http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_rc.htm
Crisis in Yugoslavia:
Interview with
Ramsey Clark
Founder of the International
Action Center
Former United States
Attorney General
October 6, 2000
New York City, U.S.A.
[This following interview was to be
translated and published in the daily
newspaper Dan in Podgorica,
Montenegro. Dan published a
Serbo-Croatian edition of the IAC's
book, NATO in the Balkans. ]
After the destruction of the
bipolar structure of the
international community the USA
has played the main role on the
world political scene. What is the
essence of their political strategy
towards Europe, and what is the
role of the U.S. in the events now
unfolding in Yugoslavia?
The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are
complicated
and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of
international
organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical
interests. They
also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military
police force
for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.
Which factors were prevailing in the dissolution of
Yugoslavia -
internal or external ones?
The great tragedy of Yugoslavia in the last decade of the 20th
Century has
not been one of individual leadership. It's been the deliberate
dismantling
of Yugoslavia, which is one of the few countries in the world
formed on an
idea. Most are formed on a purely power basis. But the idea of
Yugoslavia
was that with all the diversity, with all the human problems and
poverty,
only in unity--through federation--could you have sovereignty,
and
independent economic development based on local interests rather
than on
foreign exploitation.
Yugoslavia showed it could work, even under extreme difficulty
during the
Cold War and between World War 1 and World War 2. It's probably
the
only thing that can work for the welfare of the people there.
Yugoslavia was deliberately dismantled. It continues to be
further broken
apart by U.S. and other foreign interests who want to divide and
conquer
the country economically. They want to exploit its resources,
its people, its
markets; and the consequences have been a human disaster from
Slovenia
to Macedonia.
What's needed is a larger Balkan federation that includes more
than just
the six former republics. But what you have is the
disintegration of even
those. Ninety percent of trade, commercial and economic activity
of the six
republics was internal in 1990. No republic is sufficient by
itself to survive
as a strong independent sovereign nation or people.
The breaking up of Yugoslavia is a tragedy from many standpoints
and the
tragedy isn't over.
What was the role of the Pentagon in the destabilization and
final
dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
The Pentagon is the military arm of U.S. policy. It doesn't
dictate policy
but implements it. Both policymaking and the means for
implementing it
are considerably bigger than the Pentagon.
One the most direct roles of the Pentagon was the genocidal
bombing of
Yugoslavia. Those were Pentagon planes up there. A few of them
might
have been British or from some other NATO country, but the
Pentagon
was overwhelmingly responsible for the planes and the targets
chosen, as
well as for the destruction and many people killed.
Washington wanted NATO in there as an umbrella to deflect anger
at the
U.S. They wanted young people from the European NATO countries
to be
the enforcers on the ground. The Clinton White House doesn't
want U.S.
soldiers to come in harms way--it could cause protests in the
streets.
Because of this the Pentagon was able to carry out the
aggression against
Yugoslavia and cause great destruction with virtually no U.S.
casualties.
It's easy when your planes are flying so high that it become
hard to get hit.
You don't ever set foot on the soil but you send missiles and
planes that
bomb away overwhelmingly at civilian targets.
It was a staggering disaster for Serbia and Montenegro and the
Kosovo
area of Serbia. It was a disaster for all the peoples there--all
of them
suffered.
There's been a deliberate policy--and the Pentagon played a role
in
this--to set Muslim against Orthodox Christian Serbs. The idea
of having
Slavic peoples and Muslim peoples--even though the Muslims in
Yugoslavia are Slavs--fight each other is something that we've
seen and
its one of the great dangers. When you think about Bosnia the
Muslims and
the Orthodox Serbs suffered terribly, and they didn't benefit at
all in
Kosovo.
This policy has gone a long way. There were 25 million people in
Yugoslavia in 1990 and now within Montenegro and Serbia you have
just
around 11 million. And now within Serbia itself you have
attempts to divide
the nationalities into three or four different sections by
external forces
that are pressing them to divide and spin off.
What do you think about the expansion of the NATO alliance to
the
Eastern European countries and also to the former Soviet
Republics?
NATO itself is one of the most dangerous international
organizations that
exists. Before any expansion into Eastern Europe NATO involved
the
great colonial powers. It involved rich countries and almost
totally white
Caucasian young men who are still a very small part of the
world's
population.
The NATO countries have by far the largest and richest armies
and the
most advanced weaponry and technology, primarily from the U.S.
NATO is
a threat to the vast majority of the population of the
world--the beautiful
darker-skinned people, and others. They seem to be natural born
killers
when you look at the insensitivity with which they unleash their
technology.
