Jugoinfo
(La puntata precedente su
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/266?&start=265 )
* Teitelbaum contro Dal Ponte
* La signora Dal Ponte non deve piu' mettere piede in Jugoslavia
(Tanjug)
* Il Tribunale dell'Aia visto "da dentro" (C. Stone - link)
===
LES "ERREURS INVOLONTAIRES" DE L'OTAN SELON MME CARLA DEL PONTE
Vendredi 2 juin 2000 la Procureur du Tribunal pénal
international
pour l'ex-Yougoslavia, Mme Carla del Ponte a déclaré devant le Conseil
de
Sécurité qu'elle avait reçu plusieurs plaintes de différentes sources
accompagnées d'une abondante documentation avec des allégations que des
crimes de guerre auraient été commis par le personnel et les dirigeants
de
l'OTAN pendant la campagne aérienne contre la République de Yougoslavie.
Mme del Ponte a ajouté que, après un examen soigneux de la
documentation,
elle est arrivée à la ferme conviction que si l'OTAN avait commis
quelques
erreurs, elle n'avait par contre attaqué de façon délibérée objectifs
civils ou militaires prohibés pendant la campagne aérienne. (UN
NEWSERVICE,
2 juin 2000, www.un.org).
Le Bureau du Procureur du Tribunal pénal international pour
l'ex-Yougoslavia a reçu en effet plusieurs plaintes contre les leaders
de
l'OTAN, parmi elles, le 7 mai 1999 celle de l'Association Américaine de
Juristes et d'un groupe de professeurs canadiens. Quelques-uns des
signataires de la plainte ont eu des réunions, d'abord avec l'ancien
Procureur, Mme Louise Arbour et après avec Mme del Ponte.
Outre qu'elle dénonçait l'attaque lancée par l'OTAN comme
constituant en soi une violation de la Charte des Nations Unies, la
plainte
faisait valoir entre autres les arguments légaux suivants :
1) La stratégie adoptée par l'OTAN, consistant en attaquer à partir de
bases très éloignées (missiles) ou d'avions volant à 5000 mètres
d'altitude, n'ont pas permis de prendre les "Précautions dans l'attaque"
prévues à l'article 57 du Protocole I aux Conventions de Genève et
violent
la "Règle fondamentale" de l'article 48 de ce même Protocole : en tout
temps faire la distinction entre la population civile et les combattants
ainsi qu'entre les biens de caractère civil et les objectifs militaires
et,
par conséquent, ne diriger leurs opérations que contre des objectifs
militaires. Bien que les dommages interdits par les Conventions de
Genève
étaient prévisibles, il a été décidé (C'EST À DIRE IL A EU DÉLIBÉRATION
ET
DÉCISION) de faire usage de cette stratégie. Il y a eu donc
responsabilité
pénale puisqu'il y a dol éventuel : l'auteur des faits sait que les
dommages interdits peuvent se produire (représentation du résultat), et
néanmoins il agit.
2) L'attaque générale lancée DÉLIBÉRÉMENT contre l'infrastructure civile
et
particulièrement contre des centrales électriques, les sources et les
conduites d'eau potable viole l'article 54, al. 2 du Protocole I :
Interdiction de mettre hors d'usage des biens indispensables à la survie
de
la population civile.
Cette stratégie d'attaque à distance et de destruction massive
d'objectifs
civils N'A PAS ÉTÉ DES ERREURS OU DU SIMPLE HASARD. Dans un documentaire
sur la guerre contre la Yougoslavie émis par la chaîne de TV franco
allemande ARTE le 25/11/99, un général de l'armée des Etats-Unis,
faisant
partie selon lui des responsables chargés de choisir les objectifs à
bombarder, disait que ces objectifs ont été choisis en fonction des
considérations politiques plutôt que militaires : il s'agit, disait-il,
plutôt que d'annihiler les forces armées ennemies, d'affaiblir le
gouvernement ennemi, rendant insupportable la vie à la population
civile.
Cela n'était pas un avis personnel du général : c'est la doctrine
militaire
officielle en vigueur depuis plusieurs années dans les forces armées des
Etats-Unis, et mise déjà en exécution dans l'invasion du Panama et
pendant
la guerre du Golfe. Cette doctrine est manifestement violatoire de la
lettre et l'esprit des Conventions de Genève. Dans le même
documentaire,
le Ministre d'affaires étrangères de l'Allemagne, Joshka Fischer,
affirma
que les décisions sur les objectifs à attaquer étaient prises à
Washington.
Cela n'exempte pas de responsabilité des membres de l'OTAN autres que
les
Etats-Unis, puisque, selon le "NATO handbook", part 1, points 5 et 7, à
l'OTAN les décisions sont prises par consensus au Conseil de
l'organisation. S'il n'y a pas eu d'opposition aux
décisions prises à Washington cela équivaut au consensus et, en
conséquence, le partage des responsabilités.
3) Il y a eu aussi des attaques DÉLIBERÉS contre civils dans des
conditions
particulièrement odieuses: par exemple le deuxième bombardement d'un
pont
sur lequel il y avait des civils en train de secourir à des victimes,
eux
aussi civils, du premier bombardement.
4) L'utilisation des bombes à dispersion (cluster bombs), censées
détruire des objectifs "mous" (et donc causer la mort sans
discrimination
du plus grand nombre possible de personnes), de projectiles à uranium
appauvri (qui causent des dommages étendus et durables) et le
bombardement
d'usines
chimiques, qui entraîne la dispersion des produits toxiques dans
l'environnement (dommages étendus et éventuellement durables), violent
les
dispositions de l'article 35, al. 2 du Protocole I : interdiction
d'employer des projectiles et des matières, ainsi que des méthodes de
guerre de nature à causer des maux superflus, et de l'alinéa 3 du même
article: interdiction d'employer des méthodes et des moyens de guerre
qui
sont conçus pour causer, ou dont on peut attendre qu'ils causeront, des
dommages étendus, durables et graves à l'environnement naturel; de
l'article 36: armes nouvelles qui sont ou pourraient être interdites par
le
Protocole ou par toute autre règle de droit international (les petites
bombes qui se trouvent à l'intérieur des bombes à dispersion et qui
restent
au sol sans exploser ont le même effet que les mines antipersonnel,
interdites par la Convention d'Ottawa de 1997, en vigueur depuis le 1er.
Mars 1999) et violent aussi les dispositions de l'art. 55 du même
Protocole
I : "La guerre sera conduite en veillant à protéger l'environnement
naturel
contre des dommages étendus, durables et graves".
Ces agissements soigneusement planifiés et mises en oeuvre par
l'OTAN en Yougoslavie ont été reconnus par les responsables, ont été
l'objet d'innombrables témoignages et ont été qualifiées de crimes de
guerre par de nombreux juristes et par des personnalités comme Ramsay
Clark, ancien Procureur de la Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis.
Monsieur Luc Hafner, colonel de justice militaire et Président
du
Tribunal Militaire de Division I de Suisse, dans un article publié dans
le
quotidien suisse Le Temps, le 31 mai 1999, estima que la stratégie
générale utilisée par l'OTAN lors des attaques aériennes contre la
Yougoslavie viole les Conventions de Genève et qu'il y aurait lieu
d'instruire un procès pour crimes de guerre contre ses dirigeants.
Une information de l'agence espagnole EFE, à Londres, du 13
juillet
1999, rapporte les déclarations de l'ex-commandant en chef des forces
armées de l'ONU en Bosnie, le Général britannique Michael Rose,
formulées
par la BBC : "Pendant onze semaines, fut lancée la campagne aérienne la
plus intense de l'histoire bellique et nous eûmes des troupes
stationnées
qui voyaient des
milliers de personnes être assassinées brutalement et plus d'un million
expulsées de leur domicile"...
"Elle (l'OTAN) aurait dû mener une guerre humanitaire", signala. Il
ajouta
qu'en poussant la limite de la hauteur de vol à plus de 15 000 pieds
(4575
m.) et à "ne pas garantir que les objectifs qu'ils attaquaient étaient
militaires », les pays impliqués dans l'opération "se risquaient à
violer
les
protocoles de La Haye et de Genève qui engagent à sauvegarder la vie des
civils."
Ces faits ont été répertoriés dans des documents officiels de
l'ONU. Ainsi le Rapporteur spécial sur l'ex Yougoslavie, M. Jiri
Dientsbier
dans son rapport à l'Assemblé Générale [A/54/396-S/1999/1000(24/9/99)]
mentionne des violations aux lois de la guerre dans les paragraphes 91
(emploi de munitions à uranium appauvri, de bombes à dispersion), 94 et
103
(destructions et
dommages ainsi que mort de civils causées par les frappes aériennes de
l'OTAN), 102 (dommages causés à l'environnement).
Dans son additif A/54/396/Add.1-S/1999/1000/Add. 1(3/11/99) M.
Dientsbier décrit les violations des droits de l'homme qui sont encore
commises au Kosovo (par. 26, 27 et 28) et dans le par. 34 il ajoute
qu'"il
est tragique que cela se produise actuellement en présence de la MINUK,
de
la KFOR et de l'OSCE". AU PARAGRAPHE 29 DE CET ADDITIF, LE RAPPORTEUR
SPÉCIAL CONSTATE LA PASSIVITÉ DU TRIBUNAL PÉNAL INTERNATIONAL POUR L'EX
YOUGOSLAVIE DEVANT CES VIOLATIONS. Dans ces violations il y a aussi une
responsabilité e l'OTAN, comme occupant qui a le contrôle effectif du
territoire, et en vertu de l'article 2 de la IV Convention de Genève, du
"Military Technical Agreement", Annexe A.1, du 9 juin 1999 et du
paragraphe
9 de la résolution 1244 (1999) du Conseil de Sécurité.
Les leaders de l'OTAN sont aussi responsables des crimes commis
par
l'Armée de libération de Kosovo (ALK) transformée en "force civile"
(TMK)
et agissant sous la tutelle de la KFOR, si on applique la jurisprudence
du
même Tribunal pour l'ex Yougoslavie: voir "TADIC", sentence du 15/7/99,
par. 133: citant la Cour Internationale de Justice: ..."Iran was held
internationally responsible
for failing to prevent the attack on the United States diplomatic
premises"...même si les etudiants iraniens ont agi d'abord de façon
autonome. Il suffit de faire le parallèle entre les autorités iraniennes
et
la KFOR et entre les étudiants iraniens et l'ALK.
Dans la sentence "BLASKIC" du 3/3/00, le Tribunal a retenu
comme
fondement de responsabilité la négligence du condamné dans
l'accomplissement des ses devoirs.
Cette notion est applicable aux soi-disants "erreurs" de l'OTAN
pendant les bombardements et aux crimes commis actuellement au Kosovo,
qui
se trouve sous le contrôle de la KFOR.
Mais la Procureur du Tribunal à choisi tout simplement
d'ignorer
les crimes commis en Kosovo depuis son occupation par les forces de
l'OTAN.
Pendant les 78 jours de bombardements contre la Yougoslavie ont
été
commis de façon reiterée des crimes de guerre, tels que définis par les
Conventions de Genève de 1949, leurs Protocoles facultatifs de 1977 et
les
Conventions de la Haye de 1889 et 1907 et son Règlement annexe. Sont
crimes
de guerre parce que sont infractions graves commis INTENTIONNELLEMENT
(art.
85, par. 5 du Protocole I) et les responsables doivent être punis (arts.
146 et 147 de la IV Convention de Genève). Mais la Procureur Mme del
Ponte
les califie avec une incroyable légèreté, suivant à la lettre la version
de
l'OTAN, comme des "erreurs non déliberés" qu'à son avis ne méritent même
pas l'ouverture d'une enquête.
Des crimes de guerre d'une telle gravité qui pourraient aussi
être
qualifiées de crimes contre l'humanité (art. 6, al. C du Statut du
Tribunal
militaire international de Nuremberg et art. 5 du Statut du Tribunal
pour
l'ex Yougoslavie).
Bien que l'initiative de l'accusation appartienne exclusivement
à
la Procureur, reste à savoir si les juges du Tribunal pour l'ex
Yougoslavie, mettant en question sa réputation personnelle comme
juristes
et entamant le peu de crédibilité qui reste au Tribunal, vont avaliser
avec
son silence et sa passivité le mépris de Mme del Ponte pour les faits,
le
droit applicable, la jurisprudence du même Tribunal et son manque aux
devoirs inhérents à sa fonction de Procureur.
L'enjeu est de taille et la responsabilité des membres du
Tribunal
est historique. La passivité du TIPY facilitera la tâche entamée par les
grandes puissances de démolition de plus d'un siècle de laborieuse
construction du droit international humanitaire et ouvrira grandes les
portes à la loi de la
jungle à échelle internationale.
----------------
Alejandro Teitelbaum
Avocat
Représentant permanent à Genève de l'Association Américaine de Juristes.
Lyon, 6 juin 2000
------------------------------
NOTE: Le colloque sur "L'apport de la jurisprudence du Tribunal pénal
pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie au droit international", qui aura lieu del 15 juin à
l'Université de Genève (salle B-106 UNI-Bastions, 3 rue de Candolle),
avec
la participation, parmi d'autres juristes, de l'ancien juge du Tribunal
professeur Antonio Cassese, et des juges du MM. Mohamed Bennouna et
Almiro
Rodríguez, du Président du Tribunal M. Claude Jorda et de la Procureur,
Mme
Carla del Ponte, peut être pourrait permettre voir un peu plus clair à
ce
sujet, en posant des questions aux participants.
Pour plus d'information sur le colloque (et peut être pour poser des
questions par courrier aux participants), s'adresser au: Dpt. de droit
international public- Faculté de droit - Université de Genève. Tél: 41
22
705 8542/47, Fax: 41 22 705-8543, email:
villalp4@...
===
===============================
DEL PONTE HAS "NO PERMISSION TO
VISIT ANY PART OF YUGOSLAVIA"
===============================
BELGRADE, June 19, 2000 (Tanjug)
Carla Del Ponte is "an employee of the NATO
administration and as such does not have permission
of the authorized Yugoslav organs or a visa to visit
any part of the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia",
the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
"Those who receive her and allow her to enter
sovereign Yugoslav territory continue courting NATO
and the U.S. administration, violate the Yugoslav
Constitution and laws, desecrate the victims of the
NATO aggression, and take on responsibility before
their own people", the ministry statement said.
===
Samizdat 2000
An Insider's View of the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague
by Christine Stone
7/7/00
http://www.antiwar.com/stone/stone-col.html
Christine Stone practised at the English Bar as a lawyer specializing in
crime and civil liberties before setting up the British Helsinki Human
Rights Group with a number of academic and journalist colleagues in
1992. She has written for a number of publications including The
Spectator and Wall Street Journal on Eastern Europe and the Former
Soviet Union. Her column now appears Thursdays on Antiwar.com.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/266?&start=265 )
* Teitelbaum contro Dal Ponte
* La signora Dal Ponte non deve piu' mettere piede in Jugoslavia
(Tanjug)
* Il Tribunale dell'Aia visto "da dentro" (C. Stone - link)
===
LES "ERREURS INVOLONTAIRES" DE L'OTAN SELON MME CARLA DEL PONTE
Vendredi 2 juin 2000 la Procureur du Tribunal pénal
international
pour l'ex-Yougoslavia, Mme Carla del Ponte a déclaré devant le Conseil
de
Sécurité qu'elle avait reçu plusieurs plaintes de différentes sources
accompagnées d'une abondante documentation avec des allégations que des
crimes de guerre auraient été commis par le personnel et les dirigeants
de
l'OTAN pendant la campagne aérienne contre la République de Yougoslavie.
Mme del Ponte a ajouté que, après un examen soigneux de la
documentation,
elle est arrivée à la ferme conviction que si l'OTAN avait commis
quelques
erreurs, elle n'avait par contre attaqué de façon délibérée objectifs
civils ou militaires prohibés pendant la campagne aérienne. (UN
NEWSERVICE,
2 juin 2000, www.un.org).
Le Bureau du Procureur du Tribunal pénal international pour
l'ex-Yougoslavia a reçu en effet plusieurs plaintes contre les leaders
de
l'OTAN, parmi elles, le 7 mai 1999 celle de l'Association Américaine de
Juristes et d'un groupe de professeurs canadiens. Quelques-uns des
signataires de la plainte ont eu des réunions, d'abord avec l'ancien
Procureur, Mme Louise Arbour et après avec Mme del Ponte.
Outre qu'elle dénonçait l'attaque lancée par l'OTAN comme
constituant en soi une violation de la Charte des Nations Unies, la
plainte
faisait valoir entre autres les arguments légaux suivants :
1) La stratégie adoptée par l'OTAN, consistant en attaquer à partir de
bases très éloignées (missiles) ou d'avions volant à 5000 mètres
d'altitude, n'ont pas permis de prendre les "Précautions dans l'attaque"
prévues à l'article 57 du Protocole I aux Conventions de Genève et
violent
la "Règle fondamentale" de l'article 48 de ce même Protocole : en tout
temps faire la distinction entre la population civile et les combattants
ainsi qu'entre les biens de caractère civil et les objectifs militaires
et,
par conséquent, ne diriger leurs opérations que contre des objectifs
militaires. Bien que les dommages interdits par les Conventions de
Genève
étaient prévisibles, il a été décidé (C'EST À DIRE IL A EU DÉLIBÉRATION
ET
DÉCISION) de faire usage de cette stratégie. Il y a eu donc
responsabilité
pénale puisqu'il y a dol éventuel : l'auteur des faits sait que les
dommages interdits peuvent se produire (représentation du résultat), et
néanmoins il agit.
2) L'attaque générale lancée DÉLIBÉRÉMENT contre l'infrastructure civile
et
particulièrement contre des centrales électriques, les sources et les
conduites d'eau potable viole l'article 54, al. 2 du Protocole I :
Interdiction de mettre hors d'usage des biens indispensables à la survie
de
la population civile.
Cette stratégie d'attaque à distance et de destruction massive
d'objectifs
civils N'A PAS ÉTÉ DES ERREURS OU DU SIMPLE HASARD. Dans un documentaire
sur la guerre contre la Yougoslavie émis par la chaîne de TV franco
allemande ARTE le 25/11/99, un général de l'armée des Etats-Unis,
faisant
partie selon lui des responsables chargés de choisir les objectifs à
bombarder, disait que ces objectifs ont été choisis en fonction des
considérations politiques plutôt que militaires : il s'agit, disait-il,
plutôt que d'annihiler les forces armées ennemies, d'affaiblir le
gouvernement ennemi, rendant insupportable la vie à la population
civile.
Cela n'était pas un avis personnel du général : c'est la doctrine
militaire
officielle en vigueur depuis plusieurs années dans les forces armées des
Etats-Unis, et mise déjà en exécution dans l'invasion du Panama et
pendant
la guerre du Golfe. Cette doctrine est manifestement violatoire de la
lettre et l'esprit des Conventions de Genève. Dans le même
documentaire,
le Ministre d'affaires étrangères de l'Allemagne, Joshka Fischer,
affirma
que les décisions sur les objectifs à attaquer étaient prises à
Washington.
Cela n'exempte pas de responsabilité des membres de l'OTAN autres que
les
Etats-Unis, puisque, selon le "NATO handbook", part 1, points 5 et 7, à
l'OTAN les décisions sont prises par consensus au Conseil de
l'organisation. S'il n'y a pas eu d'opposition aux
décisions prises à Washington cela équivaut au consensus et, en
conséquence, le partage des responsabilités.
3) Il y a eu aussi des attaques DÉLIBERÉS contre civils dans des
conditions
particulièrement odieuses: par exemple le deuxième bombardement d'un
pont
sur lequel il y avait des civils en train de secourir à des victimes,
eux
aussi civils, du premier bombardement.
4) L'utilisation des bombes à dispersion (cluster bombs), censées
détruire des objectifs "mous" (et donc causer la mort sans
discrimination
du plus grand nombre possible de personnes), de projectiles à uranium
appauvri (qui causent des dommages étendus et durables) et le
bombardement
d'usines
chimiques, qui entraîne la dispersion des produits toxiques dans
l'environnement (dommages étendus et éventuellement durables), violent
les
dispositions de l'article 35, al. 2 du Protocole I : interdiction
d'employer des projectiles et des matières, ainsi que des méthodes de
guerre de nature à causer des maux superflus, et de l'alinéa 3 du même
article: interdiction d'employer des méthodes et des moyens de guerre
qui
sont conçus pour causer, ou dont on peut attendre qu'ils causeront, des
dommages étendus, durables et graves à l'environnement naturel; de
l'article 36: armes nouvelles qui sont ou pourraient être interdites par
le
Protocole ou par toute autre règle de droit international (les petites
bombes qui se trouvent à l'intérieur des bombes à dispersion et qui
restent
au sol sans exploser ont le même effet que les mines antipersonnel,
interdites par la Convention d'Ottawa de 1997, en vigueur depuis le 1er.
