


The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, September 2001. All
rights reserved. Centre for Research on Globalisation at
http://globalresearch.ca Permission is granted to post this text on
non-commercial community internet sites, provided the source
and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the
copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or
other forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts,
contact the author at chossudovsky@..., fax:
1-514-4256224.

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
PERCHE' ASPETTARE UN'EVENTO PER FARE REGALI!
Vacanze, idee regalo, liste nozze...
tutte le migliori offerte direttamente
nella vostra casella di posta!
http://www.domeus.it/ad3650330/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

Subject: BELGRADE LAW PROFESSORS' VERDICT
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:04:31 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"


In their aggression against the law and justice, NATO&Soros
clerks in the so-called "International Criminal Tribunal for
Former Yugoslavia" based in the Hague, decided to ignore, as
essentially unpleasant for their dirty work, the initiative of
leading law experts and law professors of Belgrade University to
appear in the court room as real AMICI CURIAE (in its real
meaning - as FRIENDS OF JUSTICE) and expose monstrous
character of this institution, for long time successfully hidden
from public.

Instead, they have appointed three attorneys (from Holland,
England and Yugoslavia), proven as real FRIENDS OF (WHITE)
HOUSE, to serve as quasidefense for president Milosevic. That
way their attempted trial of president Milosevic would become
the greatest political FARCE ever seen. Belgrade professors
already condemned in press conference such illegal and absurd
decision of both "Tribunal" and those three attorneys. Accepting
such a role they should lose their licenses, Belgrade professors
stated.

For the sake of justice, the full text of the initiative of Belgrade
law professors, is hereby given.

TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR
THE PROSECUTION OF PERSONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS
OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
COMMITTED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA SINCE 1991

To the Trial Chambers in all the cases before the
Tribunal

PROPOSAL FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE
TRIAL CHAMBERS BY VIRTUE OF RULE 74
ON PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE (AMICUS
CURIAE)



The Professors and Assistant Lecturers of the
Faculty of Law of the University of Belgrade have
been following with great attention the work of the
International Tribunal for the prosecution of persons
responsible for serious violations of international
humanitarian law committed in the territory of the
former Yugoslavia since 1991, as the institution that,
by a number of elements, is new and specific and all
the more interesting therefore from the purely
theoretical standpoint and then also as an organ
whose work will strongly affect the current and
future situation in the space of our country and the
situation throughout the region. A large group of
teachers and associates of our institution has
already in the country itself taken initiatives in order
to ensure respect for the constitutionality and
legality in the field of prosecution of persons charged
with violations of international humanitarian law and
especially in the field of respect for the legal norms
concerning fundamental human rights. It is our firm
belief that the prosecution of perpetrators of criminal
offences which have violated international
humanitarian law is one of the imperatives and
prerequisites for the normalisation of relations and
for restoring stability in the space of the former
Yugoslavia just as it is the case in all regions of the
world where such offences were and are still being
committed and are regrettably a regular corollary of
virtually all wars and conflicts. However, we also
firmly believe that one cannot create law out of
non-law and that therefore when prosecuting and
trying in court even such serious offences as those
that the Tribunal has been dealing with, the rules of
international law must be strictly respected and
particularly those among them that protect
fundamental human rights and freedoms that are of a
universal nature and that as jus cogens, within the
framework of international law, have a hierarchically
superior position vis-a-vis the majority of other
rules. This action-taking in accordance with the law
is everywhere a necessity that cannot be called into
question. However, in the case of the conflicts that
took place in the past ten years or so in the former
SFRY, respect for law is all the more essential as
these were conflicts that left tragic consequences on
virtually all peoples in these parts, conflicts that
represent at the same time both the expression and
the integral part of the tragic fate of these peoples,
whose troublesome past left behind a number of
disputes and unresolved situations over which they
quarrelled and waged wars also throughout their
history and over which they continue to quarrel even
today.

Bearing in mind both the mentioned necessity of
strictly respecting law, both generally and
specifically regarding the issues related to the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the huge real
importance that the Tribunal and its works have for
our country and the region, for our fate and the fate of
future generations in these parts, we consider it
important and from the standpoint of our human and
our professional conscience necessary to approach
the Tribunal and request that our representatives be
allowed by the Trial Chambers in the above
mentioned proceedings to appear in accordance with
Rule 74 on procedure and evidence before the Trial
Chambers conducting these proceedings and present
for each of these proceedings their specific
objections based on the general objections that we
shall make in this correspondence, which concern
respect of international law in the Tribunal's work
and in particular the norms protecting human rights
and fundamental freedoms.

We were prompted to take this step also by the
statement by Judge May during the first appearance
of former President Slobodan Milosevic before the
Tribunal, to the effect that the international law
would be applied to the accused in future. This would
have to mean also that in the course of proceedings
the Tribunal would respect all of his human rights,
both those prescribed by the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and others. This
statement, of course, also applies to all other
indicted persons.

We wish to point out that we decided to approach the
Tribunal in this way even though we share the view
of a large number of top-ranking international legal
experts world-wide that the International Tribunal
for prosecution of persons responsible for serious
violations of international humanitarian law
committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
since 1991 was established in the manner contrary to
the UN Charter in support of which we shall also
present our arguments but as the Tribunal does exist
in fact as it functions and keeps in custody several
dozens of indicted persons, both Serbs and Croats
and Muslims, which from our viewpoint and from the
viewpoint of law is all the same, our professional and
human responsibility and conscience make it
incumbent upon us in this way, too, to try to
contribute to the respect of international law with
regard to all these indicted persons, no matter which
national grouping they belong to because they are all
equal before the law.

We are, likewise, of the opinion that in the interest of
law, justice and peace, it would be useful in our
region for the Tribunal's relevant Trial Chambers to
approach the Faculties of Law in Sarajevo, Zagreb
and other university centre in the space of the former
SFRY, whose scholars, whose competence we had
the opportunity to personally witness during many
years of close co-operation, also could make an
important contribution to ensuring consistent and
impartial law enforcement with respect to all the
indicted for violations of international humanitarian
law. For our part, we have been prompted to
approach the Tribunal in this manner also by the fact
that unlike the state authorities from other states
formed in the space of the former SFRY that care for
the status and rights of their citizens being held on
trial at the Tribunal, as well as for the dignity of their
own state and peoples living in it, our state
authorities do not perform their duty with respect to
their citizens and their country but, as a rule, are
doing precisely the opposite. Nevertheless, we wish
by our remarks and suggestions to promote justice
and respect for law, also relative to the citizens of
other states from the region, believing it to be our
duty to adopt a strictly professional attitude on this
plane as well and treat all equally.

In the text below, we shall present (I) our view of the
legal validity of the acts establishing the Tribunal,
but would not discuss that topic further, since the
Tribunal actually exists and tries people and that in
these proceedings in every case international law
should be observed; as well as (II) our general
observations regarding the set-up and the works of
the Tribunal, which our representatives would
present in more specific terms on each individual
case if the relevant Trial Chambers would grant
permission for appearance in the proceedings in the
amicus curiae capacity.





I.ABSENCE OF LEGAL GROUNDS FOR
ESTABLISHING THE HAGUE
TRIBUNAL IN THE SECURITY
COUNCIL ACTS

The Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia was established by UN Security
Council resolutions 808/93 and 827/93 and, as
explicitly stated in these acts, in accordance
with Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

However, the legal grounds of the acts
establishing the Tribunal, can be challenged,
i.e. it can be noted with full certainty that the
aid Security Council resolutions were
adopted in contravention of the UN Charter.
The Tribunal's establishment is legally
problematic, i.e. contrary to the valid rules of
international law and primarily the UN
Charter, on several grounds.

To start with, the Security Council is the UN
executive organ responsible for taking care
of peace and security world-wide and as
such it may not establish judicial organs. It
has the right to establish its subsidiary
organs (Article 29 of the Charter stipulates:
"The Security Council may establish such
subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for
the performance of its functions"), but as it
itself has no right to perform any judicial
unction, it cannot transfer to its subsidiary
organ any powers that it does not hold (and
within the powers it has, it may not transfer
to its subsidiary organs the decision-making
right, because this is the Security Council's
xclusive right that is exercised according to a
strictly prescribed procedure). This
interpretation is also confirmed by Article 28
of the Rules of Procedure of the Security
Council adopted on 24 June 1946 based on
Article 30 of the Charter (that is still, even
after 55 years, called "Provisional Rules of
Procedure"). This Article of the Rules of
Procedure reads as follows: "The Security
Council may appoint a commission, a
committee or a rapporteur for a specific
question". A year after the adoption of the
Charter, the Security Council, where the
representatives of the key UN founding
members played a dominant role, notably
important figures such as Ernest Bevine,
eorges Bidault, Joseph Paul-Boncour,
Edward R. Stetinius Jr., Andrei Y.
yshinsky, Andrei A. Gromyko, etc. that may
virtually be considered the Charter's
authentic interpreters, thus interpreted in the
mentioned way which subsidiary organs the
Security Council might have.

In addition, the Security Council's
competence under Article 24 of the UN
Charter is the following:

"1. In order to ensure prompt and effective
action by the United Nations, its members
confer on the Security Council primary
esponsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security and agree
that, in carrying out its duty under this
responsibility, the Security Council acts on
their behalf.

2. In discharging these duties, the Security
Council shall act in accordance with the
purposes and principles of the United
Nations."

As part of the thus defined function, the
Security Council's key task is to take care of
respect for the principle set forth in Article 2,
item 4 of the Charter, according to which:
"All Members shall refrain in their
nternational relations from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state or in any
other way inconsistent with the purposes of
the United Nations." In case this principle is
violated, i.e. that there is "a threat to peace,
violation of peace or aggression" (Article 39
of the Charter), the Security Council may
ecide on the implementation of measures
(diplomatic, economic-financial and
ilitary), that must be based on Chapter 7 of
the UN Charter and whose aim it is to
maintain or restore peace and security in the
world. In international law, i.e. the part of it
concerning war and peace, there is a
traditional division into the rules concerning
the right to war (jus ad bellum) and the rules
regulating the rules of warfare, therefore,
those that are applied when the war has
already broken out in order for the war as an
otherwise inhumane phenomenon, to be made
as humane as possible, i.e. to alleviate the
orrors (this is about the so-called right in
war - jus in bello). With its above mentioned
role of taking care of peace and security in
the world, i.e. of respecting the ban on the
threat of force and the use of force, the
ecurity Council is an organ that looks after
the implementation of the rule jus ad bellum.
International criminal law, for its part, has as
its aim, primarily to prevent and punish
criminal behaviour during war conflicts, i.e. it
aims at humanising warfare, i.e. primarily
falls under the framework of "the law in
war"- "jus in bello". Of the criminal offences
within the framework of international law, it
is only the so-called "crimes against peace"
fall within the framework of "jus ad bellum",
i.e. it is only by these criminal offences that
the rules within the framework "jus ad
ellum" are violated, while all other criminal
offences fall within the framework of "jus in
bello". The Statute of The Hague Tribunal
tipulates that this Tribunal shall try virtually
all offences within the framework of
international criminal law except crimes
against peace, i.e. all the offences with the
exception of those directed against peace
and security in the world. Therefore, of all
international criminal offences, The Hague
ribunal does not deal only with those
offences that violate the values for whose
preservation the Security Council is
responsible (but, the Security Council does
not ensure the preservation of those values
through any judicial but through its executive
function). Consequently, the Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, through
its judicial function, does not prevent
recisely the offences that violate the values
for whose protection the Security Council is
responsible, meaning that the aims that it has
to attain and the aims of the Security Council
whose subsidiary organ it is, are not the
ame.

It follows that the Security Council was not
authorised to establish the Tribunal neither
from the standpoint of the nature of its
unction nor from the standpoint of the aims
that it aspires to fulfil.

In addition to the above mentioned, the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia, is a Tribunal only for crimes
ommitted in a particular space, i.e. in the
territory of several states formed following
their secession from the former Yugoslavia.
In addition to this Tribunal, such a tribunal
exists only for Rwanda. On the other hand,
the criminal offences of the same nature
were committed and are being committed in
ar-torn areas the world over. It is not only
that selective justice cannot be considered
true justice, but this selectively established
justice also contravenes the principle of
sovereign equality of states proclaimed in
rticle 2, item 1 of the UN Charter.

In support of the above arguments, we shall
recall the indubitable authority of Professor
Mohammed Bedjaoui, President of the
nternational Court of Justice. In his book
"The new world order and the control of the
legality of the Security Council acts"
("Nouvel ordre mondiale et controle de la
legalite des actes du Conseil de Securite",
Bruxelles, 1994), he included in the eight
Security Council resolutions that he
onsidered legally most disputable and that
would, as such, be the first to be subjected to
control, also the two mentioned resolutions
on the establishment of the ad hoc Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia - resolutions
808/93 and 827/93.

The only legally valid way in which an
international war crimes tribunal may be
established is the one resorted to in Rome in
1998, when the Statute was adopted of the
Permanent International Criminal Court of a
general jurisdiction. Regrettably, this Statute
has not yet come into force due to the
insufficient number of instruments of
ratification.

Since the Security Council is a political organ
and since its decisions are of a political
nature and given that in international law it is
considered legitimate and permissible for the
states to oppose the implementation of
political decisions taken by international
organisations, including the UN, that are
unlawful, it may be possible to conclude that
the mentioned Security Council resolutions
whereby the Tribunal was established do not
create legally valid obligations from the
standpoint of international law and law in
general. With respect to the UN Security
Council, this conclusion stems from Article
25 of the UN Charter, which reads as
follows: "The members of the United Nations
agree to accept and carry out the decisions
of the Security Council in accordance with
the present Charter." In its advisory opinion
of 21 June 1971 (in the case of the legal
consequence of the protracted presence of
South Africa in Namibia despite Security
Council resolution 276/1970), the
International Court of Justice confirmed that
the states are not duty-bound to accept and
implement the Security Council decisions
that are not in accordance with the Charter,
which would, by the way, be clear by itself
even if it were not written anywhere.

Nevertheless, as we have already noted,
despite the mentioned objections related to
the legal grounds of the Tribunal's
establishment, we have decided to request
that our representatives be allowed to appear
before the Trial Chambers in all the
mentioned cases in accordance with Rule 74
on Procedure and Evidence. We proceed
from the fact that the Tribunal exists and
unctions and from our wish for international
law to be respected in all the mentioned
proceedings.

II.THE SET-UP AND WORK OF THE
HAGUE TRIBUNAL IS CONTRARY TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW PRIMARILY
IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN RIGHTS



What poses a particular problem when the Hague
Tribunal is concerned is the fact that both its set-up
and the method of work are, to a considerable extent,
contrary to a number of rules in international law,
particularly those in the field of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. Especially important among
these rights are those stipulated in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and
open for signature by UN General Assembly
resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, that
took effect on 23 March 1976, as one of the central
documents adopted internationally. The Tribunal's
rules are often contrary also to the general legal
principles as recognized by the civilized nations and
particularly the general principles of criminal,
substantive and procedural law having universal
value (legality of sanctions, two-instance court
proceedings, division of legislative and judicial
functions, etc.). It is also noteworthy that the Hague
Tribunal works also in contravention of a number of
provisions of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the
practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

Finally, a number of Rules of Procedure and Evidence
as well as a number of practical procedures before
the Tribunal run counter to the rules of the indicted
person prescribed in Article 21 of the Tribunal's
Statute that correspond to the rules stipulated in
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, so that our remarks concerning
respect for Article 14 of the Covenant as a rule also
apply to respect for Article 21 of the Statute.

Mentioned below are just some of the most important
violations of international law that appear in the
Tribunal's set-up plan and in its works.



1.Legislative and judicial functions are mixed

The Tribunal appears both as a legislative
and as a judicial body. The judges write the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence themselves
and are authorised to amend them (Article 15
of the Statute titled "Rules of Procedure and
Evidence" stipulates: "The judges of the
International Tribunal shall adopt the Rules
of Procedure and Evidence for work pending
trial, for the conduct of court proceedings and
appellate proceedings, for the acceptance of
vidence, for the protection of victims and
witnesses, as well as for other relevant
issues". They, therefore, both make law and
apply it.

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence are
frequently amended. In eight years of the
Tribunal's existence, it developed eighteen
amendments to the Rules. Such frequent
amendments of the Rules lead to legal
insecurity.

The legal insecurity and inadequacy of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence is also
augmented by the fact that right from day one
they represented a mixture of different
systems and that their interpretation often
argely depends on the judge that is applying
them and particularly on the legal system and
tradition in the framework of which he was
trained. Such a nature of the rules and their
too frequent amendments make it impossible
to establish a stable court practice. As a
result, neither the defence nor the
rosecutors nor the judges themselves are
able to fully follow and master this practice.

