Jugoinfo
> http://wwww.ansa.it/balcani/jugoslavia/20011024103532025110.html
DIRITTI UMANI: JUGOSLAVIA, UDIENZA ATTACCO NATO A TV SERBA
(ANSA) - STRASBURGO, 24 OTT - La Corte europea dei diritti umani si e'
riunita questa mattina a Strasburgo per esaminare un ricorso presentato
da dipendenti, o dalle loro famiglie, della televisione di stato serba
Rts bombardata nel 1999 dalla Nato, contro 17 paesi europei aderenti
all'Alleanza atlantica ed al Consiglio d'Europa, fra cui l'Italia. Nel
bombardamento del palazzo che ospitava la Rts rimasero uccise 16
persone e altre 16 vennero gravemente ferite. Le famiglie di quattro
delle vittime figurano fra i firmatari del ricorso contro i paesi Nato.
Nella denuncia presentata ai giudici europei i 17 membri europei della
Nato sono accusati di avere violato in particolare l'articolo 2 della
convenzione europea dei diritti umani, uno dei piu' fondamentali, che
sancisce il diritto alla vita. I ricorrenti affermano che il palazzo
della Rts, raggiunto da un missile terra-aria alleato alle due del
mattino il 23 aprile 1999, era un obiettivo civile colpito
deliberatamente, e sostengono di disporre di prove che indicherebbero
che i giornalisti stranieri presenti nel palazzo erano stati avvertiti
prima dell'attacco. L'udienza di oggi e' dedicata all'esame della
ammissibilita' del ricorso, contestata dai 17 paesi contro i quali e'
rivolto, rappresentati in aula dal Regno Unito. La Corte europea
decidera' dopo l'udienza se dichiarare il ricorso ricevibile o meno, e
se iniziare l'esame di merito della causa. (ANSA). CEF
24/10/2001 10:35
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/
europe/newsid_1616000/1616461.stm
BBC News
Wednesday, 24 October, 2001,
Nato challenged over Belgrade bombing
Sixteen people were killed in the attack
The European Court of Human rights is to hear a case
against Nato on Wednesday over the bombing of
Belgrade's main TV station during the Kosovo conflict.
Their relatives say the attack, which killed 16
people, was in breach of Europe's human rights charter
and that they deserve compensation.
The families of four of the victims and one survivor
are claiming that the air strikes were illegal under
Europe's human rights charter governing the right to
life and freedom of expression.
The hearing is only the first step to determine if the
European Court of Human Rights has the jurisdiction
even to hear the case.
Propaganda war
On the night of 23 April 1999, Nato aircraft attacked
the government-run studios of Radio Television Serbia
(RTS) in Belgrade, in which those killed, most of them
production workers, had been ordered to report for
work.
The attack was part of Nato's air campaign to force
the Yugoslav Government of former President Slobodan
Milosevic to withdraw its forces from Kosovo.
[Countries accused:
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom]
At the time, Nato defended the air strike by saying
the TV station was a legitimate target because of its
role in what Nato called Belgrade's campaign of
propaganda.
The applicants to the Court of Human Rights argue that
the individual Nato member states are responsible for
the bombing, even though it was carried out by Nato
forces.
They are suing the European members of Nato - but not
the United States and Canada - for compensation.
Lawyers for the Nato states, which have denied the
charges, say that because the former Yugoslavia was
not a signatory to the European Charter of Human
Rights, the court cannot hear the case.
If the states are found responsible, the survivor and
families could be awarded damages.
A judgement is due in several weeks.
---
ALTRA DOCUMENTAZIONE SU CASI PRECEDENTI /
MORE DOCUMENTS ON PREVIOUS SIMILAR CASES:
---
Berlin Faces Court Action Over NATO Bombing of
Yugoslavia
Karsruhe, Jun 20, 2001 -- (dpa) The tremors from 1999
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia continue to reverberate
across the German political landscape with Germany's
reformed communist party launching a constitutional
court action against the U.S. backed security
alliance's raids.
The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) believes that
the German government's agreement for the NATO's
bombing raids was unconstitutional because the
nation's parliament, the Bundestag, was not consulted.
In the light of Germany's wartime past, military
action involving German troops remains a deeply
sensitive issue in the nation with the PDS having
fiercely opposed the NATO raids which followed
Belgrade's aggressive moves in the Yugoslavian
province of Kosovo.
As argument in the constitutional court commenced on
Tuesday, a PDS leader, Gregor Gysi claimed that NATO's
role had been extended by the bombing raids and as a
result the central part of the agreement with NATO had
been changed.
Gysi insisted that bypassing the parliament not only
raised democratic issues but also questions about the
legal protection of the nation's soldiers.
At the heart of the case is the German Federal
Government's endorsement in April 1999 of a so-called
a new strategic concept for NATO intervention.
This was also agreed to by other members of the
trans-atlantic alliance and stressed that the
transatlantic security group faced new complex risks.
Defending the German Government's action before the
constitutional court on Tuesday, the nation's Foreign
Minister, Joschka Fischer said that parliamentary
agreement for the concept was not necessary as it was
not a binding contract but a political document.
But Fischer said that Berlin believed the case before
the constitutional court had "enormous political
significance."
"It concerns the negotiating abilities of the
government in following its international
responsibilities," he said.
As a measure of the tensions unleashed in Germany by
the NATO action, Fischer had paint thrown over him
during a rowdy meeting of his Green Party at the
height of the bombing raids.
Also defending the government's support for the
bombing before the constitutional court on Tuesday was
the nation's Minister for Defense Rudolf Scharping who
said that the purpose of the alliance had changed as
well as the political circumstances.
Representing the Parliament before the court, the
Christian Democrat parliamentarian Rupert Scholz said
that not every new concept was a new contract.
(C)2001. dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH.
---
> http://www.ekathimerini.com/news/content.asp?aid%ef%bf%bd413
KATHIMERINI
ATHENS, FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001
NEWS & COMMENT Updated: 06/15/2001 10:23 GMT
Del Ponte is asked to prosecute NATO for DU
The head of the Athens Bar Association and two human
rights groups yesterday asked the chief war crimes
prosecutor for Yugoslavia to charge NATO officials for
allowing the use of depleted uranium ammunition in the
Balkans.
In a request filed with Carla del Ponte, the three
asked for the prosecution of any NATO political or
military official who authorized the use of the
armor-piercing ammunition.
They claim use of the ammunition violated
international agreements barring the use of toxic or
"other" materials during a war, and the 1949 Geneva
Convention intended to protect civilians in areas of
conflict. No NATO officials are named in their
request.
The request was made by bar association president
Andonis Roupakiotis; Constantinos Menoudakis, a high
court judge and president of the Greek judicial
workers union for democracy and freedom; and Aliki
Maragopoulou, head of a human rights group.
Depleted uranium is a slightly radioactive heavy metal
which is used in shells and can pierce the armor of a
tank. There is concern that dust from the uranium can
cause cancer.
A NATO committee which acts as a clearinghouse about
possible health risks has said no evidence of a link
between depleted uranium munitions and an increase in
illness has yet been found.
The studies followed concerns in several European
countries after Italy began studying the illnesses of
30 veterans of Balkans peacekeeping missions, seven of
whom died of cancer, including five cases of leukemia.
(AP)
---
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 ------------------------------------------------------------
HAI TANTI HOBBIES?
Bricolage, giardinaggio, floricoltura e quant'altro!
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte direttamente
nella tua casella di posta eMail
http://www.domeus.it/ad4129270/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
DIRITTI UMANI: JUGOSLAVIA, UDIENZA ATTACCO NATO A TV SERBA
(ANSA) - STRASBURGO, 24 OTT - La Corte europea dei diritti umani si e'
riunita questa mattina a Strasburgo per esaminare un ricorso presentato
da dipendenti, o dalle loro famiglie, della televisione di stato serba
Rts bombardata nel 1999 dalla Nato, contro 17 paesi europei aderenti
all'Alleanza atlantica ed al Consiglio d'Europa, fra cui l'Italia. Nel
bombardamento del palazzo che ospitava la Rts rimasero uccise 16
persone e altre 16 vennero gravemente ferite. Le famiglie di quattro
delle vittime figurano fra i firmatari del ricorso contro i paesi Nato.
Nella denuncia presentata ai giudici europei i 17 membri europei della
Nato sono accusati di avere violato in particolare l'articolo 2 della
convenzione europea dei diritti umani, uno dei piu' fondamentali, che
sancisce il diritto alla vita. I ricorrenti affermano che il palazzo
della Rts, raggiunto da un missile terra-aria alleato alle due del
mattino il 23 aprile 1999, era un obiettivo civile colpito
deliberatamente, e sostengono di disporre di prove che indicherebbero
che i giornalisti stranieri presenti nel palazzo erano stati avvertiti
prima dell'attacco. L'udienza di oggi e' dedicata all'esame della
ammissibilita' del ricorso, contestata dai 17 paesi contro i quali e'
rivolto, rappresentati in aula dal Regno Unito. La Corte europea
decidera' dopo l'udienza se dichiarare il ricorso ricevibile o meno, e
se iniziare l'esame di merito della causa. (ANSA). CEF
24/10/2001 10:35
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/
europe/newsid_1616000/1616461.stm
BBC News
Wednesday, 24 October, 2001,
Nato challenged over Belgrade bombing
Sixteen people were killed in the attack
The European Court of Human rights is to hear a case
against Nato on Wednesday over the bombing of
Belgrade's main TV station during the Kosovo conflict.
Their relatives say the attack, which killed 16
people, was in breach of Europe's human rights charter
and that they deserve compensation.
The families of four of the victims and one survivor
are claiming that the air strikes were illegal under
Europe's human rights charter governing the right to
life and freedom of expression.
The hearing is only the first step to determine if the
European Court of Human Rights has the jurisdiction
even to hear the case.
Propaganda war
On the night of 23 April 1999, Nato aircraft attacked
the government-run studios of Radio Television Serbia
(RTS) in Belgrade, in which those killed, most of them
production workers, had been ordered to report for
work.
The attack was part of Nato's air campaign to force
the Yugoslav Government of former President Slobodan
Milosevic to withdraw its forces from Kosovo.
[Countries accused:
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom]
At the time, Nato defended the air strike by saying
the TV station was a legitimate target because of its
role in what Nato called Belgrade's campaign of
propaganda.
The applicants to the Court of Human Rights argue that
the individual Nato member states are responsible for
the bombing, even though it was carried out by Nato
forces.
They are suing the European members of Nato - but not
the United States and Canada - for compensation.
Lawyers for the Nato states, which have denied the
charges, say that because the former Yugoslavia was
not a signatory to the European Charter of Human
Rights, the court cannot hear the case.
If the states are found responsible, the survivor and
families could be awarded damages.
A judgement is due in several weeks.
---
ALTRA DOCUMENTAZIONE SU CASI PRECEDENTI /
MORE DOCUMENTS ON PREVIOUS SIMILAR CASES:
---
Berlin Faces Court Action Over NATO Bombing of
Yugoslavia
Karsruhe, Jun 20, 2001 -- (dpa) The tremors from 1999
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia continue to reverberate
across the German political landscape with Germany's
reformed communist party launching a constitutional
court action against the U.S. backed security
alliance's raids.
The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) believes that
the German government's agreement for the NATO's
bombing raids was unconstitutional because the
nation's parliament, the Bundestag, was not consulted.
In the light of Germany's wartime past, military
action involving German troops remains a deeply
sensitive issue in the nation with the PDS having
fiercely opposed the NATO raids which followed
Belgrade's aggressive moves in the Yugoslavian
province of Kosovo.
As argument in the constitutional court commenced on
Tuesday, a PDS leader, Gregor Gysi claimed that NATO's
role had been extended by the bombing raids and as a
result the central part of the agreement with NATO had
been changed.
Gysi insisted that bypassing the parliament not only
raised democratic issues but also questions about the
legal protection of the nation's soldiers.
At the heart of the case is the German Federal
Government's endorsement in April 1999 of a so-called
a new strategic concept for NATO intervention.
This was also agreed to by other members of the
trans-atlantic alliance and stressed that the
transatlantic security group faced new complex risks.
Defending the German Government's action before the
constitutional court on Tuesday, the nation's Foreign
Minister, Joschka Fischer said that parliamentary
agreement for the concept was not necessary as it was
not a binding contract but a political document.
But Fischer said that Berlin believed the case before
the constitutional court had "enormous political
significance."
