1999 - NATO Aggression against FR Yugoslavia
1. A pattern of agression (The Guardian)
"Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in
recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate
Hudson"
2. Belgrade regime to drop lawsuits against NATO criminals
3. Russian Court May Try Clinton For War Crimes Against Yugoslavia
=== 1 ===
A pattern of aggression
Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in
recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate
Hudson
Thursday August 14, 2003
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense
debate - as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war
order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states. That challenge,
however, is not a new one. The precursor is without doubt Nato's 1999
attack on Yugoslavia, also carried out without UN support. Look again
at how the US and its allies
behaved then, and the pattern is unmistakable.
Yugoslavia was a sovereign state with internationally recognised
borders; an unsolicited intervention in its internal affairs was
excluded by international law. The US-led onslaught was therefore
justified as a humanitarian war - a concept that most international
lawyers regarded as having no legal standing (the Commons foreign
affairs select committee
described it as of "dubious legality"). The attack was also outside
Nato's own remit as a defensive organisation - its mission statement
was later rewritten to allow for such actions.
In Yugoslavia, as in Iraq, the ultimate goal of the aggressor nations
was regime change. In Iraq, the justification for aggression was the
possession of weapons of mass destruction; in Yugoslavia, it was the
prevention of a
humanitarian crisis and genocide in Kosovo. In both cases, the evidence
for such accusations has been lacking: but while this is now widely
accepted in relation to Iraq, the same is not true of Yugoslavia.
In retrospect, it has become ever clearer that the justification for
war was the result of a calculated provocation - and manipulation of
the legitimate grievances of the Kosovan Albanians - in an already
tense situation within the Yugoslav republic of Serbia. The
constitutional status of Kosovo had
been long contested and the case for greater Kosovan Albanian
self-government had been peacefully championed by the Kosovan
politician, Ibrahim Rugova.
In 1996, however, the marginal secessionist group, the Kosovo
Liberation Army, stepped up its violent campaign for Kosovan
independence and launched a series of assassinations of policemen and
civilians in Kosovo, targeting not only Serbs, but also Albanians who
did not support the KLA. The Yugoslav
government branded the KLA a terrorist organisation - a description
also used by US officials. As late as the beginning of 1998, Robert
Gelbard, US special envoy to Bosnia, declared: "The UCK (KLA) is
without any question a
terrorist group."
KLA attacks drew an increasingly heavy military response from Yugoslav
government forces and in the summer of 1998 a concerted offensive
against KLA strongholds began. In contrast to its earlier position, the
US administration now threatened to bomb Yugoslavia unless the
government withdrew its forces from the province, verified by the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The US was
now clearly determined to remove Milosevic, who was obstructing
Yugoslavia's integration into the western institutional and economic
framework.
Agreement was reached in October 1998 and 1,000 OSCE observers went to
Kosovo to oversee the withdrawal of government troops. But the KLA used
the pullback to renew armed attacks. In January 1999 an alleged
massacre of 45
Kosovan Albanians by Yugoslav government forces took place at Racak.
Both at the time and subsequently, evidence has been contradictory and
fiercely contested as to whether the Racak victims were civilians or
KLA fighters and whether they died in a firefight or close-range
shootings.
Nevertheless, Racak was seized on by the US to justify acceleration
towards war. In early 1999, the OSCE reported that "the current
security environment in Kosovo is characterised by the disproportionate
use of force by the
Yugoslav authorities in response to persistent attacks and provocations
by the Kosovan Albanian paramilitaries." But when the Rambouillet talks
convened in February 1999, the KLA was accorded the status of national
leader. The Rambouillet text, proposed by the then US secretary of
state,
Madeleine Albright, included a wide range of freedoms and immunities
for Nato forces within Yugoslavia that amounted to an effective
occupation. Even the former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger,
described it as "a provocation, an excuse to start bombing". The
Yugoslavs refused to sign, so bombing began on March 24 1999.
Despite claims by western leaders that Yugoslav forces were conducting
"genocide" against the Kosovan Albanians, reports of mass killings and
atrocities - such as the supposed concealment of 700 murdered Kosovan
Albanians in the Trepca mines - were often later admitted to be wrong.