What additionally undermines legal security
is also the fact that the English and the
French versions of the Rules do not always
coincide as well as the fact that with respect
to some issues, there is a discrepancy
etween the Rules and the Statute (which is
an act superior to the Rules) so that the
judges, at their own discretion, have the
possibility to opt for solutions that are more
convenient to them at the given moment. The
iscrepancies of the mentioned types that will
be presented in this paper are only a part of
these discrepancies.

The absence of separation of the legislative
function from the judicial function also gives
the judges the possibility and the
uthorisation to interpret these Rules
depending on circumstances and without any
control. The defence has no means or
possibility to challenge the interpretation of
these rules by the Tribunal even if that
interpretation is evidently incorrect. It does
not have either the possibility to challenge
the legality of these rules even in cases
when they evidently contravene the Statute's
provisions which often happens in practice
as we shall see from some examples in the
text below.





2.The prosecutor's and the judge's functions
are mixed

According to its Statute, the Tribunal was
established as the "International Tribunal for
the prosecution of persons responsible for
serious violations of international
humanitarian law committed in the territory
of the former Yugoslavia since 1991". This is
how it was defined also in the Rules of
rocedure and Evidence.

Consequently, judging by the text of the
Statute, the Tribunal's task is prosecution.
This is clearly not a normal function of a
ourt that should try the accused (the French
version of the Statute, true, is more correct
than the English version because it
stipulates that the Tribunal shall "try in
court" (juger) - "Le Tribunal international
penal pour juger les personnes presumees
responsables de violations graves du droit
international humanitaire commises en
ex-Yougoslavie depuis 1991" - however, in
the text of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence, the word "juger", meaning `try in
court', has been replaced by the word
"poursuivre", meaning "prosecute").

Both versions (the English and the French)
of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence take
the English version of the definition from the
tatute. Describing the institution under
discussion as the "International Tribunal
(Court) for the prosecution of persons
responsible for serious violations of
international humanitarian law committed in
the territory of the former Yugoslavia since
1991".

The mentioned inappropriate determination of
the Tribunal's function is not solely limited to
linguistic imprecision. It finds its practical
implementation also in the fact that the
Tribunal (i.e. the Trial Chambers and the
Prosecutor's Office) represents a single
organisational unit with a joint Secretariat.
Such institutional unity of the Prosecutor's
Office and the Court is unacceptable and
inconceivable in any modern judicial system.

Further materialisation in the mentioned
definitions of the proclaimed "prosecuting"
role of the Tribunal is also effected through
its actions that are characterised by
violations of a number of rights of the
ndicted persons and prevention of providing
adequate defence which will be discussed
later on.

What is also indicative in the mentioned
definitions is the fact that the Tribunal was
established to prosecute "persons
responsible...". Defining things in this way
runs counter to the modern legal and social
chievements, namely, in contemporary world,
any normal judicial system is characterised
by the fact that courts try "indicted persons"
who are presumed innocent until proven
guilty (Article 14, paragraph 2 of the
International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights stipulates: "Everyone charged with a
riminal offence shall have the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law."; a similar provision is also
contained in Article 21 paragraph 3 of the
Tribunal's Statute, but this provision runs
counter to the manner in which the Tribunal
has been defined and the way it functions).
The mentioned French versions of the
Statute and the Rules go even a step further
o deny this fundamental premise of modern
justice and they indicate that the Tribunal
shall try in court or prosecute "persons
presumed responsible..." ("les personnes
presumees responsables...").

This establishment of the "presumption of
guilt" does not remain solely verbal but also
has its practical implementation, to be
iscussed later on.



3.Violation of the two-instance proceedings
principle

Article 14, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant
on Civil and political Rights, prescribes the right to
two-instance proceedings in the following way:
"Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right
to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a
higher tribunal according to law." The mentioned
provision evidently presumes a distinction between a
lower and higher judicial instance, a thing considered
normal and commonplace in all modern legal
systems.

At the Hague Tribunal, the same judges are members
of both first-instance (the term "first-instance" is
used in the French version of the text, while the
appropriate term from the English version is "Trial")
and Appellate Chambers. Namely, Rule 27 on
Procedure and Evidence reads:

"Rule 27

Rotation

A.Permanent Judges shall rotate on a regular
basis between the Trial Chambers and the
Appeals Chamber. Rotation shall take into
account the efficient disposal of cases.

B.The Judges shall take their places in their
new Chamber as soon as the President
thinks it convenient, having regard to the
disposal of part-heard cases.

C.The President may at any time temporarily
assign a member of a Trial Chamber or of the
Appeals Chamber to another Chamber."

A judge, therefore, may be in a first-instance
Chamber in one case and a member of the Appeals
Chamber in another. Therefore, the decision of every
judge acting as a member of a first-instance
Chamber are subject to control by other judges who
are in that case members of the second-instance
Chamber, whereas in other cases that very same
judge takes part in second- instance proceedings in
the control of the work of these other judges that
now appear as members of second-instance
Chambers. This is how the system of mutual
cross-control functions, impeding clear
two-instance nature in trials and may result in
deviations primarily towards a benevolent attitude
and confirmation of first-instance decisions made by
other judges when acting in second-instance
proceedings, so that they can be expected to
reciprocate this benevolence when their roles are
reversed.

This double position of judges undermines
considerably their independence and impartiality.

This organisation also gives the judge the possibility
to take part in decision-making as a
second-instance judge and at the same time to apply
the stands from such decisions as the court practice
established in second- instance proceedings in
cases that he tries as a judge in first-instance
proceedings.

The paradoxical possibility for the same judge to
decide on the same legal issue in one case within the
framework of a first-instance Chamber and at the
same time in a second case within the framework of
an Appeals Chamber gives this judge a legally
unacceptable benefit of providing to his stand and
first-instance decision simultaneously the legal
force and the confirmation of judicial practice
established at the second-instance level.

The true unacceptability of such a rule that allows
the same judges to participate both in first-instance
and Appeals Chambers is further strongly
accentuated by the fact that the rotation does not
take place under any rules laid down in advance, but
according to the decision of the President, who is
authorised at any moment to temporarily assign a
judge to another Chamber.

(1. continua/follows)

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento N

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
BASTA CODE INTERMINABILI PER I SALDI DI FINE STAGIONE!
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte direttamente nella
tua casella di posta su moda, accessori, collezioni...
http://www.domeus.it/ad3584290/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

(continua/follows)


1.The rules on detention and the practice when
ordering detention - breach of the right to liberty

Before the Tribunal, detention is a rule and
temporary release an exception (Rule 64
stipulates that "upon being transferred to the seat
of the Tribunal, the accused shall be detained...",
whereas Rule 65, paragraph (A): "once detained,
an accused may not be released except upon an
rder of a Chamber").

This contravenes international law and
particularly the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. In its Article 9, this Covenant
proclaims the right to liberty as one of the basic
human rights. Article 9, paragraph 3, inter alia,
stipulates: "It shall not be the general rule that
persons awaiting trial shall be detained in
custody...".

The judges of the Hague Tribunal are not
duty-bound to elaborate on their arrest warrants
and detention decisions. This contravenes Article
9, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which reads: "Anyone
who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of
rrest of the reasons for his arrest and shall be
promptly informed of any charges against him".
This situation also contravenes principle 11/2 of
the UN General Assembly resolution 173 (XLIII)
of 8 December 1988, titled "A set of principles for
protecting all persons placed in any form of
custody or detention", according to which: "The
person placed in detention and possibly his
Defence Counsel shall be communicated without
delay and in full the arrest warrant and the
reasons explaining it".

Detention pending trial before The Hague Tribunal
is of an indefinite duration. In practice, detention
pending trial lasts very long and, bearing in mind
the length of the trial itself, this problem becomes
even more pronounced and more unacceptable.
This long detention contravenes the first sentence
of Article 9, paragraph 3 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It reads as
follows: "Anyone arrested or detained on a
riminal charge shall be brought promptly before a
judge or other officer authorised by law to
exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release".

Too long a detention pending trial is not consistent
with the court practice of the European Court for
Human Rights that applies the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms where detention is limited to up to two
years (in the FRY law it is up to six months). In
the case of Momir Talic, the two-year period of
detention is just about to expire and the trial has
not even begun.

At The Hague Tribunal, there is no right to
compensation of damage in case of unlawful
detention either. This contravenes Article 9,
aragraph 5 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, which reads: "Anyone who
has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention
shall have an enforceable right to compensation".



2.Legality of sanctions

Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights prescribes:

"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal
offence on account of any act or omission which
did not constitute a criminal offence, under
national or international law at the time when it
was committed. Nor shall a heavier be imposed
than the one that was applicable at the time when
he criminal offence was committed.

...

2. Nothing in this Article shall prejudice the trial
and punishment of any person for any act or
omission which at the time when it was
ommitted was criminal according to the general
principles of law recognised by the community of
nations."

This is about the rule of criminal and international
law that usually finds expression in the sentence:
"Nulum crimen sine lege, nula poena sine lege",
and also comes under the corps of the universally
ccepted basic human rights.

When it comes to the legality of determining the
criminal offences which are tried before The
Hague Tribunal, this legality cannot be called into
question even when it is about the offences
committed before the Tribunal's Statute was
adopted. For, they were stipulated as such by
different international instruments (Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, the Geneva Conventions on
International Humanitarian Law), as well as by
national Criminal Codes. However, no
international norm envisaged sanctions for
violation of international humanitarian law before
the Tribunal's Statute adopted in May 1993.
Penalties are prescribed for the crimes from this
group stipulated by the Criminal Law of SFR
Yugoslavia and all the states formed in that
space. Namely, for each offence a separate
inimum and maximum penalty may be imposed
within the scope of the general minimum and
maximum penalty applicable in the respective
legal systems.

However, the Tribunal's Statute stipulates
penalties very vaguely. This is inappropriate for
modern criminal law. Article 24 of the Tribunal's
Statute prescribes:

"The first-instance Chamber shall pass only
prison sentences. When determining the terms of
imposing a prison penalty, the first-instance
hamber shall be guided by the general practice of
passing prison sentences applied by the courts in
the former Yugoslavia."

The former Yugoslavia's Criminal Code stipulated
as the heaviest penalty the term of imprisonment
of up to 15 years and exceptionally a 20-year term
but only as a substitute for the death penalty.

However, the Tribunal's Rule of Procedure and
Evidence also contravene even the thus
formulated Article 24 of the Statute. Namely, Rule
101 stipulates the possibility of passing a life
sentence: "The persons found guilty by the
Tribunal may be given a term of imprisonment that
may go up to life sentence". In addition, it is
noteworthy that the Rules of Procedure and
vidence, as a document containing procedural
rules should not even regulate the term of
imprisonment because this is an issue governed
by criminal substantive law.

This evident discrepancy between the Rules and
the Statute as the superior of the two cannot be
denied by the claim that the quoted Article 24 of
the Statute recalls the conditions of serving prison
sentences in the former Yugoslavia. Namely, it is
clear that that provision concerns the duration of
prison sentences in the former SFRY as this was
the only thing that could be determined by the
courts. The same cannot be said of the conditions
of imprisonment that the courts do not deal with.
The French version of the Statute is even more
explicit on the matter. Namely, instead of the
expression "general practice regarding prison
sentences in the courts of the former Yugoslavia",
this version uses the words "la grille generale des
eines d'emprisonnement appliquee par les
Tribunaux de l' ex-Yougoslavie ("General
frameworks for determining prison sentences
applied by the courts in the former Yugoslavia".
The term "grille" denotes the frameworks, i.e. the
ermitted range for determining the length of prison
sentences. This interpretation of ours is also
confirmed by the UN Secretary General's report
f 3 May 1993, which clearly states that: "when
determining the duration of prison sentence, the
first-instance Chamber shall be guided by the
general frameworks for determining prison
sentences applied in the courts of the former
Yugoslavia".

Finally, it should be pointed out that in its practice
so far the Tribunal passed prison sentences
largely exceeding the maximum prison sentence
that could be passed in the formed SFRY.



3.Absence of reasons for exclusion of criminal
responsibility

Neither the Statute nor the Rules envisage any
reason for the exclusion of criminal responsibility.
However, modern criminal law, i.e. the general
principles of criminal and international law,
generally recognise and accept the existence of
reasons for the exclusion of criminal responsibility
(such as necessary self-defence, extreme need,
coercion, etc.).

In its practice, too, the Tribunal does not take into
account the existence of such circumstances. For
example, in the case of Drazen Erdemovic, the
Tribunal refused to treat coercion as a basis for
the exclusion of responsibility but simply as an
extenuating circumstance when deciding how
eavy a penalty to impose. (According to
Erdemovic's claim, which the Tribunal accepted
as justifiable, he had actually been threatened
with death unless he committed the crimes of
murder for which the Tribunal later tried him).



4.Violation of the right to defence by treating
elements relevant for defence as confidential

In its work, the Tribunal has the possibility to issue sealed
indictments (Rule 53 on Procedure and Evidence, titled
"Non-disclosure of Indictment", paragraph (A) stipulates:
"(A) In exceptional circumstances, a Judge or a Trial
Chamber may, in the interests of justice, order the
non-disclosure to the public of any documents or
information until further order."). One cannot challenge
the right of the prosecuting organs to prosecute suspects
without disclosing that they are after them. However, it is
not legally acceptable and sustainable that a given person
is aware that proceedings have been initiated against him
and, in particular, that the indictment has been issued
against him without making it possible for him to learn
why he is being prosecuted and by keeping that fact
confidential. Thus, for instance, in the case against Zeljko
Raznatovic Arkan, the Tribunal announced that Arkan had
been indicted without letting the public or the accused
learn about the contents of the indictment.

We also wish to point out that the quoted provision
(which, as such, is itself inappropriate for modern law)
stipulates the keeping of indictments confidential (even
vis-�-vis the accused), as well as other documents and
information as an exception while, in practice, this is
increasingly becoming a rule.

The prosecutor forwards too late to the Defence Counsel
the data on the identity of the witnesses and the victims,
as well as these witnesses' allegations, i.e. the claims
regarding the victims against the accused, so that the
Defence Counsel does not have enough time to collect
data and evidence to possibly refute all these allegations
and claims. The Tribunal tries to justify this practice by
reasons of security of the witnesses and the alleged
victims. However, an institution that has at its disposal all
the means available to the Tribunal quite certainly will not
find it a problem to simultaneously provide security to
witnesses and alleged victims and give the accused and
his Defence Counsels enough time to prepare the defence.

An extreme scenario based on this approach is the
possibility, permitted under Rule 75 on Procedure and
Evidence, to keep the identity of a witness or a victim a
total secret until the very end and for the witness to be
heard by means of various technical devices (picture or
sound distorting devices or closed-circuit television; by
giving a witness a pseudonym, etc.). These methods make
it impossible to establish a given person's identity. Such
action makes it impossible for the Counsel to prepare the
defence and by its nature opens up the possibility for
manipulation rather than contributing to protecting a given
person. Namely, when a witness is heard on an actual
event that has really taken place, the accused can
conclude based on the actual contents of the witness
hearing which particular person is speaking, so that
keeping identity a secret does not make much sense.
However, it gives exceptional advantage to false
witnesses and victims, who may make statements
without any risk to themselves about something that
never happened. Namely, their identity is kept a secret
and the accused cannot conclude who they are based on
the contents of their statement as they testify about
something that never happened.

The above mentioned methods are used in particular to
violate Article 14 on the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights that protects the right of the accused
in the proceedings and whose paragraph 3, inter alia,
stipulates that:

"3. In the determination of any criminal charge against
him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum
guarantees, in full equality:

a.to be informed promptly and in detail in a
language which he understands of the
nature and cause of the charge against
him;

b.to have adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his own
choosing;

...."

The above mentioned methods also violate the similar
provisions of Article 21, paragraph 4, items a) and b) of
the Tribunal's Statute.



1.Disproportionate difference between the terms of
work of the Prosecutor's Office and the Defence

The Prosecutor's Office has disproportionately
more favourable terms of work than the terms and
means available to the Defence. Not only is this
unfair but also, inter alia, violates the right to
efence, particularly in the part concerning the
above quoted Article 14, paragraph 3, item b) of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political
ights (as well as Article 21, paragraph 4, item b)
of the Tribunal's Statute).