"It concerns the negotiating abilities of the
government in following its international
responsibilities," he said.
As a measure of the tensions unleashed in Germany by
the NATO action, Fischer had paint thrown over him
during a rowdy meeting of his Green Party at the
height of the bombing raids.
Also defending the government's support for the
bombing before the constitutional court on Tuesday was
the nation's Minister for Defense Rudolf Scharping who
said that the purpose of the alliance had changed as
well as the political circumstances.
Representing the Parliament before the court, the
Christian Democrat parliamentarian Rupert Scholz said
that not every new concept was a new contract.
(C)2001. dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH.
---
> http://www.ekathimerini.com/news/content.asp?aid%ef%bf%bd413
KATHIMERINI
ATHENS, FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001
NEWS & COMMENT Updated: 06/15/2001 10:23 GMT
Del Ponte is asked to prosecute NATO for DU
The head of the Athens Bar Association and two human
rights groups yesterday asked the chief war crimes
prosecutor for Yugoslavia to charge NATO officials for
allowing the use of depleted uranium ammunition in the
Balkans.
In a request filed with Carla del Ponte, the three
asked for the prosecution of any NATO political or
military official who authorized the use of the
armor-piercing ammunition.
They claim use of the ammunition violated
international agreements barring the use of toxic or
"other" materials during a war, and the 1949 Geneva
Convention intended to protect civilians in areas of
conflict. No NATO officials are named in their
request.
The request was made by bar association president
Andonis Roupakiotis; Constantinos Menoudakis, a high
court judge and president of the Greek judicial
workers union for democracy and freedom; and Aliki
Maragopoulou, head of a human rights group.
Depleted uranium is a slightly radioactive heavy metal
which is used in shells and can pierce the armor of a
tank. There is concern that dust from the uranium can
cause cancer.
A NATO committee which acts as a clearinghouse about
possible health risks has said no evidence of a link
between depleted uranium munitions and an increase in
illness has yet been found.
The studies followed concerns in several European
countries after Italy began studying the illnesses of
30 veterans of Balkans peacekeeping missions, seven of
whom died of cancer, including five cases of leukemia.
(AP)
---
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 ------------------------------------------------------------
HAI TANTI HOBBIES?
Bricolage, giardinaggio, floricoltura e quant'altro!
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte direttamente
nella tua casella di posta eMail
http://www.domeus.it/ad4129270/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
L'ESPANSIONE DELLA NATO AD EST:
IL CASO DEI BALCANI
Andrea Martocchia
(Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia;
relazione presentata al convegno:
"Il mondo dopo Manhattan", Napoli, 20-21 ottobre 2001.
Gli atti del convegno, di prossima pubblicazione,
potranno essere richiesti alle Edizioni "Citta' del Sole"
email: manesed@...)
La necessita' del controllo delle aree strategicamente rilevanti per
l'estrazione ed il trasporto delle materie prime, soprattutto quelle
provenienti dall'Asia centrale, oltre ad essere alla base della
aggressione che mentre scriviamo e' in atto contro l'Afghanistan e'
stata anche il fattore scatenante della crisi nei Balcani e la
motivazione essenziale dell'espansionismo euro-atlantico verso Est.
Per quanto riguarda i Balcani, questo interesse strategico dei paesi
imperialisti diventa evidente gia' solo abbozzando una stringata
cronologia; e d'altronde, non per caso questa semplice operazione di
"mettere in fila" gli avvenimenti non viene generalmente compiuta da
nessun commentatore sulla stampa borghese, stampa che ha preferito e
preferisce tuttora sbizarrirsi con interpretazioni irrazionalistiche e
lombrosiane, dal contenuto fortemente disinformativo.
L'inizio della fase storica che stiamo tuttora attraversando puo' essere
convenzionalmente fissato al 3 ottobre 1990, data in cui
ha luogo la annessione della DDR alla Repubblica Federale Tedesca.
Quella data altamente simbolica e' centrale nel processo di
smantellamento dei paesi socialisti, durato grossomodo dal 1989 al 1991,
culminato con lo sfascio dell'URSS, e segnato sanguinosamente in
particolare dall'inizio delle guerre di secessione nei Balcani.
Lo squartamento della Repubblica Federativa Socialista di Jugoslavia,
fino ad allora stato-cuscinetto tra i due blocchi, che godeva di ampia
autonomia e prestigio nello scenario mondiale, e' stato voluto,
agevolato e sancito dalle consorterie occidentali.
Il 29/11/1990, mentre si festeggia per l'ultima volta la festa nazionale
in Jugoslavia, tutti i giornali pubblicano le "rivelazioni" della CIA
che giura che il paese si sta per disintegrare. All'inizio dello stesso
mese il Congresso USA aveva approvato la legge 101/513 per l'appoggio a
tutte le leadership liberiste, nazionaliste e secessioniste.
Il 15/1/1992 i paesi della Comunita' Europea, nonostante la situazione
altamente pericolosa ed instabile sul terreno, riconoscono formalmente
le secessioni slovena e croata, sancendo cosi' gli effetti della
"forzatura" di parte tedesca e vaticana. Successivamente, la Bosnia
verra' invitata a seguire l'esempio attraverso l'indizione di un
referendum illegittimo e largamente boicottato dalla popolazione.
La diretta conseguenza del riconoscimento della indipendenza della
Bosnia-Erzegovina saranno tre anni di guerra fratricida. La secessione
della Bosnia, centro simbolico e storico della Lotta Popolare di
Liberazione e della "Unita' e Fratellanza" jugoslave, rappresenta il
piu' grande colpo inferto al cuore della Jugoslavia multinazionale. I
successivi anni di conflitto serviranno ad affogare, possibilmente per
sempre, la idea jugoslavista in un lago di sangue e di menzogne.
Gli Stati Uniti d'America hanno usato prima la Germania e poi l'intera
Comunita' Europea come battistrada, ma il loro appoggio a livello
mediatico, diplomatico, finanziario e militare ai secessionismi, e
specialmente al separatismo bosniaco-musulmano, sara' sempre piu'
sfacciato. Il loro attivismo surclassera' via via di gran lunga quello
degli europei. A livello diplomatico, gli USA si renderanno responsabili
del boicottaggio dei piani di pace, a partire dal piano Cutileiro (marzo
1992: l'ex ambasciatore Zimmermann invita musulmani e croati a ritirare
la loro firma).
Via via, gli USA riusciranno a screditare e far fallire ogni intervento
attuato sotto l'egida delle Nazioni Unite, imponendo la progressiva
sostituzione delle missioni ONU con missioni piu' direttamente gestite
dall'Alleanza Atlantica.
E' il periodo delle grandi "stragi a mezzo stampa", delle rimozioni dei
vari Morillon, MacKenzie, Akashi, eccetera, e delle prime operazioni di
guerra della NATO in Europa. Nel settembre 1995, USA ed UE scatenano ai
danni dei serbi della Bosnia il primo massiccio bombardamento sul suolo
europeo dai tempi della Seconda Guerra Mondiale. I serbi vengono prima
diffamati e poi colpiti perche', tra gli jugoslavi, essendo distribuiti
in quasi tutte le repubbliche ex-federate sono quelli che meno di tutti
hanno interesse alla frantumazione del loro paese.
La firma degli accordi di Dayton consente, tra l'altro, lo stanziamento
"sine die" di truppe della NATO sul territorio ridotto ormai ad un
protettorato internazionale.
Nella primavera del 1999, dopo anni di strumentalizzazione del movimento
separatista pan-albanese, USA ed europei bombardano installazioni
militari, strutture produttive, di comunicazione e di trasporto della
federazione serbo-montenegrina, allo scopo di agevolare la secessione
della provincia di Kosovo e Metohija. I bombardamenti sulle industrie
chimiche a pochi chilometri da Belgrado causano una gravissima
contaminazione ambientale, e costringono alla resa il
governo jugoslavo. Nella provincia occupata dalle forze NATO e dalle
bande dell'UCK, loro alleate, viene instaurato un regime di terrore
contro le minoranze, mentre gli USA impiantano enormi basi militari come
quella di Camp Bondsteel presso Urosevac, che e' la piu' grande base USA
costruita all'estero dai tempi del Vietnam.
In questi anni abbiamo visto di tutto: dai rifornimenti massicci di armi
attraverso i nostri porti, talvolta usando persino convogli di
organizzazioni religiose o umanitarie (es. Croce Rossa), alla
beatificazione di arcivescovi nazisti (es. Stepinac), allo stragismo,
operato da servizi segreti "amici" per portare alle stelle la tensione
(es. stragi di Markale a Sarajevo), ai bombardamenti di convogli di
profughi (es. Kosovo) o di fabbriche presidiate dai lavoratori (es.
Kragujevac). Abbiamo saputo dell'addestramento delle formazioni
separatiste da parte di agenzie di mercenari (come la MPRI, che ha sede
in Virginia, USA), e del coinvolgimento di agenzie specializzate per il
"lobbying" e la disinformazione strategica (come la Ruder&Finn Public
Global Affairs). Sulla scorta di tutto questo, bisogna avere una gran
faccia tosta per sostenere tutt'oggi che "l'Occidente non voleva" oppure
"non e' riuscito a fermare"...
D'altronde, assistiamo ancora adesso alla prosecuzione della strategia
di smembramento: nell'attuale RF di Jugoslavia (secessione del
Montenegro), nella Serbia (Kosovo, Vojvodina), ed in Macedonia. Anche in
quest'ultima repubblica ex-federata il separatismo pan-albanese e' stato
fomentato negli anni passati, ed e' stato fatto esplodere la scorsa
primavera (2001) usando le milizie paramilitari dell'UCK che per le loro
azioni si sono avvalse delle retrovie del Kosovo, controllate dalla
NATO. La conseguente destabilizzazione ha consentito alla stessa NATO di
impiantarsi in Macedonia nel ruolo di "pompiera": seguendo un copione
ormai ben collaudato, a fare da pompieri sono gli stessi incendiari.
Una stabile presenza di truppe occidentali in tutta la regione, ridotta
ad un "patchwork" di protettorati, consente il controllo delle vie di
comunicazione, ed in particolare in Macedonia consente di avviare la
realizzazione del cosiddetto Corridoio numero 8, sulla direttrice tra
Albania e Bulgaria. Si noti d'altronde che anche in Bulgaria, dove pure
gia' vige un regime filo-occidentale come in Macedonia, la presenza di
una minoranza turca costituisce per la NATO un utile strumento
per far saltare gli equilibri del paese non appena cio' sara' ritenuto
necessario.
E' il classico "divide et impera". Gli strumenti per attuarlo possono
essere "innovativi" (disinformazione strategica, penetrazione culturale
o tramite organizzazioni cosiddette non-governative, eccetera) oppure
"tradizionali" (appoggio a settori politici reazionari o direttamente
criminali, bombardamenti, occupazioni militari, ecc.), ma la filosofia
complessiva e' sempre quella dell'"arancia": per meglio mangiarla
bisogna suddividerla spicchio per spicchio. Talvolta qualche spicchio si
rompe e bisogna sporcarsi le mani... di sangue.
Ad uno sguardo superficiale, per la conquista dell'Est USA ed UE
sembrano adottare una linea unitaria, o quantomeno sono riusciti fin qui
ad agire in perfetta consonanza ad ogni passaggio cruciale. Notiamo che
pure la Francia, che in teoria dovrebbe esprimere una posizione piu'
autonomamente europea, e' entrata nella NATO proprio nei primi anni
Novanta, e a parte pochi segnali non appare mai davvero differenziarsi
dalla strategia unitaria. La stessa Grecia, che dovrebbe difendere le
ragioni dei paesi slavo-ortodossi, sembra non essere in grado di
influenzare minimamente le scelte fatte nella NATO a livello centrale.
Ma la NATO non puo' piu' essere pensata come una coalizione omogenea,
bensi' e' essa stessa luogo di mediazione del conflitto
interimperialistico. Le contraddizioni tra cordate imperialiste esistono
e sono gia' in larga misura visibili.
Certo, spesso dobbiamo scavare piu' in profondita', per individuare i
connotati reali di queste contraddizioni - attuali o solamente
potenziali, ma che potrebbero esplodere in futuro. Sarebbe necessario in
particolare conoscere in dettaglio la struttura dei capitali
transnazionali, per essere in grado di decifrare chi detiene la
proprieta' reale della grandi multinazionali e degli imperi finanziari,
e per svelare quindi la loro complessa strutturazione "a scatole
cinesi".