I remember a New York Times columnist talking about the bombing
last
year. I think he reflected exactly what the Pentagon or what
NATO was
saying: "Surrender or we'll destroy you. If you want to be
bombed back to
1990, 1750 or 1372 we can do that, pick your date. You'd better
surrender or
we'll level you."
Is there any justification for the aggression of the world?s
most powerful
countries against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Of course not--not against Yugoslavia or any other country. If
we can't
find countries that will stand up against such aggression our
situation and
our future is going to be a human disaster. Look at how long
it's taken other
countries to begin to stand up for Iraq.
Yugoslavians know better than others what it's like to have a
high tech
all-out aerial bombardment of your country. Iraq was devastated
by
110,000 aerial sorties--88,500 tons of bombs, which was the
equivalent of
7-1/2 Hiroshimas, but most countries didn't really stand up for
Iraq. Only
now within the last few weeks have foreign countries started to
break the
blockade, which has killed a million and a half people.
The blockade against Iraq--though more severe--was the same type
of
sanctions that were imposed on Yugoslavia. U.S. Secretary of
State
Madeline Albright has already said that the sanctions on
Yugoslavia will
not end, even with a change in the government there, until every
demand
of the U.S. is fulfilled
It's been ten death-giving years in Iraq and finally we now see
France, the
Russian Federation, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates flying
food and
doctors and supplies to help relieve the suffering of the Iraqi
people.
We have to reach out to nations everywhere, particularly the
poorer
nations of the world, to unify against this type of aggression.
What is your opinion about the proceedings of the
International
Tribunal for the War Crimes Committed on the territory of
former
Yugoslavia in the Hague?
The indictments of Milosevic and other Yugsolav officials were
before the
same International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia--a body
that is
unlawful. If you want a world based on principle and law it has
to be
abolished.
The U.N. Charter doesn't provide for an international criminal
tribunal
focused on a single country or a number of countries. The
Security Council
has no power to create such a court, which is used primarily by
the U.S. to
pursue its enemies. That's war by other means, pure and simple.
The countries that convened the U.N.--particularly the
victorious nations
from WWII--would never have formed it if they dreamed the U.N.
would
have an international criminal tribunal in which they could be
held
accountable. They don't mind prosecuting others, but they don't
intend to
be prosecuted themselves.
That's why the U.S. refuses to join in the treaty currently in
process. A
treaty is a current agreement--any nation can agree to one. But
if there's
to be an international criminal tribunal the U.N. can't create
it. It has to
be done by the agreement of nations--by a treaty which nations
have the
power to make. The U.S., however, won't sign such a treaty. It
has refused
to even consider it.
Mass public hearings of NATO war crimes against Yugoslavia
have
taken place in cities all over the world. Can you tell us
something more
about the aims of those actions?
The IAC in New York was the sponsor of a wide-ranging series of
evidentiary-gathering hearings all over the world about war
crimes against
Yugoslavia. The U.S. was charged, along with the United Kingdom,
Germany, and other NATO countries that participated in voting
for
NATO's involvement or in providing arms or airbases or other
logistical
support for the assault on Yugoslavia.
The evidence was gathered from all over the world, including
Yugoslavia.
It was considered by judges from many nations--non-governmental
lay
people. All of the defendants were found guilty of all charges.
They
included Nuremberg Principle violations of crimes against peace,
war
crimes and crimes against humanity. They also comprised Geneva
Convention prohibitions against assaults on civilians-- making
civilians
the direct objects of attack--assaults on facilities that are
essential to
civilian lives, and assaults on inherently dangerous facilities.
They were
found guilty of virtually every war crime on the books.
Is there any way to stop the process of international
lawlessness that we
are witnessing today?
There's obviously no easy way, but that doesn't mean the
struggle is
hopeless. There's rarely been in history such a concentration of
power in
the hands of such a comparatively small part of the world's
population,
particularly the U.S. There's never been such a concentration of
power
and monopoly of military technology and sophisticated weaponry.
This
includes nuclear arms and the capacity to destroy whole
populations.
There's also never been such a monopoly of the means of
communication.
The U.S. government's control of the international media is in
fact
unprecedented. This can be devastating because people don't know
what to
think--they're not encouraged to think, they're not given the
facts. The
U.S. can reach into a country and brainwash people everywhere.
Someone can be demonized without being heard in their own
defense, and
the truth can never be found by looking at a television screen.