Namely, the Prosecutor's Office has offices in
several towns in the territory of Yugoslavia, has a
large number of investigators and an unlimited
capacity of access to all cases before the
Tribunal. The Defence Counsels do not have any
of this, i.e. have it but to a much more moderate
xtent. Thus, for instance, in some of the cases
(particularly those against the highest officials of
the Republika Srpska that are on trial - Momcilo
rajisnik and Biljana Plavsic), the problem arose of
actual feasibility for the Defence Counsels to read
all the documents submitted by the Prosecutor's
ffice that have so many pages that the usual group
of several Counsels would need several years of
full-time work to read only once the contents of
the submitted documents.

The costs of litigation before the Tribunal are so
high that no accused can afford to pay them. The
Tribunal pays Defence Counsels ex officio and
the amounts of their fees are exceptionally high,
particularly if viewed from the Yugoslav
perspective and measured by our yardsticks.
owever, in real terms, even these amounts are
inadequate to meet the overall needs for a quality
defence compared to the formidable means and
possibilities available to the Prosecutor's Office.
In addition, by employing this method of paying
the Attorneys, which is a rule rather than an
exception, which would be normal, the Tribunal's
Secretariat keeps the Defence under control and
ndermines its independence.



2.Violation of the principle "audiatur et altera pars"
in some cases

Rule 94 on Procedure and Evidence, paragraph
(A) stipulates that: (A) A Trial Chamber shall not
require proof of facts of common knowledge but
shall take judicial notice thereof". This rule,
otherwise widely accepted in procedural
legislation, becomes problematic before The
Hague Tribunal because allegations made by the
mass media are often considered as generally
ccepted facts related to the Yugoslav crisis and
have, as a result of frequent repetition, acquired
the character of notorious facts. In a situation
hen the judges, as a rule, do not have enough
preliminary knowledge about the overall context of
the events underlying the ongoing proceedings,
which will be discussed later on, the mentioned
procedural possibility poses a big treat to the
accused placing him at a great disadvantage.

Paragraph (B) of the same rule prescribes: "(B)
At the request of a party or proprio motu, a Trial
Chamber, after hearing the parties, may decide to
take judicial notice of adjudicated facts or
ocumentary evidence from other proceedings of
the Tribunal relating to matters at issue in the
current proceedings". Notwithstanding the fact
that it is obliged to previously hear the parties,
meaning to also give the possibility to the accused
to plead, the Trial Chamber may take as proved,
ven if the accused challenges them, the facts
established in the course of some other
proceedings before the Tribunal since the quoted
provision only envisages the obligation to hear the
parties but not the obligation to supply proof again
if the accused (or possibly the Prosecutor) claims
that these facts have not been correctly
established. Although the facts already proved in
another case are at issue here, perhaps the facts
proved in these other proceedings are not
important for the accused to the extent that he
would challenge the Prosecutor's allegations
thereon; namely, they do not significantly affect
the verdict in that case and therefore the accused
may not wish to enter into a debate thereon.
However, in the case where later on these very
same facts are taken as established and proved,
they may be of major importance to the accused
and the accused will not be given the possibility
for presenting new evidence. Given that in
different cases the accused are different and that
the Prosecutor's Office is the same in all of them,
and given that the Prosecutor's Office decides
when it will issue a particular indictment, it has
the possibility to adjust the sequence of
ndictments submitted, so that the same disputable
issue in particular earlier proceedings will appear
as an issue of no particular importance to the
ccused. In some later proceedings, however, the
same issue may be of crucial importance to the
contents of the verdict and the position of the
accused and may make the accused in the
later-on initiated proceedings face a situation
here he will not be able to challenge the
Prosecutor's allegation that will decide his fate.

In the mentioned way, the anyway inequitable
position of the Defence vis-�-vis that Prosecutor
is additionally aggravated and the right of the
accused to effectively challenge the Prosecutor's
allegations and succeed in having evidence
supplied in his favour is seriously undermined.
And this right is also stipulated and protected by
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (as well as by Article 21 of
the Tribunal's Statute).


(2 - continua/follows)

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Il Tennis e' la tua passione?
Tutte le news sugli ultimi risultati, notizie inedite
e interviste nella Newsletter piu' in palla del momento!!!
Iscriviti a tennisnews-subscribe@...
Tennis.it ti offrira' il meglio del tennis direttamente nella tua casella email
http://www.domeus.it/ad3584350/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

(continua/follows)

3. Inadequate qualification of the Tribunal's judges
to try people due to lack of knowledge of the
historic, political and civilisation context in which
the events of relevance to the trial took place

In the Tribunal's work so far, the ignorance is in
evidence among judges and the officials of the
Prosecutor's Office (Chief Prosecutor, Deputy
Prosecutor and other personnel in the
Prosecutor's Office) of the social and historic
milieux in which the events under trial took place
and in which the protagonists of those events,
including the accused, lived and came from. These
officials have come from different parts of the
world and, as a rule, do not even speak the
languages spoken in the former SFRY. Their
nowledge of the history, political situation,
customs, habits, and other civilisation features of
the region, is more than inadequate and often
based almost exclusively on the knowledge gained
through the media. To illustrate this by an
example, at the trial of the Celebici case, when
one of the judges asked who the Ustashi
mentioned in the proceedings were, the
Prosecutor did not know how to answer.

This situation leads to the judges, whose
half-knowledge and ignorance are otherwise
based on information gained through the media,
falling prey in the course of proceedings to further
manipulations and accepting claims also based on
media and other propaganda campaigns. All this
leads to the accumulation of untruths and
half-truths that are increasingly difficult to
challenge. Even the Prosecutor's Office's stands
are sometimes drastically unfavourable for the
accused not out of malice but due to inadequate
knowledge or a distorted perception of particular
issues that people at the Prosecutor's Office
have.

Having in mind the perception of the Yugoslav
crisis world-wide, its causes, historical
background and development, this state of affairs
clearly produces negative effects primarily and to
the largest extent against the accused on the Serb
side.



4.Disrespect of the assumption of innocence/
establishment of the assumption of guilt

We have seen that The Hague Tribunal has been
defined as the organ for "the prosecution of
persons responsible" (i.e. according to the French
version "persons presumed responsible") and that
its set-up, where the institutional inseparability of
the court Chambers and the Prosecutor's Office
rejudices the the necessary impartiality of trials
required by modern law, and particularly respect
for the presumption of innocence stipulated in
rticle 14, paragraph 2, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
reads: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall have the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law." (the presumption
of innocence is even stipulated in Article 21,
paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute, although
the Tribunal has been defined, set up and is
unctioning in contravention of that presumption).

Disrespect for the presumption of innocence/
establishment of the presumption of guilt has in
practice been particularly pronounced through the
presentation of the indictments of the general
context in which the events on trial took place and
particularly in the indictments against
high-ranking military or political leaders. These
presentations of the general context often make
up quite a large part of the total text of the
indictments. Through this general context, a
political situation is described where whole
peoples are charged with particular behaviours,
with the "political guilt" of the Serb people coming
to full expression (hegemonic aspirations, terror
against minorities, ethnic cleansing, aspirations
towards creating a Greater Serbia, etc). This, by
the way, contravenes the principle of individual
responsibility that has been generally accepted in
modern criminal law. It also contravenes the
raison d'etre of any criminal court, including The
Hague Tribunal, that was, as is often mentioned in
the debates in its favour, established precisely in
order to remove collective responsibility from a
people for the crimes committed by individuals.
Based on the established claims within a general
context, individual responsibility is then derived.
Namely, the thus established general context
further allows the Prosecutor - at least according
o his own view of things and as can be
unequivocally concluded from his behaviour - to
provide very scant information on what
specifically the defendants did, when, where and
against whom they committed the crimes they are
charged with, etc. As a result, the accused face a
situation where they have to defend themselves
both against the general context allegations and
gainst inaccurate concrete allegations, in fact to
defend themselves against whatever one can
conclude based on such indictments that the
Prosecutor has charged them with.

The broadly defined and perceived concept of
so-called "command responsibility" also
contributes to undermining the assumption of
nnocence and the request for individual and
subjective responsibility. Here, the relationship
between the accused and the event for which he
is on trial can be so distant and indirect that
neither according to his formal powers nor
ccording to his real influence he could have
contributed to either the direct commission of the
given crime or could have prevented it in any way,
nor could he even have learned about it. A typical
example is the case of Momcilo Krajisnik who, as
President of the Assembly of Republika Srpska,
could not have either formally or factually
influenced the events and crimes that he is
lamed for.

In a situation when an individual's responsibility
is largely based on a broad political and even
historic context and in a situation when neither
the judges nor the employees of the Prosecutor's
Office have any sufficient knowledge about that
context, as already mentioned, it is hardly
ossible to establish facts correctly and apply law
in an appropriate manner. There are even certain
absurd situations, as in the Tadic case, for
instance, when the Prosecutor arguing in favour of
the claim on the continued tendency among Serbs
towards the "ethnic cleansing" of other peoples
also proposed a study of a certain "expert
witness" whose identity had been kept
confidential (expert witness P) and proved the
mentioned tendency by referring to a paper by
historian Vasa Cubrilovic presented on 7 March
1937 to the Serbian Cultural Club. Cubrilovic was
in favour of Yugoslavia concluding a treaty on the
xchange of population with Turkey and possibly
with Albania, just as already done by other Balkan
countries following the Balkan wars, and the
practice commonplace at the time, which only we
had not resorted to. Cubrilovic presented the
mentioned proposal in a private capacity, as a
scholar, and, as is well known, this proposal was
never accepted by the authorities.

In determining the above mentioned general
olitical-historical-legal context, it is noteworthy
that there is a discrepancy between the claims
made by the Prosecutor's Office and the contents
of the decisions made by the Tribunal and
presentations by some of the judges, who are
incidentally eminent legal experts, in their
research papers. Thus there is in the indictments
the claim that the former Yugoslav republics
decided to `leave' Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.
This is regarded as acceptable whereas the
political reactions of the Serbian people are
treated as criminal acts (the establishment of the
municipal communities permitted under the
Constitution, or of the representative bodies
through which they could articulate their interests,
etc.). That Serbian people does not wish to be
dominated by other nations in the separated
republics and wishes either to preserve the SFRY
or to remain even in the truncated Yugoslav state
or even to have its own canton in the seceded
republic. At the same time, one of the most
minent judges of the Tribunal and its former
President Professor Antonio Cassese in his book
Self-Determination of Peoples, A Legal
Re-Appraisal (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1995) noted that secession (external
elf-determination) by the former Yugoslav
republics contravened both international law and
the Yugoslav constitutional system. This drastic
ifference in the assessment of events is of crucial
importance when determining the above
mentioned context because in the given example
the reactions of the Serb people represented the
defence of their own rights against the
unconstitutional secession that was contrary to
international law. The claims by the Prosecutor
and the statements by the Tribunal were contrary
o certain generally known facts - thus it is
generally known world wide that in Yugoslavia
which according to claims was dominated by the
Serbs from 1945 to 1980 virtually absolute power
was wielded by Josip Broz Tito who was
alf-Croat and half-Slovene as well as that after
that there was a practically con-federal system in
place that did not allow the predominance of any
of the republics (those better versed and the
Prosecutor's Office and the Tribunal should be
among them, know that the percentage of Serbs in
the SFRY was lower than the percentage of
Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that in the
period from the Second World War up to the
outbreak of the war in the early 1990s only one
erb served as Federal Prime Minister, notably
Petar Stambolic in the 1960s, that in the JNA the
command over the most important sectors like air
force, air defences, the Navy, etc. was almost as
a rule given to Croats and Slovenes and that the
percentage of Serbs in the JNA command staff
was lower than the percentage of the Serbs in the
total population, etc.).













5.Violations of human rights protected by
International Law during the arrest and the
transfer of the accused to the Tribunal

The Rule 58 of Procedure and Evidence of the
Tribunal stipulates: "The obligations laid down in
Article 29 of the Statute shall prevail over any
legal impediment to the surrender or transfer of
the accused or of a witness to the Tribunal which
may exist under the national law or extradition
treaties of the State concerned."

We shall not at the moment tackle in detail the
question whether an act of a hierarchically inferior
legal power, which is supposed to deal only with
the procedure and evidence before the Tribunal
(since the legislative competence conferred to the
judges by the Statute of the Tribunal is limited to
those questions only), can determine the relations
between a superior act and some other acts of a
different nature. But we could observe that the
above quoted article does not include the
obligation of respect of the human rights
guaranteed by the International law during the
arrest and the transfer of the accused to the
Tribunal (this obligation cannot in any way be
erogated since those rights belong to the jus
cogens).

In many cases the accused were arrested, either
by the state authorities or by some informal
groups, outside the procedures prescribed by
ational laws and they were transferred to the
Tribunal also without applications of such
procedures. Those accused were also deprived of
the right to the protection by a court. This was the
case for example with Mr. Milomir Stakic, Mr.
Momir Talic, Mr. Dragan Nikolic, Mr. Slobodan
Milosevic, Mr. Steve Todorovic, Mr. Momcilo
Krajisnik, the twins Mr. Miroslav and Milan
Vuckovic etc.

The above mentioned conducts are contrary in the
first place to the provisions of the Article 9
paragraphs 1 and 4 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights which reads as
follows:

"Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to the liberty and the
security of person. No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be
deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and
in accordance with such procedure as are
established by law.

. . .

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest
or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
before a court, in order that that court may decide
without delay on the lawfulness of his detention
and order his release if the detention is not
lawful."

The above mentioned conducts are also in
contravention of similar provisions of other
international documents as well as of general
rinciples of criminal procedure as recognized by
civilized nations.

Since the persons in question were arrested and
transferred to the Tribunal in an unlawful way,
they are entitled to a restitutio in integrum.



6.Breach of the provisions of the Tribunal's Statute
and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in
atypical conditions of trying Slobodan Milosevic

Finally, in the case against Slobodan Milosevic that is
taking place in an atypical manner, as a result of his
refusal to recognise the Tribunal, when the accused
appeared before the Tribunal for the first time, the
indictment should have been read out to him in accordance
with Article 20 of the Statute and Rule 62 of Procedure
and Evidence. This was not done because the Tribunal
interpreted the accused 's reply to the question of
whether he wished to be read out the indictment that was:
"That is your problem" as the accused 's refusal to have it
read out to him. The Tribunal was under the obligation to
read out the indictment nevertheless in accordance with
the mentioned Articles and the defendant's reply, which
was neither negative nor positive but boiled down to a
refusal to give a reply, should by no means have been
interpreted as negative and, contrary to the defendant's
interest, make the Tribunal decide not to read it out
because this was a question relating to the defendant's
procedural right where the interpretations must always go
in the direction which favours the accused more.

Given the mentioned omission it can be considered that
the proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic was not
initiated in a legally proper manner.



* * *


Bearing in mind all of the above examples and our wish to
contribute to all the trials before the Tribunal taking place
in accordance with international law and that human rights
and fundamental freedoms of the accused be respected
and that the perpetrators of violations of international
humanitarian law are tried and judged in a legally proper
manner based on facts, we propose that the relevant Trial
Chambers should approve to us, the members of the
following group, to appear, each of us as a representative
of the whole group, before them and present the stands on
issues regarding respect for international law in the given
proceedings:





Professor Kosta Cavoski,L.L.D.

Professor Zagorka Jekic,L.L.D.

Professor Ljubisa Lazarevic

Professor Ratko Markovic,L.L.D.

Professor Zoran Stojanovic,L.L.D.

Professor Djordje Lazin,L.L.D.

Professor Mirjana Stefanovski,L.L.D.

Assistant Professor Aleksandar Jaksic,L.L.D.

Assistant Professor Milan Skulic,L.L.D.

Assistant Professor Branko M.Rakic,L.L.D.

Assistant Professor Sasa Bovan,L.L.D.