Mars 1999) et violent aussi les dispositions de l'art. 55 du même
Protocole
I : "La guerre sera conduite en veillant à protéger l'environnement
naturel
contre des dommages étendus, durables et graves".
Ces agissements soigneusement planifiés et mises en oeuvre par
l'OTAN en Yougoslavie ont été reconnus par les responsables, ont été
l'objet d'innombrables témoignages et ont été qualifiées de crimes de
guerre par de nombreux juristes et par des personnalités comme Ramsay
Clark, ancien Procureur de la Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis.
Monsieur Luc Hafner, colonel de justice militaire et Président
du
Tribunal Militaire de Division I de Suisse, dans un article publié dans
le
quotidien suisse Le Temps, le 31 mai 1999, estima que la stratégie
générale utilisée par l'OTAN lors des attaques aériennes contre la
Yougoslavie viole les Conventions de Genève et qu'il y aurait lieu
d'instruire un procès pour crimes de guerre contre ses dirigeants.
Une information de l'agence espagnole EFE, à Londres, du 13
juillet
1999, rapporte les déclarations de l'ex-commandant en chef des forces
armées de l'ONU en Bosnie, le Général britannique Michael Rose,
formulées
par la BBC : "Pendant onze semaines, fut lancée la campagne aérienne la
plus intense de l'histoire bellique et nous eûmes des troupes
stationnées
qui voyaient des
milliers de personnes être assassinées brutalement et plus d'un million
expulsées de leur domicile"...
"Elle (l'OTAN) aurait dû mener une guerre humanitaire", signala. Il
ajouta
qu'en poussant la limite de la hauteur de vol à plus de 15 000 pieds
(4575
m.) et à "ne pas garantir que les objectifs qu'ils attaquaient étaient
militaires », les pays impliqués dans l'opération "se risquaient à
violer
les
protocoles de La Haye et de Genève qui engagent à sauvegarder la vie des
civils."
Ces faits ont été répertoriés dans des documents officiels de
l'ONU. Ainsi le Rapporteur spécial sur l'ex Yougoslavie, M. Jiri
Dientsbier
dans son rapport à l'Assemblé Générale [A/54/396-S/1999/1000(24/9/99)]
mentionne des violations aux lois de la guerre dans les paragraphes 91
(emploi de munitions à uranium appauvri, de bombes à dispersion), 94 et
103
(destructions et
dommages ainsi que mort de civils causées par les frappes aériennes de
l'OTAN), 102 (dommages causés à l'environnement).
Dans son additif A/54/396/Add.1-S/1999/1000/Add. 1(3/11/99) M.
Dientsbier décrit les violations des droits de l'homme qui sont encore
commises au Kosovo (par. 26, 27 et 28) et dans le par. 34 il ajoute
qu'"il
est tragique que cela se produise actuellement en présence de la MINUK,
de
la KFOR et de l'OSCE". AU PARAGRAPHE 29 DE CET ADDITIF, LE RAPPORTEUR
SPÉCIAL CONSTATE LA PASSIVITÉ DU TRIBUNAL PÉNAL INTERNATIONAL POUR L'EX
YOUGOSLAVIE DEVANT CES VIOLATIONS. Dans ces violations il y a aussi une
responsabilité e l'OTAN, comme occupant qui a le contrôle effectif du
territoire, et en vertu de l'article 2 de la IV Convention de Genève, du
"Military Technical Agreement", Annexe A.1, du 9 juin 1999 et du
paragraphe
9 de la résolution 1244 (1999) du Conseil de Sécurité.
Les leaders de l'OTAN sont aussi responsables des crimes commis
par
l'Armée de libération de Kosovo (ALK) transformée en "force civile"
(TMK)
et agissant sous la tutelle de la KFOR, si on applique la jurisprudence
du
même Tribunal pour l'ex Yougoslavie: voir "TADIC", sentence du 15/7/99,
par. 133: citant la Cour Internationale de Justice: ..."Iran was held
internationally responsible
for failing to prevent the attack on the United States diplomatic
premises"...même si les etudiants iraniens ont agi d'abord de façon
autonome. Il suffit de faire le parallèle entre les autorités iraniennes
et
la KFOR et entre les étudiants iraniens et l'ALK.
Dans la sentence "BLASKIC" du 3/3/00, le Tribunal a retenu
comme
fondement de responsabilité la négligence du condamné dans
l'accomplissement des ses devoirs.
Cette notion est applicable aux soi-disants "erreurs" de l'OTAN
pendant les bombardements et aux crimes commis actuellement au Kosovo,
qui
se trouve sous le contrôle de la KFOR.
Mais la Procureur du Tribunal à choisi tout simplement
d'ignorer
les crimes commis en Kosovo depuis son occupation par les forces de
l'OTAN.
Pendant les 78 jours de bombardements contre la Yougoslavie ont
été
commis de façon reiterée des crimes de guerre, tels que définis par les
Conventions de Genève de 1949, leurs Protocoles facultatifs de 1977 et
les
Conventions de la Haye de 1889 et 1907 et son Règlement annexe. Sont
crimes
de guerre parce que sont infractions graves commis INTENTIONNELLEMENT
(art.
85, par. 5 du Protocole I) et les responsables doivent être punis (arts.
146 et 147 de la IV Convention de Genève). Mais la Procureur Mme del
Ponte
les califie avec une incroyable légèreté, suivant à la lettre la version
de
l'OTAN, comme des "erreurs non déliberés" qu'à son avis ne méritent même
pas l'ouverture d'une enquête.
Des crimes de guerre d'une telle gravité qui pourraient aussi
être
qualifiées de crimes contre l'humanité (art. 6, al. C du Statut du
Tribunal
militaire international de Nuremberg et art. 5 du Statut du Tribunal
pour
l'ex Yougoslavie).
Bien que l'initiative de l'accusation appartienne exclusivement
à
la Procureur, reste à savoir si les juges du Tribunal pour l'ex
Yougoslavie, mettant en question sa réputation personnelle comme
juristes
et entamant le peu de crédibilité qui reste au Tribunal, vont avaliser
avec
son silence et sa passivité le mépris de Mme del Ponte pour les faits,
le
droit applicable, la jurisprudence du même Tribunal et son manque aux
devoirs inhérents à sa fonction de Procureur.
L'enjeu est de taille et la responsabilité des membres du
Tribunal
est historique. La passivité du TIPY facilitera la tâche entamée par les
grandes puissances de démolition de plus d'un siècle de laborieuse
construction du droit international humanitaire et ouvrira grandes les
portes à la loi de la
jungle à échelle internationale.
----------------
Alejandro Teitelbaum
Avocat
Représentant permanent à Genève de l'Association Américaine de Juristes.
Lyon, 6 juin 2000
------------------------------
NOTE: Le colloque sur "L'apport de la jurisprudence du Tribunal pénal
pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie au droit international", qui aura lieu del 15 juin à
l'Université de Genève (salle B-106 UNI-Bastions, 3 rue de Candolle),
avec
la participation, parmi d'autres juristes, de l'ancien juge du Tribunal
professeur Antonio Cassese, et des juges du MM. Mohamed Bennouna et
Almiro
Rodríguez, du Président du Tribunal M. Claude Jorda et de la Procureur,
Mme
Carla del Ponte, peut être pourrait permettre voir un peu plus clair à
ce
sujet, en posant des questions aux participants.
Pour plus d'information sur le colloque (et peut être pour poser des
questions par courrier aux participants), s'adresser au: Dpt. de droit
international public- Faculté de droit - Université de Genève. Tél: 41
22
705 8542/47, Fax: 41 22 705-8543, email:
villalp4@...
===
===============================
DEL PONTE HAS "NO PERMISSION TO
VISIT ANY PART OF YUGOSLAVIA"
===============================
BELGRADE, June 19, 2000 (Tanjug)
Carla Del Ponte is "an employee of the NATO
administration and as such does not have permission
of the authorized Yugoslav organs or a visa to visit
any part of the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia",
the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
"Those who receive her and allow her to enter
sovereign Yugoslav territory continue courting NATO
and the U.S. administration, violate the Yugoslav
Constitution and laws, desecrate the victims of the
NATO aggression, and take on responsibility before
their own people", the ministry statement said.
===
Samizdat 2000
An Insider's View of the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague
by Christine Stone
7/7/00
http://www.antiwar.com/stone/stone-col.html
Christine Stone practised at the English Bar as a lawyer specializing in
crime and civil liberties before setting up the British Helsinki Human
Rights Group with a number of academic and journalist colleagues in
1992. She has written for a number of publications including The
Spectator and Wall Street Journal on Eastern Europe and the Former
Soviet Union. Her column now appears Thursdays on Antiwar.com.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
"NULLA E' PER SEMPRE"
Intervista all'ambasciatore statunitense Warren Zimmerman
sul giornale croato "Danas", 12 gennaio 1992
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
The URL for printable version is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing2.htm
NOTHING IS FOREVER
U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmerman's interview, Jan. 12, 1992, in the
Croatian
daily 'Danas' ('Today')
Translated by www.emperors-clothes.com (6-1-00)
"We are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states
peacefully." (Warren Zimmerman, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Jan., 1992)
The following interview is important. Many have argued that the U.S.
opposed
the breakup of Yugoslavia. Warren Zimmerman was US Ambassador to
Yugoslavia
during the key period, when Slovenia and Croatia were fighting to
secede. In
this interview he makes the real U.S. position quite clear.
A week before the interview a key event occurred. Europe recognized
secessionist Croatia and Slovenia as independent states. Balkans scholar
Raju
Thomas refers to this as "a new method of aggression: Diplomatic
Recognition."
"Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
state
[Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed since
December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition policy
proved
to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing sovereign
independent
states. When several rich and powerful states decide to take a sovereign
independent state apart through the policy of recognition, how is this
state
supposed to defend itself? There can be no deterrence or defense against
this
form of destruction." (Raju Thomas, "Nationalism, Secession and
Conflict:
Legacies from the Former Yugoslavia.")
The U.S. did not immediately endorse the European move. Does this mean
the
U.S. opposed secession? I think the U.S. policy was two-faced. The U.S.
government paid lip service to peaceful solutions and withheld
recognition of
Slovenia and Croatia, but at the same time, US officials and covert
agencies
worked to dismember Yugoslavia in a manner aimed at producing a Bosnian
nation-state run by Islamic Fundamentalist proxies under the thumb of
the US.
Zimmerman's interview in 'Danas' supports this view. Is the interview
accurate? If an Ambassador is seriously misquoted he would respond in
order
to correct the record; but Zimmerman never denied or corrected any part
of
the interview. There is no known reason to question its accuracy.
Moreover, subsequent US actions dovetail with the views expressed here.
For
example, consider this from Zimmerman:
"It appears to us that he [Bosnian Islamic Fundamentalist leader
Izetbegovic]
needs help in his effort to resist the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
and I
believe it would be tragic if someone from the Croatian side would try
cooperating with Serbia in the dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
Later, when the Bosnian Islamist leader Izetbegovic signed an agreement
with
Croatian and Serbian leaders to peacefully partition Bosnia, Zimmerman
met
with Izetbegovic and 'helped' by persuading him to renege on the deal
and
demand instead a unitary Bosnian state under Islamist control.
Izetbegovic
did renege, as Zimmerman asked, and this launched the Bosnian civil war.
It is important to remember when reading this interview that Zimmerman
was
speaking for the most world's only Superpower. Whatever Zimmerman said
would
be read carefully by all sides. He used the interview to encourage
Croatian
chauvinism, Kosovo Albanian secessionism and Islamic Fundamentalism, the
very
forces that Nazi Germany relied on in Yugoslavia in World War II.
Zimmerman said he was against destabilization but talk is cheap and
every
diplomat knew that a united Yugoslavia was the key to stability in the
Balkans. He said pretty things about peace but he unleashed the forces
of war.
Here's the interview.
'DANAS', 21 January 1992
NOTHING IS FOREVER
An Interview with Warren Zimmerman
Zimmerman: First of all, I have to point out that the US and the
American
people exceptionally appreciate the Croatian people and sympathize with
you
for all you have been through in the past few months. We know you have
been a
victim of a Serbian and Army aggression, and in that situation you
reacted
with great courage and dignity. I am not saying this as a compliment to
the
fighting abilities of Croatia - though they are considerable - but I
wish to
point out that a great deal of restraint was demanded of Croatia. I
refer to
the lifting of the siege of military barracks, which was in our opinion
one
of the keys to the possibility of a stable peace. This also goes for
honoring
the cease-fires, which is always a critical issue. I would also point
out the
agreement to the UN peace plan, which all the sides have accepted. In
all
these matters, the people and government of Croatia showed its
extraordinary
worth.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's reference to the secessionists' "restraint"
is
false. While pretending to observe a cease fire, the secessionists
provoked
and attacked Yugoslav troops in their barracks. Zimmerman lies
throughout the
interview. His words are best read not as honest reporting but as
evidence of
US intentions.
DANAS: Still, everyone wonders why the recognition has been delayed?
Zimmerman: I have to admit that at this moment the recognition of
Croatia is
not on our agenda. But this does not mean that this temporary American
approach will be around forever. We have always tried to approach
recognition
in a way that would contribute most to a permanent peace, and that same
approach has been taken by Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington.
Jared comments: Obviously he is promising US recognition - just not yet.
DANAS: What does that mean in terms of time?
Zimmerman: I cannot tell you the exact date. But that is certainly
something
to be kept in mind, and something we are thinking of, but we are also
always
wondering what kind of benefit that would bring Croatia while the war is
still going on and while Croatia is still being occupied by enemy
troops. We
thought the best way for the JNA [Yugoslav Army] to leave Croatia was
the one
proposed by the UN, as it specifically states that the JNA must leave
Croatia. We also believe that we can do the most to make this plan work
is if
we keep the possibility to pressure Serbia, Serbian and JNA leadership
as
much as possible. We are doing that decisively, and I believe we are in
a
much better position to do that now, as we have not recognized Croatia
yet.
That way, we have preserved authority and credibility with Serbia and
the
Army that we would not have if we had followed Germany and recognized
Croatia. I believe what we are doing is beneficial to achieving true
Croatian
independence.
Jared comments: The US was withholding formal recognition not out of a
desire
to hold Yugoslavia together but out of a desire to destroy it in the
most
efficient and profitable way.
DANAS: So you wish to preserve your influence?
Zimmerman: Yes, but I also want to add that this does not mean in any
way
that Serbia or the JNA have any right of veto in the American
recognition
policy. This is not the case.
DANAS: Many claim that you generally support Europe, but at the same
time
aren't too confident about the European policy?
Zimmerman: I wouldn't say so. I know that Lord Carrington believes that
recognition of Yugoslav republics that have requested it could be
premature
in these circumstances. We have tried to clear a path that I believe
could
lead to the result you want, which is a truly independent Croatia, free
of
occupation and enemy forces.
Jared's comments: Zimmerman refers to the Army of Yugoslavia, a country
to
whom he was U.S. Ambassador, a country which included Croatia, as an
enemy
force. Amazing.
The "enemy" Army did not invade Croatia. It was present in Croatia just
as it
was present in other parts of Yugoslavia. It was just as illegal for
Croatia
to secede from Yugoslavia as it was for the southern states to secede
from
the U.S. 140 years ago. The JNA would have been justified in waging
total
war, just as President Abraham Lincoln waged total war; but the JNA did
not.
Zimmerman: We very decisively told the Serbian and Army leadership that
they
have to honor the obligations they accepted and completely leave
Croatia. We
also said - and I think we have been able to do it with more authority
since
we have not recognized Croatia - that the recognition of Croatia by
European
countries cannot be the reason for Serbia or the Army to try reversing
Croatia's independence or imposing solutions on Croatia by force.
DANAS: This is maybe a personal question. You are the American
Ambassador,
but it is hard to say which country you are the Ambassador to. Does
Yugoslavia still exist?
Zimmerman: That is a very good question, and a question that is very
hard to
answer. We are now precisely in that situation where a world is dying
and
another, different world is struggling to be born. In other words, it is
a
transition and as I said many times before, our main concern in it is
peace.
While these changes are going on, our foremost task is to contribute
that
they happen in a peaceful, rather than violent, environment.
Jared comments: As subsequent events demonstrated, 'Peace' meant the US
and
its proxy forces could do whatever they liked but the Yugoslav Army was
not
allowed to fight back.
Zimmerman: It is inevitable that these changes are accompanied with
uncertainties. I am an Ambassador accredited with the government of
Yugoslavia. But at the same time, it is completely clear that we do not
recognize Branko Kostic, who usurped the right to speak on behalf of the
Yugoslav Presidency. Since he made that attempt I have not had any
contacts
with him, nor do I intend to ever contact him. Most of the duties I
perform
in Belgrade and Yugoslavia are reduced to relations with the Republics,
which
my government considers extremely useful. There are many gray areas from
a
legal standpoint, but this is natural in times of transition.
DANAS: Are you encountering the same difficulties while meeting with the
military leaders?
Zimmerman: I recently met with General Adzic, and I met with General
Kadijevic right before he resigned. I believe it is exceptionally
important
to maintain contact with the Yugoslav military leadership, as they have
to
know our position. And our position is clear: we believe that the Army
is
primarily responsible for the war in Croatia.
Hence they have an enormous obligation to honor the UN peace plan, and
to
show restraint in Croatia. And in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, which is
turning into a dangerous place. If we weren’t talking to them, we would
not
be able to tell them all these things.
DANAS: Many unconfirmed stories indicate that you prevented total war on
several occasions, using this type of influence?
Zimmerman: There is exaggeration in that. But I can say that the US has
always used the measure of influence it has to promote peace, not war.
That
is why I say that we are most concerned with the possibility of a war
breaking out in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We think it would be a horrible
tragedy
which could have consequences on the situation in Croatia, which at the
present time looks promising.
DANAS: Does that mean you support Izetbegovic’s plan?
Zimmerman: Let me try to elaborate on our policy towards
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We firmly believe that the territorial integrity of every republic must
be
preserved, and we clearly said to the Serbian government and the Army
leadership that we will never recognize any conquest in Croatia. Equally
important is the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is
most
threatened at this moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is
attempting
to tear away a piece of it. We consider that extremely dangerous, and we
said
so to the Army and the Serbian leadership.
Jared comments: Note how Zimmerman places matters upside down.
He speaks of maintaining the integrity of 'Bosnia' as if it were a
national
entity. But historically a country called 'Bosnia' never existed. An
administrative unit called 'Bosnia' (similar to Rhode Island or South
Dakota)
was created by the Tito government. That's it.
With this in mind, consider his statement that the US supports "the
territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is most threatened at
this
moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is attempting to tear away
a
piece of it."
In fact, the Islamic Fundamentalist forces in Bosnia were trying to tear
a
piece away from a real nation, recognized for 70 years - Yugoslavia.
This
violated international law. The Islamists wanted to justify their
secession
(that is, theft of territory) by holding a referendum. The Serbs
boycotted
the referendum. The Islamists held it anyway, and won; but this violated
the
Yugoslav constitution which required the approval of the three major
ethnic
groups before extreme action could be taken. Moreover the secessionist
movement only existed based on foreign intrigue, personified by Mr.
Zimmerman. The Islamists would never have dared to push for secession
without
the promise of outside (U.S.) help and in practice Mr. Zimmerman prodded
Islamist leader Izetbegovic into starting the Bosnian civil war.
The Bosnian Serbs had had grim experience with Islamic Fundamentalism
during
W.W. II. Islamic Fundamentalists were important supporters of the Nazis
in
Bosnia. They formed their own SS Division. They helped slaughter
hundreds of
thousands of Serbs. The Islamist leader Elija Izetbegovic was a pro-Nazi
Islamic Fundamentalist youth organizer during the War.
Knowing the horror that would follow if foreign-backed Islamists once
again
ruled Bosnia, the local Serbs wanted to stay with Yugoslavia. These
Serbs,
mainly farmers, owned the majority of land in Bosnia. The Serbs wanted
to
make sure that if Bosnian Islamists seceded the Serbs would not be
forced to
live under their rule.