Atrocities certainly were carried out by both Serb and KLA forces. But
investigative teams did not find evidence of the scale of dead or
missing claimed at the time, responsibility for which was attributed to
the Yugoslavs. The damage inflicted by US and British bombing,
meanwhile, was considerable, including civilian casualties estimated at
between 1,000 and
5,000 deaths. Nato forces also used depleted uranium weapons - linked
to cancers and birth defects - while Nato bombers destroyed swathes of
Serbia's economic and social infrastructure.
Far from solving a humanitarian crisis, the 79-day bombardment
triggered the flight of hundreds of thousands of Kosovans. Half a
million Kosovan Albanians who had supposedly been internally displaced
turned out not to
have been, and of the 800,000 who had sought refuge or been forced into
neighbouring countries, the UNHCR estimated that 765,000 had already
returned to Kosovo by August of the same year. A more long-lasting
result, however, was that half the Kosovan Serb population -
approximately 100,000 - left Kosovo or was driven out.
So was the war worth it? Notwithstanding the Nato-UN protectorate
established in Kosovo, the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia was no
longer under threat - the Kosovans did not achieve their independence.
Nor has western support for the KLA been mirrored in Kosovan voting
patterns: the party of Rugova, who never backed the violent path,
received a convincing majority in the elections in 2001.
Meanwhile, violence dogs the surviving minority communities, and in
spite of the presence of 40,000 K-For troops and a UN police force, the
Serb and other minorities (such as Roma) have continued to be forced
out. More than 200,000 are now estimated to have left. In the short
term, support for Milosevic actually increased as a result of the war,
and the regime was only changed through a combination of economic
sanctions, elections and heavy western intervention. Such interference
in a country's internal politics does not generally lead to a stable
and peaceful society, as evidenced by the recent assassination of
Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic, the most pro-western politician
in the country.
As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq: illegal aggression justified by spin and
fabrication enables might to prevail and deals a terrible blow to the
framework of international law. As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq, people's
wellbeing comes a poor second-best to the interests of the world's
self-appointed moral and economic arbiters.
ˇKate Hudson is principal lecturer in Russian and East European
politics at South Bank University, London and author of Breaking the
South Slav Dream: the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia
=== 2 ===
From "Sloboda", Belgrade, 6.6.2003
"YES, MASA", SAY THE BELGRADE PUPPETS, "WE ARE GUILTY FOR YOUR BOMBING
OF OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OF OUR CHILDREN"
"The conditions [to join PfP - VK] include continued full cooperation
with The Hague Tribunal and the dropping of the lawsuit brought against
NATO member countries for the 1999 bombing campaign.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of a NATO library at Belgrade’s
Institute for International Police and Economy, [British Ambassador]
Crawford said that the lawsuit filed by the Belgrade government against
members of the western alliance gives a “bizarre tone” to
Serbia-Montenegro’s desire to join the Partnership. "
The Serbian version of Beta news agency dispatch (bellow) contains also
a quote of certain Igor Luksic, present deputy foreign minister of what
is called Serbia-Montenegro. Our translation of that part of Serbian
Beta dispatch:
"Deputy foreign minister of Serbia-Montenegro Igor Luksic have stated
that the state community will officially request the membership to the
Partnership for Peace when the conditions for the admission will be
fulfilled, adding that Serbia-Montenegro will try to reach that "as
soon as possible". According to his words, it is paradoxical to sue the
organization, the member of which you want to become."
B92, June 05, 2003.
NATO Partnership in weeks, provided conditions are met | 15:14 | Beta
BELGRADE -- Thursday -- "Charles Crawford, British Ambassador to
Belgrade, and NATO official George Katsirdakis have today laid down the
conditions for the state union’s accession to NATO’s Partnership for
Peace programme.
The conditions include continued full cooperation with The Hague
Tribunal and the dropping of the lawsuit brought against NATO member
countries for the 1999 bombing campaign.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of a NATO library at Belgrade’s
Institute for International Police and Economy, Crawford said that the
lawsuit filed by the Belgrade government against members of the western
alliance gives a “bizarre tone” to Serbia-Montenegro’s desire to join
the Partnership.