Assistant Aleksandar Gajic

Assistant Bojan Milisavljevic


(fine/end)

---


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)

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
SEI UN APPASSIONATO DI PC, SOFTWARE E PERIFERICHE?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta eMail
http://www.domeus.it/ad3584440/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

Da "La Stampa" del 10.9.2001
http://www.lastampa.it/_EDICOLA/nazionale/esteri/SPIA.htm

�Ebbene s�, sono una spia colta in flagrante a Minsk�

Domenica 9 Settembre 2001

ANTON ANGELO PIU, ARRESTATO IN BIELORUSSIA,
RACCONTA LA SUA VICENDA AL DEPUTATO ITALIANO
MARCO ZACCHERA CHE GLI HA FATTO VISITA IN CARCERE

Giacomo Galeazzi

ROMA �Sono una spia colta in flagrante. Mi ero appropriato di
documenti militari e so che verr� condannato�. Anton Angelo Piu,
reo confesso, confida nel presidente che sar� eletto oggi in
Bielorussia. �Mi aspetto la concessione della grazia - spiega ai
suoi interlocutori lo 007 italiano alla sbarra a Minsk - se fossi
stato sorpreso nel mio paese con ci� che avevo addosso al
momento dell'arresto, non avrei dubbi sulla condanna. Sono in
pensione, non faccio pi� parte, ufficialmente, dei servizi
segreti, mi avevano chiesto un ultimo favore �fuori ruolo� e le
cose non
sono andate come programmato�.
La sede di Skoriny del Kgb � il tipico stabile di regime, con
interni lugubri e corridoi interminabili. Il processo per
spionaggio � in corso ed � stato secretato, ma tutti si attendono
un gesto di clemenza dopo una sentenza resa scontata dalle prove
schiaccianti a carico del finto imprenditore sardo. L'imputato, che
dimostra pi� dei suoi 50 anni, � in buone condizioni fisiche e non
ha subito maltrattamenti. E' detenuto in una cella minuscola, con
solo un'ora d'aria al giorno. L'ambasciata italiana provvede
quotidianamente a portargli da mangiare. Ad Anton Angelo Piu,
residente a Sassari, sarebbe stata affidata una commissione
particolare dai servizi segreti italiani, mentre era in Bielorussia
in veste umanitaria come referente di un gruppo sardo di assistenza
alle famiglie indigenti. D'altronde pochi italiani conoscono Minsk
come lui, che dopo essersi separato dalla moglie � stato pi�
spesso nella capitale bielorussa che a Sassari. Nella repubblica ex
sovietica ha conosciuto l'interprete Irina Ushak, 26 anni, divenuta
la sua compagna.
�Lei non centra nulla con il mio lavoro - afferma Anton Angelo
Piu, confidandosi con Marco Zacchera (AN), che ieri � andato a
trovarlo con Mastella e Contestabile - sono molto preoccupato
perch� rischia vent'anni di carcere per alto tradimento senza aver
alcuna responsabilit�. Spero di essere espulso e che il
provvedimento di grazia sia esteso anche a Irina�. A
tranquillizzarlo sulla sua sorte, la prospettiva di protezione
d'alto profilo da parte italiana.
Intanto emergono retroscena che spiegano il silenzio assoluto
della famiglia dopo il suo arresto ad aprile. C'� stato un accordo
tra il Kgb e l'ambasciata italiana a Minsk per eclissare la
vicenda.
In cambio di un trattamento umano per l'imputato, le autorit�
bielorusse sono potute andare avanti nelle indagini senza che il
mondo sapesse della misteriosa spy story. Fino alla prima udienza
di venerd�, l'agente sardo dello spionaggio era convinto che la
copertura resistesse ancora e che la notizia del suo arresto non
fosse stata resa pubblica. Non appena ha saputo che i mass media
ne hanno parlato, la sua prima preoccupazione � stata per la
madre, che ha 87 anni. �Speriamo che l'abbiano avvertita con un
po' d'anticipo - rivela - pensa che sia io sia lontano da casa per
ragioni umanitarie�.
Smagrito, non riesce a muoversi bene per un'artrite aggravata
dallo spazio angusto in cui � detenuto. I documenti militari che
aveva addosso non riguardavano la Bielorussia. Minsk era una
stazione di consegna per materiale proveniente da altre capitali
dell'Est. Anton Angelo Piu � stato preso sul territorio bielorusso,
trattato nel pieno rispetto delle convenzioni internazionali e,
dopo una condanna quasi certa, le autorit� di Minsk dovrebbero
liberarlo per mostrare all'Occidente il volto rassicurante di una
democrazia incerta.
�Spero che Anton Angelo Piu venga liberato o trasferito in Italia -
afferma Marco Zacchera, responsabile Esteri di Alleanza
nazionale, dopo il colloquio avuto con lui nel carcere del Kgb - i
toni usati dalle autorit� lasciano ben sperare. Lo hanno sempre
definito �l'imputato� e non �il colpevole� e hanno tenuto a
precisare che i detenuti in Bielorussia ricevono tutti lo stesso
trattamento�. Zacchera � a Minsk come controllore internazionale
delle elezioni che si svolgono oggi. Vladimir Goncharik � in netto
svantaggio nei sondaggi e il presidente Alexander Lukashenko
celebra gi� la rielezione �contro il sindacalista
bielorusso-americano e la Cia�.

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
TUTTO PER LA CASA, PER LA COPPIA, PER IL BAMBINO
Da oggi le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta
http://www.domeus.it/ad3584580/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

L'EDUCAZIONE NECROFILA DI SUSANNA T.

"Io il male l'ho vissuto in prima persona sin da piccola. Sono nata
al confine con la Yugoslavia, da bambina amavo raccogliere i ciclamini
sulle foibe, perch� sono pi� belli, nutriti dai morti che stanno
li sotto".
Susanna Tamaro

(sulla campagna di disinformazione slavofoba sulle "foibe"
si veda ad esempio:
> http://members.nbci.com/crjmail/FASCIO/cernigoi.html )

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi comprare - ma anche vendere - on line?
da oggi su Domeus hai una piazza tutta per te, 24 ore su 24.
Fatti un giro e vedrai che non te ne pentirai.
http://www.domeus.it/ad3569180/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

Subject: U.S./NATO found guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:42:52 -0400
From: iacenter@...
To: "International" <iacenter@...>


GUILTY!

On Saturday, June 10, 2000, the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO
War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia found U.S. and
NATO political and military leaders guilty of war crimes. At this
people's tribunal meeting in New York, held before over 500 people, a
panel of 16 judges from 11 countries rendered this verdict regarding
the March 24-June 10, 1999 U.S./NATO assault on Yugoslavia.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lead prosecutor at
the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes Against
Yugoslavia, urged those present and those they represented from the
21 countries participating to carry out a sentence of organizing a
campaign to abolish the NATO military pact.

Ben Dupuy, former ambassador at large during the Aristide
Administration in Haiti, the Rev. Kiyul Chung of Korea, and auto
worker Martha Grevatt, who heads the AFL-CIO's official
constituency group Pride at Work, read the three parts of the verdict
(included below).

Participants taking the witness stand included eyewitnesses,
researchers who visited Yugoslavia, renowned political and
economics analysts, historians, physicists, biologists, military
experts,
journalists and lay researchers. (A list of all the judges, and the
witnesses and their topics is included below.)

Many of these witnesses have in the past 15 months presented to
audiences worldwide a complete picture of the war NATO waged
against Yugoslavia. For the tribunal, however, all limited themselves
to a single area of expertise that made up a single part of the
evidence against the political and military leaders of the United States
and the other NATO countries.

Taken together, the judges decided, each single part contributed to
construct a proof that beyond a reasonable doubt proved the guilt of
the accused, just as the proper placing of single tiles can build a
mosaic.

The witnesses described how NATO forces used the media to spread
lies to demonize the Serbs and their leadership in order to prepare
public opinion to prepare for war. Then they showed the real
economic and geopolitical interests of the imperialist powers--the U.S.
and Western Europe-in seizing economic control of the area from
the Balkans to the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

Finally they demonstrated how Washington rigged the "Racak
massacre" and then used the so-called Rambouillet accord-in reality
an ultimatum demanding NATO's military control of all of Yugoslavia-
-to provoke the war. Taken together this all proved a crime against
peace.

They also showed the use of illegal weapons, the purposeful choice of
civilian targets and the destruction of the environment and the civilian
infrastructure that add up to war crimes. And the expulsion of
hundreds of thousands of people from Kosovo and Metohija that
prove crimes against humanity.

The witnesses' presentations were accompanied in many cases by
slides and videos displayed on a large screen on the stage of the
auditorium at Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Manhattan. This
screen was easily visible both to the judges, who sat on the stage, and
to the hundreds in the audience, many of whom stayed throughout the
nine-hour day.

In addition, pictures and videos were on display in the hall outside the
auditorium, and documentary evidence was offered in books or in
research papers.

The International Action Center, founded by Clark in 1992, organized
this final session of the tribunal. There was also participation by
those
who had organized similar tribunal hearings in Germany, Italy, Austria,
Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Greece, where thousands declared
U.S. President Clinton a war criminal last November in Athens.

In addition to the witnesses, there were also important guest
presentations from representatives of the governments Yugoslavia
and Cuba. In addition, Ismael Guadalupe from Vieques, Puerto Rico
showed in a powerful speech how the practice runs against his small
island laid the basis for U.S./NATO aggression around the world.

According to the IAC organizers, total registration, including justices,
witnesses and staff was 511. Invited speakers, witnesses and judges
came from Haiti, Spain, Turkey, Korea, Puerto Rico, India, Germany,
United States, Canada, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Britain, Belgium,
Iraq, Greece, Austria, France, and Portugal. The U.S. government
refused visas to four people from Ukraine, whose message was read
from the stage.

There were also representatives of the Roma people-often referred
to by the derisive term "gypsy." Shani Rifati, a Roma witness who
was born in Pristina, capital of Kosovo, told how NATO occupation
has led to the expulsion of 100,000 Romas. He pointed out that the
verdict condemned the persecution of Roma people, the first time this
has happened in any international tribunal.

Five different television crews taped the entire proceedings, including
Serbian television and a three-camera crew from Australia, as well as
alternate media sources in the U.S. like the Peoples Video Network.

FINAL JUDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO
INVESTIGATE U.S./NATO WAR CRIMES AGAINST THE
PEOPLE OF YUGOSLAVIA

Final Judgement

The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to
Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of
Yugoslavia, meeting in New York, having considered the Initial
Charges and Complaint of the Commission dated July 31, 1999,
against President William J. Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor
Gerhard Schroder, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister
Massimo D'Alema, Prime Minister Jose Maria Azmar, the
Governments of the United States and the other NATO member
states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO
leaders, and Others with nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace,
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter
of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other
international agreements and customary international law;

Having the right and obligation as citizens of the world to sit in
judgement regarding violations of international humanitarian law;

Having heard the testimony from Commissions of Inquiry and
Tribunals held within their own countries during the past year and
having received reports from numerous other Commission hearings
which recite the evidence there gathered;

Having been provided with documentary evidence, eyewitness
statements, photos, videotapes, special reports, expert analyses and
summaries of evidence available to the Commission;

Having access to all evidence, knowledge and expert opinion in the
Commission files or available to the Commission staff;

Having been provided by the Commission, or otherwise obtained,
various books, articles and other written materials on various aspects
of events and conditions in Yugoslavia and other countries in the
Balkans, and in the military and arms establishments;

Having considered newspaper coverage, magazine and periodical
reports, special publications, TV, radio and other media coverage and
public statements by the accused, other public officials and public
materials;

Having heard the presentations of the Commission of Inquiry in public
hearing on June 10, 2000, and the testimony, evidence and summaries
there presented;

And having met, considered and deliberated with each other and with
Commission staff and having considered all the evidence that is
relevant to the nineteen charges of criminal conduct alleged in the
Initial Complaint, make the following findings:

FINDINGS

The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the
accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that
each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint
has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable
doubt. These are:

1. Planning and Executing the Dismemberment, Segregation and
Impoverishment of Yugoslavia.
2. Inflicting, Inciting and Enhancing Violence Between and Among
Muslims and Slavs.
3. Disrupting Efforts to Maintain Unity, Peace and Stability in
Yugoslavia.
4. Destroying the Peace-Making Role of the United Nations.
5. Using NATO for Military Aggression Against, and Occupation of,
Non-Compliant Poor Countries.
6. Killing and Injuring a Defenseless Population throughout
Yugoslavia.
7. Planning, Announcing and Executing Attacks Intended to
Assassinate the Head of Government, Other Government Leaders
and Selected Civilians in Yugoslavia.
8. Destroying and Damaging Economic, Social, Cultural, Medical,
Diplomatic -- including the Embassy of the People's Republic of
China and other embassies -- and Religious Resources, Properties
and Facilities throughout Yugoslavia.
9 Attacking Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of
Yugoslavia.
10. Attacking Facilities Containing Dangerous Substances and Forces.
11. Using Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs and Other Prohibited
Weapons.
12. Waging War on the Environment.
13. Imposing Sanctions through the United Nations that are a
Genocidal Crime Against Humanity.
14. Creating an Illegal Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunal to Destroy and
Demonize the Serbian Leadership. The Illegitimacy of this Tribunal is
Further Demonstrated by its Failure to Bring Any Case Regarding the
Oppression of the Romani People, Who Have Suffered the Highest
Rate of Casualties of Any People in the Region.
15. Using Controlled International Media to Create and Maintain
Support for the U.S. Assault and to Demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs,
Serbs and Muslims as Genocidal Murderers.
16. Establishing the Long-Term Military Occupation of Strategic
Parts of Yugoslavia by NATO Forces.
17. Attempting to Destroy the Sovereignty, Right to Self-
Determination, Democracy and Culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma
and Other Peoples of Yugoslavia.
18. Seeking to Establish U.S. Domination and Control of Yugoslavia
and to Exploit Its People and Resources.
19. Using the Means of Military Force and Economic Coercion in
Order to Achieve U.S. Domination.

The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders
accountable for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in
the strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO
bombardments, denounce the international crimes and violations of
international humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and
through other means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted
lawlessly and has attempted to abolish international law.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes,
sanctions and penalties against Yugoslavia because they constitute a
continuing crime against humanity. The Members call for the
immediate end to the NATO occupation of all Yugoslav territory, the
removal of all NATO and U.S. bases and forces from the Balkans
region, and the cessation of overt and covert operations, including the
"International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" in the
Hague, aimed at overthrowing the government of Yugoslavia.

The Members further call for full reparations to be paid to the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia for death, injury, economic and environmental
damage resulting from the NATO bombing, economic sanctions and
blockades. Further, other states in the region which have suffered
economic and environmental damage due to the NATO bombing and
economic sanctions on Yugoslavia must also be awarded reparations.
The Members condemn the threat or use of military technology
against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the NATO
powers against the people of Yugoslavia.

The Members urge public action and mobilization to stop new and
continued sanctions and aggressions by the U.S. and other NATO
powers against Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, the countries of Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union, Puerto Rico, Asia, Sudan,
Colombia and other countries. We ask for the immediate cessation of
overt/covert activities by the U.S. and NATO in such countries.

The Members believe that the interests of peace, justice and human
progress require the abolition of NATO, which has proved itself
beyond any doubt to be an instrument of aggression for the dominant,
colonizing powers, particularly the United States. The Pentagon, the
central and key element of NATO and the greatest single threat to
the people of the world, must be disbanded.

The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent
preservation of the reports, evidence and materials gathered to make
them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest
possible distribution of the truth about the U.S./NATO war on
Yugoslavia.

We urge all people of the world to act on recommendations developed
by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social
justice on which lasting peace must be based.

Done in New York this 10th day of June, 2000

TRIBUNAL SCHEDULE AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

10 a.m. Doors open. Registration, if possible, show videos in the
cafeteria or auditorium.

11:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m Catrin Schuetz and Anya Mukarji-Connolly
introduce judges and prosecutors: List of judges for the International
Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes against Yugoslavia--New York,
June 10, 2000

LIST OF 16 JUDGES

1. Ben Dupuy--Haiti--Former Ambassador at Large for Haiti under
the first government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and currently
secretary general of the Popular National Party (PPN) of Haiti.

2. Angeles Maestro Martin--Spain--Elected member of Spanish
parliament from Madrid and a leader in the movement to end
sanctions against Iraq .

3. Cimile Cakir --Turkey; journalist for newspaper serving Kurdish
community and member of Turkish Human Rights Association.
Imprisoned four years in Turkey for human rights activity..

4. Rev. Kiyul Chung--Korea--Rev. Ki Yul Chung, chairperson of the
Executive Committee of the Congress for Korean Unification in
North America.

5. John Nickels--Roma--U.S. representative of the International
Romani Union and also a judge in the Romani community in the U.S.

6. Jorge Farinacci--Puerto Rico--leader of the Socialist Front of
Puerto Rico and a long-time leader of the independence movement in
Puerto Rico.

7. Ray Laforest--Haitian-American--labor unionist in the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a leader of
the Haitian Coalition for Justice, an organization that fights police
brutality in New York.

8. Uma Cutwal -originally from India, Uma Cutwal is president of
Local 375 of the Civil Service Technical Union District Council 37 of
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

9. Dr. Christa Anders--Germany--doctor of medicine and an
organizer of the German/European Tribunal.

10. Raniero La Valle--Italy--Former senator who has served 14 years
in the Italian parliament and an anti-war leader in Catholic circles and
spokesperson for the Italian War Crimes Tribunal movement.