Troveremmo allora che gli interessi sono spesso trasversali, passano
attraverso i grandi Stati imperialisti, non possono sempre identificarsi
in uno di questi ne' in una loro ben definita coalizione.
Tuttavia, in qualche caso il contrasto e' netto e chiaro. Questo vale ad
esempio per gli interessi energetici, alla vigilia della "grande crisi"
del petrolio (cfr. A. Di Fazio su "Contro le nuove guerre", Odradek
2000), e quindi per i giganti del petrolio. Questo viene chiarito in
recentissimi articoli di Michael Chossudovsky, pubblicati pure sul
"Manifesto", dai quali e' tratta la maggiorparte delle informazioni che
seguono.
La cordata petrolifera angloamericana (BP-Amoco-ARCO, Chevron e Texaco)
si contrappone decisamente agli europei Total-Fina-Elf, ai quali
l'italiana ENI e' associata. Mentre questi ultimi sono "arrivati prima"
in Asia Centrale (es. Kazakistan) ed i loro rappresentanti politici (UE)
perseguono una politica di avvicinamento alla Russia, gli
anglo-americani sono in prima linea nell'interventismo militare e di
intelligence nei Balcani, allo scopo di porre sotto il loro controllo le
vie di comunicazione.
Per questo motivo, mentre il Corridoio 10 (Danubio) e' stato reso
inagibile con i bombardamenti del 1999, e viste le incognite armena e
curda sulla direttrice che dovrebbe portare il petrolio direttamente al
Mediterraneo (Baku-Cehyan), il terrorismo legato agli USA ed alla stessa
Turchia tiene in scacco il Caucaso, mettendo la Russia fuori gioco, e
condiziona i giochi nella penisola balcanica.
Il petrolio dovrebbe passare attraverso il Mar Nero, arrivare in
Bulgaria, a Burgas. Qui ha inizio il Corridoio 8, che termina a Valona
in Albania. La Macedonia e' proprio in mezzo.
All'inizio del 2000, la Commissione Europea aveva avviato con la
Bulgaria, la Macedonia e l'Albania le negoziazioni per l'ingresso nella
UE. Nell'aprile del 2001, la Macedonia era diventata il primo paese nei
Balcani a firmare un cosiddetto "accordo di stabilizzazione e
associazione". Ecco perche', proprio negli stessi giorni, il terrorismo
dell'UCK, armato ed addestrato adesso soprattutto dagli angloamericani,
esplodeva in tutta la sua violenza, per portare viceversa il paese alla
de-stabilizzazione e per allontanarlo dalla UE. Ecco perche' il capo
della missione OSCE in Macedonia Robert Frowick ha voluto legittimare
l'UCK come interlocutore e porre la Macedonia sotto il ricatto: o
cambiate la Costituzione, ponendo le premesse per lo smembramento del
paese, oppure il terrorismo continuera'. Ecco perche', secondo vari
osservatori, tra l'UCK e gli europei (specialmente i tedeschi) in
Macedonia i rapporti non sarebbero idilliaci.
Nel frattempo, il colosso energetico angloamericano ha creato un
consorzio (progetto AMBO) per la realizzazione di un oleodotto ed altre
infrastrutture proprio lungo il Corridoio 8, sottoscrivendo accordi ad
hoc con Bulgaria, Macedonia ed Albania, che escludono in larga misura
gli europei da qualsivoglia iniziativa... Il consorzio AMBO ha sede
legale negli USA ed e' direttamente collegato al potere
politico-militare statunitense. Ad esempio, la Hallibuton Energy
(societa' del vicepresidente Dick Cheney) e' appaltatrice per le
forniture e per la stessa costruzione della base di Camp Bondsteel in
Kosovo. La stessa famiglia Bush e' fortemente legata alla lobby del
petrolio.
Siamo quindi di fronte ad un esempio eclatante di sviluppo
contraddittorio degli interessi delle cordate imperialistiche, nel caso
specifico del petrolio. La NATO e' essa stessa ambito di mediazione
nello scontro tra angloamericani ed europei, specialmente
franco-tedeschi. In caso di rottura, l'Italia, economicamente legata
alla UE - si pensi al cruciale, prossimo passaggio dell'Euro! - ma
militarmente occupata dagli USA, come potrebbe uscirne fuori?
---
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/ad3981380/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
IL CASO DEI BALCANI
Andrea Martocchia
(Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia;
relazione presentata al convegno:
"Il mondo dopo Manhattan", Napoli, 20-21 ottobre 2001.
Gli atti del convegno, di prossima pubblicazione,
potranno essere richiesti alle Edizioni "Citta' del Sole"
email: manesed@...)
La necessita' del controllo delle aree strategicamente rilevanti per
l'estrazione ed il trasporto delle materie prime, soprattutto quelle
provenienti dall'Asia centrale, oltre ad essere alla base della
aggressione che mentre scriviamo e' in atto contro l'Afghanistan e'
stata anche il fattore scatenante della crisi nei Balcani e la
motivazione essenziale dell'espansionismo euro-atlantico verso Est.
Per quanto riguarda i Balcani, questo interesse strategico dei paesi
imperialisti diventa evidente gia' solo abbozzando una stringata
cronologia; e d'altronde, non per caso questa semplice operazione di
"mettere in fila" gli avvenimenti non viene generalmente compiuta da
nessun commentatore sulla stampa borghese, stampa che ha preferito e
preferisce tuttora sbizarrirsi con interpretazioni irrazionalistiche e
lombrosiane, dal contenuto fortemente disinformativo.
L'inizio della fase storica che stiamo tuttora attraversando puo' essere
convenzionalmente fissato al 3 ottobre 1990, data in cui
ha luogo la annessione della DDR alla Repubblica Federale Tedesca.
Quella data altamente simbolica e' centrale nel processo di
smantellamento dei paesi socialisti, durato grossomodo dal 1989 al 1991,
culminato con lo sfascio dell'URSS, e segnato sanguinosamente in
particolare dall'inizio delle guerre di secessione nei Balcani.
Lo squartamento della Repubblica Federativa Socialista di Jugoslavia,
fino ad allora stato-cuscinetto tra i due blocchi, che godeva di ampia
autonomia e prestigio nello scenario mondiale, e' stato voluto,
agevolato e sancito dalle consorterie occidentali.
Il 29/11/1990, mentre si festeggia per l'ultima volta la festa nazionale
in Jugoslavia, tutti i giornali pubblicano le "rivelazioni" della CIA
che giura che il paese si sta per disintegrare. All'inizio dello stesso
mese il Congresso USA aveva approvato la legge 101/513 per l'appoggio a
tutte le leadership liberiste, nazionaliste e secessioniste.
Il 15/1/1992 i paesi della Comunita' Europea, nonostante la situazione
altamente pericolosa ed instabile sul terreno, riconoscono formalmente
le secessioni slovena e croata, sancendo cosi' gli effetti della
"forzatura" di parte tedesca e vaticana. Successivamente, la Bosnia
verra' invitata a seguire l'esempio attraverso l'indizione di un
referendum illegittimo e largamente boicottato dalla popolazione.
La diretta conseguenza del riconoscimento della indipendenza della
Bosnia-Erzegovina saranno tre anni di guerra fratricida. La secessione
della Bosnia, centro simbolico e storico della Lotta Popolare di
Liberazione e della "Unita' e Fratellanza" jugoslave, rappresenta il
piu' grande colpo inferto al cuore della Jugoslavia multinazionale. I
successivi anni di conflitto serviranno ad affogare, possibilmente per
sempre, la idea jugoslavista in un lago di sangue e di menzogne.
Gli Stati Uniti d'America hanno usato prima la Germania e poi l'intera
Comunita' Europea come battistrada, ma il loro appoggio a livello
mediatico, diplomatico, finanziario e militare ai secessionismi, e
specialmente al separatismo bosniaco-musulmano, sara' sempre piu'
sfacciato. Il loro attivismo surclassera' via via di gran lunga quello
degli europei. A livello diplomatico, gli USA si renderanno responsabili
del boicottaggio dei piani di pace, a partire dal piano Cutileiro (marzo
1992: l'ex ambasciatore Zimmermann invita musulmani e croati a ritirare
la loro firma).
Via via, gli USA riusciranno a screditare e far fallire ogni intervento
attuato sotto l'egida delle Nazioni Unite, imponendo la progressiva
sostituzione delle missioni ONU con missioni piu' direttamente gestite
dall'Alleanza Atlantica.
E' il periodo delle grandi "stragi a mezzo stampa", delle rimozioni dei
vari Morillon, MacKenzie, Akashi, eccetera, e delle prime operazioni di
guerra della NATO in Europa. Nel settembre 1995, USA ed UE scatenano ai
danni dei serbi della Bosnia il primo massiccio bombardamento sul suolo
europeo dai tempi della Seconda Guerra Mondiale. I serbi vengono prima
diffamati e poi colpiti perche', tra gli jugoslavi, essendo distribuiti
in quasi tutte le repubbliche ex-federate sono quelli che meno di tutti
hanno interesse alla frantumazione del loro paese.
La firma degli accordi di Dayton consente, tra l'altro, lo stanziamento
"sine die" di truppe della NATO sul territorio ridotto ormai ad un
protettorato internazionale.
Nella primavera del 1999, dopo anni di strumentalizzazione del movimento
separatista pan-albanese, USA ed europei bombardano installazioni
militari, strutture produttive, di comunicazione e di trasporto della
federazione serbo-montenegrina, allo scopo di agevolare la secessione
della provincia di Kosovo e Metohija. I bombardamenti sulle industrie
chimiche a pochi chilometri da Belgrado causano una gravissima
contaminazione ambientale, e costringono alla resa il
governo jugoslavo. Nella provincia occupata dalle forze NATO e dalle
bande dell'UCK, loro alleate, viene instaurato un regime di terrore
contro le minoranze, mentre gli USA impiantano enormi basi militari come
quella di Camp Bondsteel presso Urosevac, che e' la piu' grande base USA
costruita all'estero dai tempi del Vietnam.
In questi anni abbiamo visto di tutto: dai rifornimenti massicci di armi
attraverso i nostri porti, talvolta usando persino convogli di
organizzazioni religiose o umanitarie (es. Croce Rossa), alla
beatificazione di arcivescovi nazisti (es. Stepinac), allo stragismo,
operato da servizi segreti "amici" per portare alle stelle la tensione
(es. stragi di Markale a Sarajevo), ai bombardamenti di convogli di
profughi (es. Kosovo) o di fabbriche presidiate dai lavoratori (es.
Kragujevac). Abbiamo saputo dell'addestramento delle formazioni
separatiste da parte di agenzie di mercenari (come la MPRI, che ha sede
in Virginia, USA), e del coinvolgimento di agenzie specializzate per il
"lobbying" e la disinformazione strategica (come la Ruder&Finn Public
Global Affairs). Sulla scorta di tutto questo, bisogna avere una gran
faccia tosta per sostenere tutt'oggi che "l'Occidente non voleva" oppure
"non e' riuscito a fermare"...
D'altronde, assistiamo ancora adesso alla prosecuzione della strategia
di smembramento: nell'attuale RF di Jugoslavia (secessione del
Montenegro), nella Serbia (Kosovo, Vojvodina), ed in Macedonia. Anche in
quest'ultima repubblica ex-federata il separatismo pan-albanese e' stato
fomentato negli anni passati, ed e' stato fatto esplodere la scorsa
primavera (2001) usando le milizie paramilitari dell'UCK che per le loro
azioni si sono avvalse delle retrovie del Kosovo, controllate dalla
NATO. La conseguente destabilizzazione ha consentito alla stessa NATO di
impiantarsi in Macedonia nel ruolo di "pompiera": seguendo un copione
ormai ben collaudato, a fare da pompieri sono gli stessi incendiari.
Una stabile presenza di truppe occidentali in tutta la regione, ridotta
ad un "patchwork" di protettorati, consente il controllo delle vie di
comunicazione, ed in particolare in Macedonia consente di avviare la
realizzazione del cosiddetto Corridoio numero 8, sulla direttrice tra
Albania e Bulgaria. Si noti d'altronde che anche in Bulgaria, dove pure
gia' vige un regime filo-occidentale come in Macedonia, la presenza di
una minoranza turca costituisce per la NATO un utile strumento
per far saltare gli equilibri del paese non appena cio' sara' ritenuto
necessario.