The ambassador noted the about-turn of Serbia-Montenegro officials, who
claimed last year that the army had never protected any war crimes
suspects, although they now claim differently.
Confirming that Britain has agreed to mediate between Serbia-Montenegro
and Euro-Atlantic institutions, Crawford insisted that it was
imperative they know the truth about occurrences in the union.
However, Crawford praised the reform efforts in Serbia-Montenegro,
insisting that they are achieving positive results and that successful
integration into the Partnership for Peace programme would be a clear
message of the state union’s determination to secure peace and
stability in the region.
He added that such a move would also attract foreign investors.
NATO’s Katsirdakis acknowledged Serbia-Montenegro’s success in meeting
a number of requirements for Partnership membership, but insisted that
the case of indicted Hague suspect General Ratko Mladic remained a
major sticking point.
Speaking on behalf of the alliance, Katsirdakis said he was aware that
Serbia-Montenegro has made considerable efforts to meet conditions for
admission to the Partnership, but that the case of Mladic, former
commander of the republic of Srpska Army, was unique and of particular
significance because of his alleged involvement in the 1995 Srebranica
massacre.
However, the NATO official insisted that full membership of the
Partnership could be realised within weeks, provided all conditions are
met.
In the meantime, Serbia-Montenegro is to be granted official observer
status for upcoming activities, although Katsirdakis insisted this
would not affect practical work."
SO, MOST OF THE NATO/HAGUE TERROR IN SERBIA IS ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF REAL WAR CRIMINALS AND ABOUT THEIR FEAR.
SLOBODA CALLS FOR ALL KINDS OF OPPOSITION, PROTEST AND INTERNATIONAL
SOLIDARITY TO PREVENT FINAL ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOM AND DIGNITY, AS WELL
AS ON HISTORICAL TRUTH AND INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.
LETS FREE PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, CHAMPION OF THIS STRUGGLE!
LETS FIGHT THE NATO/HAGUE MACHINERY OF DESTRUCTION AND KILLING PEOPLE!
---
MINISTER SAYS SERBIA-MONTENEGRO WILL NOT DROP CHARGES AGAINST NATO
BELGRADE, June 27 (Beta) - Serbia Montenegro Minister of Defense Boris
Tadic said on June 27 that Serbia Montenegro would not drop charges
against NATO before the International Court of Justice in The Hague,
unless Bosnia and Croatia dropped their charges against Serbia
Montenegro.
"We equally perceive all charges before the International Court of
Justice in The Hague," Tadic told journalists, adding that if the
country must drop its charges against NATO, than Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Croatia must drop their charges as well.
He expressed the conviction that the country's suit against NATO for
bombing it in 1999 would not represent an obstacle to membership in
NATO's Partnership for Peace program and Euro Atlantic integration
processes.
It would be good if charges were withrawn, Batic
BANJA LUKA, June 30 (Tanjug) - Serbian Justice Minister Vladan Batic
has said that it would be good, both for the future and friendly
telations, if Bosnia-Herzegovina withrew the charges it had filed with
The Hague tribunal against Serbia and Montenegro for agression and
genocide.
In an interview for the Banja Luka daily Nezavisne Novine, Batic said
that "if that does not happen, then we have to defend ourselves from
the charges and prove an another truth."
"As regards the charges, the Serbian Justice Ministry has prepared
such evidence that will surprise both the domestic and foreign
public," the Serbian misister warned.
TADIC SAYS ALL LAWSUITS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN SIMULTANEOUSLY
PODGORICA, July 2 (Tanjug) - Serbia-Montenegro Defense Minister Boris
Tadic said in Podgorica late on Tuesday that any withdrawal of a
lawsuit against 19 NATO countries for aggression against our country
was in connection with the lawsuits of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia
against Serbia-Montenegro before the International Court of Justice.
"Our stand is that if some lawsuits are withdrawn, all should be
withdrawn simultaneously. This is a principle that might be
criticized, but at this point we don't have a better instrument for
securing our interests before the International Court of Justice,"
Tadic told the Montenegrin state television. He said he expected that
the international community would put pressure on Croatia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina to give up their lawsuits against
Serbia-Montenegro, like it was putting pressure on Serbia-Montenegro
to give up its lawsuit against NATO member-countries.