Zimmerman: As for Mr. Izetbegovic, we heard that some call him a Muslim
fundamentalist. We know what fundamentalism really does, as we were its
victims in Iran. That is why we do not believe that Izetbegovic is some
sort
of fundamentalist. Actually, it seems like he is a moderate politician
who is
trying to do the best in a difficult situation.
Jared's comments:The reasoning here is charmingly ostrich-like: Proof by
Rejection of Negative Consequence. 1) Fundamentalists are terrible. 2)
It
would be terrible if Izetbegovic were a fundamentalist. 3) Therefore
Izetbegovic is not a fundamentalist.
Fortunately Izetbegovic wrote a book about his beliefs. It is called
"The
Islamic Declaration" ("Islamska deklaracija"). Here's an excerpt:
"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the
incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace
or
coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non-Islamic societies and
political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and
possibility
of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is
no
question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an
expression
and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..." (p. 22)
It is ironic that Zimmerman uses Iran as the example of what Izetbegovic
is
not. Actually, Izetbegovic was especially fond of the Iranian
Fundamentalists. Moreover, the US encouraged Iran to smuggle arms and
terrorist trainers into Bosnia during the fighting, despite an embargo
on
importing arms. When challenged about this at a Congressional hearing,
Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith confirmed that the US had indeed
approved the shipments.
Zimmerman: It appears to us that he needs help in his effort to resist
the
partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I believe it would be tragic if
someone
from the Croatian side would try cooperating with Serbia in the
dismemberment
of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That would mean that Croatia is destroying the
very
principle on the basis of which it won international support for its
struggle.
DANAS: There are some very clear desires to that extent in Croatia.
Zimmerman: I read some hints to that effect in the Croatian press, so I
have
to say that the dismemberment of Bosnia – no matter who does it – cannot
win
the support of the United States. We would consider that a policy of
destabilization and a violation of international principles that could
lead
to very unpleasant consequences in our relations.
Jared's comments:This is Theater of the Absurd. International law says
nothing about alteration of borders within a state. It only forbids the
destabilization inherent in altering national boundaries - which is
precisely
what Zimmerman is supporting by insisting on the unimpeded creation of a
new
state of Bosnia.
Zimmerman: I believe, therefore, that if there is a tendency in Croatia
to
team up with Serbia in a break-up of Bosnia, that tendency must be
overcome.
DANAS: American foreign policy is often based on two interlocking
principles
– a carrot and a stick. What would be a carrot and what would be the
stick in
this situation?
Zimmerman: That is a good question, and I will try to give a very
specific
answer in regard to the war in Croatia. When the war is over and when
Croatia
restores its full sovereignty upon the Army’s withdrawal, that carrot
and
that stick have to exist for the other side as well.
Jared comments: This is one of the best examples of the Orwellian
rewriting
of reality, a special feature of the New World Order of which Zimmerman
was a
key architect. Croatia had 'full sovereignty' only one time in history:
that
was as the (Fascist-Clerical) Independent State of Croatia during the
German
occupation of Yugoslavia.
Zimmerman: The stick would be that the United States or any other
Western
country - to the best of my knowledge – will never recognize any
violation of
Croatia’s territorial integrity. In other words, the Croatian borders
will
remain as they were before the war, there will be no changes of borders
by
conquest. That stick would also be what I mentioned a moment ago. No one
will
support any violent re-establishment of Yugoslavia.
Jared comments: Does this sound like the man is opposing the breakup of
Yugoslavia?
DANAS: Any Yugoslavia?
Zimmerman: Any kind of Yugoslavia.
DANAS: Even the smallest one?
Zimmerman: We told Serbia and the Army clearly that we will not
recognize
Serbia as Yugoslavia’s successor, that we will not recognize any
so-called
Yugoslav government that is in fact just another Serb government.
That is why I do not wish to have any contact with Mr. Kostic, and why
the
American government challenged the credentials of the Yugoslav
delegation a
few days ago at the OSCE conference in Prague. But allow me to finish my
previous answer about sticks. Carrots are important, too, they form a
part of
this reality. There are some problems with the rights of the Serb
population
in Croatia. We do not think the way Serbia and the Army approached those
issues was justified, they went about it in a completely wrong way. But
the
problem exists and I think that Croatia, if it wants a stable peace,
should
be ready to grant a significant political autonomy to the Serb areas in
Croatia. We welcome as a good sign the fact that the Croatian assembly
passed
the Minority Law, which is a great step along that road. I hope that
Croatian
government will continue being so flexible, as it seems to me that a
maximum
degree of political autonomy on the local level in Serb-inhabited areas
will
be necessary. This is already a part of the UN peace plan on a
provisional
basis, as well as Lord Carrington’s plan, which counts on a longer time
frame. We think that every Serb leadership needs to be able to say that
Serb
rights in Croatia are completely protected with international
guarantees.
That would be in the interest of Croatia as well, as it would take a
significant problem off the agenda.
Jared comments: A number of points about this.
First, as we shall see below, the Croatian regime had launched a massive
campaign of terror against Serbian residents. Zimmerman is suggesting
that
Serbia be induced to accept the breakup of Yugoslavia by dangling the
carrot
of less violence towards Serbs in Croatia.
Second, Zimmerman avoids a discussion of the actual, day to day terror
that
was being directed against Serbs in Croatia. Instead he expresses
concern and
wishes and hopes for better treatment. The value of such US expressions
of
concern became clear three years later when the US planned, led and
provided
air cover for the eviction, carried out by the Croatian Army, of over
250,000
Serbs, mainly farmers, from the Krajina, which was claimed by Croatia.
This
was the worst act of genocide in Europe since W.W.II.
To get an idea of the anti-Serb hatred whipped up by the Croatian
government
throughout this period, read the following excerpt from a speech
delivered by
Croatian President Tudjman after the anti-Serb campaign culminated in
the
violent eviction of the Serbian population of the Krajina section.
Here's
Tudjman:
"There can be no return to the past, to the times when [Serbs] were
spreading
cancer in the heart of Croatia, a cancer that was destroying the
Croatian
national being." He [that is, Tudjman] then went on to speak of the
"ignominious disappearance" of the Serbs from Krajina "so it is as if
they
have never lived here... They didn't even have time to take with them
their
filthy money or their filthy underwear!" (From 'The invasion of Serbian
Krajina' by Greg Elich)
DANAS: Washington used to firmly advocate human rights in Kosovo, but
now
there is only mention of Croatia.
Jared comments: This is hyperbole. Washington's real concern about
Croatia
was that it not work against the Islamists in Bosnia. Indeed, Washington
hired the MPRI, a semi-private military outfit made up of 'retired'
officers
and CIA types to train the Croatian army which continued to be used
primarily
against Serbian civilians.
Zimmerman: I am glad you asked that question, so I can clarify things.
The
violation of rights of Albanians in Kosovo in my opinion is the worst
violation of human rights, and at this moment, there is none worse in
Europe.
It was somewhat peaceful in Kosovo last year, but the basic colonial
nature
of Serbian control has not changed. We have not lost interest in that
issue,
and we will not lose interest until it is solved. I cannot imagine a
final
political solution coming out of The Hague and Brussels that would only
deal
with Croatia. It has to encompass the rights of everyone; thus also the
problems in Kosovo.
Jared comments: Zimmerman was the Ambassador to Yugoslavia. Coming from
him,
this is a clear statement of support for Kosovo secessionism. Why?
Because a)
there was a strong secessionist movement in Kosovo at the time; b)
international law, expressed the Helsinki Accords, forbade the redrawing
of
national borders. However, international law did allow for
self-determination
for colonies. So by calling Kosovo a colony Zimmerman was making a
sneaky
argument for secession.
In fact, Zimmerman's statement is nonsense.
First, Albanians were not oppressed in Yugoslavia. Ethnic Albanian
unrest was
based on beliefs: they wanted to recreate the World War II entity,
Greater
Albania, and they wanted Kosovo to be Serb-and-"Gypsy"-free. In this
sense
their attitude had much in common with some whites in the segregationist
south. Many news articles during the 1980s report that it was Serbs, not
Albanians, who were oppressed in pre-1989 Kosovo. (2)
Colonialism means exploitation: the Colony is organized to serve the
needs of
the Imperial Power. Thus in the African colonies, railroad lines were
built
fanning out from coastal ports so that raw materials could easily be
taken
out of the country. Everything is best in the Imperial country.
Everything is
worst in the Colony.
This was dramatically not the case in Kosovo; Kosovo was poor, but not
due to
exploitation. As engineers Tika Jankovic and Petar Makara point out, the
engineering school in Pristina (Kosovo) had the finest modern equipment,
whereas the engineering school in Belgrade (inner Serbia) had to make do
with
pre-World War II equipment as late as the 1970s. (3)
Such anecdotal evidence is supported by the NY Times. The following was
written in 1984, before the Times adopted an anti-Serbian policy:
"Yugoslavia's Albanians: Poor, Proud and Prolific
By Michael T. Kaufman
..."The thrust toward republic status, for example, is in large measure
motivated by the clause in the Yugoslav Constitution that technically
permits
any republic to secede.
"As explained by a knot of [Albanian] students in Pristina, this right
to
withdraw could pave way for creating a greater Albania, linking Kosovo
with
the present Albania... with the capital shifting from Tirana to
Pristina...
"The students had no answers as to how such a nation could support
itself...
"[U]nder the complicated transfer arrangement, Kosovo receives
70 percent of its budget from the richer components of the Yugoslav
union...." ('New York Times', October 5, 1984)
DANAS: Croatia and Slovenia offered a year ago the confederacy solution
akin
to what Izetbegovic is proposing today. But the clock cannot be turned
back.
Zimmerman: Obviously, it is too late for that now. We are aiming for a
dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states peacefully, and when
any
new union is constructed – if it is constructed – it would have to be
founded
on sovereign decisions. In other words, it has to be built from the
bottom
up, rather than from top to the bottom.
DANAS: All Croatian politicians agree that it is necessary first to
secure
independence and sovereignty, and only then decide on future links.
Zimmerman: I recall the words of Pierre Lavalle, prime minister of the
Vichy
government who made a tremendous mistake by collaborating with the
Germans
but still said something very wise: "Governments come and go, but the
geography is eternal. France will forever remain Germany’s neighbor."
Croatia
will remain a neighbor of Serbia, and I hope it will be possible to soon
normalize the relations that geography makes inevitable.
DANAS: De Gaulle thought otherwise. Many were surprised by the news that
you
spent the New Year’s eve at a peace demonstration with the Serbian
opposition. Some said immediately that this is the sign that both sides
– the
UN and the US – want a different Serbia and different Serbian leaders.
Zimmerman: I went to this vigil to show our strong support to cessation
of
hostilities, and I think Mr. Vance had the same reasons. The peace
movement
in Serbia is a sort of an opposition. It does not accept war. It opposes
the
government responsible for that war. We support them in their demands
for
peace. We consider it especially important – not only in Serbia - that
the
political opposition is free to act. But in Serbia, this is not the
case.
Opposition leader Vuk Draskovic was just indicted for some things that
happened at the March 9 demonstrations last year. The media, especially
television, are hostile to all opponents of the government, and that
will
have to change if Serbia has any aspirations towards democracy. On that
occasion, we did not support any specific party [except for being
against the
one chosen by the people – PM] but we advocated democratic norms and
values,
values of peace and free press.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's support for Vuk Draskovic is interesting.
Before
the Croatian and Slovenian secession, Draskovic was a Tarzan Nationalist
- a
real chest beater and it was in this guise that he opposed Milosevich
who was
for the continuation of Yugoslavia. But then Draskovic advocated a
policy of
non-resistance when the Yugoslav Army was attacked in its barracks, and
when
Serbs were attacked as well.
Note also how Zimmerman uses his continued presence in Belgrade: he
encourages the breakup of Yugoslavia and threatens Belgrade if it tries
to
stop it.
DANAS: Your statements have been frequently attacked in Belgrade and in
Croatia...
Zimmerman: And Slovenia and Montenegro...
DANAS: But which one of your critical remarks would you say again in
regard
to Croatia?
Zimmerman: Croatia is a democratic state, but it is a young democracy
tempted
by war.
Jared comments: This is amazing.
This new 'democratic' state was a conscious imitation of the Independent
State of Croatia, notorious in World War II for creating Jasenovac, the
first
death camp, in which about a million Serbs, 'Gypsies', Jews and
antifascists
were killed using the most horrifying methods.
The new Independent State of Croatia, under Franjo Tudjman, a holocaust
denier, brought back the Fascist Croatian flag, the currency, the army
uniforms, and the straight-arm salute. It renamed streets after leaders
of
the Ustashi fascists; its constitution defined Croatia as a racial state
(a
state of ethnic Croats, not, like Serbia, a state of all its citizens,
regardless of ethnicity.)
The 'democratic elections' took place in an atmosphere of terror and
with
vast sums pumped in from Germany and other Western sources and from
pro-fascist Croatians abroad. The HOS (Croatian Military Group) harassed
and
killed Serbs and opponents of the regime. The method of identification
was
straightforward. First, everyone was ordered to sign a pledge of
allegiance.
Serbs and antifascists who refused to sign this pledge to the
resurrected
Ustashi state were first fired from their jobs, then fired at.
The loyalty oath did not ferret out all the undesirable elements. So the
HOS
ordered everyone to display the Croatian (fascist) checkerboard flag in
their
window. This flag is the Croatian equivalent of the swastika. Then the
HOS
went from street to street and harassed or beat up or killed those
(whether
Serbian or Croatian) who refused to display the flag.
The HOS dynamited the homes of undesirables, often with the people
inside.
Jews lived in fear. Tens of thousands of Serbs were driven out - perhaps
300,000 even before the forced exodus from the Krajina in 1995.
By referring to this terrorized territory as a "young democratic state"
Zimmerman made perfectly clear that he approved of the HOS actions. His
mild
rebukes were cosmetic: made for the sake of appearance.
The American media suppressed the the news about Croatia. Most people
never
learned there was an anti-Serbian terror.
There were a few exceptions to the press blackout. One was an article in
the
'New York Times' which I have posted after the interview. It appeared
rather
late, in 1997, well after Croatia had finished purging 600,000 Serbs.
The
article is a bit odd. The writer, Chris Hedges, suggests that fascists
were
just then becoming powerful in Croatia, whereas this had actually
happened
years earlier, in 1990, '91 and '92. Perhaps Hedges wrote the article in
the
early 1990s and the Times editors held it back until the fascists had
completed their Western-assigned tasks: declaring independence and
driving
out the Serbs. In the article Hedges fails to mention the 600,000 or so
Serbs
driven out of Croatia during the first half of the decade. An oversight.
Most of these people live as destitute refugees in Serbia.
Take a look at the pictures I've posted below and then we'll return to
Zimmerman and see how he offers criticisms which whitewash Croatia's
terrorist purge of Serbs and government critics.
[Note: A picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Above is Ante Pavelic, Ustashi [Fascist-Clerical] leader of
World
War II Nazi Croatia shown with his Fascist flag `
[A second picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Here is the committee that ruled Croatia at the time Zimmerman
gave
his interview. Notice that the old Ustashi flag is above them, on the
left,
and the re-issue is on the right. The men are: General Josip Boljkovac;
General Martin Spegelj, who made the remark that "[The Serbian city of]
Knin
must be butchered...including children in the cradle;" Stipe Mesic, whom
the
European Community imposed on Yugoslavia as its last President. (Though
Mesic
was part of Franjo Tudjman's fascist machine, he has been recycled as
the
much hailed "liberal" President of Croatia. His uncle was SS Officer
Marko
Mesic) and General Franjo Tudjman, then President of neo-fascist
Croatia.
Tudjman's book 'Wasteland' suggested that Jews, not the Ustashi,
slaughtered
the Serbs at the Jasenovac concentration camp complex.
In 1943 Tito, head of the Yugoslav partisans, proclaimed an unusual
policy:
any Croatian Ustashi (Fascist) officer who came over to the Partisan
side
would keep his rank. Seeing that Italy had crumbled and that their
beloved
Nazi Germany was destined to lose, large numbers of Ustashi made the
switch
to the Partisans between 1943 and 1945, thus joining the winning side.
There
is evidence that Franjo Tudjman forged papers, making it appear that he
had
been an anti-fascist during the war, when in fact he was a fascist, from
a
fascist family.
Now back to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman: That is why it is difficult to be overtly critical. But as
you
will soon become a universally recognized state, it seems that the
issues of
free press, political opposition and minority rights will come under
closer
scrutiny than they have been until now. War can be an excuse for
limiting the
freedom of expression, though I personally think it is hard to find
circumstances that would justify such actions. Once the war is over,
that
excuse will no longer exist, and it will be very important for Croatia
to
re-examine all its standards against the international and European
principles and then firmly adhere to them. Allow me to mention two
examples
where I was disappointed. It seems that a certain number of Serbs living
in
Zagreb and Croatia are leaving the city and the country, including those
who
have advocated moderate policies and were not nationalists. They could
be a
significant part of Croatian democracy, and if they are leaving due to
intolerance I hope that will soon be overcome. The other case has
already
been solved, but I mention it because it was very important both to me
and to
Cyrus Vance. It regards the siege of the barracks, when the families of
JNA
soldiers were treated in an unfair manner. But personally, I have full
confidence that the Croatian democracy will grow and expand. The United
States has a very positive opinion about the current developments.
Jared comments: So after the fascist regime has done its job - driven
out the
Serbs and intimidated pro-Yugoslav forces - it will have to adopt a
slicker
appearance so as to fit the look of European 'democracies.' But as for
1992:
"The United States has a very positive opinion about the current
developments." That says it all.
DANAS: You mentioned Mr. Cyrus Vance. He was a US Secretary of State, so
some
claim he is only the extended arm of Washington right now.
Zimmerman: He is, of course, a representative of the UN
Secretary-General,
but also a very respectable American and a former official of the
American
government, which I think all the leaders of the Republics that he had
met
understand very well. This does not sound like a bad thing to me.
DANAS: Some sort of dual guarantee?
Zimmerman: I wouldn’t use that term, but I would say that the US
government
completely supports everything Vance does on behalf of the UN. The
Yugoslav
crisis is a great challenge for the UN. If the peacekeepers come – and
we
hope they will – that would be the largest endeavor the UN have ever
undertaken. I don’t even have to mention the challenges and complexities
they
will face. Let us hope this endeavor will be successful, but in order
for
that to happen, all sides must honor their obligations.
***
(1) The invasion of Serbian Krajina by Greg Elich at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/elich/krajina.html
(2) Kosovo Before 1989 - What Really Happened? at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/tika.htm
(3) 1980's news stories about Kosovo at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/1980news.html
(4) The 'NY Times' article on Croatia is posted after the fund-raising
appeal.
If you find emperors-clothes useful, we can use your help...
All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Right now we are
behind
on phone bills (we use the phone for interviews and editorial meetings)
and
for Lexis, the wonderful Internet research tool. Any donation will help
with
these expenses. To use our secure server, please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html. Or you can mail a check to
Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. Thanks.
To browse articles from Emperors-Clothes.com, click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com and scroll down the page
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Intervista all'ambasciatore statunitense Warren Zimmerman
sul giornale croato "Danas", 12 gennaio 1992
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
The URL for printable version is
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing2.htm
NOTHING IS FOREVER
U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmerman's interview, Jan. 12, 1992, in the
Croatian
daily 'Danas' ('Today')
Translated by www.emperors-clothes.com (6-1-00)
"We are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states
peacefully." (Warren Zimmerman, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Jan., 1992)
The following interview is important. Many have argued that the U.S.
opposed
the breakup of Yugoslavia. Warren Zimmerman was US Ambassador to
Yugoslavia
during the key period, when Slovenia and Croatia were fighting to
secede. In
this interview he makes the real U.S. position quite clear.
A week before the interview a key event occurred. Europe recognized
secessionist Croatia and Slovenia as independent states. Balkans scholar
Raju
Thomas refers to this as "a new method of aggression: Diplomatic
Recognition."
"Surely then the real aggression in Yugoslavia began with the western
recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. The territorial integrity of a
state
[Yugoslavia] that was voluntarily created and which had existed since
December 1918 was swept aside. In 1991, new state recognition policy
proved
to be an inventive method of destroying long-standing sovereign
independent
states. When several rich and powerful states decide to take a sovereign
independent state apart through the policy of recognition, how is this
state
supposed to defend itself? There can be no deterrence or defense against
this
form of destruction." (Raju Thomas, "Nationalism, Secession and
Conflict:
Legacies from the Former Yugoslavia.")