E' il classico "divide et impera". Gli strumenti per attuarlo possono
essere "innovativi" (disinformazione strategica, penetrazione culturale
o tramite organizzazioni cosiddette non-governative, eccetera) oppure
"tradizionali" (appoggio a settori politici reazionari o direttamente
criminali, bombardamenti, occupazioni militari, ecc.), ma la filosofia
complessiva e' sempre quella dell'"arancia": per meglio mangiarla
bisogna suddividerla spicchio per spicchio. Talvolta qualche spicchio si
rompe e bisogna sporcarsi le mani... di sangue.
Ad uno sguardo superficiale, per la conquista dell'Est USA ed UE
sembrano adottare una linea unitaria, o quantomeno sono riusciti fin qui
ad agire in perfetta consonanza ad ogni passaggio cruciale. Notiamo che
pure la Francia, che in teoria dovrebbe esprimere una posizione piu'
autonomamente europea, e' entrata nella NATO proprio nei primi anni
Novanta, e a parte pochi segnali non appare mai davvero differenziarsi
dalla strategia unitaria. La stessa Grecia, che dovrebbe difendere le
ragioni dei paesi slavo-ortodossi, sembra non essere in grado di
influenzare minimamente le scelte fatte nella NATO a livello centrale.
Ma la NATO non puo' piu' essere pensata come una coalizione omogenea,
bensi' e' essa stessa luogo di mediazione del conflitto
interimperialistico. Le contraddizioni tra cordate imperialiste esistono
e sono gia' in larga misura visibili.
Certo, spesso dobbiamo scavare piu' in profondita', per individuare i
connotati reali di queste contraddizioni - attuali o solamente
potenziali, ma che potrebbero esplodere in futuro. Sarebbe necessario in
particolare conoscere in dettaglio la struttura dei capitali
transnazionali, per essere in grado di decifrare chi detiene la
proprieta' reale della grandi multinazionali e degli imperi finanziari,
e per svelare quindi la loro complessa strutturazione "a scatole
cinesi".
Troveremmo allora che gli interessi sono spesso trasversali, passano
attraverso i grandi Stati imperialisti, non possono sempre identificarsi
in uno di questi ne' in una loro ben definita coalizione.
Tuttavia, in qualche caso il contrasto e' netto e chiaro. Questo vale ad
esempio per gli interessi energetici, alla vigilia della "grande crisi"
del petrolio (cfr. A. Di Fazio su "Contro le nuove guerre", Odradek
2000), e quindi per i giganti del petrolio. Questo viene chiarito in
recentissimi articoli di Michael Chossudovsky, pubblicati pure sul
"Manifesto", dai quali e' tratta la maggiorparte delle informazioni che
seguono.
La cordata petrolifera angloamericana (BP-Amoco-ARCO, Chevron e Texaco)
si contrappone decisamente agli europei Total-Fina-Elf, ai quali
l'italiana ENI e' associata. Mentre questi ultimi sono "arrivati prima"
in Asia Centrale (es. Kazakistan) ed i loro rappresentanti politici (UE)
perseguono una politica di avvicinamento alla Russia, gli
anglo-americani sono in prima linea nell'interventismo militare e di
intelligence nei Balcani, allo scopo di porre sotto il loro controllo le
vie di comunicazione.
Per questo motivo, mentre il Corridoio 10 (Danubio) e' stato reso
inagibile con i bombardamenti del 1999, e viste le incognite armena e
curda sulla direttrice che dovrebbe portare il petrolio direttamente al
Mediterraneo (Baku-Cehyan), il terrorismo legato agli USA ed alla stessa
Turchia tiene in scacco il Caucaso, mettendo la Russia fuori gioco, e
condiziona i giochi nella penisola balcanica.
Il petrolio dovrebbe passare attraverso il Mar Nero, arrivare in
Bulgaria, a Burgas. Qui ha inizio il Corridoio 8, che termina a Valona
in Albania. La Macedonia e' proprio in mezzo.
All'inizio del 2000, la Commissione Europea aveva avviato con la
Bulgaria, la Macedonia e l'Albania le negoziazioni per l'ingresso nella
UE. Nell'aprile del 2001, la Macedonia era diventata il primo paese nei
Balcani a firmare un cosiddetto "accordo di stabilizzazione e
associazione". Ecco perche', proprio negli stessi giorni, il terrorismo
dell'UCK, armato ed addestrato adesso soprattutto dagli angloamericani,
esplodeva in tutta la sua violenza, per portare viceversa il paese alla
de-stabilizzazione e per allontanarlo dalla UE. Ecco perche' il capo
della missione OSCE in Macedonia Robert Frowick ha voluto legittimare
l'UCK come interlocutore e porre la Macedonia sotto il ricatto: o
cambiate la Costituzione, ponendo le premesse per lo smembramento del
paese, oppure il terrorismo continuera'. Ecco perche', secondo vari
osservatori, tra l'UCK e gli europei (specialmente i tedeschi) in
Macedonia i rapporti non sarebbero idilliaci.
Nel frattempo, il colosso energetico angloamericano ha creato un
consorzio (progetto AMBO) per la realizzazione di un oleodotto ed altre
infrastrutture proprio lungo il Corridoio 8, sottoscrivendo accordi ad
hoc con Bulgaria, Macedonia ed Albania, che escludono in larga misura
gli europei da qualsivoglia iniziativa... Il consorzio AMBO ha sede
legale negli USA ed e' direttamente collegato al potere
politico-militare statunitense. Ad esempio, la Hallibuton Energy
(societa' del vicepresidente Dick Cheney) e' appaltatrice per le
forniture e per la stessa costruzione della base di Camp Bondsteel in
Kosovo. La stessa famiglia Bush e' fortemente legata alla lobby del
petrolio.
Siamo quindi di fronte ad un esempio eclatante di sviluppo
contraddittorio degli interessi delle cordate imperialistiche, nel caso
specifico del petrolio. La NATO e' essa stessa ambito di mediazione
nello scontro tra angloamericani ed europei, specialmente
franco-tedeschi. In caso di rottura, l'Italia, economicamente legata
alla UE - si pensi al cruciale, prossimo passaggio dell'Euro! - ma
militarmente occupata dagli USA, come potrebbe uscirne fuori?
---
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/ad3981380/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
*** T�moignage sur la deuxi�me audience du proc�s Milosevic
(Michel Collon)
*** PONOVO DEMONSTRACIJE U MOSKVI ZA MILOSEVICA
---
Subject: PONOVO DEMONSTRACIJE U MOSKVI ZA MILOSEVICA
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:58:08 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Rezolucija
Uccesnika mitinga 23. Oktobra 2001.g.
Dossli smo pred zgradu Informativnog centra OUN da izrazimo protest
protiv nezakonitog represivnog rada takozvanog Hasskog tribunala, protiv
sramotne sudanije nad Predsednikom Jugoslavije Slobodanom Milosseviccem
i njegovim saborcima, protiv neosnovane optuzzbe srpske strane za
tragediju balkanskih naroda.
Optuzzujemo rukovodstvo SAD za namerno husskanje naroda Jugoslavije
jednih protiv drugih, za eskalaciju krvavog medjuetnicckog konflikta, za
patnju gradjana Balkanskog poluostrva. Zaradjujucci na prodaji oruzzja i
vojne tehnike stranama u sukobu (Hrvatima i Muslimanima), americcki
oligarsi su joss visse raspirivali plamen krvavog bratoubilacckog rata u
Bosni i Hrvatskoj, koji je zaustavljen samo zahvaljujucci naporima
Slobodana Milossevicca.
Mi optuzzujemo SAD i NATO da su aktivno podrzzavali teroriste u tom
regionu, pruzzali im diplomatsku i vojnu pomocc. Oni su pokussavali da
albanske ekstremiste-ubice predstave kao nevine zzrtve i samim tim
opravdaju svoje zloccinaccko delovanje protiv Jugoslavije.
Mi optuzzujemo zemlje NATO-a za smrt hiljada civila Jugoslavije, za
russenje industrije i infrastrukture zemlje tokom varvarskog
bombardovanja 1999. godine. Rukovodioci zemalja NATO-a su, primenjujucci
tokom te agresije oruzzje s uranskim bojevim glavama, nanosili
nepopravivu sstetu ne samo sadassnjim vecc i buduccim pokolenjima
Jugoslavije. Organizatori te zloccinaccke kampanje moraju biti pozvani
na odgovornost za krssenje pravila vodjenja rata i genocid nad srpskim
narodom!
Mi optuzzujemo Hasski tribunal zbog toga ssto je formiran na inicijativu
agresora uz krssenje Povelje OUN, ssto ga finansira krupni americcki
kapital i ssto sluzzi kao orudje za obraccun u rukama natovskih krvnika.
Mi optuzzujemo nelegitimnu hassku sudaniju za otvoreno falsifikovanje
optuzzbi protiv Predsednika Milossevicca i njegovih saboraca. Srpski
rodoljubi su krivi samo zato ssto su se borili za nezavisnost i
dostojanstvo svoje Otadzzbine, ssto su branili pravo naroda da zzivi
samostalno, a ne po nalogu Vassingtona.
Mi optuzzujemo rukovodstvo OUN zato ssto ne spreccava bezoccnu agresivnu
politiku SAD-NATO i fakticcki predstavlja marionetu u rukama agresora.
Mi apelujemo na cclanove Saveta bezbednosti OUN da pokrenu pitanje
hitnog raspusstanja takozvanog Medjunarodnog tribunala za vojne zloccine
u Jugoslaviji kao nelegitimnog organa koji sluzzi samo za obraccun sa
nepozzeljnim politiccarima.
Predsednik Jugoslavije S. Milossevicc koji je zemlju branio od
terorizma, mora biti odmah oslobodjen, a nelegitimni hasski tribunal
koji brani teroriste i koji nijednog od njih nije pozvao na odgovornost
- mora biti raspussten!
NATOvske krvnike koji su bombardovali srpske gradove - na sud!
Slobodu srpskim rodoljubima - suzznjima NATOfassisticckih zatvora!
Dole lazni sud u Hagu!
---
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger ROMAIN
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:52 PM
Subject: T�moignage de Michel Collon sur la deuxi�me audience du proc�s
Milosevic
�Qui a peur de la v�rit� ?�
T�moignage sur la deuxi�me audience du proc�s Milosevic
Michel Collon
LA HAYE - 30 ao�t - Pour avoir une chance d'assister, il faut attendre
longtemps � l'entr�e du b�timent du TPI, transform� en camp retranch�
par de hautes grilles et les policiers de l'ONU. Car le TPI a choisi une
salle tr�s petite, r�servant 80 places aux journalistes accr�dit�s, 30
aux personnalit�s qu'il invite et seulement... 20 au public.
M�me les avocats yougoslaves venus assister Milosevic � sa demande sont
forc�s, comme moi, de faire la file tr�s t�t matin pour avoir une chance
d'�tre admis. En attendant, la "c�l�bre" Christiane Amonpour (CNN) vient
les cuisiner. Manifestement, seul le "croustillant" l'int�resse. Elle
jubile en apprenant que Milosevic �coute des CD, surtout de la musique
moderne am�ricaine. �Sinatra ? Oh, wonderful! I'll use that!� Et voil�
comment sera "inform�" son public, soigneusement laiss�, par contre,
dans l'ignorance des arguments juridiques solides avanc�s contre le TPI
et son dossier d'accusation (international/balkans).
Du tribunal, le public est enti�rement s�par� par un mur de verre: les
trois juges en rouge, les six procureurs en noir et leurss greffiers
semblent flotter dans un aquarium. C'est d'ailleurs vers le public que
regarde le plus souvent Milosevic. Complet sombre, cravate bleu blanc
rouge (les couleurs de son pays) et expression ferme quoique semblant
fatigu� par les conditions de d�tention: surveillance cam�ra, aucune
intimit�, une lumi�re allum�e 24 heures sur 24 dans la cellule...
�Quand l'accusation sera-t-elle pr�te?�, demande le pr�sident � la
procureur Del Ponte. �Difficile � dire, il nous faudra sans doute encore
plus de deux mois�. Plus tard, Milosevic ironisera: �Deux ans et demi
apr�s m'avoir faussement accus�, vous n'�tes toujours pas pr�te!�
Que Milosevic ne reconnaisse pas ce "tribunal" et refuse de choisir un
avocat, g�ne manifestement. Le pr�sident voudrait lui en d�signer un
d'office tout en disant que ce ne serait "pas vraiment" son conseil. Ca
patauge plut�t. Enfin, le pr�sident donne la parole � l'accus�.