So we live
under this terrible monopoly of power and communications, and
economic
power too with the rich getting richer and the poor getting
poorer.
It's going to take enormous courage and sacrifice, as well as
great
imagination and discipline in forms of organizing and unifying.
We have to
struggle with all our might to unite worldwide resistance to
domination and
exploitation. Power is in the people. The question is one of
will,
understanding, courage, commitment and sacrifice. If the people
can unify
we will overcome.
What was the role of the media in the Yugoslav crisis?
The U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was devastating, but the
function of
the Western media has probably been more harmful. The power of
the
big-business media to shape opinion internationally--in the
U.S., in
Western Europe and other parts of the world--is just astounding
in how
effectively it was used to demonize Slavic peoples, especially
the Serbs of
Yugoslavia.
It takes a long time to unlearn prejudices. Once they are
implanted they
become hard to root out. We implanted huge racial prejudices in
the U.S.
to justify slavery, and we still find it's a lot harder than
weeding the garden
to get the racists out.
People of African descent in our country have been demonized
like the
Serbs, and the racists are still everywhere. The media create
prejudices
and "demons" by simply repeating stories night after night on
television
and radio, in the newspapers and magazines, and every place
else.
Within Serbia and Montenegro you can see how divisive the media
was and
how demoralizing it can be to see what others are saying about
you. Before
the bombing I was there. I could see the effects of the
sanctions, coupled
with the effect on the people of seeing on foreign television
the prejudices
being stirred up against them.
It makes you feel like you're alone in the world and nobody
loves you. But
many many people love Yugoslavia. We love the people there; we
remember how courageous you've been. We know and are inspired by
your
fierce courage and strength, how you resisted the Nazis and what
a price
you paid for it. The media can make you doubt even your own soul
and
inner strength, but that doesn't mean their divisive tactics
will always
continue to work.
How do you evaluate the role of the United Nations in
the framework of the so-called new world order?
We hope that the U.N. will become independent and act more
objectively,
since we need it. Right now it's pretty much the captive of the
U.S., but it
doesn't always have to be that way.
It's harmful to every human being on earth for the U.N. to be
that way,
including the people of the U.S. This is true because when you
realize what
your country has done, and continues to do around the world, it
destroys
your own spirit if you don't resist. It also puts you in
jeopardy since it's
getting harder for U.S. citizens to travel abroad. We're not
received with
open arms in many parts of the world.
We have to work to make the U.N. more effective even though, as
we saw
with Yugoslavia, it was more independent than NATO. The U.S., in
fact,
didn't go to the U.N. because it could not, as it did with Iraq,
unite that body
to support the aggression on your country.
It did that easily with NATO, but in doing so it caused NATO to
violate not
only the North Atlantic Treaty but also the U.N. Charter.
Nevertheless,
the U.N. should not have permitted that. We need an independent
reformed U.N. that abolishes the Security Council and that
empowers
self-financing. As long as the U.N. is dependent on
contributions from
countries like the U.S. it will be hard to function since it
will never know
whether its going to get its money or not.
How would you define the policy of sanctions and complete
international
isolation of those countries that want to find their own way
to the future,
and what are its consequences?
Comprehensive general sanctions that impact on the economy of a
nation
need to be seen as a weapon of mass destruction. They hit poor
people
hardest and first, and they're genocidal.
If that can't be seen from the history of Iraq then we can't see
anything.
Sanctions have killed more than a million and a half people
there--mostly children. The second largest age group was the
elderly. The
people who are most vulnerable to sickness and weakness and who
need
nutrition are the ones who die first.
Control through the threat of sanctions exceeds any control
achieved by
the actual application since you can terrorize a country just by
threatening
sanctions. This is because people don't want to suffer as
they've seen
others suffer.
It's therefore imperative that we abolish the use of economic
sanctions.
When you think about it, you can't sanction a rich country
because they'll
laugh all the way to the bank. They'll have plenty of food, oil,
soap
powder--whatever is needed. You can't sanction a country that
has the
physical power to transport the goods and services that it needs
from other
places. Only "weak" countries--those that can't resist
militarily or
compete economically--will be victimized by sanctions.
(1. continua)
---
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma vengono
fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al solo scopo di
segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")
Per contributi e segnalazioni: jugocoord@...
*** QUESTO SERVIZIO E' ANCORA IN FASE SPERIMENTALE ***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
Il tuo sondaggio sul web sugli argomenti che preferisci
Facile da gestire e con rappresentazioni grafiche dei risultati.