11. Dr. Wolfgang Richter--Germany--Chairperson of the Society for
the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity and a leader of the
War Crimes Tribunal movement in Germany.

12. Martha Grevatt--United States--National Secretary of the AFL-
CIO for Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans Labor Organization called Pride at
Work, and active in the United Auto Workers.

13. Michael Ratner--United States--Civil Rights Attorney on the
National Board of the Center for Constitutional Rights and he took the
U.S. government to court for violating the War Powers Act in its
undeclared war against Yugoslavia.

14. Yole Stanesic--Yugoslavia, Russia--Montenegrin poet and writer
living in Russia, member of the tribunals in Yaroslav, Kiev and
Belgrade.

15. John Black--United States--retired President of the Health and
Hospital Workers Union in Pennsylvania, responsible for bringing
many thousands of hospital workers into the union. As a teenager in
Germany he was active in the anti-Nazi underground resistance.

16. Dr. Berta Joubert--Puerto Rico--psychiatrist working in public
health and organizer of Puerto Rican and African American anti-
racist activities in Philadelphia.

The Prosecutor team:
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and founder of the
International Action Center;
Pat Chin--originally from Jamaica, International Action Center
spokesperson for solidarity with Haiti and Yugoslavia and other issues;
Sara Flounders, International Action Center national co-director,
participant in numerous tribunal hearings;
Gloria La Riva, a leader of the Peace for Cuba Committee, producer
of video NATO Targets.
(All were in Yugoslavia either during the war or participating in
seminars or meetings after the war.)

Short opening remarks by Ramsey Clark, who will be lead prosecutor.

Opening greetings from Mikhail Kuznetsov of the International
Peoples Tribunal organized from Russia and Ukraine and other
former Soviet countries.

Part I: Crimes against peace. (11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.)

Our first witness is Lenora Foerstel (Maryland) of Women for Mutual
Security. She has recently edited a book War, Lies and Videotape;
about the control of the media.

Jared Israel (Massachusetts). Jared Israel produced a film called
Judgement showing how the corporate media distorted a picture to
produce a Big Lie.

Jean Hatton (Great Britain), from the anti-war movement in Britain.
Spoke of how massacre stories were used to justify the war.

Christopher Black (Canada), one of a group of Canadian attorney's
who filed a suit charging NATO with war crimes at what is called the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia at the Hague.
Speaks on ICFTY, how the Hague Tribunal was a part of the
preparation for war.

Monica Moorehead (U.S.) of Millions for Mumia and contributing
editor to Workers World newspaper, an expert on the prison-industrial
complex in the United States.

Michel Collon, (Belgium) author of two books on the Balkans, Liar's
Poker, and Monopoly; and contributor to the weekly newspaper,
Solidaire, on the geo-political aims of the war, the Caspian pipelines.

Kadouri Al Kaysi an Iraqi American who has organized to expose the
impact of sanctions on Iraq.

Stratis Kounias, vice-president of the Greek Committee for Peace
and Professor at the University of Athens on NATO's role in Greece
and the Greek anti-war movement.

John Catalinotto (New York), journalist and researcher who has
represented the International Action Center at tribunals in Vienna and
Belgrade, on Washington's premeditated plan regarding NATO and
the attack on Yugoslavia.

Roland Keith (Canada), a monitor for the Observer Mission that was
supposed to maintain the peace in Kosovo in 1998, before the war, on
the real role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe's Observer mission in Kosovo and Metohija.

Preston Wood (California), who participated in hearings in Novi Sad
and who organized opposition to the war in Los Angeles, especially in
the Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans community to present to the tribunal the
truth about the supposed massacre in Racak, Kosovo, used to justify
the attack on Yugoslavia.

Richard Becker (California), who has written and spoken extensively
on the role of the talks held in Rambouillet, France in February and
March 1999. Rambouillet ultimatum as provocation.

Gregor Kneussel (Austria), from the Austrian tribunal about the role
of Constitutionally neutral Austria regarding Yugoslavia and in
delivering this NATO ultimatum.

Part II. War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity

La Riva, Gloria Prosecutor (California), used the video she produced,
NATO Targets, to show how the U.S./NATO bombs hit civilian
targets, from hospitals to bridges to factories.

Sarah Sloan (New York), IAC Commission of Inquiry researcher on
NATO claim it tried to minimize damage to civilian facilities in
Yugoslavia. She used a March 15, 2000 Newsweek article that
exposed that NATO hit very few military targets.

Ellen Catalinotto (New York) is a midwife who has delivered over
1,200 babies to mostly poor women in the New York City. She also
cares for HIV infected women and is involved in research on ways to
prevent the transmission of HIV from pregnant women to their
babies. She reported on NATO's bombing of 33 hospitals including
damage to the maternity ward at Dragisa Micovic hospital in
Belgrade.

Prof. Ivan Yatsenko (Russia), former Soviet officer and foreign
representative, now teaches law in Moscow. He described damage to
Yugoslav industrial infrastructure and how it cost a half-million jobs.

Admiral Elmar Schmaehling (Germany), former admiral and leading
spokesperson for the German tribunal movement. He spoke on the
aggressive posture of NATO since the collapse of the USSR and its
illegal attack on Yugoslavia.

Judi Cheng (New Jersey), IAC researcher. She showed how
unreasonable it was to believe that the bombing of Chinese embassy
in Belgrade was an accident.

Dr. Janet Eaton (Canada), biologist and environment expert Dr. Janet
Eaton to the stand, on destruction of the environment in Yugoslavia,
especially the damage from attacks on the petrochemical plant at
Pancevo and other industrial targets.

Dr. Carlo Pona (Italy) A physicist who attended a conference in
Belgrade about depleted uranium and has written about this subject,
Pona explained why DU is dangerous to humans and how it was used
in Yugoslavia.

Fulvio Grimaldi (Italy), video maker and journalist. Grimaldi, who has
just completed edited a film on sanctions in Iraq and Yugoslavia,
described the combined impact of impact of bombing and sanctions on
the population of Yugoslavia.

Deirdre Griswold (New York) has recently visited sites of U.S. war
crimes in south Korea, is editor in chief of Workers World
newspaper. She spoke about the pattern of criminal conduct of the
U.S. military and how the 1950 war crimes led to a continuing 50-
year occupation of Korea.

Shani Rifati (Roma), originally from the Romani community in
Kosovo, publishes an English-language newsletter about Romani
affairs named Voice of Roma. He spoke of the horrors the Roma
people faced in Kosovo under K-FOR and KLA occupation.

Milos Raickovich Serb-American composer and anti-war activist,
spoke on the destruction of churches and cultural sites in occupied
Kosovo and Metohija.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky (Canada), an expert historian and
economist, showed the role of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army
and its ties to U.S. and German intelligence services, ties to NATO
and the United Nations Rep. Bernard Kouchner.

Scott Taylor (Canada), former soldier, who now publishes the Ottawa-
based magazine, Espirit de Corps, celebrated for its unflinching
scrutiny of the Canadian military. He also appears regularly in the
Canadian media as a military analyst. He witnessed the expulsion of
the Serb population from the Krajina in Croatia by an army led by
KLA General Ceku.

Professor Barry Lituchy (New York), who has recently returned
from a trip to Yugoslavia, described how the NATO occupying forces
known as K-FOR have participated in expelling parts of the
population from Kosovo.

Professor Greg Elich (United States), has recently visited the
Balkans. He spoke on the un-humanitarian nature of . NATO's
occupation of Kosovo.

Gilles Troude (France), on the editorial board of Balkans-Info, a pro-
Yugoslavia, anti-NATO monthly published in Paris, France since
1996. He described France's role in the war and in suppressing
dissent at home.

Professor Jorge Cadima (Portugal), a regular contributor on NATO-
related subjects to to Avante, the weekly newspaper of the
Portuguese Communist Party, spoke on the role of NATO in Portugal
since 1949 and on popular resistance to the war.

5:30-6:15 Messages of solidarity and struggle

Ismael Guadalupe (Puerto Rico) The Committee for the Rescue and
Development of Vieques on the relationship of Vieques to
Yugoslavia. He showed how the U.S. used Vieques for target
practice to prepare for the war against Yugoslavia, and they do so for
all foreign aggression.

Representative of Cuban Interest Section, spoke on Cuba's suit
against U.S. for the costs of the embargo.

UN Ambassador Jovanovic of Yugoslavia, gave evidence of his own
government's charges against the U.S. and NATO for war crimes.
His talk was in fact a summary of much of the day's proceedings.

Brian Becker, co-director of the IAC, spoke on the need to form a
worldwide movement to abolish NATO.

Ramsey Clark reiterated some of the main points developed during
the day and stressed the need to come to a unified conclusion that
would find NATO guilty over a broad spectrum of charges-the 19
charges included in the original indictment-and lead to a struggle to
abolish NATO.

International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@i...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889

---

http://www.workers.org
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the June 15, 2000
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------

Hague tribunal denounced for exonerating NATO war criminals

By John Catalinotto

Anti-war organizations and individuals around the world reacted in
indignation to the announcement June 2 that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was exonerating NATO of all charges
of war crimes committed against Yugoslavia.
Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor for the tribunal at The Hague, said
that the court had examined charges brought against NATO by various
forces. She said that after considerable study the court decided there
was no reason to pursue any of these charges.
Lawyers' groups in Canada, Russia, Greece, France, Yugoslavia and the
United States had brought charges before the court. Charges included the
use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons, as well as dropping
bombs on civilian targets. The civilian targets included the Serb
television station, the Chinese Embassy, a train crossing a bridge and a
convoy of refugees in Kosovo--most of which have been reported in the
mainstream media.
International Action Center co-director Sara Flounders said Del Ponte's
announcement shows that "a people's court has to bring charges against
U.S. and NATO leaders if we want to preserve the truth of this war for
history."
The IAC initiated such a people's tribunal on July 31, 1999, and will
hold its final hearing this June 10 in New York. Flounders said anti-war
activists, elected representatives and prominent personalities from 18
nations will participate in the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War
Crimes against Yugoslavia.
Flounders noted that "Del Ponte made her announcement just as people's
tribunals were taking place in Rome and Berlin that were finding NATO
leaders guilty of war crimes. And we were preparing our final tribunal
for the following week. In the Netherlands, lawyers are bringing charges
against government leaders on June 9.
"There is no doubt U.S. and NATO leaders planned the aggressive war
against Yugoslavia over a long period, that they purposely bombed
civilian targets, and that they used weapons illegal under international
treaties. And there is no doubt Del Ponte was told to make this
announcement now in an attempt to counter the success of these people's
tribunals in bringing U.S./NATO crimes to the light of day," charged
Flounders.
"We note that the article in the June 3 New York Times on Del Ponte's
announcement described the lawyers who brought charges to the ICTFY
court as 'paid by Yugoslavia.' We know for a fact that the lawyers in
many different countries--including Canada, France, Russia and
Greece--do their work out of their personal conviction. They often do
this at great personal sacrifice, and they have succeeded in exposing
the ICTFY as a corrupt court in the pay of the U.S. and other NATO
powers."

'A corrupt tribunal is worse than none at all'

Workers World spoke with Prof. Michael Mandel, one of a group of
Canadian attorneys who had brought charges to the ICTFY court.
Mandel said that Del Ponte's decision was no surprise to him, and that
his group had denounced the tribunal as a farce and a disgrace in March.
"The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is a
corrupt institution," said Mandel. "It declared its own corruption with
the announcement by the prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, that she is
completely satisfied that NATO did not commit war crimes in Yugoslavia
and for that reason is not going to open an inquiry.
"You might want to ask how she became satisfied of their innocence
without an inquiry.
"NATO committed every crime from mass murder on down in front of the
world and it confessed its guilt in every press conference of Jamie
Shea," said Mandel.
"A corrupt tribunal is worse than no tribunal at all. This one should be
shut down and Del Ponte fired, to find work in some other department of
the Pentagon," said Mandel. He noted that the first prosecutor of the
tribunal, Canadian Louise Arbour, was rewarded with a life appointment
to the Supreme Court of Canada by Premier Jean Chretien.
In Italy, former senator and religious philosopher Raniero La Valle
denounced the ICTFY as a "victor's tribunal" that was set up
specifically to persecute the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. La
Valle said that "it is important that justice be found also outside of
its traditional seats and be proclaimed before the tribunal of public
opinion." He was referring specifically to the tribunals to be held June
3 in Rome and June 10 in the U.S. inspired by former U.S. Attorney
General Ramsey Clark.
La Valle will participate at the June 10 tribunal in New York, which
will take place from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the Martin Luther King High
School Auditorium at 66th Street and Amsterdam Ave. in Manhattan. The
doors open at 10 a.m.

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Il Tennis e' la tua passione?
Tutte le news sugli ultimi risultati, notizie inedite
e interviste nella Newsletter piu' in palla del momento!!!
Iscriviti a tennisnews-subscribe@...
Tennis.it ti offrira' il meglio del tennis direttamente nella tua casella email
http://www.domeus.it/ad3569410/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

Traduzione in italiano del messaggio:

Date sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:00:30 +0200
Subject: [JUGOINFO] North Atlantic Terrorists
Organization (1)
From: "jugocoord@..."<jugocoord@...>
To: jugoinfo@...


Subject: COAT: 24 Reasons To Oppose NATO
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Rozoff <r_rozoff@...>
To: r_rozoff@...


saluti :-)), yure

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

C'è bisogno di giustificare la nostra opposizione alla
N.A.T.O.?

" Ecco un elenco di ragioni, tutt'altro che esaustivo.
Incompleto innanzitutto perchè non comprende una ragione
egoistica soggettiva: lo spreco di tanto tempo della nostra
vita nella lotta alla N.A.T.O. ... " (*)


Perchè nessuno dica "non sapevo":

24 RAGIONI PER OPPORSI ALLA N.A.T.O.

1. La N.A.T.O. è una creatura della Guerra Fredda che
andrebbe abolita, anzichè ampliata.

2. La dottrina militare ufficiale della N.A.T.O. riserva a
sè stessa il diritto dell'uso delle armi nuceari nonostante
nel 1996 la Corte Internazionale abbia stabilito tale uso,
o minaccia, illegale. La politica N.A.T.O. del "primo
colpo" nucleare significa che essa prevede l'uso di
armamento nucleare anche senza che questo sia stato usato
contro di essa. L'uso di armamento nuleare contravviene la
Legge Umanitaria Internazionale poichè esso causa
l'uccisione indiscriminata e massiccia di popolazione
civile. L'armamento nucleare N.A.T.O. inoltre pone il
rischio di catastrofe nucleare, compreso l'olocausto
planetario dell'"inverno nucleare". La politica
dell'armamento nucleare N.A.T.O. contravviene inoltre al
Trattato di non proliferazione (del quale tutti i membri
N.A.T.O. sono firmatari), che prevede l'impegno immediato
di tutti i Paesi per l'abolizione dell'armamento nucleare.
Gli stati membri N.A.T.O. (Usa, Gra Bretagna e Francia)
possiedono oggi più di 9.000 testate nucleari in servizio
attivo, circa il 60% dell'arsenale nucleare mondiale.
Questi tre Paesi N.A.T.O. hanno messo a disposizione della
N.A.T.O. parte del loro armamento nucleare per l'uso nei
conflitti. La N.A.T.O. di per sè possiede tra le 60 e le
200 armi nucleari nelle sue basi in Europa Occidentale.
L'armamento nucleare N.A.T.O. e la minaccia del suo uso
sono mezzi di coercizione e intimidazione, specialmente
verso gli Stati che non possiedono tale armamento.

3. I membri che costituiscono il nucleo forte della NATO
(Usa, Gran Bretagna, Framcia, Germania, Olanda, Belgio e
Spagna) hanno alle spalle una lunga storia di colonialismo,
di controllo di vasti imperi. I Paesi eredi delle colonie
di questi Paesi NATO - oggi Terzo Mondo - ancora soffrono
le tragiche iniquità economiche causate da centinaia di
anni di imperialismo ad essi imposti da tali Paesi. Le
compagnie multinazionali guidate da interessi economici
collegati ai Paesi NATO continuano nella dominazione di
queste ex colonie mediante un sistema economico neoliberale
che oggi possiamo definire "globalizzazione delle
multinazionali"

4. Secondo l'Istituto Internazionale di Ricerca per la Pace
di Stoccolma, il Paesi NATO hanno prodotto nel 1996 circa
il'80% dell'armamento mondiale totale. Usa, Gran Bretagna,
Francia, Germania, Italia e Canada sono tutti paesi nella
"top ten" mondiale della produzione militare. Usa, Gran
Bretagna e Francia da soli hanno contribuito per il 70%
alla produzione di armi complessiva in tale anno.