- �D�sirez-vous soulever d'autres questions?�
�Ca d�pend. Puis-je parler ou allez-vous, comme la premi�re fois,
tourner le bouton de mon microphone? Pouvons-nous communiquer comme des
personnes civilis�es ?�
(...)
�Je souhaite parler sur l'ill�galit� du tribunal. J'ai pr�par� un
m�moire. Ca prendrait 40 minutes.�
�Vous en avez d�j� parl�.�
�Si vous ne me laissez pas parler, distribuez au moins mon m�moire � la
presse.�
Pas de r�ponse claire. Milosevic reprend: �Je ne vois pas pourquoi je
devrais me d�fendre devant ce tribunal ill�gal et envers une fause
accusation.
Mais je voudrais vous questionner sur mes conditions de d�tention. Je
suis en isolement total : pourquoi ma famille ne peut-elle me visiter
quand elle le souhaite, pourquoi les visites sont-elles surveill�es et
les conversations enregistr�es, m�me avec mon petit-fils de deux ans et
demi ? Pourquoi ne puis-je discuter avec mes avocats concernant mes
affaires personnelles en Yougoslavie ?�
Le pr�sident : �Ce sont les r�gles. Le probl�me est que vous n'avez pas
d�sign� d'avocat.� Utilise-t-on les conditions de d�tention comme
pression pour forcer Milosevic � "s'int�grer" dans le proc�s ?
�Pourquoi suis-je isol� de la presse ? Chaque jour, on imprime des
mensonges sur moi, et je ne peux r�pondre. Si des journalistes veulent
conna�tre la v�rit�, personne n'a de raison d'avoir peur de la v�rit�!
Vous n'�tes pas un tribunal, vous �tes un instrument politique�, accuse
Milosevic. A nouveau, le pr�sident pousse le bouton pour lui couper son
micro. Je vois que Milosevic continue � parler, mais constate que cela
ne passe pas sur les �crans TV qui diffusent en direct. Le r�alisateur a
d�cid� de montrer seulement les juges.
Lesquels sortent pr�cipitamment apr�s report� le proc�s au 29 octobre.
Dans le public, domine une impression de confusion. Va-t-on tra�ner
l'affaire en longueur ? Un journaliste de Belgrade, proche du nouveau
r�gime pourtant, remarque : �Milosevic �tait poliquement mort. Mais ici,
vu sa r�sistance ferme, on lui offre un come-back.�
De quoi r�fl�chir. A Belgrade, le prix du pain est pass� de 3,5 � 20
dinars, 170.000 familles ruin�es sont priv�es d'�lectricit�, le nouveau
r�gime a d��u tout le monde et se d�chire... On ne peut donc s'emp�cher
de penser qu'il s'agit bien d'un proc�s politique. D'autant que le seul
accus� est celui qui a os� r�sister � l'Otan tandis que sombrent aux
oubliettes les crimes, pourtant bien connus et prouv�s, des prot�g�s de
l'Otan : hauts dirigeants croates et musulmans entre 91 et 95, le
g�n�ral albanais Agim Ceku en 95 et depuis 99... Et surtout les crimes
de l'Otan elle-m�me, violant maintes conventions internationales en
99...
Proc�s ou cirque? Quoi qu'on pense sur ce qui s'est r�ellement pass� en
Yougoslavie, et sur la mani�re dont nous en avons �t� "inform�s", on ne
peut nier que les droits de l'accus� ne sont gu�re respect�s. De mes
�tudes de droit, dans ma jeunesse, me revient une maxime conseillant �
qui veut bien juger: "Et audi alteram partem" (Ecoute aussi l'autre
partie). Qui pense avoir r�ellement entendu la version de cette autre
partie ?
---
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@...
(Michel Collon)
*** PONOVO DEMONSTRACIJE U MOSKVI ZA MILOSEVICA
---
Subject: PONOVO DEMONSTRACIJE U MOSKVI ZA MILOSEVICA
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:58:08 +0200
From: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Rezolucija
Uccesnika mitinga 23. Oktobra 2001.g.
Dossli smo pred zgradu Informativnog centra OUN da izrazimo protest
protiv nezakonitog represivnog rada takozvanog Hasskog tribunala, protiv
sramotne sudanije nad Predsednikom Jugoslavije Slobodanom Milosseviccem
i njegovim saborcima, protiv neosnovane optuzzbe srpske strane za
tragediju balkanskih naroda.
Optuzzujemo rukovodstvo SAD za namerno husskanje naroda Jugoslavije
jednih protiv drugih, za eskalaciju krvavog medjuetnicckog konflikta, za
patnju gradjana Balkanskog poluostrva. Zaradjujucci na prodaji oruzzja i
vojne tehnike stranama u sukobu (Hrvatima i Muslimanima), americcki
oligarsi su joss visse raspirivali plamen krvavog bratoubilacckog rata u
Bosni i Hrvatskoj, koji je zaustavljen samo zahvaljujucci naporima
Slobodana Milossevicca.
Mi optuzzujemo SAD i NATO da su aktivno podrzzavali teroriste u tom
regionu, pruzzali im diplomatsku i vojnu pomocc. Oni su pokussavali da
albanske ekstremiste-ubice predstave kao nevine zzrtve i samim tim
opravdaju svoje zloccinaccko delovanje protiv Jugoslavije.
Mi optuzzujemo zemlje NATO-a za smrt hiljada civila Jugoslavije, za
russenje industrije i infrastrukture zemlje tokom varvarskog
bombardovanja 1999. godine. Rukovodioci zemalja NATO-a su, primenjujucci
tokom te agresije oruzzje s uranskim bojevim glavama, nanosili
nepopravivu sstetu ne samo sadassnjim vecc i buduccim pokolenjima
Jugoslavije. Organizatori te zloccinaccke kampanje moraju biti pozvani
na odgovornost za krssenje pravila vodjenja rata i genocid nad srpskim
narodom!
Mi optuzzujemo Hasski tribunal zbog toga ssto je formiran na inicijativu
agresora uz krssenje Povelje OUN, ssto ga finansira krupni americcki
kapital i ssto sluzzi kao orudje za obraccun u rukama natovskih krvnika.
Mi optuzzujemo nelegitimnu hassku sudaniju za otvoreno falsifikovanje
optuzzbi protiv Predsednika Milossevicca i njegovih saboraca. Srpski
rodoljubi su krivi samo zato ssto su se borili za nezavisnost i
dostojanstvo svoje Otadzzbine, ssto su branili pravo naroda da zzivi
samostalno, a ne po nalogu Vassingtona.
Mi optuzzujemo rukovodstvo OUN zato ssto ne spreccava bezoccnu agresivnu
politiku SAD-NATO i fakticcki predstavlja marionetu u rukama agresora.
Mi apelujemo na cclanove Saveta bezbednosti OUN da pokrenu pitanje
hitnog raspusstanja takozvanog Medjunarodnog tribunala za vojne zloccine
u Jugoslaviji kao nelegitimnog organa koji sluzzi samo za obraccun sa
nepozzeljnim politiccarima.
Predsednik Jugoslavije S. Milossevicc koji je zemlju branio od
terorizma, mora biti odmah oslobodjen, a nelegitimni hasski tribunal
koji brani teroriste i koji nijednog od njih nije pozvao na odgovornost
- mora biti raspussten!
NATOvske krvnike koji su bombardovali srpske gradove - na sud!
Slobodu srpskim rodoljubima - suzznjima NATOfassisticckih zatvora!
Dole lazni sud u Hagu!
---
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger ROMAIN
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:52 PM
Subject: T�moignage de Michel Collon sur la deuxi�me audience du proc�s
Milosevic
�Qui a peur de la v�rit� ?�
T�moignage sur la deuxi�me audience du proc�s Milosevic
Michel Collon
LA HAYE - 30 ao�t - Pour avoir une chance d'assister, il faut attendre
longtemps � l'entr�e du b�timent du TPI, transform� en camp retranch�
par de hautes grilles et les policiers de l'ONU. Car le TPI a choisi une
salle tr�s petite, r�servant 80 places aux journalistes accr�dit�s, 30
aux personnalit�s qu'il invite et seulement... 20 au public.
M�me les avocats yougoslaves venus assister Milosevic � sa demande sont
forc�s, comme moi, de faire la file tr�s t�t matin pour avoir une chance
d'�tre admis. En attendant, la "c�l�bre" Christiane Amonpour (CNN) vient
les cuisiner. Manifestement, seul le "croustillant" l'int�resse. Elle
jubile en apprenant que Milosevic �coute des CD, surtout de la musique
moderne am�ricaine. �Sinatra ? Oh, wonderful! I'll use that!� Et voil�
comment sera "inform�" son public, soigneusement laiss�, par contre,
dans l'ignorance des arguments juridiques solides avanc�s contre le TPI
et son dossier d'accusation (international/balkans).
Du tribunal, le public est enti�rement s�par� par un mur de verre: les
trois juges en rouge, les six procureurs en noir et leurss greffiers
semblent flotter dans un aquarium. C'est d'ailleurs vers le public que
regarde le plus souvent Milosevic. Complet sombre, cravate bleu blanc
rouge (les couleurs de son pays) et expression ferme quoique semblant
fatigu� par les conditions de d�tention: surveillance cam�ra, aucune
intimit�, une lumi�re allum�e 24 heures sur 24 dans la cellule...
�Quand l'accusation sera-t-elle pr�te?�, demande le pr�sident � la
procureur Del Ponte. �Difficile � dire, il nous faudra sans doute encore
plus de deux mois�. Plus tard, Milosevic ironisera: �Deux ans et demi
apr�s m'avoir faussement accus�, vous n'�tes toujours pas pr�te!�
Que Milosevic ne reconnaisse pas ce "tribunal" et refuse de choisir un
avocat, g�ne manifestement. Le pr�sident voudrait lui en d�signer un
d'office tout en disant que ce ne serait "pas vraiment" son conseil. Ca
patauge plut�t. Enfin, le pr�sident donne la parole � l'accus�.
- �D�sirez-vous soulever d'autres questions?�
�Ca d�pend. Puis-je parler ou allez-vous, comme la premi�re fois,
tourner le bouton de mon microphone? Pouvons-nous communiquer comme des
personnes civilis�es ?�
(...)
�Je souhaite parler sur l'ill�galit� du tribunal. J'ai pr�par� un
m�moire. Ca prendrait 40 minutes.�
�Vous en avez d�j� parl�.�
�Si vous ne me laissez pas parler, distribuez au moins mon m�moire � la
presse.�
Pas de r�ponse claire. Milosevic reprend: �Je ne vois pas pourquoi je
devrais me d�fendre devant ce tribunal ill�gal et envers une fause
accusation.
Mais je voudrais vous questionner sur mes conditions de d�tention. Je
suis en isolement total : pourquoi ma famille ne peut-elle me visiter
quand elle le souhaite, pourquoi les visites sont-elles surveill�es et
les conversations enregistr�es, m�me avec mon petit-fils de deux ans et
demi ? Pourquoi ne puis-je discuter avec mes avocats concernant mes
affaires personnelles en Yougoslavie ?�
Le pr�sident : �Ce sont les r�gles. Le probl�me est que vous n'avez pas
d�sign� d'avocat.� Utilise-t-on les conditions de d�tention comme
pression pour forcer Milosevic � "s'int�grer" dans le proc�s ?
�Pourquoi suis-je isol� de la presse ? Chaque jour, on imprime des
mensonges sur moi, et je ne peux r�pondre. Si des journalistes veulent
conna�tre la v�rit�, personne n'a de raison d'avoir peur de la v�rit�!
Vous n'�tes pas un tribunal, vous �tes un instrument politique�, accuse
Milosevic. A nouveau, le pr�sident pousse le bouton pour lui couper son
micro. Je vois que Milosevic continue � parler, mais constate que cela
ne passe pas sur les �crans TV qui diffusent en direct. Le r�alisateur a
d�cid� de montrer seulement les juges.
Lesquels sortent pr�cipitamment apr�s report� le proc�s au 29 octobre.