The U.S. did not immediately endorse the European move. Does this mean
the
U.S. opposed secession? I think the U.S. policy was two-faced. The U.S.
government paid lip service to peaceful solutions and withheld
recognition of
Slovenia and Croatia, but at the same time, US officials and covert
agencies
worked to dismember Yugoslavia in a manner aimed at producing a Bosnian
nation-state run by Islamic Fundamentalist proxies under the thumb of
the US.
Zimmerman's interview in 'Danas' supports this view. Is the interview
accurate? If an Ambassador is seriously misquoted he would respond in
order
to correct the record; but Zimmerman never denied or corrected any part
of
the interview. There is no known reason to question its accuracy.
Moreover, subsequent US actions dovetail with the views expressed here.
For
example, consider this from Zimmerman:
"It appears to us that he [Bosnian Islamic Fundamentalist leader
Izetbegovic]
needs help in his effort to resist the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
and I
believe it would be tragic if someone from the Croatian side would try
cooperating with Serbia in the dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
Later, when the Bosnian Islamist leader Izetbegovic signed an agreement
with
Croatian and Serbian leaders to peacefully partition Bosnia, Zimmerman
met
with Izetbegovic and 'helped' by persuading him to renege on the deal
and
demand instead a unitary Bosnian state under Islamist control.
Izetbegovic
did renege, as Zimmerman asked, and this launched the Bosnian civil war.
It is important to remember when reading this interview that Zimmerman
was
speaking for the most world's only Superpower. Whatever Zimmerman said
would
be read carefully by all sides. He used the interview to encourage
Croatian
chauvinism, Kosovo Albanian secessionism and Islamic Fundamentalism, the
very
forces that Nazi Germany relied on in Yugoslavia in World War II.
Zimmerman said he was against destabilization but talk is cheap and
every
diplomat knew that a united Yugoslavia was the key to stability in the
Balkans. He said pretty things about peace but he unleashed the forces
of war.
Here's the interview.
'DANAS', 21 January 1992
NOTHING IS FOREVER
An Interview with Warren Zimmerman
Zimmerman: First of all, I have to point out that the US and the
American
people exceptionally appreciate the Croatian people and sympathize with
you
for all you have been through in the past few months. We know you have
been a
victim of a Serbian and Army aggression, and in that situation you
reacted
with great courage and dignity. I am not saying this as a compliment to
the
fighting abilities of Croatia - though they are considerable - but I
wish to
point out that a great deal of restraint was demanded of Croatia. I
refer to
the lifting of the siege of military barracks, which was in our opinion
one
of the keys to the possibility of a stable peace. This also goes for
honoring
the cease-fires, which is always a critical issue. I would also point
out the
agreement to the UN peace plan, which all the sides have accepted. In
all
these matters, the people and government of Croatia showed its
extraordinary
worth.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's reference to the secessionists' "restraint"
is
false. While pretending to observe a cease fire, the secessionists
provoked
and attacked Yugoslav troops in their barracks. Zimmerman lies
throughout the
interview. His words are best read not as honest reporting but as
evidence of
US intentions.
DANAS: Still, everyone wonders why the recognition has been delayed?
Zimmerman: I have to admit that at this moment the recognition of
Croatia is
not on our agenda. But this does not mean that this temporary American
approach will be around forever. We have always tried to approach
recognition
in a way that would contribute most to a permanent peace, and that same
approach has been taken by Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington.
Jared comments: Obviously he is promising US recognition - just not yet.
DANAS: What does that mean in terms of time?
Zimmerman: I cannot tell you the exact date. But that is certainly
something
to be kept in mind, and something we are thinking of, but we are also
always
wondering what kind of benefit that would bring Croatia while the war is
still going on and while Croatia is still being occupied by enemy
troops. We
thought the best way for the JNA [Yugoslav Army] to leave Croatia was
the one
proposed by the UN, as it specifically states that the JNA must leave
Croatia. We also believe that we can do the most to make this plan work
is if
we keep the possibility to pressure Serbia, Serbian and JNA leadership
as
much as possible. We are doing that decisively, and I believe we are in
a
much better position to do that now, as we have not recognized Croatia
yet.
That way, we have preserved authority and credibility with Serbia and
the
Army that we would not have if we had followed Germany and recognized
Croatia. I believe what we are doing is beneficial to achieving true
Croatian
independence.
Jared comments: The US was withholding formal recognition not out of a
desire
to hold Yugoslavia together but out of a desire to destroy it in the
most
efficient and profitable way.
DANAS: So you wish to preserve your influence?
Zimmerman: Yes, but I also want to add that this does not mean in any
way
that Serbia or the JNA have any right of veto in the American
recognition
policy. This is not the case.
DANAS: Many claim that you generally support Europe, but at the same
time
aren't too confident about the European policy?
Zimmerman: I wouldn't say so. I know that Lord Carrington believes that
recognition of Yugoslav republics that have requested it could be
premature
in these circumstances. We have tried to clear a path that I believe
could
lead to the result you want, which is a truly independent Croatia, free
of
occupation and enemy forces.
Jared's comments: Zimmerman refers to the Army of Yugoslavia, a country
to
whom he was U.S. Ambassador, a country which included Croatia, as an
enemy
force. Amazing.
The "enemy" Army did not invade Croatia. It was present in Croatia just
as it
was present in other parts of Yugoslavia. It was just as illegal for
Croatia
to secede from Yugoslavia as it was for the southern states to secede
from
the U.S. 140 years ago. The JNA would have been justified in waging
total
war, just as President Abraham Lincoln waged total war; but the JNA did
not.
Zimmerman: We very decisively told the Serbian and Army leadership that
they
have to honor the obligations they accepted and completely leave
Croatia. We
also said - and I think we have been able to do it with more authority
since
we have not recognized Croatia - that the recognition of Croatia by
European
countries cannot be the reason for Serbia or the Army to try reversing
Croatia's independence or imposing solutions on Croatia by force.
DANAS: This is maybe a personal question. You are the American
Ambassador,
but it is hard to say which country you are the Ambassador to. Does
Yugoslavia still exist?
Zimmerman: That is a very good question, and a question that is very
hard to
answer. We are now precisely in that situation where a world is dying
and
another, different world is struggling to be born. In other words, it is
a
transition and as I said many times before, our main concern in it is
peace.
While these changes are going on, our foremost task is to contribute
that
they happen in a peaceful, rather than violent, environment.
Jared comments: As subsequent events demonstrated, 'Peace' meant the US
and
its proxy forces could do whatever they liked but the Yugoslav Army was
not
allowed to fight back.
Zimmerman: It is inevitable that these changes are accompanied with
uncertainties. I am an Ambassador accredited with the government of
Yugoslavia. But at the same time, it is completely clear that we do not
recognize Branko Kostic, who usurped the right to speak on behalf of the
Yugoslav Presidency. Since he made that attempt I have not had any
contacts
with him, nor do I intend to ever contact him. Most of the duties I
perform
in Belgrade and Yugoslavia are reduced to relations with the Republics,
which
my government considers extremely useful. There are many gray areas from
a
legal standpoint, but this is natural in times of transition.
DANAS: Are you encountering the same difficulties while meeting with the
military leaders?
Zimmerman: I recently met with General Adzic, and I met with General
Kadijevic right before he resigned. I believe it is exceptionally
important
to maintain contact with the Yugoslav military leadership, as they have
to
know our position. And our position is clear: we believe that the Army
is
primarily responsible for the war in Croatia.
Hence they have an enormous obligation to honor the UN peace plan, and
to
show restraint in Croatia. And in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, which is
turning into a dangerous place. If we weren’t talking to them, we would
not
be able to tell them all these things.
DANAS: Many unconfirmed stories indicate that you prevented total war on
several occasions, using this type of influence?
Zimmerman: There is exaggeration in that. But I can say that the US has
always used the measure of influence it has to promote peace, not war.
That
is why I say that we are most concerned with the possibility of a war
breaking out in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We think it would be a horrible
tragedy
which could have consequences on the situation in Croatia, which at the
present time looks promising.
DANAS: Does that mean you support Izetbegovic’s plan?
Zimmerman: Let me try to elaborate on our policy towards
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We firmly believe that the territorial integrity of every republic must
be
preserved, and we clearly said to the Serbian government and the Army
leadership that we will never recognize any conquest in Croatia. Equally
important is the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is
most
threatened at this moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is
attempting
to tear away a piece of it. We consider that extremely dangerous, and we
said
so to the Army and the Serbian leadership.
Jared comments: Note how Zimmerman places matters upside down.
He speaks of maintaining the integrity of 'Bosnia' as if it were a
national
entity. But historically a country called 'Bosnia' never existed. An
administrative unit called 'Bosnia' (similar to Rhode Island or South
Dakota)
was created by the Tito government. That's it.
With this in mind, consider his statement that the US supports "the
territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is most threatened at
this
moment by the Bosnian Serb leadership, which is attempting to tear away
a
piece of it."
In fact, the Islamic Fundamentalist forces in Bosnia were trying to tear
a
piece away from a real nation, recognized for 70 years - Yugoslavia.
This
violated international law. The Islamists wanted to justify their
secession
(that is, theft of territory) by holding a referendum. The Serbs
boycotted
the referendum. The Islamists held it anyway, and won; but this violated
the
Yugoslav constitution which required the approval of the three major
ethnic
groups before extreme action could be taken. Moreover the secessionist
movement only existed based on foreign intrigue, personified by Mr.
Zimmerman. The Islamists would never have dared to push for secession
without
the promise of outside (U.S.) help and in practice Mr. Zimmerman prodded
Islamist leader Izetbegovic into starting the Bosnian civil war.
The Bosnian Serbs had had grim experience with Islamic Fundamentalism
during
W.W. II. Islamic Fundamentalists were important supporters of the Nazis
in
Bosnia. They formed their own SS Division. They helped slaughter
hundreds of
thousands of Serbs. The Islamist leader Elija Izetbegovic was a pro-Nazi
Islamic Fundamentalist youth organizer during the War.
Knowing the horror that would follow if foreign-backed Islamists once
again
ruled Bosnia, the local Serbs wanted to stay with Yugoslavia. These
Serbs,
mainly farmers, owned the majority of land in Bosnia. The Serbs wanted
to
make sure that if Bosnian Islamists seceded the Serbs would not be
forced to
live under their rule.
Zimmerman: As for Mr. Izetbegovic, we heard that some call him a Muslim
fundamentalist. We know what fundamentalism really does, as we were its
victims in Iran. That is why we do not believe that Izetbegovic is some
sort
of fundamentalist. Actually, it seems like he is a moderate politician
who is
trying to do the best in a difficult situation.
Jared's comments:The reasoning here is charmingly ostrich-like: Proof by
Rejection of Negative Consequence. 1) Fundamentalists are terrible. 2)
It
would be terrible if Izetbegovic were a fundamentalist. 3) Therefore
Izetbegovic is not a fundamentalist.
Fortunately Izetbegovic wrote a book about his beliefs. It is called
"The
Islamic Declaration" ("Islamska deklaracija"). Here's an excerpt:
"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the
incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace
or
coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non-Islamic societies and
political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and
possibility
of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is
no
question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an
expression
and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..." (p. 22)
It is ironic that Zimmerman uses Iran as the example of what Izetbegovic
is
not. Actually, Izetbegovic was especially fond of the Iranian
Fundamentalists. Moreover, the US encouraged Iran to smuggle arms and
terrorist trainers into Bosnia during the fighting, despite an embargo
on
importing arms. When challenged about this at a Congressional hearing,
Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith confirmed that the US had indeed
approved the shipments.
Zimmerman: It appears to us that he needs help in his effort to resist
the
partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I believe it would be tragic if
someone
from the Croatian side would try cooperating with Serbia in the
dismemberment
of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That would mean that Croatia is destroying the
very
principle on the basis of which it won international support for its
struggle.
DANAS: There are some very clear desires to that extent in Croatia.
Zimmerman: I read some hints to that effect in the Croatian press, so I
have
to say that the dismemberment of Bosnia – no matter who does it – cannot
win
the support of the United States. We would consider that a policy of
destabilization and a violation of international principles that could
lead
to very unpleasant consequences in our relations.
Jared's comments:This is Theater of the Absurd. International law says
nothing about alteration of borders within a state. It only forbids the
destabilization inherent in altering national boundaries - which is
precisely
what Zimmerman is supporting by insisting on the unimpeded creation of a
new
state of Bosnia.
Zimmerman: I believe, therefore, that if there is a tendency in Croatia
to
team up with Serbia in a break-up of Bosnia, that tendency must be
overcome.
DANAS: American foreign policy is often based on two interlocking
principles
– a carrot and a stick. What would be a carrot and what would be the
stick in
this situation?
Zimmerman: That is a good question, and I will try to give a very
specific
answer in regard to the war in Croatia. When the war is over and when
Croatia
restores its full sovereignty upon the Army’s withdrawal, that carrot
and
that stick have to exist for the other side as well.
Jared comments: This is one of the best examples of the Orwellian
rewriting
of reality, a special feature of the New World Order of which Zimmerman
was a
key architect. Croatia had 'full sovereignty' only one time in history:
that
was as the (Fascist-Clerical) Independent State of Croatia during the
German
occupation of Yugoslavia.
Zimmerman: The stick would be that the United States or any other
Western
country - to the best of my knowledge – will never recognize any
violation of
Croatia’s territorial integrity. In other words, the Croatian borders
will
remain as they were before the war, there will be no changes of borders
by
conquest. That stick would also be what I mentioned a moment ago. No one
will
support any violent re-establishment of Yugoslavia.
Jared comments: Does this sound like the man is opposing the breakup of
Yugoslavia?
DANAS: Any Yugoslavia?
Zimmerman: Any kind of Yugoslavia.
DANAS: Even the smallest one?
Zimmerman: We told Serbia and the Army clearly that we will not
recognize
Serbia as Yugoslavia’s successor, that we will not recognize any
so-called
Yugoslav government that is in fact just another Serb government.
That is why I do not wish to have any contact with Mr. Kostic, and why
the
American government challenged the credentials of the Yugoslav
delegation a
few days ago at the OSCE conference in Prague. But allow me to finish my
previous answer about sticks. Carrots are important, too, they form a
part of
this reality. There are some problems with the rights of the Serb
population
in Croatia. We do not think the way Serbia and the Army approached those
issues was justified, they went about it in a completely wrong way. But
the
problem exists and I think that Croatia, if it wants a stable peace,
should
be ready to grant a significant political autonomy to the Serb areas in
Croatia. We welcome as a good sign the fact that the Croatian assembly
passed
the Minority Law, which is a great step along that road. I hope that
Croatian
government will continue being so flexible, as it seems to me that a
maximum
degree of political autonomy on the local level in Serb-inhabited areas
will
be necessary. This is already a part of the UN peace plan on a
provisional
basis, as well as Lord Carrington’s plan, which counts on a longer time
frame. We think that every Serb leadership needs to be able to say that
Serb
rights in Croatia are completely protected with international
guarantees.
That would be in the interest of Croatia as well, as it would take a
significant problem off the agenda.
Jared comments: A number of points about this.
First, as we shall see below, the Croatian regime had launched a massive
campaign of terror against Serbian residents. Zimmerman is suggesting
that
Serbia be induced to accept the breakup of Yugoslavia by dangling the
carrot
of less violence towards Serbs in Croatia.
Second, Zimmerman avoids a discussion of the actual, day to day terror
that
was being directed against Serbs in Croatia. Instead he expresses
concern and
wishes and hopes for better treatment. The value of such US expressions
of
concern became clear three years later when the US planned, led and
provided
air cover for the eviction, carried out by the Croatian Army, of over
250,000
Serbs, mainly farmers, from the Krajina, which was claimed by Croatia.
This
was the worst act of genocide in Europe since W.W.II.
To get an idea of the anti-Serb hatred whipped up by the Croatian
government
throughout this period, read the following excerpt from a speech
delivered by
Croatian President Tudjman after the anti-Serb campaign culminated in
the
violent eviction of the Serbian population of the Krajina section.
Here's
Tudjman:
"There can be no return to the past, to the times when [Serbs] were
spreading
cancer in the heart of Croatia, a cancer that was destroying the
Croatian
national being." He [that is, Tudjman] then went on to speak of the
"ignominious disappearance" of the Serbs from Krajina "so it is as if
they
have never lived here... They didn't even have time to take with them
their
filthy money or their filthy underwear!" (From 'The invasion of Serbian
Krajina' by Greg Elich)
DANAS: Washington used to firmly advocate human rights in Kosovo, but
now
there is only mention of Croatia.
Jared comments: This is hyperbole. Washington's real concern about
Croatia
was that it not work against the Islamists in Bosnia. Indeed, Washington
hired the MPRI, a semi-private military outfit made up of 'retired'
officers
and CIA types to train the Croatian army which continued to be used
primarily
against Serbian civilians.
Zimmerman: I am glad you asked that question, so I can clarify things.
The
violation of rights of Albanians in Kosovo in my opinion is the worst
violation of human rights, and at this moment, there is none worse in
Europe.
It was somewhat peaceful in Kosovo last year, but the basic colonial
nature
of Serbian control has not changed. We have not lost interest in that
issue,
and we will not lose interest until it is solved. I cannot imagine a
final
political solution coming out of The Hague and Brussels that would only
deal
with Croatia. It has to encompass the rights of everyone; thus also the
problems in Kosovo.
Jared comments: Zimmerman was the Ambassador to Yugoslavia. Coming from
him,
this is a clear statement of support for Kosovo secessionism. Why?
Because a)
there was a strong secessionist movement in Kosovo at the time; b)
international law, expressed the Helsinki Accords, forbade the redrawing
of
national borders. However, international law did allow for
self-determination
for colonies. So by calling Kosovo a colony Zimmerman was making a
sneaky
argument for secession.
In fact, Zimmerman's statement is nonsense.
First, Albanians were not oppressed in Yugoslavia. Ethnic Albanian
unrest was
based on beliefs: they wanted to recreate the World War II entity,
Greater
Albania, and they wanted Kosovo to be Serb-and-"Gypsy"-free. In this
sense
their attitude had much in common with some whites in the segregationist
south. Many news articles during the 1980s report that it was Serbs, not
Albanians, who were oppressed in pre-1989 Kosovo. (2)
Colonialism means exploitation: the Colony is organized to serve the
needs of
the Imperial Power. Thus in the African colonies, railroad lines were
built
fanning out from coastal ports so that raw materials could easily be
taken
out of the country. Everything is best in the Imperial country.
Everything is
worst in the Colony.
This was dramatically not the case in Kosovo; Kosovo was poor, but not
due to
exploitation. As engineers Tika Jankovic and Petar Makara point out, the
engineering school in Pristina (Kosovo) had the finest modern equipment,
whereas the engineering school in Belgrade (inner Serbia) had to make do
with
pre-World War II equipment as late as the 1970s. (3)
Such anecdotal evidence is supported by the NY Times. The following was
written in 1984, before the Times adopted an anti-Serbian policy:
"Yugoslavia's Albanians: Poor, Proud and Prolific
By Michael T. Kaufman
..."The thrust toward republic status, for example, is in large measure
motivated by the clause in the Yugoslav Constitution that technically
permits
any republic to secede.
"As explained by a knot of [Albanian] students in Pristina, this right
to
withdraw could pave way for creating a greater Albania, linking Kosovo
with
the present Albania... with the capital shifting from Tirana to
Pristina...
"The students had no answers as to how such a nation could support
itself...
"[U]nder the complicated transfer arrangement, Kosovo receives
70 percent of its budget from the richer components of the Yugoslav
union...." ('New York Times', October 5, 1984)
DANAS: Croatia and Slovenia offered a year ago the confederacy solution
akin
to what Izetbegovic is proposing today. But the clock cannot be turned
back.
Zimmerman: Obviously, it is too late for that now. We are aiming for a
dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states peacefully, and when
any
new union is constructed – if it is constructed – it would have to be
founded
on sovereign decisions. In other words, it has to be built from the
bottom
up, rather than from top to the bottom.
DANAS: All Croatian politicians agree that it is necessary first to
secure
independence and sovereignty, and only then decide on future links.
Zimmerman: I recall the words of Pierre Lavalle, prime minister of the
Vichy
government who made a tremendous mistake by collaborating with the
Germans
but still said something very wise: "Governments come and go, but the
geography is eternal. France will forever remain Germany’s neighbor."