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.de/ad187941/www.ecircle.it
Crisis in Yugoslavia:
Interview with
Ramsey Clark
Founder of the International
Action Center
Former United States
Attorney General
October 6, 2000
New York City, U.S.A.
[This following interview was to be
translated and published in the daily
newspaper Dan in Podgorica,
Montenegro. Dan published a
Serbo-Croatian edition of the IAC's
book, NATO in the Balkans. ]
After the destruction of the
bipolar structure of the
international community the USA
has played the main role on the
world political scene. What is the
essence of their political strategy
towards Europe, and what is the
role of the U.S. in the events now
unfolding in Yugoslavia?
The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are
complicated
and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of
international
organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical
interests. They
also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military
police force
for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.
Which factors were prevailing in the dissolution of
Yugoslavia -
internal or external ones?
The great tragedy of Yugoslavia in the last decade of the 20th
Century has
not been one of individual leadership. It's been the deliberate
dismantling
of Yugoslavia, which is one of the few countries in the world
formed on an
idea. Most are formed on a purely power basis. But the idea of
Yugoslavia
was that with all the diversity, with all the human problems and
poverty,
only in unity--through federation--could you have sovereignty,
and
independent economic development based on local interests rather
than on
foreign exploitation.
Yugoslavia showed it could work, even under extreme difficulty
during the
Cold War and between World War 1 and World War 2. It's probably
the
only thing that can work for the welfare of the people there.
Yugoslavia was deliberately dismantled. It continues to be
further broken
apart by U.S. and other foreign interests who want to divide and
conquer
the country economically. They want to exploit its resources,
its people, its
markets; and the consequences have been a human disaster from
Slovenia
to Macedonia.
What's needed is a larger Balkan federation that includes more
than just
the six former republics. But what you have is the
disintegration of even
those. Ninety percent of trade, commercial and economic activity
of the six
republics was internal in 1990. No republic is sufficient by
itself to survive
as a strong independent sovereign nation or people.
The breaking up of Yugoslavia is a tragedy from many standpoints
and the
tragedy isn't over.
What was the role of the Pentagon in the destabilization and
final
dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
The Pentagon is the military arm of U.S. policy. It doesn't
dictate policy
but implements it. Both policymaking and the means for
implementing it
are considerably bigger than the Pentagon.
One the most direct roles of the Pentagon was the genocidal
bombing of
Yugoslavia. Those were Pentagon planes up there. A few of them
might
have been British or from some other NATO country, but the
Pentagon
was overwhelmingly responsible for the planes and the targets
chosen, as
well as for the destruction and many people killed.
Washington wanted NATO in there as an umbrella to deflect anger
at the
U.S. They wanted young people from the European NATO countries
to be
the enforcers on the ground. The Clinton White House doesn't
want U.S.
soldiers to come in harms way--it could cause protests in the
streets.
Because of this the Pentagon was able to carry out the
aggression against
Yugoslavia and cause great destruction with virtually no U.S.
casualties.
It's easy when your planes are flying so high that it become
hard to get hit.
You don't ever set foot on the soil but you send missiles and
planes that
bomb away overwhelmingly at civilian targets.
It was a staggering disaster for Serbia and Montenegro and the
Kosovo
area of Serbia. It was a disaster for all the peoples there--all
of them
suffered.
There's been a deliberate policy--and the Pentagon played a role
in
this--to set Muslim against Orthodox Christian Serbs. The idea
of having
Slavic peoples and Muslim peoples--even though the Muslims in
Yugoslavia are Slavs--fight each other is something that we've
seen and
its one of the great dangers. When you think about Bosnia the
Muslims and
the Orthodox Serbs suffered terribly, and they didn't benefit at
all in
Kosovo.
This policy has gone a long way. There were 25 million people in
Yugoslavia in 1990 and now within Montenegro and Serbia you have
just
around 11 million. And now within Serbia itself you have
attempts to divide
the nationalities into three or four different sections by
external forces
that are pressing them to divide and spin off.
What do you think about the expansion of the NATO alliance to
the
Eastern European countries and also to the former Soviet
Republics?
NATO itself is one of the most dangerous international
organizations that
exists. Before any expansion into Eastern Europe NATO involved
the
great colonial powers. It involved rich countries and almost
totally white
Caucasian young men who are still a very small part of the
world's
population.
The NATO countries have by far the largest and richest armies
and the
most advanced weaponry and technology, primarily from the U.S.
NATO is
a threat to the vast majority of the population of the
world--the beautiful
darker-skinned people, and others. They seem to be natural born
killers
when you look at the insensitivity with which they unleash their
technology.