Dans le public, domine une impression de confusion. Va-t-on tra�ner
l'affaire en longueur ? Un journaliste de Belgrade, proche du nouveau
r�gime pourtant, remarque : �Milosevic �tait poliquement mort. Mais ici,
vu sa r�sistance ferme, on lui offre un come-back.�
De quoi r�fl�chir. A Belgrade, le prix du pain est pass� de 3,5 � 20
dinars, 170.000 familles ruin�es sont priv�es d'�lectricit�, le nouveau
r�gime a d��u tout le monde et se d�chire... On ne peut donc s'emp�cher
de penser qu'il s'agit bien d'un proc�s politique. D'autant que le seul
accus� est celui qui a os� r�sister � l'Otan tandis que sombrent aux
oubliettes les crimes, pourtant bien connus et prouv�s, des prot�g�s de
l'Otan : hauts dirigeants croates et musulmans entre 91 et 95, le
g�n�ral albanais Agim Ceku en 95 et depuis 99... Et surtout les crimes
de l'Otan elle-m�me, violant maintes conventions internationales en
99...
Proc�s ou cirque? Quoi qu'on pense sur ce qui s'est r�ellement pass� en
Yougoslavie, et sur la mani�re dont nous en avons �t� "inform�s", on ne
peut nier que les droits de l'accus� ne sont gu�re respect�s. De mes
�tudes de droit, dans ma jeunesse, me revient une maxime conseillant �
qui veut bien juger: "Et audi alteram partem" (Ecoute aussi l'autre
partie). Qui pense avoir r�ellement entendu la version de cette autre
partie ?
---
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@...
PROCESSI CONTRO LA NATO PER CRIMINI DI GUERRA:
IL CASO CANADESE
INDICTING NATO FOR WAR CRIMES:
THE CANADIAN CASE
---
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010113/
5094984.html
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/
national/story.html?f=/stories/20010113/436178.html
National - Ottawa Citizen Online
Saturday 13 January 2001
Serbs win right to sue Canada
Expatriates want $75M for NATO bombing
Tom Blackwell
The Ottawa Citizen
TORONTO -- In what's being hailed as a
precedent-setting ruling, a group of mostly
expatriate Serbs has won the right to sue the
Canadian government over NATO's bombing of
their homeland.
A Superior Court of Ontario judge this week
rejected a request by federal lawyers to toss
the case out before it even gets to trial.
It marks the first time a Canadian court has
given the go-ahead to a suit that deals with
Canada's actions in a foreign land, Emilio
Binavince, lawyer for the Serb nationals and
Serb-Canadians, said yesterday.
A similar lawsuit by relatives of a Somalian
teenager beaten to death by Canadian soldiers
was not allowed to proceed, he noted.
"This is a great victory," Mr. Binavince said
after the judge's ruling.
"For the first time, a wrong committed by the
Canadian government outside the country is the
subject of a suit (that's proceeding to
trial)."
The claim was launched by 50 Canadians of
Serbian origin and seven Serb nationals over
the NATO bombing campaign against the country
in the spring of 1999.
Eighteen Canadian CF-18 Hornet jet fighters
took part in the air strikes, accounting for
about 10 per cent of the 6,700 sorties flown
by war planes of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
The attacks were designed to pressure Slobodan
Milosevic, then president of Serbia, to end
attacks on ethnic Albanians in the district of
Kosovo.
Mr. Milosevic was later indicted as a war
criminal by an international tribunal, and
then overthrown last year in a bloodless
uprising.
But the suit alleges that Canada violated both
international law and the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms by taking part in the campaign.
It demands $75 million in compensation for
deaths, injuries and property damage suffered
by the plaintiffs and their relatives in
Serbia.
Among other things, the federal government had
claimed that individuals cannot sue Canada
over its obligations under international law,
arguing that only other countries can do so.
Justice Gordon Sedgwick of the Superior Court
disagreed.
"They are not seeking to enforce an
international obligation of Canada," Judge
Sedgwick said in his judgment.
"They are asking this court to determine
whether the allegedly 'illegal' actions of
Canadian ministers and civilian and military
officials in participating in the NATO
bombardments of Yugoslavia ... may be
characterized as wrongful acts (for the
purposes of a suit in the courts here). I am
not persuaded that they are prohibited by law
from doing so."
Judge Sedgwick also rejected federal arguments
that Canadian courts can't rule on issues
involving the government's "royal prerogative"
to participate in foreign affairs and
international military actions.
Ed Sojonky, the senior Justice Department
lawyer representing Canada in the case, said
the government will decide within a couple of
weeks whether to appeal, but in the meantime
he wouldn't comment on the ruling.
"Our position has always been that there is no
merit to the claim," he said.
The judgment wasn't all positive for the
Serbs. Judge Sedgwick gave the plaintiffs 60
days to update their statement of claim to
spell out exactly how each of them was
directly affected by the bombing.
---
==========================================Von: petar <petar@...>
Datum: 2001/01/13 Sat AM 05:11:47 CET
An: w.schulz@...
Betreff: Re: Court Decision / Endorcement in
regard to our Lawsuit
COURT FILE NO.: 99-CV-1 1304 DATE: 20010110
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: STEVAN ALEKSLC ET AL v. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
BEFORE:
COUNSEL:
SEDOWICK J.
Edward R. Sojonky, Q.C. and Elizabeth
Richards, for the defendant (moving party) and
Emilio S. Binavince, for the plaintiffs
(respondents)
ENDORSEMENT
Seduwick J.:
(1] The defendant moves to strike out the
plaintiff's statement of claim in this action
with costs.
[2] The statement of claim was issued on
September 15, 1999. There are 57 plaintiffs.
The ~0 plaintiffs identified as "Part A
Plaintiffs" are citizens or permanent
residents/landed immigrants resident in Canada
of Yugoslav heritage, 5 of them having dual
Canadian/Yugoslav citizenship's. The 7
remaining plaintiff identified as "Part B
Plaintiffs" are Yugoslav citizens resident in
Kosovo/Serbia/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
('Yugoslavia").
[3] The statement of claim alleges that from
March 24 to June 1, 1999, Canada participated
in missile and aerial bombardments and the
military occupation of parts of Yugoslavia by
armed forces of the members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization ('~ATO") in
relation to internal civil strife in Kosovo.
These actions were allegedly carried out by
the Ministers and officials of the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and
of the Department of National Defense. Their
actions are alleged to be contrary to
customary and Conventional international law
incl6ding the United Nations Charter and the
Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928. Their "illegal
acts" are common law torts and infringements
of rights under the Charter of Canadian Rights
and Freedoms (the "Charter').
[4] The Part A Plaintiffs seek general damages
of $50,000,000 together with special damages
and exemplary or punitive damages of
$10,000,000 for tort under S. 3(a) of the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act "CLPA")
and as a remedy under S. 24(1) of the Charter.
Specific infringements of Charter rights are
alleged in paragraph 15 of the statement of
claim as to 5. 7 of the Charter and in
paragraph 16, as to 5.15 of the Charter It is
alleged that at all material times during the
bombardment period these plaintiffs
"sojourned21 in Yugoslavia or had family or
relatives living there or had contractual
relations with persons living or doing
business there. -2-
[5] The Part B Plaintiffs, all residents of
Yugoslavia, seek general damages of
$15,000,000 together with special damages and
exemplary or punitive damages of $1,000,000
for ton under S. 3(a) of the CLPA.
(6] All p1ainti~ seek interest in accordance
with the CLPA and their costs On a
solicitor/client scale. In the statement of
claim, the plaintiffs also seek an injunction
to restrain the Government of Canada from
using public funds to participate in NATO
military actions directed to aggressive war or
the occupation of any part of Yugoslavia other
than for humanitarian purposes. The claim for
injunctive relief is probably moot and, in
event, was not canvassed to any degree before
me. The gist of this action is the plaintiffs'
claims for damages.
[7] As to the tort claims of all plaintiffs
under S. 3(a) of the CILPA based on the
alleged "illegal acts" of Ministers and
officials of the Government of Canada (see
para. [3] above), damages are claimed for the
common law tons of assault and battery,
intimidation, intentional infliction of
nervous shock, negligence and interference
with contractual arid business interests and
relations with others.
[8] Separate Charter and tort claims are
pleaded for:
(a) unlawful expenditure of public funds for
other than lawfi'1 or constitutionally valid
purposes; (b) unlawful use by NATO armed
forces of weapons with toxic radioactive
components including depleted uranium contrary
to international law; (c) unlawful use by
NATO armed forces of area weapons including
cluster bombs contrary to international law;
and (d) unlawful destruction or damage to
factories, warehouses and other storage
facilities and refineries used to store or
process chemically dangerous toxic or
carcinogenic substances.
[9] The defendant moves to strike out the
statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of
the Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground
that it discloses no reasonable cause of
action. The defendant also moves to have this
action dismissed under Rule 21 .01(3)(a) and
(d) on grounds that the court has no
jurisdiction over, the subject matter of the
action and that the action is frivolous and
vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process
of the court,
[10] The test to be applied to determine
whether the statement of claim in this action
ought to be struck out may be stated in these
terms. Taking the material facts pleaded as
proven, do they disclose a reasonable cause of
action, do they disclose a reasonable cause of
action, that is, one "with some chance of
success"; or is it "plain and obvious that the
action cannot succeed"? Operation Dismantle
Inc. teat V. The Queen (1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 at
486-7 (per Wilson J.), Citing Drummond-Jackyon
v. British Medical Association f1970] I All
E.R. 1084 and Dawson v. Government of Canada
(1981) 37 N.R. 127, 138 (Fed. C.A.) per LeDain
3. A "plain and obvious" case has been
described as one where the court is satisfied
that "the case is beyond doubt'. Canada (A. C)
V. mutt Tapirisar of Canada [1980] 2 S.C.R.
735, 740 (per Estey 3.) citing RQSS ~ Scottish
Union. and National Insurance Co. (1920), 47
O.L.R. 308 (Ont. 3- App Div.). Novelty or
complexity of a cause of action pleaded in a
statement of claim ought not to weigh against
the plaintiff on a motion to strike a
statement of claim. Nor ought such a motion be
allowed on a question of law which has not
been hilly settled in the decided cases.
[11] In applying the test, the court is
"obliged to read the statement of claim as
generously as possible and to accommodate any
inadequacies in the form of the allegations
which are merely the result of drafting
deficiencies". (Operation Dismantle case, op.
cit, 451, per Dickson J.] as he then was.
however, what are to be taken as proven in the
statement of claim are the material facts, not
conclusions of law or allegations of possible
consequences of alleged wrongful acts that are
based only on assumptions or speculations
which by their very nature cannot be proven as
true by adducing evidence. (Operation
Dismantle case, op. cit., 455, per Dickson J.).
[12] In the Operation Dismantle case, the
Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the
appellants'' statement of claim should be
struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause
of action. The appellants alleged that a
decision made by the Canadian government to
allow the United States to test cruise
missiles in Canada violated or threatened to
violate 5.7 of the Charter. Declamatory
relief, an injunction and damages were sought
in the statement of claim. A judge of the
Federal Court, Trial Division dismissed the
motion to strike. The Federal Court of Appeal
reversed his decision, struck the statement of
claim and dismissed the action. A flintier
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was
dismissed. In dismissing the appeal, however,
the Court affirmed that decisions of the
executive branch of the Canadian government
are reviewable by the courts under 5. 32(l)(a)
of the Charter even though they raise what may
be characterized as "political questions" and
are exercises of the royal prerogative.
[13] The defendant moving party submits that
the statement of claim in this action does not
meet the test outlined in paragraphs [10] and
[11] above, First, the defendant says that the
issues raised in this action are not
justifiable in a Canadian court because they
include issues of international law which are
political in nature involving the exercise of
the royal prerogative in the realms of foreign
affairs and participation in international
military actions. It is submitted that these
are issues which are inherently incapable of
adjudication or review by a court of law, or
if not incapable, at least unsuitable for such
adjudication or review. As a matter of law,
this submission is, in my view, inconsistent
with the Operation Dismantle case; and as a
matter of discretion, I would not strike the
statement of claim on this ground.
[14] Second, the defendant says that the
actions of the Canadian ministers and civilian
and military officials of which the plaintiffs
complain were taken in the exercise of royal
prerogative powers in foreign affairs and the
disposition and control of Canada's armed
forces. It is submitted that the exercise of
prerogative powers in these particular matters
is not subject to review in a Canadian court
although the exercise of some prerogative
powers may be subject to judicial review under
the Charter. As a matter of law, the
submission that any exercise of prerogative
powers is not subject to judicial review is,
in my view, too sweeping and inconsistent with
the Operation Dismantle case; and as a matter
of discretion, I would not strike the
statement of claim on this ground. See also
Hogg v. Monahan: liability of the Crown (3~
Ed), 19. -4
[15] Third, the defendant says that this court
does not have jurisdiction to determine the
legality of actions of Canadian ministers and
civilian and military officials according to
international law. Obligations by a state
under international law are only owed to and
enforceable by other states, not individuals.