5. Dopo la dissoluzone dell'Unione Sovietica e del Patto di
Varsavia, la NATO è divenuta sempre più irrilevante e ha
avuto bisogno di darsi una ragione per la sua esistenza. La
NATO qindi ha aumentato il suo impegno per fomentare guerre
etniche nei Balcani, al fine di creare scuse e opportunità
per i suoi interventi militari nella regione. Gli
interventi NATO (le cosiddette "guerre umanitarie") sono
stati quindi svendute al pubblico come mezzi per sedare i
confliti interetnici. Lo scopo reale della NATO è di
espandere la sfera coloniale di influenza dei suoi Stati
membri e dei loro alleati, le compagnie multinazionali.

6. La NATO ha scatenato una guerra di aggressione contro la
Jugoslavia, una guerra illegale sia secondo la sua stessa
Carta costitutiva che secondo un gran numero di leggi
internazionali.

7. La NATO ha impiegato contro la Jugoslavia 1.200 velivoli
in 35.000 voli in missione di combattimento. Ha lanciato
sul Paese 20.000 bombe e missili per complessive 80.000
tonnelate di esplosivo. In violazione alle leggi
internazionali, la Nato ha colpito infrastrutture civili,
compresi più di 1.000 obiettivi privi di importanza
militare, come scuole, ospedali, aziende agricole, ponti,
strade, ferrovie, canali navigabili, sedi e impianti media,
monumenti storici e culturali, musei, fabbriche, raffinerie
e impianti petrolchimici.

8. La campagna illegale di bombardamenti della NATO ha
avuto un drastico impatto sulla salute della popolazione
civile jugoslava. Migliaia sono stati i civili uccisi,
almeno 6.000 i feriti, e innumerevoli altri, specialmente
bambini, hanno sofferto imporanti traumi psichici.

9. Secondo il Programma Ambiente dell'ONU, i bombardamenti
NATO hanno causato una catastrofe ecologica in Jugoslavia e
nelle regioni circostanti, Mare Adriatico compreso.

10. Nella sua guera contro la Jugoslavia, la NATO ha
impiegato armamenti che sono proibiti dalle Convenzoni di
Ginevra e dell'Aia, nonchè dalla Carta di Norimberga, come
ad esempio i missili all'uranio depleto, che è un'arma
radiattiva e altamente tossica di lungo periodo,
comportando quindi una minaccia mortale verso l'ambiente e
la salute umana, e le bombe a grappolo antiuomo progettate
per uccidere e mutilare, armamento che tra l'altro
contravviene l'"Accordo di Ottawa" sulle mine terrestri,
poichè molte delle singole "bombette" non eslodono al primo
impatto. La NATO continua ad immagazzinare queste armi
proibite per l'uso sulle popolazioni civili nelle guerre
future.

11. Successivamente al bombardamento sulla Jugoslavia, la
NATO ha mancato di disarmare l'Armata di Liberazione del
Kosovo (U.C.K.) come stabilito e richiesto dalla
risoluzione 1244 delle Nazioni Unite. Invece, la NATO ha
convertito e riciclato l'U.C.K. nella Forza di Protezione
del Kosovo spacciandola come garante di pace e ordine nel
Kosovo occupato controllato dalla NATO. Sotto gli occhi
vigili di 40.000 militari NATO, i ringalluzziti terroristi
U.C.K. hanno riplito etnicamente la regione da 250.000
persone di "stirpe non albanese" (ma tra i quali anche
numerosi albanesi fedeli alla Jugoslavia). Durante
l'occupazione NATO sono stati uccisi 1.300 cittadini ed
altri 1.300 risultano dispersi. Le minoranze rimaste in
Kosovo non hanno libertà di movimento, vivono in ghetti e
devono far fronte a frequenti attacchi terroristici e
distruzioni di proprietà.

12. La NATO ha assegnato ad Agim Ceku, gà indicato come
criminale di guerra, il comando della Forza di Protezione
del Kosovo. Ceku, un Kosovaro albanese, ha condotto
l'"Operazione Tempesta" dell'Armata croata che cacciò
etnicamene la popolazione serba dalle sue storiche terre in
Croazia. Se i Tribunale dell'Aia perseguisse
l'incriminazione di Ceku e di altri simili terroristi,
metterebbe in grande imbarazzo i loro boss NATO...

13. Agendo da potenza coloniale occupante, le forze NATO
hanno operato per ottenere la cancellazione dei risultati
elettorali in Bosnia, la chiusura degli uffici e lo
spegnimento degli impianti delle stazioni media critiche
sulla presenza NATO, e l'indebolimento dei partiti politici
che si sono rifiutati di collaborare con essa.

14. Le azioni delle truppe NATO dislocate nei Balcani sono
un esempio della condotta di aggressivo sfruttamento
propria della cultura militare. Ad esempio, le truppe NATO
hanno alimentato la domanda di prostituzione sia in Bosnia
che in Kosovo. Le donne "a disposizione" delle truppe NATO
(ma come abbiamo potuto vedere anche delle truppe
ausiliarie delle ONG e financo della Croce Rossa) vivono in
condizioni deplorevoli, frequentemente costrette contro la
loro volontà da magnaccia locali. Quando sono emersi i
coivolgimenti di ONU e NATO in questo mercimonio, il
personale coinvolto è stato dimesso e rimandato a casa ma
contro di essi nessun procedimento penale è mai stato
intrapreso.

15. La NATO è stata una delle fonti primarie della
destabilizzazione della Macedonia, fornendo diretta
assistenza militare al terrorismo albanese. Il "The Times"
di Londra (10 giugno 2001) riporta la notizia che il
referente NATO della Forza di Protezione del Kosovo Agim
Ceku ha spedito 800 effettivi dell'U.C.K. in Macedonia per
sostenere la locale nascente insorgenza albanese. Lo scorso
giugno le truppe NATO sono intervenute per evacuare dei
combattenti U.C.K. nel momento in cui le forze macedoni
stavano circondando i terroristi presso Aracinovo. I
notiziari dei media tedeschi hanno dichiarato che
l'evacuazione effettuata dalla NATO fu ordinata a seguito
della presenza di 17 ex militari Usa - veterani dei Balcani
e facenti parte di un gruppo mercenario Usa - tra i
terroristo U.C.K. La NATO ha inoltre utilizzato mezzi di
pressione diplomatici per far cedere il governo macedone
alle richieste albanesi.

16. La politica aggressiva di espansione della NATO in
Europa Orientale minaccia severamente la stabilità
internazionale. Con l'annessione alla NATO della Repubblica
Ceca, dell'Ungheria e della Polonia, ora completate,
Albana, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Lettonia, Lituania,
Romania, Slovacchia e Slovenia hanno dichiarato il loro
interesse al loro inserimento nella rete NATO. La Nato ha
inoltre posto nel suo orizzonte una penetrazione ancor
maggiore nei paesi già compresi nella sfera di influenza
sovietica, tendendo a circondare Azerbaigian, Bielorussia,
Kirghizstan e Ukraina. L'intenzione della NATO di pressare
lungo quelli che erano i confini dell'Unione Sovietica è
una sfida pericolosa, e rischia di provocare un conflitto
aperto con la Russia.

17. L'espansione della NATO nell'Europa Centrale e
Orientale è un mezzo per integrare le forze militari di
tali Paesi e di sottoporle al comando NATO (in gran parte
USA). Come unità militari interne alla NATO, le forze
armate dei Paesi nuovi membri NATO devono sottostare alle
richieste di standardizzazione dell'attività militare,
degli armamenti e di tutto l'equipagiamento militare. La
richiesta ai nuovi membri di standardizzare il loro
equipaggiamento militare alle precise specifiche NATO
costituisce un tremendo regalo all'industria economico-
militare USA ed Europea, cui gioverà enormemente una tale
espansione dei mercati di esportazione.

18. Gli Stati nuovi membri NATO rischiano inoltre di
perdere la sovranità su altri determinanti comparti delle
loro Forze Armate, come le funzioni di comando, controllo,
comunicazioni e intelligence, comparti che anch'essi
rischiano di essere sottomessi agli auspici della
standardizzazione NATO.

19. Le ragioni dell'espansione ad Est della NATO sono in
larga parte economiche. Ad esempio, l'accesso e il
controllo militare NATO sull'Europa Orientale aiuta le
grandi Compagnie dell'Europa Occidentale ad assicurarsi le
risorse energetiche strategiche come il petrolio del Mar
Caspio e dell'Asia Centrale. Le Compagnie degli Usa e
dell'Europa Occidentale trarranno grandi vantaggi dal
controllo NATO sui corridoi petroliferi attraverso le
catene montuose del Caucaso. La NATO vuole controllare con
le sue truppe questi oleodotti e dominare la rotta Armenia-
Russia verso il Mar Caspio. Il Caucaso inoltre collega
l'oleodotto Adriatico-Ceyhan-Baku con le zone petrolifere
ancor più orientali nei Paesi dell'ex-Urss dell'Asia
Centrale, Kazakistan e Uzbekistan. Nel futuro miliardi di
dollari in petrolio fluiranno attraverso questi corridoi
verso l'Europa Occidentale, a vantaggio delle Compagnie
petrolifere Occidentali.

(20) NATO's growth is not only a provocation to Russia, it
also threatens the security of China and other Asian states
that may respond in kind by increasing their military
spending, thus diverting resources from the essential needs
of their citizens. NATO's expansion may eventually provoke
an anti-NATO alliance in Asia, further destabilizing peace
and leading to possible future wars.

20. La crescita della NATO non solo è una provocazione alla
Russia, ma è anche una minaccia alla sicurezza della Cina e
degli altri Stati asiatici, che potrebbero reagire
incrementando le loro spese militari, stornando risorse dai
bisogni essenziali delle loro popolazioni. L'espansione
della NATO potrebbe inoltre promuovere un'alleanza militare
anti-NATO in Asia, mettendo ulteriormente a rischio la pace
e portando ad una possibile futura guerra.

21. Come parte della "NATO Defence Capabilities
Initiative", gli Stati membri NATO hanno commissionato a sè
stessi l'aumento delle capacità militari di "proiezione
militare, mobilità e aumento dell'interoperabilità". Questo
richiederà un'importante ulteriore crescita delle spese
militari. I Paesi NATO europei hanno già aumentato le loro
spese militari dell'11% in termini assoluti dal 1995. Nel
frattempo, negli scorsi due anni anche gli Usa e il Canada
hanno incrementato il loro bilancio militare. Il bilancio
militare dei Paesi NATO ammonta a circa il 60% della spesa
militare mondiale totale dell'anno 2000 (798 mld di US$,
circa 1.700.000 mld di £). Invece di puntare alle reali
priorità umanitarie delle loro popolazioni e del resto del
mondo, come l'alimentazione, l'abitazione, la cura della
salute, l'educazione e l'istruzione, la protezione
ambientale e il trasporto pubblico, la NATO sta aumentando
il suo bilancio militare in vista di futuri interventi
anche "fuori area".

22. I test e l'addestramento portati avanti dalla NATO in
preparazione di nuove guerre ha inoltre numerosi impatti
negativi sulle popolazioni e sull'ambiente.
L'addestramento NATO comprende esercitazioni militari, l'addestramento di
piloti e test di armamenti e di aerei da guerra. Ad esempio, le aree di
addestramento per il volo a bassa quota e i poligoni
militari aerei in Nitassinan (Canada Orientale) minacciano
il tradizionale stile di vita di vaste popolazioni della
Nazione Innu. I loro territori inceduti in Quebec e
Labrador stanno diventando le discariche militari dei test
di volo NATO. I Paesi NATO eseguono inoltre pericolose
attività addestrative di bombardamento sull'isola di
Vieques, presso Portorico.

23. Nel periodo fine anni '40 - primi anni '50, su "invito"
e suggermento della CIA, la NATO ha collaborato alla
creazione di cellule segrete paramilitari anticomuniste in
almeno 16 Stati europei. Originariamente denominata
Operazione "Stay Behind", questa rete di truppe
guerrigliere fu creata per il combattimento dietro le linee
in caso di invasione sovietica. Essa fu classificata
nell'ambito del Comitato di Coordinamento Clandestino del
Quartier generale Supremo delle Potenze Alleate in Europa
(Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe - S.H.A.P.E.
["OMBRA", N.d.r.]), organismo che diventerà l'attuale NATO.
Queste truppe di guerriglia furono messe sotto accusa e
condannate dall'Unione Europea in una risoluzione (22
dicembre 1990) che incolpava la NATO per il suo ruolo
quarantennale di supervisione di questa operazione
"coperta". Meglio conosciute con il nome in codice assunto
dal suo ramo italiano "Operazione Gladio", queste
organizzazioni, che l'UE paventa siano state mantenute
attive almeno fino al 1990, sono state accusate di
interferenza illegale nelle questioni politiche, ma anche
di aver condotto operazioni terroristiche e di aver
attentato alle strutture democratiche di vari Paesi, e di
altri gravi crimini.

24. Importanti rappresentanti della NATO hanno interferito
in Europa nello sviluppo politico-elettorale di vari Paesi.
Ad esempio, per quanto le recenti elezioni in Albania
fossero state falsate da irregolarità e frodi (manomissione
di urne, voti fantasma, disincentivazione selettiva al
voto), il Segretario Generale NATO George Robertson
dichiarò tali elezioni regolari e legittime. Più tardi in
quell'anno, un altro portavoce NATO minacciò apertamente
che se il Movimento per la Slovacchia Democratica (il
partito del Premier Vladimir Meciar) fosse entrato nella
coalizione governativa, la Slovacchia non sarebbe nè stata
"bene accetta" nella NATO, nè accolta a breve termine come
membro dell'Unione Europea.


----- -----

(*) Richard Sanders, Coordinatore della Coalizione Contro
il Commercio di Armamenti (Coalition to Oppose the Arms
Trade - C.O.A.T. - Canada), Rete nazionale per la Pace
sostenuta da singli e organizzazioni canadesi.

541 McLeod St., Ottawa Ontario K1R 5R2 Canada
Tel.: 613-231-3076 Fax: 613-231-2614
Email: <ad207@...> Web site: http://www.ncf.ca/coat

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

Help build opposition to NATO PA meetings in Ottawa, Oct.
5-8, 2001!
Join the "no_to_nato" list serve:
Send the message: subscribe no_to_nato to
<majordomo@...>
Read the archives of our list serve
http://www.flora.org/coat/forum/


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

------

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages

------

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
SEI UN APPASSIONATO DI SPORT?
Accessori, abbigliamento, sport estremi...
da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta!
http://www.domeus.it/ad3578130/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

La precedente puntata delle avventure del professor Prezzemolo si
trova alla URL:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1093


MAMMA CROAZIA PREMIA IL SUO BENEMERITO FIGLIO PREZZEMOLO


Tratto da �Vecernji List� (Zagabria) del 29 agosto 2001.
Traduzione e note a cura del Coord. Romano per la Jugoslavia.