Croatia
will remain a neighbor of Serbia, and I hope it will be possible to soon
normalize the relations that geography makes inevitable.
DANAS: De Gaulle thought otherwise. Many were surprised by the news that
you
spent the New Year’s eve at a peace demonstration with the Serbian
opposition. Some said immediately that this is the sign that both sides
– the
UN and the US – want a different Serbia and different Serbian leaders.
Zimmerman: I went to this vigil to show our strong support to cessation
of
hostilities, and I think Mr. Vance had the same reasons. The peace
movement
in Serbia is a sort of an opposition. It does not accept war. It opposes
the
government responsible for that war. We support them in their demands
for
peace. We consider it especially important – not only in Serbia - that
the
political opposition is free to act. But in Serbia, this is not the
case.
Opposition leader Vuk Draskovic was just indicted for some things that
happened at the March 9 demonstrations last year. The media, especially
television, are hostile to all opponents of the government, and that
will
have to change if Serbia has any aspirations towards democracy. On that
occasion, we did not support any specific party [except for being
against the
one chosen by the people – PM] but we advocated democratic norms and
values,
values of peace and free press.
Jared comments: Zimmerman's support for Vuk Draskovic is interesting.
Before
the Croatian and Slovenian secession, Draskovic was a Tarzan Nationalist
- a
real chest beater and it was in this guise that he opposed Milosevich
who was
for the continuation of Yugoslavia. But then Draskovic advocated a
policy of
non-resistance when the Yugoslav Army was attacked in its barracks, and
when
Serbs were attacked as well.
Note also how Zimmerman uses his continued presence in Belgrade: he
encourages the breakup of Yugoslavia and threatens Belgrade if it tries
to
stop it.
DANAS: Your statements have been frequently attacked in Belgrade and in
Croatia...
Zimmerman: And Slovenia and Montenegro...
DANAS: But which one of your critical remarks would you say again in
regard
to Croatia?
Zimmerman: Croatia is a democratic state, but it is a young democracy
tempted
by war.
Jared comments: This is amazing.
This new 'democratic' state was a conscious imitation of the Independent
State of Croatia, notorious in World War II for creating Jasenovac, the
first
death camp, in which about a million Serbs, 'Gypsies', Jews and
antifascists
were killed using the most horrifying methods.
The new Independent State of Croatia, under Franjo Tudjman, a holocaust
denier, brought back the Fascist Croatian flag, the currency, the army
uniforms, and the straight-arm salute. It renamed streets after leaders
of
the Ustashi fascists; its constitution defined Croatia as a racial state
(a
state of ethnic Croats, not, like Serbia, a state of all its citizens,
regardless of ethnicity.)
The 'democratic elections' took place in an atmosphere of terror and
with
vast sums pumped in from Germany and other Western sources and from
pro-fascist Croatians abroad. The HOS (Croatian Military Group) harassed
and
killed Serbs and opponents of the regime. The method of identification
was
straightforward. First, everyone was ordered to sign a pledge of
allegiance.
Serbs and antifascists who refused to sign this pledge to the
resurrected
Ustashi state were first fired from their jobs, then fired at.
The loyalty oath did not ferret out all the undesirable elements. So the
HOS
ordered everyone to display the Croatian (fascist) checkerboard flag in
their
window. This flag is the Croatian equivalent of the swastika. Then the
HOS
went from street to street and harassed or beat up or killed those
(whether
Serbian or Croatian) who refused to display the flag.
The HOS dynamited the homes of undesirables, often with the people
inside.
Jews lived in fear. Tens of thousands of Serbs were driven out - perhaps
300,000 even before the forced exodus from the Krajina in 1995.
By referring to this terrorized territory as a "young democratic state"
Zimmerman made perfectly clear that he approved of the HOS actions. His
mild
rebukes were cosmetic: made for the sake of appearance.
The American media suppressed the the news about Croatia. Most people
never
learned there was an anti-Serbian terror.
There were a few exceptions to the press blackout. One was an article in
the
'New York Times' which I have posted after the interview. It appeared
rather
late, in 1997, well after Croatia had finished purging 600,000 Serbs.
The
article is a bit odd. The writer, Chris Hedges, suggests that fascists
were
just then becoming powerful in Croatia, whereas this had actually
happened
years earlier, in 1990, '91 and '92. Perhaps Hedges wrote the article in
the
early 1990s and the Times editors held it back until the fascists had
completed their Western-assigned tasks: declaring independence and
driving
out the Serbs. In the article Hedges fails to mention the 600,000 or so
Serbs
driven out of Croatia during the first half of the decade. An oversight.
Most of these people live as destitute refugees in Serbia.
Take a look at the pictures I've posted below and then we'll return to
Zimmerman and see how he offers criticisms which whitewash Croatia's
terrorist purge of Serbs and government critics.
[Note: A picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Above is Ante Pavelic, Ustashi [Fascist-Clerical] leader of
World
War II Nazi Croatia shown with his Fascist flag `
[A second picture goes here. It cannot be duplicated in this email post,
but
you can check it out at
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm ]
CAPTION: Here is the committee that ruled Croatia at the time Zimmerman
gave
his interview. Notice that the old Ustashi flag is above them, on the
left,
and the re-issue is on the right. The men are: General Josip Boljkovac;
General Martin Spegelj, who made the remark that "[The Serbian city of]
Knin
must be butchered...including children in the cradle;" Stipe Mesic, whom
the
European Community imposed on Yugoslavia as its last President. (Though
Mesic
was part of Franjo Tudjman's fascist machine, he has been recycled as
the
much hailed "liberal" President of Croatia. His uncle was SS Officer
Marko
Mesic) and General Franjo Tudjman, then President of neo-fascist
Croatia.
Tudjman's book 'Wasteland' suggested that Jews, not the Ustashi,
slaughtered
the Serbs at the Jasenovac concentration camp complex.
In 1943 Tito, head of the Yugoslav partisans, proclaimed an unusual
policy:
any Croatian Ustashi (Fascist) officer who came over to the Partisan
side
would keep his rank. Seeing that Italy had crumbled and that their
beloved
Nazi Germany was destined to lose, large numbers of Ustashi made the
switch
to the Partisans between 1943 and 1945, thus joining the winning side.
There
is evidence that Franjo Tudjman forged papers, making it appear that he
had
been an anti-fascist during the war, when in fact he was a fascist, from
a
fascist family.
Now back to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman: That is why it is difficult to be overtly critical. But as
you
will soon become a universally recognized state, it seems that the
issues of
free press, political opposition and minority rights will come under
closer
scrutiny than they have been until now. War can be an excuse for
limiting the
freedom of expression, though I personally think it is hard to find
circumstances that would justify such actions. Once the war is over,
that
excuse will no longer exist, and it will be very important for Croatia
to
re-examine all its standards against the international and European
principles and then firmly adhere to them. Allow me to mention two
examples
where I was disappointed. It seems that a certain number of Serbs living
in
Zagreb and Croatia are leaving the city and the country, including those
who
have advocated moderate policies and were not nationalists. They could
be a
significant part of Croatian democracy, and if they are leaving due to
intolerance I hope that will soon be overcome. The other case has
already
been solved, but I mention it because it was very important both to me
and to
Cyrus Vance. It regards the siege of the barracks, when the families of
JNA
soldiers were treated in an unfair manner. But personally, I have full
confidence that the Croatian democracy will grow and expand. The United
States has a very positive opinion about the current developments.
Jared comments: So after the fascist regime has done its job - driven
out the
Serbs and intimidated pro-Yugoslav forces - it will have to adopt a
slicker
appearance so as to fit the look of European 'democracies.' But as for
1992:
"The United States has a very positive opinion about the current
developments." That says it all.
DANAS: You mentioned Mr. Cyrus Vance. He was a US Secretary of State, so
some
claim he is only the extended arm of Washington right now.
Zimmerman: He is, of course, a representative of the UN
Secretary-General,
but also a very respectable American and a former official of the
American
government, which I think all the leaders of the Republics that he had
met
understand very well. This does not sound like a bad thing to me.
DANAS: Some sort of dual guarantee?
Zimmerman: I wouldn’t use that term, but I would say that the US
government
completely supports everything Vance does on behalf of the UN. The
Yugoslav
crisis is a great challenge for the UN. If the peacekeepers come – and
we
hope they will – that would be the largest endeavor the UN have ever
undertaken. I don’t even have to mention the challenges and complexities
they
will face. Let us hope this endeavor will be successful, but in order
for
that to happen, all sides must honor their obligations.
***
(1) The invasion of Serbian Krajina by Greg Elich at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/elich/krajina.html
(2) Kosovo Before 1989 - What Really Happened? at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/tika.htm
(3) 1980's news stories about Kosovo at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/1980news.html
(4) The 'NY Times' article on Croatia is posted after the fund-raising
appeal.
If you find emperors-clothes useful, we can use your help...
All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Right now we are
behind
on phone bills (we use the phone for interviews and editorial meetings)
and
for Lexis, the wonderful Internet research tool. Any donation will help
with
these expenses. To use our secure server, please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html. Or you can mail a check to
Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. Thanks.
To browse articles from Emperors-Clothes.com, click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com and scroll down the page
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* "Resa dei conti" tra Slovenia e Jugoslavia ???
* Scambio di opinioni sulla Jugoslavia agli Europei - e altro.
* Accanimento arbitrale?
---
Alla Redazione del "MANIFESTO" - Roma
c.a. Pippo Russo
Ho provato un profondo disgusto leggendo l’articolo "Conti aperti
tra
Slovenia e Jugoslavia" del 13 giugno u.s. di Pippo Russo, dedicato alla
partita dei Campionati Europei - che e' poi finita 3 a 3 dopo una
rocambolesca rimonta da parte jugoslava. Nell'articolo mancano tante
informazioni... "Ma Pippo, Pippo non lo sa..."? E’ dal 1992 che richiamo
e richiamiamo l’attenzione dei giornalisti sportivi perche' trattino le
problematiche vicende degli atleti e delle compagini jugoslave con una
maggiore obiettività ed aderenza alla realtà di quanto accade in quelle
terre.
Iniziava allora una campagna unilaterale, indiscriminata, contro
quelli che hanno scelto con dignità di essere, e rimanere, jugoslavi.
Già allora le rappresentative jugoslave venivano escluse dai giochi
olimpici di Barcellona, e pure alla squadra di calcio veniva impedito di
partecipare agli Europei... Se lo sport è un elemento unificante, al di
là
delle differenze "etniche", religiose, culturali, questo dovrebbe valere
a maggior ragione per la Jugoslavia. E non è soltanto retorica: l’hanno
dimostrato anche qui a Roma gli atleti jugoslavi durante il campionato
europeo di basket in quel fatidico anno 1991!
In quegli anni la nostra "civile comunita' internazionale"
incominciava a sfasciare la Jugoslavia e (all'uopo) demonizzava la parte
serba anche nelle cronache, e sui campi sportivi! Monika Seles finiva
accoltellata da un tedesco entrato in campo carico di odio antiserbo -
povero deficiente, non poteva nemmeno capire che la Seles e' di origine
ungherese della Vojvodina, dunque nemmeno "serba"... Ma si sa, ormai:
piu' sei "jugoslavo", in senso multinazionale, e piu' vieni demonizzato
in quanto "serbo", perche' minacci alle fondamenta l'equazione che la
Jugoslavia va sfasciata a tutti i costi...
Pippo Russo dimostra di non conoscere la storia recente quando si
riferisce al "regime di Milosevic" parlando della Zagabria del 1990,
quando Milosevic era solamente Presidente della Repubblica di Serbia. Ed
ora: quale partita dei "conti aperti" tra Jugoslavia e Slovenia??!! Si è
forse chiesto l’articolista chi sono i vari Amir, Zahovic, se non
musulmano-bosniaci che giocano per la Slovenia insieme ad altri serbi e
montenegrini?... Mentre Mateja Kezman, tipico nome e cognome sloveno,
gioca nella squadra avversaria!!!
A me, Jugoslavia-Slovenia è sembrata più che altro una partita tra
"Jugoslavia squadra A" e "Jugoslavia squadra B".
Leggo dall'articolo: "...del suo ritiro parlano di un ambiente
spartano per necessità economiche." Lo slogan separatista della Slovenia
era: "Meglio ultimi in Europa che primi in Jugoslavia"... E la
Jugoslavia in che situazione si trova?! Peccato, perché i "compagni" del
Manifesto hanno perso ancora un’altra occasione per condannare
l’isolamento, le sanzioni e la continua aggressione contro la
Jugoslavia.
Quando si parla del "famoso [?!] calcio vibrato dal croato Boban allo
stomaco di un poliziotto serbo" si vuole forse giustificare per
l’opinione pubblica italiana un atto puramente teppistico per ragioni
"politiche", perché il poliziotto è serbo, cattivo, e perciò se lo è
meritato? Altrimenti a che pro specificare l’etnia di appartenenza? Non
ho mai sentito giustificare un’aggressione tipicamente vandalica contro
persone del servizio d’ordine in quanto sardi, abruzzesi o altro...
Ma in fondo e' vero: quel poverino di Boban ha dovuto "dormire fuori
casa nelle due notti successive". E dov’era Boban quando nella sua
Zagabria, in quello stesso anno, l’inno della squadra nazionale
jugoslava
era sonoramente fischiato alla partita per le qualificazioni agli
Europei? Guarda caso, questo sfegatato nazionalista, estremista e
acclamata stella del Milan, ha contribuito alla campagna elettorale per
il suo Tudjman.
Guardiamo ancora un po' all'indietro: alla Expo di Siviglia nel
1992, durante le Olimpiadi, alcuni giocatori della squadra croata di
basket capeggiati da Vrankovic distrussero le vetrine del padiglione del
turismo jugoslavo. E come la mettiamo con i gravi disordini che
avvengono ora regolarmente tra le tifoserie di Spalato e di Zagabria,
nella Croazia "indipendente"?
Anche ai Mondiali di Parigi nel 1998 il clima era pesantemente
antijugoslavo, e in certi ben noti ambienti girò la proposta di
estromettere la formazione jugoslava - proposta reiterata anche in
questi ultimi Europei da parte albanese e belga. Ma allora ci
furono persino intimidazioni ed atti terroristici, come un pacco-bomba
recapitato a casa di una famiglia di immigrati serbi in Francia.
Infine, per sua conoscenza - a meno che non voglia rimanere nella
ignoranza e prendere fischi per fiaschi: Sinisa Mihajlovic è nato a
Vukovar, di padre serbo e madre croata, che sono dovuti scappare
entrambi in Serbia a causa della pulizia etnica e dei crimini commessi
dai nazionalisti ustascia con a capo un tizio che adesso siede nel
parlamento croato, un "certo" Mercep... Fatti sui quali le allego un po’
di documentazione.
Resti nel dubbio, caro giornalista... Con quali parole potrei
salutarla?
Ivan P. Istrijan, luglio 2000
(il mio cognome rivela le mie origini natali)
---
FUORI TEMA, MA NON TROPPO
> Cari compagni,
> mi arriva questo mail nel quale si sostiene che la Jugoslavia agli
> europei sarebbe stata vittima di accanimento arbitrale. Francamente, mi
> sembra che la Jugoslavia abbia avuto anche sfiga, pero' secondo me quel
> laziale di Mihajlovic l'espulsione se l'e' pure meritata...
>
> Saluti internazionalisti e romanisti :-)
>
Non è per fare il laziale quale sono, e orgoglioso di esserlo, ma per
lavoro
(in questo momento lavoro come operatore internet in una redazione
sportiva)
sto seguendo gli europei di calcio.
Bè mi sembra proprio che la proposta di varie federazioni sportive, tra
cui
i belgi padroni di casa, di escludere la nazionale jugoslava, seppure si
sia
qualificata regolarmente (e ai danni della Croazia pergiunta!), non
abbia
fatto iniziare questa competizione con un clima disteso intorno agli
uomini
di Boskov. Una espulsione a partita mi sembra francamente troppo anche
per
una nazionale sicuramente "grintosa", non più di quella italiana però,
come
quella jugoslava. E poi una (Kezman) dopo quattro secondi dall'ingresso
del
giocatore ed al suo primo intervento...mah!
Per quanto riguarda "quel laziale (e scudettato, nda) di Mihajlovic", il
suo
nervosismo risale alle polemiche sullo striscione su Arkan e non è nuovo
a
questi gesti eccessivi ma dovuti, mi sembra, al fatto che è uno di
quelli
che, pur essendo nato in Croazia a Vukovar, tiene di più alla Jugoslavia
come nazione unita.
Il fatto è che, seppur reale, questo "attacco" alla Jugoslavia è del
tutto
secondario di fronte ad altri che si stanno verificando in questo
momento.
Mi riferisco al silenzio su ciò che sta avvenendo nel Protettorato
dell'(UC)Kosovo ed al sostegno (anche da parte del "Movimento" in
Italia, VO
ne sa qualcosa...) alle formazione filo-occidente (da cui troppo spesso
sono
finanziate) in Jugoslavia...
Saluti antimperialisti (e laziali)
---
>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:39:01 +0200
> Subject:
> [LISEZ-MOI CA !] Les Emirats europé ens du Football
> From:
> "Atelier" <agedhomme@...> | Block addres
> SUJET:
>
> Quand l'OTAN joue au football.
>
> RESUME
>
> Au cours du premier tour du championnat d'Europe, l'équipe de
> Yougoslavie a
> fini tous ses matches à 10 joueurs, victime d'un arbitrage
> particulièrement
> sévère, alors qu'elle n'est pas plus brutale qu'une autre. Le
> Yougoslavie-Espagne (3:4) du 21 juin a été un monument de partialité
> arbitrale. Consigne politique ou préjugé culturel?
>
> LE TEXTE
>
> L'OTAN n'est pas seulement une alliance militaire. C'est un club, au
> sens
> britannique du mot: une société de gens nantis, dotés d'une même
> éducation
> et liés par des loisirs et des intérêts communs. Quelquefois ce club se
> ligue en milice pour protéger ou étendre ces intérêts. Le reste du
> temps, il
> se construit une "maison commune" où les loisirs et les sports sont, à
> défaut d'autre chose, un important facteur de cohésion.
>
> L'Euro 2000 de football a lieu dans une contrée aux joues roses, le
> Benelux..
> Au siège même de l'Union européenne et de l'OTAN. Or, lorsque l'OTAN
> organise un tournoi de football, il ne laisse rien au hasard. S'il
> admet, en
> principe, toutes les équipes issues des éliminatoires, ses médias se
> chargent de faire la part des "favoris" et des "parias".
>
> Les "favoris" ne sont pas nécessairement les meilleures nations du
> moment.
> Mais ce sont celles qui devraient "naturellement" se qualifier pour les
> phases avancées du tournoi. Elles ont un jeu élaboré, une stratégie, une
>
> discipline de groupe, une volonté. Elles ont des traditions, une
> légende.
> Elles font toutes partie de l'UE.
>
> Les "parias" ne sont pas, non plus, des nations de moindre valeur
> sportive.
> Leur handicap est socio-économique: avec leur niveau de vie inférieur,
> elles
> servent de vivier pour la pêche aux talents des grandes équipes
> ouest-européennes. Lesquelles y "achètent" des gosses de 16 ans, les
> forment
> et les gardent ou les revendent selon les cas. Les "parias" sont pour la
>
> plupart slaves et/ou orthodoxes. Ils ont tous, selon les journalistes,
> "une
> technique époustouflante", de "grandes valeurs individuelles", mais
> également un "moral fragile" et un "manque de cohésion". Le handicap
> économique se mue discrètement en une tare culturelle.
>
> Le solide jeu collectif de la Roumanie, de la Slovénie et de la
> Yougoslavie
> a fait litière de ce préjugé. De même que, a contrario, les débâcles
> collectives de l'Angleterre, de l'Allemagne, du Danemark et de la
> Belgique,
> la pauvreté de la Norvège, la stérilité de la Suède. Du premier tour de
> l'Euro 2000, l'OTAN sort honteux et laminé. Malgré cela, les succès
> réguliers des "parias" devant des équipes occidentales nécrosées par
> l'argent et le mercenariat étranger continuent d'être accueillis en
> divines
> surprises. Pour les titres, on ne parie pas sur les parias.