In its application to the statement of claim
in this action, this submission is, in my
view, entirely too broad. In their action, the
plaintiffs are not seeking a remedy against
another state. "'hey are not seeking to
enforce an international obligation of Canada.
They are asking this court to determine
whether the allegedly "illegal" actions of
Canadian ministers and civilian and military
officials in participating in the NATO
bombardments of Yugoslavia and the subsequent
deployment of NATO forces in Kosovo may be
characterized as wrongful acts which are
actionable in damages or as violations of the
Charter. At this early stage of the action, I
am not persuaded that they are prohibited by
law from doing so. I would not strike the
statement of claim on this ground.
[16] As to the Charter, the defendant further
submits that the Charter does not apply to the
alleged "illegal' acts of the Canadian
ministers and civilian and military officials
in relation to the decisions and military
action of NATO and tat there are no
infringements of Charter fights in any event.
Allegations of infringements of rights under
ss. 7 and is of the Charter are made in the
statement of claim on behalf of the Part A
Plaintiffs only. It is not alleged that the
Part B Plaintiffs have any rights under the
Charter. As to the cause of action alleged on
behalf of all the plaintiffs in tort, the
defendant submits that it is speculative,
remote and related "to alleged causes of
action not known in tort law on these facts",
a conclusion which is also drawn in the
defendant's factum in relation to alleged
Charter infringements. In view of the decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Operation Dismantle case para. [12] above) and
the considerations of novelty, complexity and
unsettled law in applying the "plain and
obvious rest (para. [10] above)3 it would, in
my view be premature to strike the statement
of claim on these grounds at this stage of the
action.
[17) Rule 25,06(1) requires that "Every
pleading shall contain a concise statement of
the material facts upon which the party relies
for the claim or defense, ..." (emphasis
added). The statement of claim in this acti6n
is only marginally compliant with this
provision. This is not a class action. Each of
the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct
cause of action. As previously stated, the
gist of this action is the plaintiffs' damages
claim. No material facts are pleaded as to how
the individual plaintiffs were affected by the
actions of the Canadian ministers and
officials. The plaintiffs must plead the
material facts relating to each cause of
action, linking the alleged damages suffered
to the alleged wrongful acts. (Rule 25.06(9)).
This is not a deficiency which, in my view,
may be cured by particulars. This pleading is
now 15 months old and I would anticipate that
the alleged losses suffered by the plaintiffs
as a result of the alleged wrongful acts are
now identifiable. There are other deficiencies
in the statement of claim which I need not
particularize. The statement bf1clairri
requires amendment before this action proceeds
further. The plaintiffs are given leave to
amend their statement of claim 'within 60
days. I [18] The motion by the defendant to
strike the plaintiffs' claim and dismiss their
action is dismissed with cost. If the parties
are unable to agree as to costs the court is
prepared to fix them on a party/party scale
upon receiving the written submissions of
counsel within 30 days.
January 10, 2001
=============================================Von: petar <petar@...>
Datum: 2001/03/01 Thu AM 04:38:52 CET
An: (Recipient list suppressed)
Betreff: Press Conference, March 5th, 2001,
Ottawa, Canada
The Ottawa Serbian Heritage Society
3662 Albion Rd. South, Gloucester, Ontario,
K1T 1A3, serbian.heritage@...
PRESS CONFERENCE
Time: Monday, March 5, 2001, at 11:00 a.m.
Place: Charles Lynch Room, 130 C Centre
Block, Parliament Building,
Wellington Str., Ottawa
Press Release
A Question of Principle: Citizens Group to
Agree to Government Appeal in Bombing Lawsuit
OTTAWA, ONTARIO -- The Serbian Heritage
Society of Ottawa is one of the initiators of
the lawsuit against the Canadian government
regarding the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Among other demands, this suit seeks to stop
the Canadian government from any further
participation in NATO military actions pending
the determination of the legality of such
actions by the Canadian justice system. Many
of our members were born outside of Canada and
chose to come this country—to work,
live, and raise our children as
Canadians—because we believed in the
noble principles that are not only the
foundation of its constitutional system but
that also represent the core beliefs of its
people and the basis for its culture. These
principles, which include fundamental
convictions about the rule of law, fairness,
tolerance, and the peaceful resolution of
conflict, are the reason why Canada and
Canadians command so much respect throughout
the world. It is, of course, the civic duty of
every Canadian citizen to uphold and guard
these principles. However, for those of us who
understand from personal experience how
difficult they are to establish and how
difficult they are to sustain in today’s
conflict-ridden world, there is a particular
urgency to defend them when they are
threatened. Furthermore, when this threat
comes from very powerful individuals who are
at the very head of our government, this need
is even more compelling. The government is not
above the law. In the course of 78 days,
Canadian planes and Canadian pilots were
ordered to bomb an innocent and helpless
civilian population, to destroy their homes
and property, to poison their environment. The
result is compounded human misery, a
dangerously polluted habitat, expansion of
terrorist activity, and a destabilization of
the entire region. This act of war was
undertaken against a country that was at peace
with its neighbours and that was not
threatening either Canada or any of its
allies. It was done without a mandate from the
United Nations, the Parliament of Canada, or
the Canadian people. There cannot be any
clearer examples of wanton and irresponsible
exercise of power by an arrogant elite who
clearly consider themselves outside the law.
No one should be allowed to get away with
that; it is a threat to our fundamental
democratic rights and civil liberties.
Therefore, the principal issue of this suit is
not about money or personal gain of any kind.
Members of the Society have committed to
donate the bulk of any momentary compensation
that they might receive to charity. It is also
not about politics – our ethnic origin
is immaterial here. It is about principle and
about responsibility: the government is not
above the law. Conseqeuntly, our objective is
to have this crucial issue addressed at the
highest judicial level possible and as soon as
possible. We approach this litigation in good
faith and have instructed our lawyer, Dr.
Emilio Binavince, to agree to the
Government’s appeal for escalating the
case to a higher court. Our objective is
simple but fundamental: the people must
control the actions of the high and the
mighty, the Government is not and must not be
above the law.
This press release is issued by the Serbian
Heritage Society of Ottawa. The society and
its members can be contacted via e-mail at:
serbian.heritage@...
=============================================
---
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 FONDO PER LA TERRA HA SUONATO LA CARICA DEI 100.000!
Entra a far parte della comunita' online del Fondo per la Terra
e insieme potremo creare la piu' grande comunita' online italiana
per la tutela dell'ambiente e raccogliere, senza interventi economici
diretti dai soci, importanti risorse economiche da destinare
a progetti di conservazione dell'ambiente in Italia e ai tropici.
Se vuoi saperne di piu':
http://www.domeus.it/ad3981400/clicktheplanet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
IL CASO CANADESE
INDICTING NATO FOR WAR CRIMES:
THE CANADIAN CASE
---
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010113/
5094984.html
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/
national/story.html?f=/stories/20010113/436178.html
National - Ottawa Citizen Online
Saturday 13 January 2001
Serbs win right to sue Canada
Expatriates want $75M for NATO bombing
Tom Blackwell
The Ottawa Citizen
TORONTO -- In what's being hailed as a
precedent-setting ruling, a group of mostly
expatriate Serbs has won the right to sue the
Canadian government over NATO's bombing of
their homeland.
A Superior Court of Ontario judge this week
rejected a request by federal lawyers to toss
the case out before it even gets to trial.
It marks the first time a Canadian court has
given the go-ahead to a suit that deals with
Canada's actions in a foreign land, Emilio
Binavince, lawyer for the Serb nationals and
Serb-Canadians, said yesterday.
A similar lawsuit by relatives of a Somalian
teenager beaten to death by Canadian soldiers
was not allowed to proceed, he noted.
"This is a great victory," Mr. Binavince said
after the judge's ruling.
"For the first time, a wrong committed by the
Canadian government outside the country is the
subject of a suit (that's proceeding to
trial)."
The claim was launched by 50 Canadians of
Serbian origin and seven Serb nationals over
the NATO bombing campaign against the country
in the spring of 1999.
Eighteen Canadian CF-18 Hornet jet fighters
took part in the air strikes, accounting for
about 10 per cent of the 6,700 sorties flown
by war planes of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
The attacks were designed to pressure Slobodan
Milosevic, then president of Serbia, to end
attacks on ethnic Albanians in the district of
Kosovo.
Mr. Milosevic was later indicted as a war
criminal by an international tribunal, and
then overthrown last year in a bloodless
uprising.
But the suit alleges that Canada violated both
international law and the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms by taking part in the campaign.
It demands $75 million in compensation for
deaths, injuries and property damage suffered
by the plaintiffs and their relatives in
Serbia.
Among other things, the federal government had
claimed that individuals cannot sue Canada
over its obligations under international law,
arguing that only other countries can do so.
Justice Gordon Sedgwick of the Superior Court
disagreed.
"They are not seeking to enforce an
international obligation of Canada," Judge
Sedgwick said in his judgment.
"They are asking this court to determine
whether the allegedly 'illegal' actions of
Canadian ministers and civilian and military
officials in participating in the NATO
bombardments of Yugoslavia ... may be
characterized as wrongful acts (for the
purposes of a suit in the courts here). I am
not persuaded that they are prohibited by law
from doing so."
Judge Sedgwick also rejected federal arguments
that Canadian courts can't rule on issues
involving the government's "royal prerogative"
to participate in foreign affairs and
international military actions.
Ed Sojonky, the senior Justice Department
lawyer representing Canada in the case, said
the government will decide within a couple of
weeks whether to appeal, but in the meantime
he wouldn't comment on the ruling.
"Our position has always been that there is no
merit to the claim," he said.
The judgment wasn't all positive for the
Serbs. Judge Sedgwick gave the plaintiffs 60
days to update their statement of claim to
spell out exactly how each of them was
directly affected by the bombing.
---
==========================================Von: petar <petar@...>
Datum: 2001/01/13 Sat AM 05:11:47 CET
An: w.schulz@...
Betreff: Re: Court Decision / Endorcement in
regard to our Lawsuit
COURT FILE NO.: 99-CV-1 1304 DATE: 20010110
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: STEVAN ALEKSLC ET AL v. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
BEFORE:
COUNSEL:
SEDOWICK J.
Edward R. Sojonky, Q.C. and Elizabeth
Richards, for the defendant (moving party) and
Emilio S. Binavince, for the plaintiffs
(respondents)
ENDORSEMENT
Seduwick J.:
(1] The defendant moves to strike out the
plaintiff's statement of claim in this action
with costs.
[2] The statement of claim was issued on
September 15, 1999. There are 57 plaintiffs.
The ~0 plaintiffs identified as "Part A
Plaintiffs" are citizens or permanent
residents/landed immigrants resident in Canada
of Yugoslav heritage, 5 of them having dual
Canadian/Yugoslav citizenship's. The 7
remaining plaintiff identified as "Part B
Plaintiffs" are Yugoslav citizens resident in
Kosovo/Serbia/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
('Yugoslavia").
[3] The statement of claim alleges that from
March 24 to June 1, 1999, Canada participated
in missile and aerial bombardments and the
military occupation of parts of Yugoslavia by
armed forces of the members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization ('~ATO") in
relation to internal civil strife in Kosovo.
These actions were allegedly carried out by
the Ministers and officials of the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and
of the Department of National Defense. Their
actions are alleged to be contrary to
customary and Conventional international law
incl6ding the United Nations Charter and the
Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928. Their "illegal
acts" are common law torts and infringements
of rights under the Charter of Canadian Rights
and Freedoms (the "Charter').
[4] The Part A Plaintiffs seek general damages
of $50,000,000 together with special damages
and exemplary or punitive damages of
$10,000,000 for tort under S. 3(a) of the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act "CLPA")
and as a remedy under S. 24(1) of the Charter.
Specific infringements of Charter rights are
alleged in paragraph 15 of the statement of
claim as to 5. 7 of the Charter and in
paragraph 16, as to 5.15 of the Charter It is
alleged that at all material times during the
bombardment period these plaintiffs
"sojourned21 in Yugoslavia or had family or
relatives living there or had contractual
relations with persons living or doing
business there. -2-
[5] The Part B Plaintiffs, all residents of
Yugoslavia, seek general damages of
$15,000,000 together with special damages and
exemplary or punitive damages of $1,000,000
for ton under S. 3(a) of the CLPA.