Drop NATO charges, says Filipovic | 13:13 -> 18:19 | Dnevnik
BELGRADE -- Friday – Serbia-Montenegro should drop its lawsuit against
the 19 NATO countries that took part in the bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999, the state union’s NATO liaison said today.
“I saw no opportunity for the state to benefit from this
lawsuit. If it’s making problems for us then it’s better that
we give up on it,” said Miroslav Filipovic.
Filipovic claimed that if Serbia-Montenegro dropped the charges against
NATO, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina would drop theirs against Belgrade.
Serbia-Montenegro MP Filipovic participated in a two-day
roundtable this week regarding the reform of the security
sector. Also in attendance were Serbia-Montengro Defence
Minister Boris Tadic and Chief-of-Staff of the state union army
General Branko Krga.
The event, organised by The Club of Madrid, was also attended by Chris
Donnelly, Senior Advisor to the NATO Secretary-General for Central and
Eastern Europe, Narcis Serra, former Spanish vice president and defence
minister, and Jim O'Brien, former US Envoy to the Balkans.
Two conditions for membership
Donnelly said during the discussion that Serbia-Montenegro were guilty
of not letting their voice be heard, urging them to
fight for their rights once members of the western alliance's
Partnership for Peace Programme.
However, Donnelly stressed that two conditions had still to be
met before membership would be granted: the arrest and
extradition of former Republika Srpska commander General Ratko Mladic;
the dropping of the lawsuit the state union have filed against NATO,
seeking compensation for the damage caused by the 1999 bombing campaign.
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id
=23559&order=priority&style=headlines
=== 3 ===
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Mer 11 Giu 2003 12:07:36 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] Russian Court May Try Clinton For War Crimes
Against Yugoslavia
http://www.interfax.ru/
one_news_en.html?lang=EN&tz=0&tz_format=MSK&id_news=5642675
Interfax (Russia) - June 11, 2003
Saratov region intends to try Clinton
-According to the claimants, the former U.S. president
violated five articles of the Russian Criminal Code,
such as "the planning, preparation, launching, or
conducting of an aggressive war" (Article 353), "the
use of banned means and methods of conducting a war"
(Article 356), "genocide" (Article 357), "ecocide"
(Article 358), and "an attack against individuals or
establishments enjoying international protection"
(Article 360). Those found guilty of the crimes
described by these articles could face from 20 years
to life in prison.
SARATOV. June 11 (Interfax) - The Saratov Regional
Court has satisfied an appeal by five Saratov
residents against a ruling handed down earlier by the
Volga District Court, which refused to try former U.S.
President Bill Clinton in Russia for the bombardment
of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Interfax obtained this information from a source in
the regional court.
In late March this year, five Saratov residents,
including a local journalist, the deputy director of
an Orthodox high school, and three members of the
Russian Writers Union, appealed to the Saratov
regional prosecutor's office, demanding that Clinton
be prosecuted for bombing Yugoslavia.
According to the claimants, the former U.S. president
violated five articles of the Russian Criminal Code,
such as "the planning, preparation, launching, or
conducting of an aggressive war" (Article 353), "the
use of banned means and methods of conducting a war"
(Article 356), "genocide" (Article 357), "ecocide"
(Article 358), and "an attack against individuals or
establishments enjoying international protection"
(Article 360). Those found guilty of the crimes
described by these articles could face from 20 years
to life in prison.
The Volga District Court ruled that Clinton cannot be
tried in the Russian Federation. However, the
claimants field an appeal, citing Article 12 of the
Russian Criminal Code, under which a criminal case can
be opened against a foreigner if he or she caused
damage to Russia. In the claimants' view, the U.S. Air
Force, which bombed Yugoslavia, caused significant
damage to Russia, in particular, by destroying Russian
pipelines.
The Saratov Regional Court's board satisfied the
appeal and returned the case to the Volga District
Court for new consideration.