I remember a New York Times columnist talking about the bombing
last
year. I think he reflected exactly what the Pentagon or what
NATO was
saying: "Surrender or we'll destroy you. If you want to be
bombed back to
1990, 1750 or 1372 we can do that, pick your date. You'd better
surrender or
we'll level you."
Is there any justification for the aggression of the world?s
most powerful
countries against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Of course not--not against Yugoslavia or any other country. If
we can't
find countries that will stand up against such aggression our
situation and
our future is going to be a human disaster. Look at how long
it's taken other
countries to begin to stand up for Iraq.
Yugoslavians know better than others what it's like to have a
high tech
all-out aerial bombardment of your country. Iraq was devastated
by
110,000 aerial sorties--88,500 tons of bombs, which was the
equivalent of
7-1/2 Hiroshimas, but most countries didn't really stand up for
Iraq. Only
now within the last few weeks have foreign countries started to
break the
blockade, which has killed a million and a half people.
The blockade against Iraq--though more severe--was the same type
of
sanctions that were imposed on Yugoslavia. U.S. Secretary of
State
Madeline Albright has already said that the sanctions on
Yugoslavia will
not end, even with a change in the government there, until every
demand
of the U.S. is fulfilled
It's been ten death-giving years in Iraq and finally we now see
France, the
Russian Federation, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates flying
food and
doctors and supplies to help relieve the suffering of the Iraqi
people.
We have to reach out to nations everywhere, particularly the
poorer
nations of the world, to unify against this type of aggression.
What is your opinion about the proceedings of the
International
Tribunal for the War Crimes Committed on the territory of
former
Yugoslavia in the Hague?
The indictments of Milosevic and other Yugsolav officials were
before the
same International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia--a body
that is
unlawful. If you want a world based on principle and law it has
to be
abolished.
The U.N. Charter doesn't provide for an international criminal
tribunal
focused on a single country or a number of countries. The
Security Council
has no power to create such a court, which is used primarily by
the U.S. to
pursue its enemies. That's war by other means, pure and simple.
The countries that convened the U.N.--particularly the
victorious nations
from WWII--would never have formed it if they dreamed the U.N.
would
have an international criminal tribunal in which they could be
held
accountable. They don't mind prosecuting others, but they don't
intend to
be prosecuted themselves.
That's why the U.S. refuses to join in the treaty currently in
process. A
treaty is a current agreement--any nation can agree to one. But
if there's
to be an international criminal tribunal the U.N. can't create
it. It has to
be done by the agreement of nations--by a treaty which nations
have the
power to make. The U.S., however, won't sign such a treaty. It
has refused
to even consider it.
Mass public hearings of NATO war crimes against Yugoslavia
have
taken place in cities all over the world. Can you tell us
something more
about the aims of those actions?
The IAC in New York was the sponsor of a wide-ranging series of
evidentiary-gathering hearings all over the world about war
crimes against
Yugoslavia. The U.S. was charged, along with the United Kingdom,
Germany, and other NATO countries that participated in voting
for
NATO's involvement or in providing arms or airbases or other
logistical
support for the assault on Yugoslavia.
The evidence was gathered from all over the world, including
Yugoslavia.
It was considered by judges from many nations--non-governmental
lay
people. All of the defendants were found guilty of all charges.
They
included Nuremberg Principle violations of crimes against peace,
war
crimes and crimes against humanity. They also comprised Geneva
Convention prohibitions against assaults on civilians-- making
civilians
the direct objects of attack--assaults on facilities that are
essential to
civilian lives, and assaults on inherently dangerous facilities.
They were
found guilty of virtually every war crime on the books.
Is there any way to stop the process of international
lawlessness that we
are witnessing today?
There's obviously no easy way, but that doesn't mean the
struggle is
hopeless. There's rarely been in history such a concentration of
power in
the hands of such a comparatively small part of the world's
population,
particularly the U.S. There's never been such a concentration of
power
and monopoly of military technology and sophisticated weaponry.
This
includes nuclear arms and the capacity to destroy whole
populations.
There's also never been such a monopoly of the means of
communication.
The U.S. government's control of the international media is in
fact
unprecedented. This can be devastating because people don't know
what to
think--they're not encouraged to think, they're not given the
facts. The
U.S. can reach into a country and brainwash people everywhere.
Someone can be demonized without being heard in their own
defense, and
the truth can never be found by looking at a television screen.