(6] All p1ainti~ seek interest in accordance
with the CLPA and their costs On a
solicitor/client scale. In the statement of
claim, the plaintiffs also seek an injunction
to restrain the Government of Canada from
using public funds to participate in NATO
military actions directed to aggressive war or
the occupation of any part of Yugoslavia other
than for humanitarian purposes. The claim for
injunctive relief is probably moot and, in
event, was not canvassed to any degree before
me. The gist of this action is the plaintiffs'
claims for damages.
[7] As to the tort claims of all plaintiffs
under S. 3(a) of the CILPA based on the
alleged "illegal acts" of Ministers and
officials of the Government of Canada (see
para. [3] above), damages are claimed for the
common law tons of assault and battery,
intimidation, intentional infliction of
nervous shock, negligence and interference
with contractual arid business interests and
relations with others.
[8] Separate Charter and tort claims are
pleaded for:
(a) unlawful expenditure of public funds for
other than lawfi'1 or constitutionally valid
purposes; (b) unlawful use by NATO armed
forces of weapons with toxic radioactive
components including depleted uranium contrary
to international law; (c) unlawful use by
NATO armed forces of area weapons including
cluster bombs contrary to international law;
and (d) unlawful destruction or damage to
factories, warehouses and other storage
facilities and refineries used to store or
process chemically dangerous toxic or
carcinogenic substances.
[9] The defendant moves to strike out the
statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of
the Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground
that it discloses no reasonable cause of
action. The defendant also moves to have this
action dismissed under Rule 21 .01(3)(a) and
(d) on grounds that the court has no
jurisdiction over, the subject matter of the
action and that the action is frivolous and
vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process
of the court,
[10] The test to be applied to determine
whether the statement of claim in this action
ought to be struck out may be stated in these
terms. Taking the material facts pleaded as
proven, do they disclose a reasonable cause of
action, do they disclose a reasonable cause of
action, that is, one "with some chance of
success"; or is it "plain and obvious that the
action cannot succeed"? Operation Dismantle
Inc. teat V. The Queen (1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 at
486-7 (per Wilson J.), Citing Drummond-Jackyon
v. British Medical Association f1970] I All
E.R. 1084 and Dawson v. Government of Canada
(1981) 37 N.R. 127, 138 (Fed. C.A.) per LeDain
3. A "plain and obvious" case has been
described as one where the court is satisfied
that "the case is beyond doubt'. Canada (A. C)
V. mutt Tapirisar of Canada [1980] 2 S.C.R.
735, 740 (per Estey 3.) citing RQSS ~ Scottish
Union. and National Insurance Co. (1920), 47
O.L.R. 308 (Ont. 3- App Div.). Novelty or
complexity of a cause of action pleaded in a
statement of claim ought not to weigh against
the plaintiff on a motion to strike a
statement of claim. Nor ought such a motion be
allowed on a question of law which has not
been hilly settled in the decided cases.
[11] In applying the test, the court is
"obliged to read the statement of claim as
generously as possible and to accommodate any
inadequacies in the form of the allegations
which are merely the result of drafting
deficiencies". (Operation Dismantle case, op.
cit, 451, per Dickson J.] as he then was.
however, what are to be taken as proven in the
statement of claim are the material facts, not
conclusions of law or allegations of possible
consequences of alleged wrongful acts that are
based only on assumptions or speculations
which by their very nature cannot be proven as
true by adducing evidence. (Operation
Dismantle case, op. cit., 455, per Dickson J.).
[12] In the Operation Dismantle case, the
Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the
appellants'' statement of claim should be
struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause
of action. The appellants alleged that a
decision made by the Canadian government to
allow the United States to test cruise
missiles in Canada violated or threatened to
violate 5.7 of the Charter. Declamatory
relief, an injunction and damages were sought
in the statement of claim. A judge of the
Federal Court, Trial Division dismissed the
motion to strike. The Federal Court of Appeal
reversed his decision, struck the statement of
claim and dismissed the action. A flintier
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was
dismissed. In dismissing the appeal, however,
the Court affirmed that decisions of the
executive branch of the Canadian government
are reviewable by the courts under 5. 32(l)(a)
of the Charter even though they raise what may
be characterized as "political questions" and
are exercises of the royal prerogative.
[13] The defendant moving party submits that
the statement of claim in this action does not
meet the test outlined in paragraphs [10] and
[11] above, First, the defendant says that the
issues raised in this action are not
justifiable in a Canadian court because they
include issues of international law which are
political in nature involving the exercise of
the royal prerogative in the realms of foreign
affairs and participation in international
military actions. It is submitted that these
are issues which are inherently incapable of
adjudication or review by a court of law, or
if not incapable, at least unsuitable for such
adjudication or review. As a matter of law,
this submission is, in my view, inconsistent
with the Operation Dismantle case; and as a
matter of discretion, I would not strike the
statement of claim on this ground.
[14] Second, the defendant says that the
actions of the Canadian ministers and civilian
and military officials of which the plaintiffs
complain were taken in the exercise of royal
prerogative powers in foreign affairs and the
disposition and control of Canada's armed
forces. It is submitted that the exercise of
prerogative powers in these particular matters
is not subject to review in a Canadian court
although the exercise of some prerogative
powers may be subject to judicial review under
the Charter. As a matter of law, the
submission that any exercise of prerogative
powers is not subject to judicial review is,
in my view, too sweeping and inconsistent with
the Operation Dismantle case; and as a matter
of discretion, I would not strike the
statement of claim on this ground. See also
Hogg v. Monahan: liability of the Crown (3~
Ed), 19. -4
[15] Third, the defendant says that this court
does not have jurisdiction to determine the
legality of actions of Canadian ministers and
civilian and military officials according to
international law. Obligations by a state
under international law are only owed to and
enforceable by other states, not individuals.
In its application to the statement of claim
in this action, this submission is, in my
view, entirely too broad. In their action, the
plaintiffs are not seeking a remedy against
another state. "'hey are not seeking to
enforce an international obligation of Canada.
They are asking this court to determine
whether the allegedly "illegal" actions of
Canadian ministers and civilian and military
officials in participating in the NATO
bombardments of Yugoslavia and the subsequent
deployment of NATO forces in Kosovo may be
characterized as wrongful acts which are
actionable in damages or as violations of the
Charter. At this early stage of the action, I
am not persuaded that they are prohibited by
law from doing so. I would not strike the
statement of claim on this ground.
[16] As to the Charter, the defendant further
submits that the Charter does not apply to the
alleged "illegal' acts of the Canadian
ministers and civilian and military officials
in relation to the decisions and military
action of NATO and tat there are no
infringements of Charter fights in any event.
Allegations of infringements of rights under
ss. 7 and is of the Charter are made in the
statement of claim on behalf of the Part A
Plaintiffs only. It is not alleged that the
Part B Plaintiffs have any rights under the
Charter. As to the cause of action alleged on
behalf of all the plaintiffs in tort, the
defendant submits that it is speculative,
remote and related "to alleged causes of
action not known in tort law on these facts",
a conclusion which is also drawn in the
defendant's factum in relation to alleged
Charter infringements. In view of the decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Operation Dismantle case para. [12] above) and
the considerations of novelty, complexity and
unsettled law in applying the "plain and
obvious rest (para. [10] above)3 it would, in
my view be premature to strike the statement
of claim on these grounds at this stage of the
action.
[17) Rule 25,06(1) requires that "Every
pleading shall contain a concise statement of
the material facts upon which the party relies
for the claim or defense, ..." (emphasis
added). The statement of claim in this acti6n
is only marginally compliant with this
provision. This is not a class action. Each of
the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct
cause of action. As previously stated, the
gist of this action is the plaintiffs' damages
claim. No material facts are pleaded as to how
the individual plaintiffs were affected by the
actions of the Canadian ministers and
officials. The plaintiffs must plead the
material facts relating to each cause of
action, linking the alleged damages suffered
to the alleged wrongful acts. (Rule 25.06(9)).
This is not a deficiency which, in my view,
may be cured by particulars. This pleading is
now 15 months old and I would anticipate that
the alleged losses suffered by the plaintiffs
as a result of the alleged wrongful acts are
now identifiable. There are other deficiencies
in the statement of claim which I need not
particularize. The statement bf1clairri
requires amendment before this action proceeds
further. The plaintiffs are given leave to
amend their statement of claim 'within 60
days. I [18] The motion by the defendant to
strike the plaintiffs' claim and dismiss their
action is dismissed with cost. If the parties
are unable to agree as to costs the court is
prepared to fix them on a party/party scale
upon receiving the written submissions of
counsel within 30 days.
January 10, 2001
=============================================Von: petar <petar@...>
Datum: 2001/03/01 Thu AM 04:38:52 CET
An: (Recipient list suppressed)
Betreff: Press Conference, March 5th, 2001,
Ottawa, Canada
The Ottawa Serbian Heritage Society
3662 Albion Rd. South, Gloucester, Ontario,
K1T 1A3, serbian.heritage@...
PRESS CONFERENCE
Time: Monday, March 5, 2001, at 11:00 a.m.
Place: Charles Lynch Room, 130 C Centre
Block, Parliament Building,
Wellington Str., Ottawa
Press Release
A Question of Principle: Citizens Group to
Agree to Government Appeal in Bombing Lawsuit
OTTAWA, ONTARIO -- The Serbian Heritage
Society of Ottawa is one of the initiators of
the lawsuit against the Canadian government
regarding the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
Among other demands, this suit seeks to stop
the Canadian government from any further
participation in NATO military actions pending
the determination of the legality of such
actions by the Canadian justice system. Many
of our members were born outside of Canada and
chose to come this country—to work,
live, and raise our children as
Canadians—because we believed in the
noble principles that are not only the
foundation of its constitutional system but
that also represent the core beliefs of its
people and the basis for its culture. These
principles, which include fundamental
convictions about the rule of law, fairness,
tolerance, and the peaceful resolution of
conflict, are the reason why Canada and
Canadians command so much respect throughout
the world. It is, of course, the civic duty of
every Canadian citizen to uphold and guard
these principles. However, for those of us who
understand from personal experience how
difficult they are to establish and how
difficult they are to sustain in today’s
conflict-ridden world, there is a particular
urgency to defend them when they are
threatened. Furthermore, when this threat
comes from very powerful individuals who are
at the very head of our government, this need
is even more compelling. The government is not
above the law. In the course of 78 days,
Canadian planes and Canadian pilots were
ordered to bomb an innocent and helpless
civilian population, to destroy their homes
and property, to poison their environment. The
result is compounded human misery, a
dangerously polluted habitat, expansion of
terrorist activity, and a destabilization of
the entire region. This act of war was
undertaken against a country that was at peace
with its neighbours and that was not
threatening either Canada or any of its
allies. It was done without a mandate from the
United Nations, the Parliament of Canada, or
the Canadian people. There cannot be any
clearer examples of wanton and irresponsible
exercise of power by an arrogant elite who
clearly consider themselves outside the law.
No one should be allowed to get away with
that; it is a threat to our fundamental
democratic rights and civil liberties.
Therefore, the principal issue of this suit is
not about money or personal gain of any kind.
Members of the Society have committed to
donate the bulk of any momentary compensation
that they might receive to charity. It is also
not about politics – our ethnic origin
is immaterial here. It is about principle and
about responsibility: the government is not
above the law. Conseqeuntly, our objective is
to have this crucial issue addressed at the
highest judicial level possible and as soon as
possible. We approach this litigation in good
faith and have instructed our lawyer, Dr.
Emilio Binavince, to agree to the
Government’s appeal for escalating the
case to a higher court. Our objective is
simple but fundamental: the people must
control the actions of the high and the
mighty, the Government is not and must not be
above the law.
This press release is issued by the Serbian
Heritage Society of Ottawa. The society and
its members can be contacted via e-mail at:
serbian.heritage@...
=============================================
---
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 FONDO PER LA TERRA HA SUONATO LA CARICA DEI 100.000!
Entra a far parte della comunita' online del Fondo per la Terra
e insieme potremo creare la piu' grande comunita' online italiana
per la tutela dell'ambiente e raccogliere, senza interventi economici
diretti dai soci, importanti risorse economiche da destinare
a progetti di conservazione dell'ambiente in Italia e ai tropici.
Se vuoi saperne di piu':
http://www.domeus.it/ad3981400/clicktheplanet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