>
> Enfin, que ces derniers fassent le spectacle, passe encore. Mais qu'ils
> arbitrent le jeu des vedettes, pas question. Benelucky s'est choisi des
> arbitres uniquement dans son proche voisinage, rien au-delà de Vienne.
> Non
> qu'il ait des préjugés, mais, vous comprenez, avec "ces gens-là" si
> corruptibles, si chauvins...
>
> (C'est le même raisonnement qu'a suivi le "Tribunal pénal international"
>
> sponsorisé à La Haye par l'OTAN et les pétrodollars: ses magistrats
> peuvent
> venir de Chine ou de Malaisie ‹ démocraties réputées pour leur respect
> du
> droit ‹ mais certainement pas de Russie ou de Roumanie. Ses procureurs
> ne
> peuvent être qu'anglo-saxons ou, depuis peu, suisses, ce qui est
> actuellement un bon gage de servilité.)
>
> *
>
> Or, dans cet Euro 2000, il y a encore plus paria que les parias :
> l'équipe
> de Yougoslavie. Une équipe composée de Serbes et d'un Hongrois. Nous
> n'avons
> jamais entendu aucun journaliste occidental préciser ce détail. Le Serbe
> qui
> joue au football est un Yougoslave. Le Yougoslave qui fait la guerre est
> un
> Serbe. Entre ces deux disciplines pourtant apparentées, le même peuple
> change systématiquement d'appellation.
>
> Quoi qu'il en soit, cette Serboslavie a déboulé dans un cercle de 16
> nations
> dont presque toutes font partie de la coalition militaire qui l'a
> agressée
> au printemps 1999. Même celles qui n'en étaient pas (Slovénie, Tchéquie,
>
> Roumanie) ont demandé à en être. Leurs gouvernements, du moins.
>
> Or les Serbes sont impossibles. En pleine guerre civile doublée
> d'embargo,
> ils se sont arrangés pour être champions d'Europe et du monde de
> basketball..
> Ils n'ont cédé l'or olympique aux Américains, chez eux, qu'au terme d'un
>
> match éprouvant où la "Dream Team" avait pété les plombs. Quel pied de
> nez!
> Quel atout politique pour le régime de Belgrade! Or le basket n'est
> qu'un
> passe-temps d'initiés en comparaison du football.
>
> Ayant cela en vue, on comprend mieux le drame des dirigeants
> occidentaux.
> Ils n'ont pas pu, une troisième fois, bannir la Yougoslavie de l'Euro
> pour
> raisons politiques. Mais il leur serait aussi impossible (à Dieu ne
> plaise!)
> de remettre la coupe à un Dragan Stojkovic qu'il était impossible à
> Hitler
> de serrer la main de Jesse Owens aux JO de Munich. Or cette équipe est
> trop
> bonne pour qu'on puisse se fier à une élimination spontanée. Quelles
> solutions reste-t-il? L'exclusion administrative? Mais leurs supporters,
> à
> la différence de ceux des "favoris", ne sont pas des hooligans. Les
> arbitres? Ils sont des nôtres. Va pour les arbitres.
>
> Cela ne signifie pas que les arbitres qui ont contraint la Yougoslavie,
> et
> elle seule, à finir tous ses matches en infériorité numérique, qui lui
> ont
> collé du rouge là où, à d'autres, ils auraient donné du jaune, et du
> jaune
> là où ils n'auraient même pas levé le sifflet, qui ont sapé le rythme
> et le
> moral d'une équipe notoirement subtile et correcte en relevant la
> moindre de
> ses irrégularités, étaient soudoyés ou drillés politiquement. Cela
> signifie
> que le matraquage médiatique qui se poursuit depuis dix ans contre cette
>
> nation les pousse à voir dans toute faute serbe la preuve d'une nature
> impénitente qui ne trouve son salut que dans le châtiment, alors que
> chez
> les "civilisés", le même geste n'est qu'une maladresse qui n'entache en
> rien
> un fonds positif. L'iniquité apparente des hommes en noir (couleur des
> prédicateurs et des juges) n'est qu'une adaptation aux besoins intimes
> des
> patients: aux uns le bâton, aux autres la caresse. L'Européen moyen est
> pédagogue dans l'âme et théologien sans le savoir.
>
> Les Serbes ne sont pas les seuls cobayes de cette pédagogie. Les
> Roumains en
> ont tâté eux aussi dans leur rencontre avec l'Angleterre.
>
> Ajoutons aussi que les Serbes ont, avec l'Europe, un long contentieux
> d'arbitrage. Depuis l'intercession calamiteuse de la "commission
> Badinter"
> dans les affaires intérieures yougoslaves, qui avait récrit le droit
> international pour complaire à l'Allemagne et démembrer leur pays,
> depuis la
> création d'un tribunal ad hoc chargé de poursuivre leurs dirigeants élus
> à
> l'exclusion des autres méchants de la région, ils se méfient de
> l'impartialité occidentale. Ils ne se privent pas de le dire, et
> quelquefois
> vertement. Ce qui indigne le camp d'en face, amoureux de sa pureté, tout
> en
> inculquant aux intéressés un complexe de persécution non dénué de
> fondement..
>
> *
>
> Tout ceci pour en arriver à ce chef-d'oeuvre de tricherie arbitrale qu'a
> été
> le Yougoslavie-Espagne du 21 juin. L'Espagne devait gagner pour passer.
> Avec
> la victoire probable de la Norvège contre la Slovénie, la question serbe
>
> était réglée.
>
> Or l'Espagne était loin du compte. Elle n'a fait qu'égaliser, par deux
> fois,
> avant de se faire encore distancer. A l'issue du temps réglementaire,
> elle
> était éliminée. L'arbitre français, un M. Vestiaire, avait pourtant fait
>
> tout son possible, châtiant le Serbe autant qu'il excusait l'Ibère,
> expulsant enfin, comme il se doit, un défenseur yougo. Le commentateur
> de la
> Télévision suisse romande que nous écoutions murmurait de temps à autre
> que
> "M. Vestiaire est inconséquent dans ses décisions", ce qui pour un
> Suisse
> est le sommet de la contestation.
>
> Cause perdue? Voire. A la 87e minute, j'ai dit devant témoins: "vous
> allez
> voir, il va leur inventer un penalty". Et de fait: après avoir offert
> aux
> "favoris" la plus longue prolongation de cet Euro, M. Vestale
> récompensait
> une chute espagnole qu'il eût aussi bien pu sanctionner pour simulation.
> "Un
> penalty pour le moins généreux", commenta le sceptique de la TSR, mais
> c'était 3 à 3. Puis un beau tir d'Alfonso, devant une défense serbe
> médusée
> par tant d'acharnement, qualifiait l'Espagne. C'était largement APRES la
> fin
> de la prolongation.
>
> Le scénario était parfait. Mais on avait oublié une chose. On avait omis
>
> d'expliquer aux Norvégiens comment se défaire de la Slovénie. M.
> Vestiaire
> n'avait réussi à éliminer que... la Norvège! Les Nordiques, ulcérés, ont
>
> d'ailleurs annoncé en conférence de presse qu'ils déposeraient protêt
> contre
> l'arbitrage du Yougoslavie-Espagne.
>
> Conclusion de cet imbroglio minable: La Yougoslavie va affronter la
> Hollande, pays organisateur et favori des "favoris", chez elle à
> Rotterdam,
> samedi 24 juin à 18 heures. Il est exclu qu'elle puisse l'emporter.
> Faudra-t-il, comme à Munich en 72, mitrailler une équipe dans son
> vestiaire?
> Ou se contentera t'on de faire arbitrer la rencontre par un Européen
> moyen?
>
> *** SD ***
>
> LECTURE
>
> Vladimir Dimitrijevic: "Les Emirats européens du football" (à paraître,
> septembre 2000).
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
>
> OSEZ LIRE CE QUE NOUS OSONS EDITER !
>
> L'A G E D'H O M M E
> Editions-Diffusion-Librairies
>
> (CH) Rue de Genève 10, CP 32, 1000 Lausanne 9
> T 021 312 00 95 F 021 320 84 40
> agedhomme@...
> (F) 5, rue Férou, 75006 Paris
> T 01 55 42 79 79 F 01 40 51 71 02
> lagedhomme@...
> (YU) Knez Mihailova 40, 11000 Beograd
> T & F 011 186 247
>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* Scambio di opinioni sulla Jugoslavia agli Europei - e altro.
* Accanimento arbitrale?
---
Alla Redazione del "MANIFESTO" - Roma
c.a. Pippo Russo
Ho provato un profondo disgusto leggendo l’articolo "Conti aperti
tra
Slovenia e Jugoslavia" del 13 giugno u.s. di Pippo Russo, dedicato alla
partita dei Campionati Europei - che e' poi finita 3 a 3 dopo una
rocambolesca rimonta da parte jugoslava. Nell'articolo mancano tante
informazioni... "Ma Pippo, Pippo non lo sa..."? E’ dal 1992 che richiamo
e richiamiamo l’attenzione dei giornalisti sportivi perche' trattino le
problematiche vicende degli atleti e delle compagini jugoslave con una
maggiore obiettività ed aderenza alla realtà di quanto accade in quelle
terre.
Iniziava allora una campagna unilaterale, indiscriminata, contro
quelli che hanno scelto con dignità di essere, e rimanere, jugoslavi.
Già allora le rappresentative jugoslave venivano escluse dai giochi
olimpici di Barcellona, e pure alla squadra di calcio veniva impedito di
partecipare agli Europei... Se lo sport è un elemento unificante, al di
là
delle differenze "etniche", religiose, culturali, questo dovrebbe valere
a maggior ragione per la Jugoslavia. E non è soltanto retorica: l’hanno
dimostrato anche qui a Roma gli atleti jugoslavi durante il campionato
europeo di basket in quel fatidico anno 1991!
In quegli anni la nostra "civile comunita' internazionale"
incominciava a sfasciare la Jugoslavia e (all'uopo) demonizzava la parte
serba anche nelle cronache, e sui campi sportivi! Monika Seles finiva
accoltellata da un tedesco entrato in campo carico di odio antiserbo -
povero deficiente, non poteva nemmeno capire che la Seles e' di origine
ungherese della Vojvodina, dunque nemmeno "serba"... Ma si sa, ormai:
piu' sei "jugoslavo", in senso multinazionale, e piu' vieni demonizzato
in quanto "serbo", perche' minacci alle fondamenta l'equazione che la
Jugoslavia va sfasciata a tutti i costi...
Pippo Russo dimostra di non conoscere la storia recente quando si
riferisce al "regime di Milosevic" parlando della Zagabria del 1990,
quando Milosevic era solamente Presidente della Repubblica di Serbia. Ed
ora: quale partita dei "conti aperti" tra Jugoslavia e Slovenia??!! Si è
forse chiesto l’articolista chi sono i vari Amir, Zahovic, se non
musulmano-bosniaci che giocano per la Slovenia insieme ad altri serbi e
montenegrini?... Mentre Mateja Kezman, tipico nome e cognome sloveno,
gioca nella squadra avversaria!!!
A me, Jugoslavia-Slovenia è sembrata più che altro una partita tra
"Jugoslavia squadra A" e "Jugoslavia squadra B".
Leggo dall'articolo: "...del suo ritiro parlano di un ambiente
spartano per necessità economiche." Lo slogan separatista della Slovenia
era: "Meglio ultimi in Europa che primi in Jugoslavia"... E la
Jugoslavia in che situazione si trova?! Peccato, perché i "compagni" del
Manifesto hanno perso ancora un’altra occasione per condannare
l’isolamento, le sanzioni e la continua aggressione contro la
Jugoslavia.
Quando si parla del "famoso [?!] calcio vibrato dal croato Boban allo
stomaco di un poliziotto serbo" si vuole forse giustificare per
l’opinione pubblica italiana un atto puramente teppistico per ragioni
"politiche", perché il poliziotto è serbo, cattivo, e perciò se lo è
meritato? Altrimenti a che pro specificare l’etnia di appartenenza? Non
ho mai sentito giustificare un’aggressione tipicamente vandalica contro
persone del servizio d’ordine in quanto sardi, abruzzesi o altro...
Ma in fondo e' vero: quel poverino di Boban ha dovuto "dormire fuori
casa nelle due notti successive". E dov’era Boban quando nella sua
Zagabria, in quello stesso anno, l’inno della squadra nazionale
jugoslava
era sonoramente fischiato alla partita per le qualificazioni agli
Europei? Guarda caso, questo sfegatato nazionalista, estremista e
acclamata stella del Milan, ha contribuito alla campagna elettorale per
il suo Tudjman.
Guardiamo ancora un po' all'indietro: alla Expo di Siviglia nel
1992, durante le Olimpiadi, alcuni giocatori della squadra croata di
basket capeggiati da Vrankovic distrussero le vetrine del padiglione del
turismo jugoslavo. E come la mettiamo con i gravi disordini che
avvengono ora regolarmente tra le tifoserie di Spalato e di Zagabria,
nella Croazia "indipendente"?
Anche ai Mondiali di Parigi nel 1998 il clima era pesantemente
antijugoslavo, e in certi ben noti ambienti girò la proposta di
estromettere la formazione jugoslava - proposta reiterata anche in
questi ultimi Europei da parte albanese e belga. Ma allora ci
furono persino intimidazioni ed atti terroristici, come un pacco-bomba
recapitato a casa di una famiglia di immigrati serbi in Francia.
Infine, per sua conoscenza - a meno che non voglia rimanere nella
ignoranza e prendere fischi per fiaschi: Sinisa Mihajlovic è nato a
Vukovar, di padre serbo e madre croata, che sono dovuti scappare
entrambi in Serbia a causa della pulizia etnica e dei crimini commessi
dai nazionalisti ustascia con a capo un tizio che adesso siede nel
parlamento croato, un "certo" Mercep... Fatti sui quali le allego un po’
di documentazione.
Resti nel dubbio, caro giornalista... Con quali parole potrei
salutarla?
Ivan P. Istrijan, luglio 2000
(il mio cognome rivela le mie origini natali)
---
FUORI TEMA, MA NON TROPPO
> Cari compagni,
> mi arriva questo mail nel quale si sostiene che la Jugoslavia agli
> europei sarebbe stata vittima di accanimento arbitrale. Francamente, mi
> sembra che la Jugoslavia abbia avuto anche sfiga, pero' secondo me quel
> laziale di Mihajlovic l'espulsione se l'e' pure meritata...
>
> Saluti internazionalisti e romanisti :-)
>
Non è per fare il laziale quale sono, e orgoglioso di esserlo, ma per
lavoro
(in questo momento lavoro come operatore internet in una redazione
sportiva)
sto seguendo gli europei di calcio.
Bè mi sembra proprio che la proposta di varie federazioni sportive, tra
cui
i belgi padroni di casa, di escludere la nazionale jugoslava, seppure si
sia
qualificata regolarmente (e ai danni della Croazia pergiunta!), non
abbia
fatto iniziare questa competizione con un clima disteso intorno agli
uomini
di Boskov. Una espulsione a partita mi sembra francamente troppo anche
per
una nazionale sicuramente "grintosa", non più di quella italiana però,
come
quella jugoslava. E poi una (Kezman) dopo quattro secondi dall'ingresso
del
giocatore ed al suo primo intervento...mah!
Per quanto riguarda "quel laziale (e scudettato, nda) di Mihajlovic", il
suo
nervosismo risale alle polemiche sullo striscione su Arkan e non è nuovo
a
questi gesti eccessivi ma dovuti, mi sembra, al fatto che è uno di
quelli
che, pur essendo nato in Croazia a Vukovar, tiene di più alla Jugoslavia
come nazione unita.
Il fatto è che, seppur reale, questo "attacco" alla Jugoslavia è del
tutto
secondario di fronte ad altri che si stanno verificando in questo
momento.
Mi riferisco al silenzio su ciò che sta avvenendo nel Protettorato
dell'(UC)Kosovo ed al sostegno (anche da parte del "Movimento" in
Italia, VO
ne sa qualcosa...) alle formazione filo-occidente (da cui troppo spesso
sono
finanziate) in Jugoslavia...
Saluti antimperialisti (e laziali)
---
>
> Date:
> Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:39:01 +0200
> Subject:
> [LISEZ-MOI CA !] Les Emirats europé ens du Football
> From:
> "Atelier" <agedhomme@...> | Block addres
> SUJET:
>
> Quand l'OTAN joue au football.
>
> RESUME
>
> Au cours du premier tour du championnat d'Europe, l'équipe de
> Yougoslavie a
> fini tous ses matches à 10 joueurs, victime d'un arbitrage
> particulièrement
> sévère, alors qu'elle n'est pas plus brutale qu'une autre. Le
> Yougoslavie-Espagne (3:4) du 21 juin a été un monument de partialité
> arbitrale. Consigne politique ou préjugé culturel?
>
> LE TEXTE
>
> L'OTAN n'est pas seulement une alliance militaire. C'est un club, au
> sens
> britannique du mot: une société de gens nantis, dotés d'une même
> éducation
> et liés par des loisirs et des intérêts communs. Quelquefois ce club se
> ligue en milice pour protéger ou étendre ces intérêts. Le reste du
> temps, il
> se construit une "maison commune" où les loisirs et les sports sont, à
> défaut d'autre chose, un important facteur de cohésion.
>
> L'Euro 2000 de football a lieu dans une contrée aux joues roses, le
> Benelux..
> Au siège même de l'Union européenne et de l'OTAN. Or, lorsque l'OTAN
> organise un tournoi de football, il ne laisse rien au hasard. S'il
> admet, en
> principe, toutes les équipes issues des éliminatoires, ses médias se
> chargent de faire la part des "favoris" et des "parias".
>
> Les "favoris" ne sont pas nécessairement les meilleures nations du
> moment.
> Mais ce sont celles qui devraient "naturellement" se qualifier pour les
> phases avancées du tournoi. Elles ont un jeu élaboré, une stratégie, une
>
> discipline de groupe, une volonté. Elles ont des traditions, une
> légende.
> Elles font toutes partie de l'UE.
>
> Les "parias" ne sont pas, non plus, des nations de moindre valeur
> sportive.
> Leur handicap est socio-économique: avec leur niveau de vie inférieur,
> elles
> servent de vivier pour la pêche aux talents des grandes équipes
> ouest-européennes. Lesquelles y "achètent" des gosses de 16 ans, les
> forment
> et les gardent ou les revendent selon les cas. Les "parias" sont pour la
>
> plupart slaves et/ou orthodoxes. Ils ont tous, selon les journalistes,
> "une
> technique époustouflante", de "grandes valeurs individuelles", mais
> également un "moral fragile" et un "manque de cohésion". Le handicap
> économique se mue discrètement en une tare culturelle.
>
> Le solide jeu collectif de la Roumanie, de la Slovénie et de la
> Yougoslavie
> a fait litière de ce préjugé. De même que, a contrario, les débâcles
> collectives de l'Angleterre, de l'Allemagne, du Danemark et de la
> Belgique,
> la pauvreté de la Norvège, la stérilité de la Suède. Du premier tour de
> l'Euro 2000, l'OTAN sort honteux et laminé. Malgré cela, les succès
> réguliers des "parias" devant des équipes occidentales nécrosées par
> l'argent et le mercenariat étranger continuent d'être accueillis en
> divines
> surprises. Pour les titres, on ne parie pas sur les parias.
>
> Enfin, que ces derniers fassent le spectacle, passe encore. Mais qu'ils
> arbitrent le jeu des vedettes, pas question. Benelucky s'est choisi des
> arbitres uniquement dans son proche voisinage, rien au-delà de Vienne.
> Non
> qu'il ait des préjugés, mais, vous comprenez, avec "ces gens-là" si
> corruptibles, si chauvins...
>
> (C'est le même raisonnement qu'a suivi le "Tribunal pénal international"
>
> sponsorisé à La Haye par l'OTAN et les pétrodollars: ses magistrats
> peuvent
> venir de Chine ou de Malaisie ‹ démocraties réputées pour leur respect
> du
> droit ‹ mais certainement pas de Russie ou de Roumanie. Ses procureurs
> ne
> peuvent être qu'anglo-saxons ou, depuis peu, suisses, ce qui est
> actuellement un bon gage de servilité.)
>
> *
>
> Or, dans cet Euro 2000, il y a encore plus paria que les parias :
> l'équipe
> de Yougoslavie. Une équipe composée de Serbes et d'un Hongrois. Nous
> n'avons
> jamais entendu aucun journaliste occidental préciser ce détail. Le Serbe
> qui
> joue au football est un Yougoslave. Le Yougoslave qui fait la guerre est
> un
> Serbe. Entre ces deux disciplines pourtant apparentées, le même peuple
> change systématiquement d'appellation.