Predrag Matvejevic riceve l'ordine benemerito dal presidente
Stjepan Mesic

MATVEJEVIC: �LIBERIAMOCI DAL PESO DEL PASSATO�

Zagabria - �No, questo piccolo distintivo rosso sulla mia
giacca non e' un residuo del Partito Comunista ma un simbolo
della Legion d'Onore�(1), dice sorridendo P. Matvejevic entrando
nel gabinetto del presidente per ricevere l'onoreficenza.
Il presidente della Repubblica di Croazia S. Mesic ha insignito
il dottor Matvejevic con l'onoreficenza della Danica Hrvatska (2),
con l'effigie di Marko Marulic (3) per i grandi meriti nei campi della
scienza e della cultura.
�Per il suo lungo lavoro di uomo di scienza e cultura, per tutto
quello che ha fatto al servizio dell'uomo, e per essere intervenuto
nel momento piu' difficile, per il suo lavoro scientifico che e' stato
preso poco in considerazione le consegno questa onoreficenza�,
ha detto il presidente davanti a numerosi giornalisti di quasi tutti i
media croati. Nelle parole di ringraziamento, P. Matvejevic ha detto
di essere stato sorpreso quando gli hanno comunicato che fra i
prescelti si trovava anche il suo nome, in quanto negli ultimi dieci
anni di lui si era scritto e parlato con sottovalutazione, usando
menzogne ed offese alle quali non voleva rispondere. Matvejevic
ha aggiunto che, malgrado i dubbi, e' venuto a prendere
l'onoreficenza, cosa che non avrebbe fatto per nessuna ragione
nel periodo che e' alle nostre spalle (4).
�Rinunciare in questo momento sarebbe stato come sottovalutare
l'impegno dell'attuale presidente della Croazia per liberarsi,
finalmente,
dal mito e dal peso del passato� (5), ha detto Matvejevic, aggiungendo
che non dobbiamo permettere che questo mito e peso diventino ancora
una volta un ostacolo sulla strada verso la democrazia e la liberta'.
�Non sostenere questa posizione significherebbe nell'odierna
situazione mettersi dalla parte di quelli che nella seconda guerra
mondiale
hanno infangato la Croazia oppure, nel periodo della Guerra Patriottica
[sic!], nel quale il nostro paese (6) ha sofferto e si e' impoverito e
veniva
derubato senza scrupoli�, ha aggiunto Matvejevic.
Spiegando con tono pacato la sua concezione politica, Matvejevic ha
citato l'apertura verso l'Europa e il mondo contro l'isolamento
provinciale,
la politica della ragione contro la politica come mestiere per
interesse,
per uno stato di diritto e contro una giurisprudenza autoritaria, per
l'interesse nazionale e contro l'esclusivismo nazionalista, e cosi' via.
Del suo piccolo contributo nell'impegno dal quale dipende il futuro
dei popoli che insieme hanno sofferto su questi territori, Matvejevic
ha detto: �sono stato fiero quando ultimamente i cittadini della
Bosnia-Erzegovina, nella quale sono nato, hanno accolto il presidente
Stjepan Mesic con calore nella Sarajevo distrutta�. [Lada Zigo]

NOTE

(1) Matvejevic in realta' e' stato candidato nelle liste del Partito dei
Comunisti Italiani e, in Croazia, con il Partito Socialista Operaio.
Perche'
ci tiene tanto, allora, a prendere le distanze dai "comunisti" proprio
in
questa occasione? Si noti, comunque, che questa onoreficenza
attribuitagli
in Croazia non e' la prima che egli riceve da quelli che hanno
distrutto la
RFS di Jugoslavia.
(2) "Stella Polare Croata".
(3) Scrittore del Settecento.
(4) Un discorso a se stante meriterebbe la smania croata per le
onoreficenze,
le alte uniformi ed i gagliardetti di ogni genere. Per non parlare della
personale predilezione dell'attuale presidente Mesic per le medaglie.
Ricordiamo anche che gia' nel 1990 Mesic difendeva a spada tratta la
memoria del suo zio Marko, collaborazionista dei nazifascisti e doppio-
giochista durante la II guerra mondiale, insignito persino da Hitler con
la �Croce di Ferro�, a da Pavelic con il �Trifoglio di Ferro� (vedasi:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/751 ).
(5) Poiche' politici e giornalisti non hanno memoria, rivediamo qualche
elemento della biografia dell'attuale presidente croato, che Matvejevic
in questa occasione riempie di complimenti.
Stjepan Mesic e' noto almeno dal 1990 come nazionalista croato e
stretto collaboratore di Tudjman nell'HDZ (finche' gli e' convenuto).
Ultimo presidente (autoproclamato) della RFS di Jugoslavia, ha
collaborato con l'Unione Europea a dare il colpo di grazia al suo
paese,
come ricordera' poi con orgoglio nel libro "Come abbiamo distrutto la
RFS di Jugoslavia", recentemente riedito a Zagabria con altro titolo.
Dopo la morte di Tudjman, presentato dai media occidentali e filo-
occidentali come "uomo nuovo che vuole rompere con il passato",
ne diventa il successore e guida la Croazia "dal volto nuovo" secondo
i criteri imposti dagli USA e dalla UE. Mentre tutta la sua carriera
politica ne dimostra il vezzo trasformista, da presidente si e'
caratterizzato
per le posizioni ambigue, per il continuo dare "un colpo al cerchio ed
uno alla botte", ad esempio per la apparente intenzione, da un lato, di
consegnare al Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia (su pressione USA) i
criminali di guerra, mentre dall'altro lodava la formazione
paramilitare
ustascia delle �Tigri� nel decennale della loro costituzione.
(6) Per Matvejevic la Croazia "indipendente" e' "il nostro paese" -
benche' egli sia nato in Bosnia (anzi in "Erzeg-Bosnia", come ha
affermato in alcune occasioni) e benche' certa stampa italiana
("Il Manifesto") voglia attribuirgli a tutti i costi convinzioni
jugoslaviste. Ma che croato sarebbe Matvejevic, che tra l'altro e'
figlio di padre russo?


---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Le offerte piu' vantaggiose su Borsa & Finanza
Nuovo Mercato, Warrant, Analisi Finanziarie, ...
direttamente nella tua casella di posta eMail
http://www.domeus.it/ad3557160/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

1993 - L'ANNO DELLE PRESSIONI E DEI RICATTI INTERNAZIONALI

CRONOLOGIA. LA JUGOSLAVIA SOTTO L'EMBARGO

All'inizio del '93 su iniziativa della Danimarca, la RF di Jugoslavia
viene estromessa dall'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanit�. Questo in
un momento in cui il paese registrava un afflusso di circa 600000
profughi da varie parti della RFS di Jugoslavia. Alla fine dell'anno
nel paese si registrer� un'inflazione pari a circa il 300000000%.
Il '93 � anche l'anno delle �rivelazioni� di Roy Gutman - giornalista
destinato a vincere il Premio Pulitzer - sui �campi di sterminio�, e
del Ministro degli Esteri bosniaco musulmano H. Silajdzic sulle �decine
di migliaia di donne musulmane fatte oggetto di violenze sessuali a
scopo di pulizia etnica.� In effetti la disinformazione sulle questioni
bosniache, come in tutto il corso della crisi jugoslava, a partire dal
1990, non � episodica e casuale ma strategica e persistente. Sempre nel
1993 esce in Francia un libro dal titolo �Le verit� jugoslave non sono
tutte buone a dirsi�, nel quale Merlino dimostra il ruolo avuto da
agenzie specializzate come la �Ruder & Finn Global Public Affairs�, il
cui direttore afferma di aver lavorato per il governo sloveno, croato,
bosniaco-musulmano e per il governo secessionista del �Kosova�, cio�
per i secessionisti albanesi di Rugova. Su �Foreign Policy� Peter Brock
pubblica un lungo articolo in cui elenca tutta una serie di
falsificazioni, scatenando un putiferio ed una levata di scudi da parte
dei suoi colleghi giornalisti in mezzo mondo.
Il 1993 � anche l'anno in cui Slovenia, Croazia e RF di Jugoslavia
(Serbia e Montenegro) consolidano o rinnovano le loro legislazioni e
strutture istituzionali. In particolare la Croazia introduce la nuova
moneta denominata kuna - nel segno della continuit� con la moneta in
corso legale sotto Pavelic (1941\45) - le cui banconote vengono
stampate in Germania.
E importante osservare che la NATO ha cercato di inserirsi nella crisi
jugoslava fin dall'inizio. L'intervento divenne del tutto manifesto
proprio nel 1993, quando la NATO incominci� ad appoggiare le operazioni
UNPROFOR in Jugoslavia.

- 3 gennaio Ginevra. Continua la conferenza sulla Bosnia con la
partecipazione delle tre parti in causa allo stesso tavolo di
trattative.
- 23 gennaio Dalmazia settentrionale. Le truppe croate iniziano
l'attacco ai territori serbi della Dalmazia settentrionale che sono
sotto la protezione UNPROFOR e in questa occasione muoiono pi� di 800
civili.
- 2 febbraio Praga. Durante la riunione dell'OSCE la Jugoslavia, come
�membro sospeso�, viene posta di fronte all'ultimatum di �cambiare
radicalmente la sua politica o confrontarsi con un embargo ancora pi�
duro�.
- 23 marzo Bratunac. Termina l'esumazione e la sepoltura di 34 serbi di
Kravice, massacrati dai musulmani di Srebrenica.
- 31 marzo New York. Sotto la forte pressione della delegazione
americana il Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU con una breve procedura
vara la risoluzione 815 sull'uso della forza militare (aerea) contro i
violatori delle zone interdette al volo nella Bosnia ed Erzegovina.
- Nell'aprile 1993 Clinton invia Belgrado Mr Ralph Reginald Bartolomew,
accompagnato da pezzi grossi del Dipartimento di Stato e delle Forze
Armate. Al loro arrivo, i delegati creano momenti di tensione cercando
di imporre incontri separati con i rappresentanti delle istituzioni e
dell'esercito, e chiedendo che si prema sui serbi di Bosnia per la
accettazione incondizionata del Piano Vance - Owen. In quella occasione
i toni della discussione sono particolarmente aspri con gli ufficiali
dell'Esercito Jugoslavo (JNA), che alludono al Vietnam. Ad un
ricevimento presso l'Ambasciata USA vengono invitati solamente i
rappresentanti dell'opposizione.
- 6 aprile Bruxelles. Il Consiglio dei Ministri dell'UE proclama un
ulteriore inasprimento dell'embargo a Serbia e Montenegro, mentre
l'Alleanza per la difesa dell'Unione dell'Europa occidentale, decide di
inviare nelle acque del Danubio una decina di battelli di controllo,
con 300 uomini per controllare le sanzioni contro la RFJ.
- 8 aprile. La FYROM (Macedonia) diventa membro dell'ONU nonostante le
gravi questioni rimaste in sospeso con la Grecia.
- 12 aprile Vicenza. Inglorioso inizio dell'azione di supervisione NATO
delle zone interdette al volo al di sopra dell'ex Bosnia Erzegovina,
con la caduta del �Mirage-2000� nell'Adriatico, decollato dalla
corazzata Theodor Roosevelt.
- 18 aprile New York. Il Consiglio di Sicurezza vara la risoluzione 820
con cui si introduce il completo embargo economico alla RFJ, nel caso
in cui i Serbi di Bosnia non firmino entro il 26 aprile il piano di
pace Vance-Owen in toto e senza alcun cambiamento.
- 28 aprile New York. Con la risoluzione 821 il Consiglio di Sicurezza
stabilisce che la RFJ non pu� continuare automaticamente ad essere
membro dell'ONU e suggerisce all'Assemblea Generale di estromettere la
RFJ dai lavori del Consiglio economico e sociale delle Nazioni Unite.
- 7 maggio New York. Il Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU emette la
risoluzione 824, con la quale Sarajevo, Bihac, Tuzla, Zepa, Srebrenica
e Gorazde ottengono lo status di �zone protette�.
- Maggio 1993 Kosovo. Nell'attacco terroristico dei secessionisti
albanesi alle porte di Glogovac sono stati assassinati due poliziotti.
- 31 maggio / 1 giugno Belgrado. Dopo un lungo dibattito, all'una di
notte con votazione segreta nel consiglio cittadino e nel consiglio
della Repubblica su richiesta del Partito Radicale della Serbia, il
parlamento della RFJ ha revocato l'incarico al presidente Dobrica Cosic
per �abuso della Costituzione della RFJ�.
- 1 giugno Belgrado. Durante manifestazioni dinanzi al Parlamento muore
un poliziotto e tre poliziotti vengono pesantemente feriti. Vengono
feriti anche 32 manifestanti, in maggioranza appartenenti alla
coalizione DEPOS.
- 3 giugno Vranje. Nella caserma delle Brigate della Morava Sud, il
militare Jozef Mender ha ucciso otto militari dell'esercito jugoslavo.
- 8 giugno Sabac. Nella caserma �Miko Mitrovic� il militare Kis Nandor
ha ucciso il tenente Sasa Trajkovic ed ha ferito il militare Zoran
Novakovic, e poi si e' suicidato.
- 10 giugno Skopje. Nella ex-Repubblica Jugoslava di Macedonia (FYROM)
giungono 300 militari statunitensi che vanno ad aggiungersi al
battaglione nordico dell'UNPROFOR, per la cosiddetta �missione
preventiva�.
- 20 giugno Copenhagen. Alla riunione dei �Dodici� viene riconosciuta
la sconfitta della politica occidentale sulla ex Jugoslavia, a causa
dei riconoscimenti affrettati di Slovenia, Croazia e Bosnia-Erzegovina.
- 27 giugno Belgrado. Sul territorio della ex Jugoslavia ci sono 3.5
milioni di rifugiati, dei quali piu' di uno e mezzo sul territorio
della RFJ.
- 12 luglio Sarajevo. Le forze fedeli ad Alija Izetbegovic hanno
inscenato un attentato ai cittadini in fila per l'acqua nel quartiere
Dobrinja, a Sarajevo, causando la morte di dodici civili ed il
ferimento di quindici.
- 29 luglio Zagabria. Il Sabor croato ha cambiato il nome alla valuta
nazionale, introducendo la kuna come nel periodo dello Stato
Indipendente Croato degli ustascia.
- 30 luglio Ginevra. Sono stati determinati i principi costituzionali
per il futuro ordinamento della Bosnia-Erzegovina come unione di tre
repubbliche.
- 6 agosto Sarajevo. Dopo l'incontro tra il comandante dell'UNPROFOR
per la Bosnia-Erzegovina ed i comandanti degli eserciti serbo e
musulmano, gli osservatori militari dell'ONU hanno preso le posizioni
serbe sui monti Igman e Bjelasnjica.
- 9 agosto Bruxelles. Il consiglio della NATO ha adottato il piano
delle opzioni operative per gli attacchi aerei in Bosnia-Erzegovina,
stabilendo che la prima azione delle forze alleate deve essere
approvata dal Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite.
- 11 agosto Mare Adriatico. Il caccia NATO F-16 e' caduto in mare per
un guasto meccanico vicino all'isola di Pag.
- 20 agosto Belgrado. In Serbia ha inizio l'approvvigionamento
alimentare con la tessera.
- 26 agosto Belgrado. Su decisione del Consiglio Supremo della Difesa,
nuovo Comandante del Quartier Generale dell'Esercito Jugoslavo e'
Momcilo Perisic. In questa occasione sono stati pensionati 43 generali.
- 28 agosto Bosnia-Erzegovina. Il parlamento serbo e quello croato
hanno accettato le misure del �pacchetto di Ginevra� per la conclusione
della guerra in Bosnia, mentre i musulmani hanno rifiutato.
- 7 settembre Belgrado. Il consiglio supremo della Difesa della RFJ ha
nominato i nuovi comandanti dell'Armata e del Korpus dell'esercito
jugoslavo.
- 17 settembre Banja Luka. E' terminata l'azione di protesta di otto
giorni di una parte dell'esercito della Repubblica Srpska contro i
profittatori di guerra, detta �del settembre '93�.
- 20 settembre. I musulmani della regione di Bihac, fedeli a Fikret
Abdic, proclamano l'indipendenza dal governo di Sarajevo. Abdic uomo
d'affari della Agrokomerc buttatosi in politica nel l99l quando aveva
ottenuto pi� voti dello stesso Izetbegovic nelle elezioni
presidenziali, aveva dovuto rinunciare all'incarico a causa di
pressioni del carattere mai chiarito. Con la proclamazione
dell'indipendenza Abdic e decine di migliaia di musulmani scelgono la
strada della collaborazione con i croati e i serbi.
- 21 settembre Mosca. Il presidente russo Boris Jetzin con un decreto
ha sciolto il parlamento ed il congresso dei deputati.
- 27 settembre Velika Kladusa. Viene proclamata la �Regione Autonoma
della Bosnia Occidentale�.
- 4 ottobre New York. Il Consiglio di sicurezza ha adottato la
Risoluzione 871, con la quale il mandato UNPROFOR nella ex-Croazia
viene prolungato fino al marzo 1994 e le sanzioni contro la RFJ vengono
direttamente messe in relazione alla crisi nelle Krajne serbe in
Croazia.
- 20 ottobre Belgrado. Il presidente della Repubblica di Serbia
Slobodan Milosevic ha sciolto il parlamento ed ha indetto nuove
elezioni per il 19 dicembre. L'Assemblea della RFJ ha scelto il nuovo
stemma della RFJ.
- 22 ottobre Belgrado. Radovan Karadzic e Fikret Abdic firmano la
Dichiarazione di pace tra la Repubblica Srpska e la Regione Autonoma
della Bosnia Occidentale.
- 4 novembre Ginevra. Il comitato per le sanzioni ha rimandato la
decisione sulla importazione del gas russo alla RFJ.
- 9 novembre Mostar. Le unita' dell'HVO (croati) durante scontri con i
musulmani hanno bombardato il Ponte, vecchio di 427 anni.
- 23 novembre Belgrado. Viene reso noto che per i primi sei mesi di
quest'anno 108 persone nella RF di Jugoslavia sono morte per malattie
infettive normalmente curabili. Nei primi dieci giorni di novembre,
nell'ospedale psichiatrico di Gornja Toponica presso Nis a causa della
mancanza di medicinali sono morti 70 pazienti. La maggiorparte dei
decessi e' causata dalla azione deleteria delle sanzioni sui neonati.
29 novembre Bruxelles. Per iniziativa degli USA il piano Juppe'-Kinkel
per la eliminazione delle sanzioni contro la RFJ, legato alla fine del
conflitto in Bosnia-Erzegovina, viene trasformato in una �riduzione
scaglionata delle sanzioni�, con tutta una serie di nuove condizioni a
scapito dei serbi.
- 21 dicembre Ginevra. La parte serba e quella croata, con le
delegazioni al completo, hanno raggiunto un accordo sulle concessioni
territoriali ai musulmani nella ex-Bosnia Erzegovina, nella misura
richiesta del 33.3 per cento.