===
1999 - NATO Aggression against FR Yugoslavia
*** WE WILL NEVER STOP ASKING FOR JUSTICE ***
1. A pattern of agression (The Guardian)
"Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in
recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate
Hudson"
2. Belgrade regime to drop lawsuits against NATO criminals
3. Russian Court May Try Clinton For War Crimes Against Yugoslavia
=== 1 ===
A pattern of aggression
Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in
recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate
Hudson
Thursday August 14, 2003
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense
debate - as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war
order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states. That challenge,
however, is not a new one. The precursor is without doubt Nato's 1999
attack on Yugoslavia, also carried out without UN support. Look again
at how the US and its allies
behaved then, and the pattern is unmistakable.
Yugoslavia was a sovereign state with internationally recognised
borders; an unsolicited intervention in its internal affairs was
excluded by international law. The US-led onslaught was therefore
justified as a humanitarian war - a concept that most international
lawyers regarded as having no legal standing (the Commons foreign
affairs select committee
described it as of "dubious legality"). The attack was also outside
Nato's own remit as a defensive organisation - its mission statement
was later rewritten to allow for such actions.
In Yugoslavia, as in Iraq, the ultimate goal of the aggressor nations
was regime change. In Iraq, the justification for aggression was the
possession of weapons of mass destruction; in Yugoslavia, it was the
prevention of a
humanitarian crisis and genocide in Kosovo. In both cases, the evidence
for such accusations has been lacking: but while this is now widely
accepted in relation to Iraq, the same is not true of Yugoslavia.
In retrospect, it has become ever clearer that the justification for
war was the result of a calculated provocation - and manipulation of
the legitimate grievances of the Kosovan Albanians - in an already
tense situation within the Yugoslav republic of Serbia. The
constitutional status of Kosovo had
been long contested and the case for greater Kosovan Albanian
self-government had been peacefully championed by the Kosovan
politician, Ibrahim Rugova.
In 1996, however, the marginal secessionist group, the Kosovo
Liberation Army, stepped up its violent campaign for Kosovan
independence and launched a series of assassinations of policemen and
civilians in Kosovo, targeting not only Serbs, but also Albanians who
did not support the KLA. The Yugoslav
government branded the KLA a terrorist organisation - a description
also used by US officials. As late as the beginning of 1998, Robert
Gelbard, US special envoy to Bosnia, declared: "The UCK (KLA) is
without any question a
terrorist group."
KLA attacks drew an increasingly heavy military response from Yugoslav
government forces and in the summer of 1998 a concerted offensive
against KLA strongholds began. In contrast to its earlier position, the
US administration now threatened to bomb Yugoslavia unless the
government withdrew its forces from the province, verified by the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The US was
now clearly determined to remove Milosevic, who was obstructing
Yugoslavia's integration into the western institutional and economic
framework.
Agreement was reached in October 1998 and 1,000 OSCE observers went to
Kosovo to oversee the withdrawal of government troops. But the KLA used
the pullback to renew armed attacks. In January 1999 an alleged
massacre of 45
Kosovan Albanians by Yugoslav government forces took place at Racak.
Both at the time and subsequently, evidence has been contradictory and
fiercely contested as to whether the Racak victims were civilians or
KLA fighters and whether they died in a firefight or close-range
shootings.
Nevertheless, Racak was seized on by the US to justify acceleration
towards war. In early 1999, the OSCE reported that "the current
security environment in Kosovo is characterised by the disproportionate
use of force by the
Yugoslav authorities in response to persistent attacks and provocations
by the Kosovan Albanian paramilitaries." But when the Rambouillet talks
convened in February 1999, the KLA was accorded the status of national
leader. The Rambouillet text, proposed by the then US secretary of
state,
Madeleine Albright, included a wide range of freedoms and immunities
for Nato forces within Yugoslavia that amounted to an effective
occupation. Even the former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger,
described it as "a provocation, an excuse to start bombing". The
Yugoslavs refused to sign, so bombing began on March 24 1999.
Despite claims by western leaders that Yugoslav forces were conducting
"genocide" against the Kosovan Albanians, reports of mass killings and
atrocities - such as the supposed concealment of 700 murdered Kosovan
Albanians in the Trepca mines - were often later admitted to be wrong.