So we live
under this terrible monopoly of power and communications, and
economic
power too with the rich getting richer and the poor getting
poorer.
It's going to take enormous courage and sacrifice, as well as
great
imagination and discipline in forms of organizing and unifying.
We have to
struggle with all our might to unite worldwide resistance to
domination and
exploitation. Power is in the people. The question is one of
will,
understanding, courage, commitment and sacrifice. If the people
can unify
we will overcome.
What was the role of the media in the Yugoslav crisis?
The U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was devastating, but the
function of
the Western media has probably been more harmful. The power of
the
big-business media to shape opinion internationally--in the
U.S., in
Western Europe and other parts of the world--is just astounding
in how
effectively it was used to demonize Slavic peoples, especially
the Serbs of
Yugoslavia.
It takes a long time to unlearn prejudices. Once they are
implanted they
become hard to root out. We implanted huge racial prejudices in
the U.S.
to justify slavery, and we still find it's a lot harder than
weeding the garden
to get the racists out.
People of African descent in our country have been demonized
like the
Serbs, and the racists are still everywhere. The media create
prejudices
and "demons" by simply repeating stories night after night on
television
and radio, in the newspapers and magazines, and every place
else.
Within Serbia and Montenegro you can see how divisive the media
was and
how demoralizing it can be to see what others are saying about
you. Before
the bombing I was there. I could see the effects of the
sanctions, coupled
with the effect on the people of seeing on foreign television
the prejudices
being stirred up against them.
It makes you feel like you're alone in the world and nobody
loves you. But
many many people love Yugoslavia. We love the people there; we
remember how courageous you've been. We know and are inspired by
your
fierce courage and strength, how you resisted the Nazis and what
a price
you paid for it. The media can make you doubt even your own soul
and
inner strength, but that doesn't mean their divisive tactics
will always
continue to work.
How do you evaluate the role of the United Nations in
the framework of the so-called new world order?
We hope that the U.N. will become independent and act more
objectively,
since we need it. Right now it's pretty much the captive of the
U.S., but it
doesn't always have to be that way.
It's harmful to every human being on earth for the U.N. to be
that way,
including the people of the U.S. This is true because when you
realize what
your country has done, and continues to do around the world, it
destroys
your own spirit if you don't resist. It also puts you in
jeopardy since it's
getting harder for U.S. citizens to travel abroad. We're not
received with
open arms in many parts of the world.
We have to work to make the U.N. more effective even though, as
we saw
with Yugoslavia, it was more independent than NATO. The U.S., in
fact,
didn't go to the U.N. because it could not, as it did with Iraq,
unite that body
to support the aggression on your country.
It did that easily with NATO, but in doing so it caused NATO to
violate not
only the North Atlantic Treaty but also the U.N. Charter.
Nevertheless,
the U.N. should not have permitted that. We need an independent
reformed U.N. that abolishes the Security Council and that
empowers
self-financing. As long as the U.N. is dependent on
contributions from
countries like the U.S. it will be hard to function since it
will never know
whether its going to get its money or not.
How would you define the policy of sanctions and complete
international
isolation of those countries that want to find their own way
to the future,
and what are its consequences?
Comprehensive general sanctions that impact on the economy of a
nation
need to be seen as a weapon of mass destruction. They hit poor
people
hardest and first, and they're genocidal.
If that can't be seen from the history of Iraq then we can't see
anything.
Sanctions have killed more than a million and a half people
there--mostly children. The second largest age group was the
elderly. The
people who are most vulnerable to sickness and weakness and who
need
nutrition are the ones who die first.
Control through the threat of sanctions exceeds any control
achieved by
the actual application since you can terrorize a country just by
threatening
sanctions. This is because people don't want to suffer as
they've seen
others suffer.
It's therefore imperative that we abolish the use of economic
sanctions.
When you think about it, you can't sanction a rich country
because they'll
laugh all the way to the bank. They'll have plenty of food, oil,
soap
powder--whatever is needed. You can't sanction a country that
has the
physical power to transport the goods and services that it needs
from other
places. Only "weak" countries--those that can't resist
militarily or
compete economically--will be victimized by sanctions.
(1. continua)
---
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma vengono
fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al solo scopo di
segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")
Per contributi e segnalazioni: jugocoord@...
*** QUESTO SERVIZIO E' ANCORA IN FASE SPERIMENTALE ***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
Il tuo sondaggio sul web sugli argomenti che preferisci
Facile da gestire e con rappresentazioni grafiche dei risultati.
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.de/ad187941/www.ecircle.it