(tratto dal periodico militare jugoslavo "Vojska", Belgrado,
13/1/1994, a firma B. Djurdjevic ed integrato con appunti a cura
del Coord. Romano per la Jugoslavia)

---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
I gruppi di discussione + interessanti e divertenti!
Le liste + calde!! Il meglio di Domeus!!!
Iscriviti a listparade-subscribe@...
e visita il sito del momento:
http://www.domeus.it/ad3557360/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

La Nato in Macedonia: come pagare la resa.

(traduzione in volgare tra parentesi quadre.)

[Nel dibattito parlamentare] " La diplomazia occidenale [la NATO, gli
Usa, la Ue] ha fatto valere il suo peso [ha minacciato] e la promessa
di aiuti economici [e ha destabilizzato con il ricatto economico] per
sbloccare la situazione [per far firmare la resa]. E ieri le promesse
della Ue sono state formalizzate [E ieri le prebende sono arrivate]. Il
commissario Chris Patten [Patton?...] ha firmato il provvedimento
che stanzia nel complesso 42,5 mln di Euro (82 mld di lire). "

" Duemila manifestanti davanti al Parlamento contro i cedimenti ai
"terroristi" [tra virgolette nell'originale] dell'UCK hanno inscenato una
parodia della missione di raccolta delle armi (...): hanno scaricato
davanti al Parlamento rifiuti di ogni tipo: armi giocattolo, stoviglie
rotte, vecchie cucine ed elettrodomestici vari, missili di cartone, a
simboleggiare il tipo di armamento che starebbe consegnando
l'UCK "

(da L'Unità, sabato 8 settembre 2001.)

------

Sequestrate 50 tonnellate di armi modernissime, contenute in 4
container, nel porto di Capodistria (Koper - SLO). Il carico è stato
sbarcato da una nave proveniente dalla Malesia, dopo uno scalo a
Malta [?? : base U.K. ...]. Destinazione finali delle armi: Macedonia.
Valore complessivo 4 mld di lire ca.

(fonte Il Piccolo, 7 settembre 2001)

(yure)

------

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages

------

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
IL VIAGGIO DEI TUOI SOGNI DIRETTAMENTE VIA EMAIL!
Biglietti, villaggi, vacanze, lastminute.
Da oggi le migliori offerte nella tua casella di posta!
http://www.domeus.it/ad3537230/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...

Subject: COAT: 24 Reasons To Oppose NATO
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Rozoff <r_rozoff@...>
To: r_rozoff@...


[Richard Sanders is the coordinator of the Coalition
to Oppose the Arms Race [COAT] and is organizing the
"No to NATO: Festival of Creative NonViolence" in
Ottawa, Canada on October 6th to protest the NATO PA
meeting there from October 5-8.
The following compilation of reasons to oppose NATO is
the most comprehensive and convincing I've ever seen,
and I would strongly encourage all friends of peace
and international justice to contact Richard and offer
assistance.
And please pass this on to friends and other contacts.
Thanks.]





From: Richard Sanders <ad207@...> |

Friends,

In preparation for COAT's "No to NATO: Festival of
Creative NonViolence"
(on Oct. 6, in Ottawa), I've produced a tentative list
of "REASONS TO OPPOSE NATO." Please feel free to
suggest additional reasons or ways to improve the
list. This is a draft.

Richard Sanders, Coordinator,
Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)

P.S. Perhaps another reason to oppose NATO is that
activists like us have to waste so much of our lives
opposing it!

===================================24 REASONS TO OPPOSE NATO:

(1) NATO is a creature of the Cold War and should be
abolished, not expanded.

(2) NATO's official military doctrine reserves for
itself the right to use nuclear weapons despite the
fact that in 1996 the World Court made such use, or
threat, illegal. NATO's "first use" nuclear weapons
policy means it is willing to use nuclear weapons even
when none have been used against them. The use of
nuclear weapons contravenes International
Humanitarian Law because civilian deaths would be
massive and indiscriminate.
NATO's nuclear weapons also pose the risk of
environmental catastrophe, including the global
holocaust of "nuclear winter." NATO's nuclear weapons
policy also contravenes the Nonproliferation Treaty
(to which all NATO members are signatories) that
requires all states to press quickly to abolish
nuclear weapons. NATO member states (US, UK and
France) now have more than 9,000 nuclear warheads in
active service, about 60% of the world's nuclear
arsenal. These three NATO states have committed some
of their nuclear weapons to NATO for its use in war.
NATO itself maintains between 60 and 200 nuclear
weapons at airbases in Western Europe. NATO's nuclear
weapons and the threat of their use are a means of
coercion and intimidation, especially against states
that do not possess these weapons.

(3) NATO's powerful core members (the U.S., the U.K.,
France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Spain) have a
long history of controlling vast empires. Former
colonies of these NATO countries -- today's Third
World -- still suffer from tragic economic
inequalities resulting from hundreds of years of
imperialism imposed by nations that are now members of
NATO.
Transnational corporations controlled by economic
interests in NATO countries continue to dominate these
former colonies under a neoliberal economic system now
labeled "corporate globalization."

(4) According to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, about 80% of the world's total
military equipment was produced by NATO members in
1996. The following NATO members are among the
world's top ten military producers: the U.S., the
U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Canada.
The U.S., U.K. and France alone contributed about 70%
of world's total arms production for that year.

(5) After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and
the Warsaw Pact, NATO became increasingly irrelevant
and needed a reason for its continued existence. NATO
therefore escalated its efforts to foment ethnic wars
in the Balkans in order to create excuses for its own
military interventions in the region. NATO's
interventions -- so-called "humanitarian wars" --
were then sold to the public as a means of settling
conflicts between ethnic groups. NATO's real purpose
is to expand the colonial spheres of influence of its
member states and their corporate allies.

(6) NATO waged a war of aggression against Yugoslavia
that was illegal under its own Charter and various
international laws.

(7) NATO forces used 1,200 warplanes and helicopters
to fly 35,000 combat missions against Yugoslavia. It
dropped 20,000 bombs and missiles containing 80,000
tons of explosives on that country. Contrary to
international law, NATO targeted civilian
infrastructure, including over 1,000 targets of no
military significance, such as: schools, hospitals,
farms, bridges, roads, railways, waterlines, media
stations, historic and cultural monuments, museums,
factories, oil refineries and petrochemical
plants.

(8) NATO's illegal bombing campaign severely impacted
the health of Yugoslavia's civilian population.
Thousands of civilians were killed, at least 6,000
were injured and countless others, especially
children,
suffered severe psychological trauma.

(9) According to the UN Environmental Program, NATO's
bombing campaign triggered an ecological catastrophe
in Yugoslavia and the surrounding region.

(10) In its war against Yugoslavia, NATO used weapons
that are prohibited by the Hague and Geneva
Conventions and the Nuremburg Charter, such as
depleted uranium missiles that are radioactive and
highly toxic weapons with long-term, life-threatening
health and environmental consequences, and
anti-personnel cluster bombs designed to kill and maim
(that contravene the "Ottawa Process on Landmines"
because many "bomblets" do not explode during
initial impact). NATO continues to stockpile these
prohibited weapons for use against civilian
populations in future wars.

(11) After its bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO refused to
disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as required
by United Nations resolution 1244.
Instead, NATO converted the KLA into the Kosovo
Protection Force supposedly to maintain peace and
order in NATO-controlled Kosovo. Under the watchful
eye of 40,000 NATO troops, the revamped KLA terrorists
ethnically cleansed the area of 250,000 people who
were not of Albanian heritage (as well as some ethnic
Albanians loyal to Yugoslavia). During NATO's
occupation, 1,300 citizens have been killed and
another 1,300 have been reported missing. Kosovo's
remaining minorities have no freedom of movement,
live in ghettoes and face frequent terrorist attacks
and property destruction.

(12) NATO appointed Agim Ceku, an alleged war
criminal, as commander of the Kosovo Protection Force.
Ceku, an Albanian Kosovar, led the Croatian army's
"Operation Storm" that ethnically cleansed the Serbian
population from their ancestral lands in Croatia. If
the Hague were to pursue an indictment of Ceku, and
other such terrorists, it would be a major
embarrassment to their NATO bosses.

(13) As an occupying colonial power, NATO forces
helped to enforce the cancellation of election results
in Bosnia, shut down the offices and transmission
towers of media stations that were critical of NATO's
presence and seized the assets of political parties
that refused to cooperate with them.

(14) The exploitative behavior rampant in military
culture is exemplified by the actions of NATO troops
based in the Balkans. For example, NATO troops fuel
the demand for prostitution in both Bosnia and Kosovo.
The women who service NATO troops live in deplorable
conditions and are frequently held against their will
by local captors. When evidence of
UN or NATO involvement in this trade has surfaced,
implicated officers have been discharged and sent home
but no criminal proceedings have ever been initiated
against them.

(15) NATO has been a prime source of destabilization
in Macedonia by giving military assistance to Albanian
terrorists there. The London Times (June 10, 2001)
reported that NATO's appointee to the Kosovo
Protection
Force, Agim Ceku, sent 800 KLA troops to Macedonia to
aid the nascent Albanian insurgency there. This June,
NATO troops intervened to evacuate KLA fighters when
Macedonian forces closed in on the rebels near
Aracinovo.
German media reports state that NATO's evacuation was
ordered because 17 former U.S. military personnel --
hardened by years of Balkan fighting and working for a
private U.S. mercenary group -- were among the KLA
terrorists. NATO has also used diplomatic means to
pressure the Macedonian government to succumb to
Albanian demands.

(16) NATO's aggressive policy of expansion into
Eastern Europe severely threatens international
stability. With NATO's annexation of the Czech
Republic, Hungary and Poland now complete, Albania,
Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have declared an
interest in joining the NATO juggernaut. NATO has
also set its sights on penetrating even further into
former Soviet spheres of influence by trying to
encompass Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and the
Ukraine. NATO's intention to press beyond the former
borders of the Soviet Union is dangerously
confrontational and risks provoking war with Russia.

(17) NATO's expansion into Central and Eastern Europe
is a means of integrating the military forces within
those countries under NATO (and largely U.S.) control
As military units within NATO, the armed forces
of new NATO member states must submit to demands for
standardization of military training, weapons and
other military equipment. Requirements that new
members standardize their military equipment to NATO's
exacting specifications is a tremendous boon to U.S.
and European military industries that profit greatly
from these expanded export markets.

(18) New NATO member states may also lose sovereignty
over other important aspects of their armed forces,
such as the command, control, communications and
intelligence functions, which also risk being subsumed
under the auspices of NATO standardization.

(19) The reasons for NATO's expansion eastward are
largely economic. For instance, NATO's military access
and control over Eastern Europe helps Western European
corporations to secure strategic energy resources such

as oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. The
U.S. and Western European corporations will greatly
benefit from NATO's control of the oil corridor
through the Caucasus mountains. NATO wants its troops
to patrol this pipeline and to dominate the
Armenian/Russian route to the Caspian Sea.
The Caucasus also link the Adriatic-Ceyhan-Baku
pipeline with oil-rich countries even farther east, in
the former Soviet Central Asia republics of
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Billions of dollars in oil
may someday flow through these corridors to Western
Europe for the benefit of Western-based oil companies.

(20) NATO's growth is not only a provocation to
Russia, it also threatens the security of China and
other Asian states that may respond in kind by
increasing their military spending, thus diverting
resources from the essential needs of their citizens.
NATO's expansion may eventually provoke an anti-NATO
alliance in Asia, further destabilizing peace and
leading to possible future wars.

(21) As part of the "NATO Defence Capabilities
Initiative," NATO member states have committed
themselves to increase their military abilities
for "power projection, mobility and increased
interoperability." This will require significant
additional military expenditures. European NATO
countries have already increased their expenditures
for military equipment by 11% in real terms since
1995. Meanwhile, military budgets in the U.S.
and Canada have also increased over the past two
years. The military budgets of NATO countries
amounted to about 60% of the world's total
military spending (US$798 billion) for the year 2000.
Rather than focusing on such genuinely humanitarian
priorities as providing food, housing, health care,
education, environmental protection and public
transportation for their populations and the rest of
the world, NATO is intent on increasing their military
budgets for future interventions even farther
afield.

(22) The testing and training conducted by NATO to
prepare for war, also has numerous negative impacts on
people and the environment. NATO's war preparations
include military exercises, the training of pilots and
the testing of weapons and warplanes. For instance,
low level flight training areas and bombing ranges in
Nitassinan threaten the traditional lifestyle of many
in the Innu Nation. Their unceded territory in Quebec
and Labrador is being turned into a military wasteland
by NATO test flights. NATO nations also carry out
dangerous bombing practices on Vieques Island,
off Puerto Rico.

(23) In the late 1940s-early 1950s, at the bidding of
the CIA, NATO helped to set up secret paramilitary,
anti-communist cells in at least 16 European
states. Originally called Operation "Stay Behind,"
this network of guerrilla armies was created to fight
behind the lines in case of a Soviet invasion. It was
codified under the umbrella of the Clandestine
Co-ordinating Committee of the Supreme Headquarters
Allied Powers Europe (which became NATO). These
clandestine armies were condemned by the European
Union in a resolution (Dec. 22, 1990) that blamed the
CIA and NATO for their 40 year role in overseeing this
covert operation. Widely known by the code name for
the Italian campaign (i.e., "Operation Gladio")
these organizations, which the EU feared may still
have been operating in 1990, were accused of illegal
interference in political affairs, conducting
terrorist attacks, jeopardizing democractic structures
and other serious crimes.

(24) Key NATO representatives have interfered with
internal electoral/political developments in Europe.
Although recent elections in Albania were fraught with
irregularities and fraud (ballot box stuffing,
ghost voters, selective disenfranchisement) NATO
General Secretary George Robertson pronounced the
election fair and legitimate. Earlier this year,
another NATO spokesperson openly threatened that if
the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (the party of
former premier Vladimir Meciar) entered a coalition
government, Slovakia would not be welcomed into NATO
or allowed early European Union membership.


FREE SAMPLE COPY OF OUR MAGAZINE EXPOSING NATO'S
CRIMES
The next issue of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms
Trade's quarterly magazine, Press for Conversion!,
will elaborate on the above list of reasons to oppose
NATO. We'll gladly mail a free sample copy of that
issue upon request. This offer is applicable to folks
in Canada who haven't previously received a free
issue. If you're interested, email us your street
address in Canada before September 15.
(If you're outside Canada, send US$5 to COAT at the
address below, or buy an annual subscription for
US$17. Folks in Canada can also buy a copy
for Cdn$5, or subscribe for Cdn$20.)



Richard Sanders
Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)

A national peace network supported by
individuals and organizations across Canada

541 McLeod St., Ottawa Ontario K1R 5R2 Canada
Tel.: 613-231-3076 Fax: 613-231-2614
Email: <ad207@...> Web site:
<http://www.ncf.ca/coat>

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
Help build opposition to NATO PA meetings in Ottawa,
Oct. 5-8, 2001!
Join the "no_to_nato" list serve:
Send the message: subscribe no_to_nato to
<majordomo@...>
Read the archives of our list serve
<http://www.flora.org/coat/forum/>


---

Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente
le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>

---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi sapere proprio tutto su Domeus?
Chi siamo, cosa facciamo e a cosa serviamo?
Conoscici meglio!
tuttosu-subscribe@... oppure
http://www.domeus.it/ad3523030/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...