Atrocities certainly were carried out by both Serb and KLA forces. But
investigative teams did not find evidence of the scale of dead or
missing claimed at the time, responsibility for which was attributed to
the Yugoslavs. The damage inflicted by US and British bombing,
meanwhile, was considerable, including civilian casualties estimated at
between 1,000 and
5,000 deaths. Nato forces also used depleted uranium weapons - linked
to cancers and birth defects - while Nato bombers destroyed swathes of
Serbia's economic and social infrastructure.
Far from solving a humanitarian crisis, the 79-day bombardment
triggered the flight of hundreds of thousands of Kosovans. Half a
million Kosovan Albanians who had supposedly been internally displaced
turned out not to
have been, and of the 800,000 who had sought refuge or been forced into
neighbouring countries, the UNHCR estimated that 765,000 had already
returned to Kosovo by August of the same year. A more long-lasting
result, however, was that half the Kosovan Serb population -
approximately 100,000 - left Kosovo or was driven out.
So was the war worth it? Notwithstanding the Nato-UN protectorate
established in Kosovo, the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia was no
longer under threat - the Kosovans did not achieve their independence.
Nor has western support for the KLA been mirrored in Kosovan voting
patterns: the party of Rugova, who never backed the violent path,
received a convincing majority in the elections in 2001.
Meanwhile, violence dogs the surviving minority communities, and in
spite of the presence of 40,000 K-For troops and a UN police force, the
Serb and other minorities (such as Roma) have continued to be forced
out. More than 200,000 are now estimated to have left. In the short
term, support for Milosevic actually increased as a result of the war,
and the regime was only changed through a combination of economic
sanctions, elections and heavy western intervention. Such interference
in a country's internal politics does not generally lead to a stable
and peaceful society, as evidenced by the recent assassination of
Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic, the most pro-western politician
in the country.
As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq: illegal aggression justified by spin and
fabrication enables might to prevail and deals a terrible blow to the
framework of international law. As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq, people's
wellbeing comes a poor second-best to the interests of the world's
self-appointed moral and economic arbiters.
ˇKate Hudson is principal lecturer in Russian and East European
politics at South Bank University, London and author of Breaking the
South Slav Dream: the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia
=== 2 ===
From "Sloboda", Belgrade, 6.6.2003
"YES, MASA", SAY THE BELGRADE PUPPETS, "WE ARE GUILTY FOR YOUR BOMBING
OF OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OF OUR CHILDREN"
"The conditions [to join PfP - VK] include continued full cooperation
with The Hague Tribunal and the dropping of the lawsuit brought against
NATO member countries for the 1999 bombing campaign.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of a NATO library at Belgrade’s
Institute for International Police and Economy, [British Ambassador]
Crawford said that the lawsuit filed by the Belgrade government against
members of the western alliance gives a “bizarre tone” to
Serbia-Montenegro’s desire to join the Partnership. "
The Serbian version of Beta news agency dispatch (bellow) contains also
a quote of certain Igor Luksic, present deputy foreign minister of what
is called Serbia-Montenegro. Our translation of that part of Serbian
Beta dispatch:
"Deputy foreign minister of Serbia-Montenegro Igor Luksic have stated
that the state community will officially request the membership to the
Partnership for Peace when the conditions for the admission will be
fulfilled, adding that Serbia-Montenegro will try to reach that "as
soon as possible". According to his words, it is paradoxical to sue the
organization, the member of which you want to become."
B92, June 05, 2003.
NATO Partnership in weeks, provided conditions are met | 15:14 | Beta
BELGRADE -- Thursday -- "Charles Crawford, British Ambassador to
Belgrade, and NATO official George Katsirdakis have today laid down the
conditions for the state union’s accession to NATO’s Partnership for
Peace programme.
The conditions include continued full cooperation with The Hague
Tribunal and the dropping of the lawsuit brought against NATO member
countries for the 1999 bombing campaign.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of a NATO library at Belgrade’s
Institute for International Police and Economy, Crawford said that the
lawsuit filed by the Belgrade government against members of the western
alliance gives a “bizarre tone” to Serbia-Montenegro’s desire to join
the Partnership.