>
> Quoi qu'il en soit, cette Serboslavie a déboulé dans un cercle de 16
> nations
> dont presque toutes font partie de la coalition militaire qui l'a
> agressée
> au printemps 1999. Même celles qui n'en étaient pas (Slovénie, Tchéquie,
>
> Roumanie) ont demandé à en être. Leurs gouvernements, du moins.
>
> Or les Serbes sont impossibles. En pleine guerre civile doublée
> d'embargo,
> ils se sont arrangés pour être champions d'Europe et du monde de
> basketball..
> Ils n'ont cédé l'or olympique aux Américains, chez eux, qu'au terme d'un
>
> match éprouvant où la "Dream Team" avait pété les plombs. Quel pied de
> nez!
> Quel atout politique pour le régime de Belgrade! Or le basket n'est
> qu'un
> passe-temps d'initiés en comparaison du football.
>
> Ayant cela en vue, on comprend mieux le drame des dirigeants
> occidentaux.
> Ils n'ont pas pu, une troisième fois, bannir la Yougoslavie de l'Euro
> pour
> raisons politiques. Mais il leur serait aussi impossible (à Dieu ne
> plaise!)
> de remettre la coupe à un Dragan Stojkovic qu'il était impossible à
> Hitler
> de serrer la main de Jesse Owens aux JO de Munich. Or cette équipe est
> trop
> bonne pour qu'on puisse se fier à une élimination spontanée. Quelles
> solutions reste-t-il? L'exclusion administrative? Mais leurs supporters,
> à
> la différence de ceux des "favoris", ne sont pas des hooligans. Les
> arbitres? Ils sont des nôtres. Va pour les arbitres.
>
> Cela ne signifie pas que les arbitres qui ont contraint la Yougoslavie,
> et
> elle seule, à finir tous ses matches en infériorité numérique, qui lui
> ont
> collé du rouge là où, à d'autres, ils auraient donné du jaune, et du
> jaune
> là où ils n'auraient même pas levé le sifflet, qui ont sapé le rythme
> et le
> moral d'une équipe notoirement subtile et correcte en relevant la
> moindre de
> ses irrégularités, étaient soudoyés ou drillés politiquement. Cela
> signifie
> que le matraquage médiatique qui se poursuit depuis dix ans contre cette
>
> nation les pousse à voir dans toute faute serbe la preuve d'une nature
> impénitente qui ne trouve son salut que dans le châtiment, alors que
> chez
> les "civilisés", le même geste n'est qu'une maladresse qui n'entache en
> rien
> un fonds positif. L'iniquité apparente des hommes en noir (couleur des
> prédicateurs et des juges) n'est qu'une adaptation aux besoins intimes
> des
> patients: aux uns le bâton, aux autres la caresse. L'Européen moyen est
> pédagogue dans l'âme et théologien sans le savoir.
>
> Les Serbes ne sont pas les seuls cobayes de cette pédagogie. Les
> Roumains en
> ont tâté eux aussi dans leur rencontre avec l'Angleterre.
>
> Ajoutons aussi que les Serbes ont, avec l'Europe, un long contentieux
> d'arbitrage. Depuis l'intercession calamiteuse de la "commission
> Badinter"
> dans les affaires intérieures yougoslaves, qui avait récrit le droit
> international pour complaire à l'Allemagne et démembrer leur pays,
> depuis la
> création d'un tribunal ad hoc chargé de poursuivre leurs dirigeants élus
> à
> l'exclusion des autres méchants de la région, ils se méfient de
> l'impartialité occidentale. Ils ne se privent pas de le dire, et
> quelquefois
> vertement. Ce qui indigne le camp d'en face, amoureux de sa pureté, tout
> en
> inculquant aux intéressés un complexe de persécution non dénué de
> fondement..
>
> *
>
> Tout ceci pour en arriver à ce chef-d'oeuvre de tricherie arbitrale qu'a
> été
> le Yougoslavie-Espagne du 21 juin. L'Espagne devait gagner pour passer.
> Avec
> la victoire probable de la Norvège contre la Slovénie, la question serbe
>
> était réglée.
>
> Or l'Espagne était loin du compte. Elle n'a fait qu'égaliser, par deux
> fois,
> avant de se faire encore distancer. A l'issue du temps réglementaire,
> elle
> était éliminée. L'arbitre français, un M. Vestiaire, avait pourtant fait
>
> tout son possible, châtiant le Serbe autant qu'il excusait l'Ibère,
> expulsant enfin, comme il se doit, un défenseur yougo. Le commentateur
> de la
> Télévision suisse romande que nous écoutions murmurait de temps à autre
> que
> "M. Vestiaire est inconséquent dans ses décisions", ce qui pour un
> Suisse
> est le sommet de la contestation.
>
> Cause perdue? Voire. A la 87e minute, j'ai dit devant témoins: "vous
> allez
> voir, il va leur inventer un penalty". Et de fait: après avoir offert
> aux
> "favoris" la plus longue prolongation de cet Euro, M. Vestale
> récompensait
> une chute espagnole qu'il eût aussi bien pu sanctionner pour simulation.
> "Un
> penalty pour le moins généreux", commenta le sceptique de la TSR, mais
> c'était 3 à 3. Puis un beau tir d'Alfonso, devant une défense serbe
> médusée
> par tant d'acharnement, qualifiait l'Espagne. C'était largement APRES la
> fin
> de la prolongation.
>
> Le scénario était parfait. Mais on avait oublié une chose. On avait omis
>
> d'expliquer aux Norvégiens comment se défaire de la Slovénie. M.
> Vestiaire
> n'avait réussi à éliminer que... la Norvège! Les Nordiques, ulcérés, ont
>
> d'ailleurs annoncé en conférence de presse qu'ils déposeraient protêt
> contre
> l'arbitrage du Yougoslavie-Espagne.
>
> Conclusion de cet imbroglio minable: La Yougoslavie va affronter la
> Hollande, pays organisateur et favori des "favoris", chez elle à
> Rotterdam,
> samedi 24 juin à 18 heures. Il est exclu qu'elle puisse l'emporter.
> Faudra-t-il, comme à Munich en 72, mitrailler une équipe dans son
> vestiaire?
> Ou se contentera t'on de faire arbitrer la rencontre par un Européen
> moyen?
>
> *** SD ***
>
> LECTURE
>
> Vladimir Dimitrijevic: "Les Emirats européens du football" (à paraître,
> septembre 2000).
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
>
> OSEZ LIRE CE QUE NOUS OSONS EDITER !
>
> L'A G E D'H O M M E
> Editions-Diffusion-Librairies
>
> (CH) Rue de Genève 10, CP 32, 1000 Lausanne 9
> T 021 312 00 95 F 021 320 84 40
> agedhomme@...
> (F) 5, rue Férou, 75006 Paris
> T 01 55 42 79 79 F 01 40 51 71 02
> lagedhomme@...
> (YU) Knez Mihailova 40, 11000 Beograd
> T & F 011 186 247
>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
L'appello che segue, da noi gia' diffuso nella ricorrenza della
aggressione della NATO alla RF di Jugoslavia, sta raccogliendo un numero
sempre crescente di adesioni:
-
KOSOVO, NO ALL'OBLIO
L'APPELLO DI BRUXELLES
Nel corso della primavera del 1999, la città di Bruxelles, in quanto
sede della NATO, è stata il centro decisionale ed esecutivo dei
bombardamenti effettuati, nel nome del diritto umanitario, contro la
Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia da parte dei Paesi membri di questa
organizzazione.
Noi, membri attivi o in pensione dell'insegnamento del Diritto
Internazionale, crediamo che il primo anniversario di un evento così
grave non possa passare inosservato e debba, al contrario, suscitare in
ogni cittadino una seria riflessione commisurata alla sfida.
La guerra è stata preparata, decisa e condotta contro i principi
fondamentali del diritto internazionale.
L'azione della NATO seguì al fallimento delle negoziazioni di
Rambouillet. Ebbene, queste avevano comportato dei concreti passi avanti
in relazione agli aspetti politici del conflitto, prima che le
condizioni dell'ultimo minuto, del tutto inaccettabili per la parte
serba, ne precipitassero l'impasse. Ovvero la guerra.
L'attacco violò chiaramente la Carta delle Nazioni Unite, che autorizza
eccezionalmente il ricorso alla forza limitatamente al caso di legittima
difesa o in seguito a specifica autorizzazione del Consiglio di
Sicurezza. Premesse inesistenti in questo caso.
Infine, il modo in cui i bombardamenti sono stati condotti contraddice
le regole del diritto internazionale che disciplinano la condotta delle
ostilità. In via generale, la distruzione sistematica delle
infrastrutture economiche e dei mezzi di comunicazione, deliberatamente
destinata a prostrare la popolazione e a provocare il suo sollevamento,
sono incompatibili con i principi umanitari invocati per giustificarla.
In considerazione di quanto appena affermato, vorremmo manifestare con
chiarezza che la nostra condanna senza riserva dell'azione della NATO
non implica in alcun modo né adesione, né compiacenza, verso le autorità
di Belgrado ed, in particolar modo, verso la loro gestione della
questione etnica. Allo stesso modo, la nostra riprovazione, sempre
attuale, in merito alla condotta senza fondamenti legali dei
bombardamento dell'Iraq e dell'embargo contro questo Paese, non puo'
essere interpretato come un qualsivoglia vassallaggio verso il regime di
Baghdad.
La strategia della guerra, che ha devastato la Jugoslavia e ha reso
ingovernabile il Kosovo, ha prodotto più rifugiati e vittime di quanto
una qualsiasi altra combinazione di forza e diplomazia avrebbe
comportato. Essa va contestata, sia dal punto di vista politico, sia dal
punto di vista morale. Essa è stata del resto accompagnata da una
campagna mediatica volta a legittimare sistematicamente le operazioni in
corso.
Le disposizioni prese dopo la fine dei bombardamenti tendono a
subordinare l'aiuto internazionale ai risultati elettorali interni in
Jugoslavia ed a privilegiare l'aiuto in funzione delle opzioni politiche
prese dai suoi destinatari, fatto che costituisce un mezzo poco
onorevole d'intervento politico negli affari interni di un Paese terzo.
Quanto al Kosovo, esso è divenuto, sotto l'amministrazione creata dalle
forze della NATO, una regione praticamente monoetnica dove le minoranze
non albanesi, siano esse serbe, rom, slave, musulmane, ebraiche, turche
o croate, sono dovute fuggire per gli attentati o rifugiarsi in ghetti.
Vorremmo anche sottolineare il fatto che la guerra condotta in
Jugoslavia riveste un significato che va ben oltre la realtà di questo
Paese. In effetti, l'intervento della NATO in Kosovo, sotto la direzione
degli Stati Uniti d'America, s'iscrive in una serie di scelte operate
dall'unica superpotenza al mondo. Il gigantismo del suo budget militare;
la scelta di mantenere la NATO malgrado la dissoluzione del Patto di
Varsavia e la fine dell'URSS, e successivamente il suo allargamento ad
Est; il rifiuto di ratificare il Trattato d'Interdizione degli
Esperimenti Nucleari; lo sviluppo dei sistemi antimissile e la recente
rivelazione dell'esistenza di un sistema mondiale di ascolto delle
comunicazioni private e ufficiali, tali sono gli aspetti più salienti di
una politica decisa sempre più à Washington. Tutto questo lascia
presagire la nascita di un nuovo modello di esercizio del potere in
virtù del quale la sola legittimità risiederebbe nel possesso e
l'impiego dei mezzi di coercizione sempre più potenti.
Ecco perché invitiamo tutti coloro che condividono queste inquietudini e
che non vogliono più che le bombe siano l'alternativa alla legalità
internazionale, alla negoziazione, al dialogo democratico, a
sottoscrivere questo appello ed a farne, ovunque nel mondo, uno
strumento di resistenza morale di fronte al nuovo "ordine" universale
annunciato.
Primi firmatari:
Olivier CORTEN, professore presso il Centro di Diritto Internazionale,
Università Libera di Bruxelles (ULB); Eric DAVID, professore presso
l'ULB;
Barbara DELCOURT, membro dell'Istituto di Studi Europei, professore
presso
l'ULB; François HOUTART, professore emerito all'Università Cattolica di
Lovagno/Louvain (UCL); Pierre KLEIN, professore presso l'ULB, Paulette
PIERSON-MATHY, professore all'ULB, Yves ROGISTER, ricercatore presso il
CADOP, Università di Liegi, François RIGAUX, professore emerito all'UCL,
già
preside della Facoltà di Diritto, Jean SALMON, professore emerito
all'ULB.Eric SUY, professore emerito alla KUL, ex-vicesegretario
generale delle Nazioni Unite.
Le adesioni possono essere inviate agli indirizzi seguenti:
per mail: action-kosovo@...
per fax: 00.32 10 453152
-
KOSOVO, CONTRE L'OUBLI :
L'APPEL DE BRUXELLES
Au cours du printemps 1999, la ville de Bruxelles, en sa qualité de
siège de l'OTAN, était le centre de décision et d'exécution des
bombardements de la Yougoslavie par les pays membres de cette
organisation, au nom du droit humanitaire. Nous, membres actifs ou à la
retraite de l'enseignement du droit, nous croyons que le premier
anniversaire d'un événement aussi grave ne peut passer inaperçu et doit,
au contraire, susciter chez tout citoyen une sérieuse réflexion à la
mesure de l'enjeu.
La guerre a été préparée, décidée et menée à l'encontre des principes
les plus fondamentaux du droit international.
L'action de l'OTAN suivit l'échec des négociations de Rambouillet. Or,
ces dernières avaient enregistré des avancées sérieuses sur les dossiers
politiques du conflit, avant que des conditions de dernière minute, de
toute évidence inacceptables pour la partie serbe, ne précipitent
l'impasse. C'est à dire la guerre.
Son déclenchement violait à l'évidence la Charte des Nations Unies, qui
n'autorise exceptionnellement le recours à la force qu'en cas de
légitime défense ou d'autorisation du Conseil de sécurité. Prémisses
inexistantes dans ce cas.
Enfin, la manière dont les bombardements ont été menés contredit les
règles de droit international qui régissent la conduite des hostilités.
De manière générale, la destruction systématique de l'infrastructure
économique et des moyens de communication, délibérément destinée à
décourager la population et à provoquer son soulèvement, sont
incompatibles avec les principes humanitaires invoqués pour les
justifier.
Ceci dit, nous voudrions manifester avec clarté que notre condamnation
sans réserve de l'action de l'OTAN, n'implique nullement adhésion ni
complaisance envers les autorités de Belgrade et particulièrement envers
leur gestion de la question ethnique. De même, notre réprobation,
toujours actuelle, de la poursuite sans fondement légal des
bombardements de l'Irak et de l'embargo contre ce pays, ne peut être
interprétée comme une quelconque allégeance envers le régime de Bagdad.
La stratégie de guerre, qui a dévasté la Yougoslavie et rendu non-viable
le Kosovo, a produit plus de réfugiés et de victimes qu'en aurait causé
toute autre combinaison de pression politique et de diplomatie. Elle
mérite d'être contestée, tant du point de vue politique que du point de
vue moral. Elle fut par ailleurs accompagnée d'une campagne médiatique
visant à légitimer systématiquement l'agression en cours.
Les dispositions prises après la fin des bombardements tendent à
conditionner l'aide internationale aux résultats électoraux internes en
Yougoslavie et à privilégier l'aide en fonction des options politiques
prises par ses destinataires, ce qui constitue un moyen peu honorable
d'intervention politique dans les affaires internes d'un pays souverain.
Quant au Kosovo, il est devenu, sous l'administration créée suite à
l'agression de l'OTAN, une région quasiment mono-ethnique où les
minorités non albanaises, qu'elles soient serbe, rom, slave, musulmane,
juive, turque ou croate, ont dû fuir les attentats ou se réfugier dans
des ghettos.
Nous voudrions aussi souligner le fait que la guerre menée en
Yougoslavie revêt une signification qui dépasse de loin le cas de ce
pays. En effet, l'intervention de l'OTAN au Kosovo, sous la direction
des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, s'inscrit dans une série de choix opérés par
l'unique superpuissance du monde. Le gigantisme de son budget militaire;
le choix de maintenir l'OTAN malgré la dissolution du Traité de Varsovie
et la fin de l'URSS, puis de l'élargir à l'Est de l'Europe; le refus de
ratifier le Traité d'interdiction des essais nucléaires; le
développement des systèmes antimissiles et la récente révélation de
l'existence d'un système mondial d'écoute des communications privées et
officielles, tels sont les aspects les plus saillants d'un nouveau
modèle d'exercice du pouvoir dessiné à Washington et dont la seule
légitimité résiderait dans la possession et l'emploi d'outils de
coercition chaque fois plus performants.
Voilà pourquoi, nous invitons tous ceux qui partagent ces inquiétudes
et qui refusent que les bombes soient l'alternative à la légalité
internationale, à la négociation, au dialogue démocratique, à signer cet
appel et à faire de lui, partout dans le monde, un instrument de
résistance morale face au nouvel "ordre" planétaire qui s'annonce.
Premièrs signataires :
Olivier CORTEN, professeur au Centre de Droit International, Université
libre de Bruxelles (ULB); Eric DAVID, professeur à l'ULB; Barbara
DELCOURT, membre de l'Institut d'études européennes, professeur à l'ULB;
François HOUTART, professeur émérite à l'Université catholique de
Louvain (UCL); Pierre KLEIN, professeur à l'ULB, Paulette PIERSON-MATHY,
professeur à l'ULB, Yves ROGISTER, chargé de recherche auprès du CADOP,
université de Liège, François RIGAUX, professeur émérite à l'UCL, ancien
doyen de la Faculté de Droit, Jean SALMON, professeur émérite à l'ULB;
Eric SUY, professeur émérite à la KUL, ancien secrétaire général adjoint
des Nations Unies.
Les adhésions peuvent être envoyées aux adresses suivantes:
François Houtart, CETRI
5, Av. Sainte Gertrude
B- 1348 LOUVAIN LA NEUVE
par e-mail: action-kosovo@...
par fax : 010-45083152
Soutien financier: CETRI, N° de cpte 068-0602320-74; mention: l'Appel de
Bruxelles.
-
KOSOVO must not be forgotten:
BRUSSELS APPEAL
In the spring of 1999 Brussels, as the headquarters of NATO, was the
centre of decision and execution of the bombing of Yugoslavia by the 19
member nations of that organisation in the name of human rights. We,
active in or retired from the teaching of law, believe that the first
anniversary of such a serious event must not go unnoticed, but on the
contrary should induce every citizen to think seriously about the
enormous stakes.
The war was prepared, decided and prosecuted against the most
fundamental principles of international law.
NATO decided to take action after the Rambouillet talks broke down. And
yet these talks had made serious progress of the political issues before
last minute conditions, which were totally unacceptable to the Serbs,
led to an impasse. In other words, to war.
The outbreak of the war was a flagrant violation of the United Nations
Charter, which authorises the use of force only in exceptional cases of
legitimate self-defence or with the authorisation of the Security
Council. There were no such premises, in this case.
Finally, the way in which the bombing was carried out violates the rules
of international law which govern the conduct of hostilities. In
general, the systematic destruction of the economic infrastructure and
the means of communication, deliberately intended to discourage the
population and provoke an uprising, are incompatible with the
humanitarian principles invoked to justify them.
That said, our wishing to express our unequivocal and unreserved
condemnation of the action taken by NATO in no way implies any support
of or complacency towards the Belgrade authorities and in particular
their management of the ethnic question. Similarly, our sustained
reprobation of the continuation, without any legal grounds, of the
bombing of Iraq and the embargo imposed on this country, must not be
interpreted as any allegiance to the Baghdad regime.
The war strategy that devastated Yugoslavia and made Kosovo non-liveable
produced more refugees and victims than would have been caused by any
other combination of force and diplomacy. So it must be contested, both
from the political and the moral point of view. It was accompanied by a
media campaign to systematically legitimise the operations under way.
The arrangements made at the end of the bombing are intended to make
international aid contingent to the results of elections in Yugoslavia
and make aid contingent on the political options adopted by its
beneficiaries, which is not a very honourable means of political
interventions in the internal affairs of a third country. For its part,
under the UN administration created in Kosovo following the NATO
aggression, this region has become a virtually mono-ethnical one, where
non-Albanian minorities, be they Serbs, Gypsies, Slavs, Muslims, Jews,
Turks or Croats, had to flee from attacks or take refuge in ghettos.