The ambassador noted the about-turn of Serbia-Montenegro officials, who
claimed last year that the army had never protected any war crimes
suspects, although they now claim differently.
Confirming that Britain has agreed to mediate between Serbia-Montenegro
and Euro-Atlantic institutions, Crawford insisted that it was
imperative they know the truth about occurrences in the union.
However, Crawford praised the reform efforts in Serbia-Montenegro,
insisting that they are achieving positive results and that successful
integration into the Partnership for Peace programme would be a clear
message of the state union’s determination to secure peace and
stability in the region.
He added that such a move would also attract foreign investors.
NATO’s Katsirdakis acknowledged Serbia-Montenegro’s success in meeting
a number of requirements for Partnership membership, but insisted that
the case of indicted Hague suspect General Ratko Mladic remained a
major sticking point.
Speaking on behalf of the alliance, Katsirdakis said he was aware that
Serbia-Montenegro has made considerable efforts to meet conditions for
admission to the Partnership, but that the case of Mladic, former
commander of the republic of Srpska Army, was unique and of particular
significance because of his alleged involvement in the 1995 Srebranica
massacre.
However, the NATO official insisted that full membership of the
Partnership could be realised within weeks, provided all conditions are
met.
In the meantime, Serbia-Montenegro is to be granted official observer
status for upcoming activities, although Katsirdakis insisted this
would not affect practical work."
SO, MOST OF THE NATO/HAGUE TERROR IN SERBIA IS ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF REAL WAR CRIMINALS AND ABOUT THEIR FEAR.
SLOBODA CALLS FOR ALL KINDS OF OPPOSITION, PROTEST AND INTERNATIONAL
SOLIDARITY TO PREVENT FINAL ATTACK ON OUR FREEDOM AND DIGNITY, AS WELL
AS ON HISTORICAL TRUTH AND INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.
LETS FREE PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, CHAMPION OF THIS STRUGGLE!
LETS FIGHT THE NATO/HAGUE MACHINERY OF DESTRUCTION AND KILLING PEOPLE!
---
MINISTER SAYS SERBIA-MONTENEGRO WILL NOT DROP CHARGES AGAINST NATO
BELGRADE, June 27 (Beta) - Serbia Montenegro Minister of Defense Boris
Tadic said on June 27 that Serbia Montenegro would not drop charges
against NATO before the International Court of Justice in The Hague,
unless Bosnia and Croatia dropped their charges against Serbia
Montenegro.
"We equally perceive all charges before the International Court of
Justice in The Hague," Tadic told journalists, adding that if the
country must drop its charges against NATO, than Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Croatia must drop their charges as well.
He expressed the conviction that the country's suit against NATO for
bombing it in 1999 would not represent an obstacle to membership in
NATO's Partnership for Peace program and Euro Atlantic integration
processes.
It would be good if charges were withrawn, Batic
BANJA LUKA, June 30 (Tanjug) - Serbian Justice Minister Vladan Batic
has said that it would be good, both for the future and friendly
telations, if Bosnia-Herzegovina withrew the charges it had filed with
The Hague tribunal against Serbia and Montenegro for agression and
genocide.
In an interview for the Banja Luka daily Nezavisne Novine, Batic said
that "if that does not happen, then we have to defend ourselves from
the charges and prove an another truth."
"As regards the charges, the Serbian Justice Ministry has prepared
such evidence that will surprise both the domestic and foreign
public," the Serbian misister warned.
TADIC SAYS ALL LAWSUITS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN SIMULTANEOUSLY
PODGORICA, July 2 (Tanjug) - Serbia-Montenegro Defense Minister Boris
Tadic said in Podgorica late on Tuesday that any withdrawal of a
lawsuit against 19 NATO countries for aggression against our country
was in connection with the lawsuits of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia
against Serbia-Montenegro before the International Court of Justice.
"Our stand is that if some lawsuits are withdrawn, all should be
withdrawn simultaneously. This is a principle that might be
criticized, but at this point we don't have a better instrument for
securing our interests before the International Court of Justice,"
Tadic told the Montenegrin state television. He said he expected that
the international community would put pressure on Croatia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina to give up their lawsuits against
Serbia-Montenegro, like it was putting pressure on Serbia-Montenegro
to give up its lawsuit against NATO member-countries.
Drop NATO charges, says Filipovic | 13:13 -> 18:19 | Dnevnik
BELGRADE -- Friday – Serbia-Montenegro should drop its lawsuit against
the 19 NATO countries that took part in the bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999, the state union’s NATO liaison said today.
“I saw no opportunity for the state to benefit from this
lawsuit. If it’s making problems for us then it’s better that
we give up on it,” said Miroslav Filipovic.
Filipovic claimed that if Serbia-Montenegro dropped the charges against
NATO, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina would drop theirs against Belgrade.
Serbia-Montenegro MP Filipovic participated in a two-day
roundtable this week regarding the reform of the security
sector. Also in attendance were Serbia-Montengro Defence
Minister Boris Tadic and Chief-of-Staff of the state union army
General Branko Krga.
The event, organised by The Club of Madrid, was also attended by Chris
Donnelly, Senior Advisor to the NATO Secretary-General for Central and
Eastern Europe, Narcis Serra, former Spanish vice president and defence
minister, and Jim O'Brien, former US Envoy to the Balkans.
Two conditions for membership
Donnelly said during the discussion that Serbia-Montenegro were guilty
of not letting their voice be heard, urging them to
fight for their rights once members of the western alliance's
Partnership for Peace Programme.
However, Donnelly stressed that two conditions had still to be
met before membership would be granted: the arrest and
extradition of former Republika Srpska commander General Ratko Mladic;
the dropping of the lawsuit the state union have filed against NATO,
seeking compensation for the damage caused by the 1999 bombing campaign.
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id
=23559&order=priority&style=headlines
=== 3 ===
Da: Rick Rozoff
Data: Mer 11 Giu 2003 12:07:36 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: [yugoslaviainfo] Russian Court May Try Clinton For War Crimes
Against Yugoslavia
http://www.interfax.ru/
one_news_en.html?lang=EN&tz=0&tz_format=MSK&id_news=5642675
Interfax (Russia) - June 11, 2003
Saratov region intends to try Clinton
-According to the claimants, the former U.S. president
violated five articles of the Russian Criminal Code,
such as "the planning, preparation, launching, or
conducting of an aggressive war" (Article 353), "the
use of banned means and methods of conducting a war"
(Article 356), "genocide" (Article 357), "ecocide"
(Article 358), and "an attack against individuals or
establishments enjoying international protection"
(Article 360). Those found guilty of the crimes
described by these articles could face from 20 years
to life in prison.
SARATOV. June 11 (Interfax) - The Saratov Regional
Court has satisfied an appeal by five Saratov
residents against a ruling handed down earlier by the
Volga District Court, which refused to try former U.S.
President Bill Clinton in Russia for the bombardment
of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Interfax obtained this information from a source in
the regional court.
In late March this year, five Saratov residents,
including a local journalist, the deputy director of
an Orthodox high school, and three members of the
Russian Writers Union, appealed to the Saratov
regional prosecutor's office, demanding that Clinton
be prosecuted for bombing Yugoslavia.
According to the claimants, the former U.S. president
violated five articles of the Russian Criminal Code,
such as "the planning, preparation, launching, or
conducting of an aggressive war" (Article 353), "the
use of banned means and methods of conducting a war"
(Article 356), "genocide" (Article 357), "ecocide"
(Article 358), and "an attack against individuals or
establishments enjoying international protection"
(Article 360). Those found guilty of the crimes
described by these articles could face from 20 years
to life in prison.
The Volga District Court ruled that Clinton cannot be
tried in the Russian Federation. However, the
claimants field an appeal, citing Article 12 of the
Russian Criminal Code, under which a criminal case can
be opened against a foreigner if he or she caused
damage to Russia. In the claimants' view, the U.S. Air
Force, which bombed Yugoslavia, caused significant
damage to Russia, in particular, by destroying Russian
pipelines.
The Saratov Regional Court's board satisfied the
appeal and returned the case to the Volga District
Court for new consideration.
===
1999 - NATO Aggression against FR Yugoslavia
*** WE WILL NEVER STOP ASKING FOR JUSTICE ***