We should also like to underscore the fact that the consequences of the
war waged in Yugoslavia extend far beyond the borders of this country.
More specifically, NATO's intervention in Kosovo, under the leadership
of the United States, is in line with a series of choices made by the
sole remaining superpower. Its gargantuan military budget; keeping NATO
in place, in spite of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the end of
the USSR, and even to enlarge it by including Eastern Europe; projecting
armed force on the world arena by treating international institutions
with disdain; refusing to ratify the nuclear test ban treat; developing
anti-missile systems and, as recently discovered, a world-wide system
for eavesdropping on private and official calls are the most salient
aspects of a new model for exercising power charted in Washington, based
solely on the possession and use of ever more sophisticated instruments
of coercion.
That is why we call on all those who share these concerns and no longer
wish to see bombs as the alternative to international law, negotiations,
and democratic dialogue, to sign this appeal and turn it, everywhere in
the world, into an instrument of moral resistance against the new world
"order" that is emerging.
First signatories,
Olivier Corten, Professor at the Centre for International Law, Free
University of Brussels (ULB); Eric David, Professor at the ULB; Barbara
Delcourt, member of the Institute of European Studies, Professor at the
ULB;
François Houtart, Professor Emeritus at the Catholic University of
Louvain
(UCL); Pierre Klein, Professor at the ULB; Paulette Pierson-Mathy,
Professor at the ULB; Yves Rogister, Researcher at the CADOP, University
of
Liège; François Rigaux, Professor Emeritus at the UCL, former Dean of
the
Faculty of Law; Jean Salmon, Professor Emeritus at the ULB ; Eric Suy,
Professor Emeritus at the KUL ; former assistant general secretary of
the United Nations."
If you want to adhere to the Appeal, please send your name to:
CETRI
5, Av. Sainte Gertrude
1348 Louvain La Neuve
BELGIUM
By e-mail: action-kosovo@...
or fax to 32.10.453152
Financial support: CETRI; Account no. 000-1306002-91; mention:
Brussels Appeal
-
> Liste d'adhésions par pays au 01.06.2000
>
>
> ALLEMAGNE
>
>
> Altvater, Elmar; prefesseur à l'Université de Berlin; président de la
> Fondation
> Lelio Basso.
> Roksandic Mirjana ; Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research ;
> Rostock
> Wilke, Joachim; philosophe
>
> AUTRICHE
>
> Blau, Paul; professeur à l'Université de Vienne
> Meissner, Freda; journaliste
>
>
> BELGIQUE
>
> Algoet Peter ; filosoof, socratiker, Gent
> André Edgar ; prof. hon. univ. Mons-Hainaut ; Havré
> Arnauts Laurent ; avocat
>
> Bàrdos-Féltoronyi Nicolas ; professeur UCL
> Bekaert Xavier ; Université Libre de Bruxelles
> Benda Wim ; KU Leuven
> Berghezan Georges ; journaliste, Bruxelles
> Biot, Paul ; directeur du Centre de Théâtre Action
> Bouckaert André ; professeur. UCL
> Bovy Yannick ; journaliste
> Bricmont Jean ; professeur de physique, UCL
> Carton Bruno ; chargé de recherches GRESEA
> Collon Michel ; écrivain; journaliste
> De Belder Bert ; coordinateur Médecine pour le tiers-monde
> De Brabander Ludo ; Mouvement pour la Paix "Vrede vzw"
> Decroly Vincent ; député Parti Ecolo
> Dermagne Jean-Marie ; avocat, chargé de recherche au SIRDE,
> Louvain-la-Neuve
> De Vos Pol ; Président Ligue anti-impérialiste
> De Wilde Yvon ; documentaliste , Bruxelles
> Dhont Riet ; Parti du travail de Belgique
> Doyen, Paul, enseignant, Bruxelles
> Dutry Guillemine ; Grez-Doiceau
>
> Franchoo Serge ; chercheur Université Catholique Leuven
> Franck Robert ; prof. Université Catholique de Louvain
>
> Galand Pierre ; Ancien Président d'OXFAM-Belgique; Président du
CNPPD;
> Président du Forum Nord-Sud
> Georlette, Rob ; pharmacien à Putte
>
> Kapper, Alain ; chercheur
> Kerckhofs J.P. ; porte-parole de l'Appel pour une école démocratique"
> Kontodimas Christos ; journaliste
>
> Martens Ludo ; président du Parti du travail de Belgique
> Merckx Kris ; Nationaal woordvoerder Partij van de Arbeid van België
> Moins, Jacques; ancien député par Bruxelles; avocat; journaliste
>
> Nerinckx Wim ; Univ. Gent
>
> Peeters Anne ; directrice GRESEA
> Pestiau Jean ; professeur de physique, UCL
> Piérart Pierre ; prof. honoraire Université Mons-Hainaut
> Pôlet Claudine ; Comité de surveillance OTAN, Bruxelles
> Poznanski Marcel ; Comité de surveillance OTAN, Bruxelles
>
> Romain Roger ; ex-conseiller communal PCB
> Rossa Rosso Nadine ; secrétaire générale du Parti du travail de
Belgique
>
> Soetewey Jan ; Christenen voor het Socialisme
> Spriet Georges ; Vrede vzw
>
> Van den Hove Didier ; Louvain-la-Neuve
> Valverde t.a., Hernán ; avocat au barreau de Bruxelles ; licencié en
> droit
> international
> Vandepitte Marc ; Deurne
> Vanhoutte Peter ; volksvertegenwoodiger (député) Agalev
> Vanoost, Lode ; AGALEV (parti écolo-flamand), vice-président de la
> chambre
> de répresentants
> Versluys Jan ; Destelbergen
> Watté Jeroen ; KU Leuven
>
>
> BOSNIE HERZEGOVINE
>
> Past Martin S. ; Peace Office Outpost Sarajevo
>
> BULGARIE
>
> Doncheva Blagovesta
>
>
> CANADA
>
> Baillargeon Normand ; prof. Univ. du Québec, Montréal
> Soucy Pascal ; Gaspé
> Wells Christopher ; Hunter River, P.E.I.
>
>
> COSTA RICA
>
> Wagner Ureta Eric
>
>
> DANEMARK
>
> Diwan Zohair ; lecturer, economist
> Tarp Sven ; Associated professor Aarhus School of Business
>
>
> ESPAGNE
>
> Pena Lorenzo ; maître de recherche au CSIC, Madrid
> Rademacher, Gerda
> de Trazegnies Granda, Leopoldo ; prof. F.P.O. Sevilla
> Etxezarreta, Miren, Professeur d'économie appliqué; Université de
> Barcelona
>
>
> ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
>
> Chomsky Noam; Linguiste, écrivain, Professeur au Massachusets
Institut
> of
> Technology.
> d'Aymery Gilles ; Swans.com
> Dion Roland ; San Diego CA
> Feldman Alex ; Boston, MA
> Hey Nancy Alison ; Washington D.C.
> Johnstone, Diana ; journaliste
> Makara Petar ; IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown, NY
> Mitrovic-Minic Snezana ; Senior Software Engineer, Simon Fraser
> University,
> Burnaby, BC
> Progovac Ljiljana ; Associate Professor, Wayne State University,
> Detroit, MI
> Robertson Barton W. ; Torrance, CA
> Ward, Morehouse; Leading member of the Council on International and
> Public Affairs, New York
> Welsh Joe ; student, Ohio University
>
>
> FRANCE
>
> Albala, Nuri; Avocat à la Cour, Paris; membre de l'AIJD.
> Andréani Caroline ; comité "Halte à l'OTAN"
> Badiou, Alain; philosophe, dramaturge, professeur à l'École Normale
> Supérieur d'Ulm et à l'Université de Paris VII
> Ballin Bernard ; médecin ; Chazey-sur-Ain
> Belougne Dominique ; Université de Bordeaux II
> Bidard, Sophie ; site Internet Résistance, Paris
> Bourdieu Pierre ; sociologue, professeur au Collège de France
> Bullard Linda ; présidente Féd. int. des mouvements de l'agriculture
> biologique
> Debray, Régis ; écrivain
> Delorca, Frédéric; co-fondateur du site "Résistance", Paris
> Fonseca Jean-Marc
> Krivine Jean-Paul ; psychologue
> Labica Georges ; prof. émérite des Universités (F)
> Menexiadis Dimitri ; maître de conférences, Université Bretagne Sud,
> Lorient
> Miracle Sole, salvador ; chercheur CNRS, Marseille
> Pecker, Jean-Claude; Professeur honoraire d'Astrophysique théorique
au
> College de France.
> Pergnier Maurice ; Prof. émérite Univérsité Paris-Val de Marne
> Richier Jean-Paul ; medecin, Paris
> Van Muylder, Céline ; étudiante ;
> Weil, Roland; Avocat; Président de l'Association Internationale de
> Juristes
> Démocrates
>
>
> GRECE
>
> Axelos, Loukas ; écrivain
> Charamambidis, Michalist ; sociologue
> Damianakou, Maria ; écrivain
> Meletzis, Spyros ; photographe ; ancien résistant
> Kalomendou, Theophanie ; docteur en philosophie
>
>
> INDE
>
> Sharma, Jitendra; Senior Advocate at the Indias's Supreme Court;
> Secretary
> General, International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
>
>
> ISRAEL
>
> Budeiri Musa ; Bir Zeit Univ., Jérusalem
> Cohen Raya ;
> Eylon Debbie ; Jérusalem
> Matar Anat ; Tel Aviv Univ.
> Pelleg Sryck Tamar ; Human rights lawyer
> Weiss Ronit
> Wollin Amos ; journaliste, Tel Aviv
>
>
> ITALIE
>
> Amit Daniel ; Istituto "La Sapienza", Rome
> Gallo Domenico; juge, Rome
> Hambye Thomas ; chercheur au Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Rome
> La Valle, Ranieri; sénateur
> Marenco Franco ; ENEA, Roma
> Parisi Giorgio ; Université de Roma "La Sapienza"
> Tognoni, Gino; Sécretaire Général de la Fondation International Lelio
> Basso
>
>
> MEXIQUE
>
> Dvoeglazov Valeri ; Professeur, Mexico
> Lopez Castro Gabriel, Professeur, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico
> Lopez Laval Hilda ;
> Manko Vladimir S., Professeur, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico
>
>
> PALESTINE (territoires occupés)
>
> Budeiri Musa ; Bir Zeit Univ. , Jérusalem
>
>
> PAYS - BAS
>
> Dekker Nico ; Université libre d'Amsterdam
> de Tollenaere Herman ; écrivain historien, Leiden
> van Asseldonk Chris, Ton ; La Haye
>
> PHILIPPINES
>
> Mariano Rafael ; chairperson, BAYAN Philippines (New Patriotic
Alliance)
>
> Pagaduan-Araullo Carolina ; executive director, Philippine Peace
Center
>
>
> ROYAUME - UNI
>
> Browne Chedmond ; African history lecturer, Montserrat
> Hall Duncan ; chercheur
> Jayan, Nayar; professor at the School of Law; University of Warwick
> Liebling, Helen; psychologue, University of Warwick
> McGettigan Andrew ; social housing worker
> Paliwala, Abdul; professeur at the School of Law; University of
Warwick
> Rangwalla, Glenn; Political Sciences professor Cambridge University
> White Jonathan ; Research student
>
>
> RUSSIE
>
> Lukin Alexander; fondateur du Comité pour la Paix en Yougoslavie,
>
>
> SRI LANKA
>
> Bala, Tampoe; secrétaire général de la Ceylan Mercantil Industrie,
Sir
> Lanka
>
>
> SUISSE
>
> Sanz Markus ; membre fondateur du Comité pour la Paix en Yougoslavie,
> professeur au collège de Genève (CH) (050400)
> Weber, Franz; écologiste; président de la Fondation "Weber"
>
>
> VENEZUELA
>
> Pardo Adolfo ; dirigeant syndical, Caracas
>
>
> YOUGOSLAVIE
>
> Grubacic Andrej ; co-fondateur du site Résistance, Belgrade.
> Vidanovic Djordje ; Prof. Univ. Nis
>
>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
aggressione della NATO alla RF di Jugoslavia, sta raccogliendo un numero
sempre crescente di adesioni:
-
KOSOVO, NO ALL'OBLIO
L'APPELLO DI BRUXELLES
Nel corso della primavera del 1999, la città di Bruxelles, in quanto
sede della NATO, è stata il centro decisionale ed esecutivo dei
bombardamenti effettuati, nel nome del diritto umanitario, contro la
Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia da parte dei Paesi membri di questa
organizzazione.
Noi, membri attivi o in pensione dell'insegnamento del Diritto
Internazionale, crediamo che il primo anniversario di un evento così
grave non possa passare inosservato e debba, al contrario, suscitare in
ogni cittadino una seria riflessione commisurata alla sfida.
La guerra è stata preparata, decisa e condotta contro i principi
fondamentali del diritto internazionale.
L'azione della NATO seguì al fallimento delle negoziazioni di
Rambouillet. Ebbene, queste avevano comportato dei concreti passi avanti
in relazione agli aspetti politici del conflitto, prima che le
condizioni dell'ultimo minuto, del tutto inaccettabili per la parte
serba, ne precipitassero l'impasse. Ovvero la guerra.
L'attacco violò chiaramente la Carta delle Nazioni Unite, che autorizza
eccezionalmente il ricorso alla forza limitatamente al caso di legittima
difesa o in seguito a specifica autorizzazione del Consiglio di
Sicurezza. Premesse inesistenti in questo caso.
Infine, il modo in cui i bombardamenti sono stati condotti contraddice
le regole del diritto internazionale che disciplinano la condotta delle
ostilità. In via generale, la distruzione sistematica delle
infrastrutture economiche e dei mezzi di comunicazione, deliberatamente
destinata a prostrare la popolazione e a provocare il suo sollevamento,
sono incompatibili con i principi umanitari invocati per giustificarla.
In considerazione di quanto appena affermato, vorremmo manifestare con
chiarezza che la nostra condanna senza riserva dell'azione della NATO
non implica in alcun modo né adesione, né compiacenza, verso le autorità
di Belgrado ed, in particolar modo, verso la loro gestione della
questione etnica. Allo stesso modo, la nostra riprovazione, sempre
attuale, in merito alla condotta senza fondamenti legali dei
bombardamento dell'Iraq e dell'embargo contro questo Paese, non puo'
essere interpretato come un qualsivoglia vassallaggio verso il regime di
Baghdad.
La strategia della guerra, che ha devastato la Jugoslavia e ha reso
ingovernabile il Kosovo, ha prodotto più rifugiati e vittime di quanto
una qualsiasi altra combinazione di forza e diplomazia avrebbe
comportato. Essa va contestata, sia dal punto di vista politico, sia dal
punto di vista morale. Essa è stata del resto accompagnata da una
campagna mediatica volta a legittimare sistematicamente le operazioni in
corso.
Le disposizioni prese dopo la fine dei bombardamenti tendono a
subordinare l'aiuto internazionale ai risultati elettorali interni in
Jugoslavia ed a privilegiare l'aiuto in funzione delle opzioni politiche
prese dai suoi destinatari, fatto che costituisce un mezzo poco
onorevole d'intervento politico negli affari interni di un Paese terzo.
Quanto al Kosovo, esso è divenuto, sotto l'amministrazione creata dalle
forze della NATO, una regione praticamente monoetnica dove le minoranze
non albanesi, siano esse serbe, rom, slave, musulmane, ebraiche, turche
o croate, sono dovute fuggire per gli attentati o rifugiarsi in ghetti.
Vorremmo anche sottolineare il fatto che la guerra condotta in
Jugoslavia riveste un significato che va ben oltre la realtà di questo
Paese. In effetti, l'intervento della NATO in Kosovo, sotto la direzione
degli Stati Uniti d'America, s'iscrive in una serie di scelte operate
dall'unica superpotenza al mondo. Il gigantismo del suo budget militare;
la scelta di mantenere la NATO malgrado la dissoluzione del Patto di
Varsavia e la fine dell'URSS, e successivamente il suo allargamento ad
Est; il rifiuto di ratificare il Trattato d'Interdizione degli
Esperimenti Nucleari; lo sviluppo dei sistemi antimissile e la recente
rivelazione dell'esistenza di un sistema mondiale di ascolto delle
comunicazioni private e ufficiali, tali sono gli aspetti più salienti di
una politica decisa sempre più à Washington. Tutto questo lascia
presagire la nascita di un nuovo modello di esercizio del potere in
virtù del quale la sola legittimità risiederebbe nel possesso e
l'impiego dei mezzi di coercizione sempre più potenti.
Ecco perché invitiamo tutti coloro che condividono queste inquietudini e
che non vogliono più che le bombe siano l'alternativa alla legalità
internazionale, alla negoziazione, al dialogo democratico, a
sottoscrivere questo appello ed a farne, ovunque nel mondo, uno
strumento di resistenza morale di fronte al nuovo "ordine" universale
annunciato.
Primi firmatari:
Olivier CORTEN, professore presso il Centro di Diritto Internazionale,
Università Libera di Bruxelles (ULB); Eric DAVID, professore presso
l'ULB;
Barbara DELCOURT, membro dell'Istituto di Studi Europei, professore
presso
l'ULB; François HOUTART, professore emerito all'Università Cattolica di
Lovagno/Louvain (UCL); Pierre KLEIN, professore presso l'ULB, Paulette
PIERSON-MATHY, professore all'ULB, Yves ROGISTER, ricercatore presso il
CADOP, Università di Liegi, François RIGAUX, professore emerito all'UCL,
già
preside della Facoltà di Diritto, Jean SALMON, professore emerito
all'ULB.Eric SUY, professore emerito alla KUL, ex-vicesegretario
generale delle Nazioni Unite.
Le adesioni possono essere inviate agli indirizzi seguenti:
per mail: action-kosovo@...
per fax: 00.32 10 453152
-
KOSOVO, CONTRE L'OUBLI :
L'APPEL DE BRUXELLES
Au cours du printemps 1999, la ville de Bruxelles, en sa qualité de
siège de l'OTAN, était le centre de décision et d'exécution des
bombardements de la Yougoslavie par les pays membres de cette
organisation, au nom du droit humanitaire. Nous, membres actifs ou à la
retraite de l'enseignement du droit, nous croyons que le premier
anniversaire d'un événement aussi grave ne peut passer inaperçu et doit,
au contraire, susciter chez tout citoyen une sérieuse réflexion à la
mesure de l'enjeu.
La guerre a été préparée, décidée et menée à l'encontre des principes
les plus fondamentaux du droit international.
L'action de l'OTAN suivit l'échec des négociations de Rambouillet. Or,
ces dernières avaient enregistré des avancées sérieuses sur les dossiers
politiques du conflit, avant que des conditions de dernière minute, de
toute évidence inacceptables pour la partie serbe, ne précipitent
l'impasse. C'est à dire la guerre.
Son déclenchement violait à l'évidence la Charte des Nations Unies, qui
n'autorise exceptionnellement le recours à la force qu'en cas de
légitime défense ou d'autorisation du Conseil de sécurité. Prémisses
inexistantes dans ce cas.
Enfin, la manière dont les bombardements ont été menés contredit les
règles de droit international qui régissent la conduite des hostilités.
De manière générale, la destruction systématique de l'infrastructure
économique et des moyens de communication, délibérément destinée à
décourager la population et à provoquer son soulèvement, sont
incompatibles avec les principes humanitaires invoqués pour les
justifier.
Ceci dit, nous voudrions manifester avec clarté que notre condamnation
sans réserve de l'action de l'OTAN, n'implique nullement adhésion ni
complaisance envers les autorités de Belgrade et particulièrement envers
leur gestion de la question ethnique. De même, notre réprobation,
toujours actuelle, de la poursuite sans fondement légal des
bombardements de l'Irak et de l'embargo contre ce pays, ne peut être
interprétée comme une quelconque allégeance envers le régime de Bagdad.
La stratégie de guerre, qui a dévasté la Yougoslavie et rendu non-viable
le Kosovo, a produit plus de réfugiés et de victimes qu'en aurait causé
toute autre combinaison de pression politique et de diplomatie. Elle
mérite d'être contestée, tant du point de vue politique que du point de
vue moral. Elle fut par ailleurs accompagnée d'une campagne médiatique
visant à légitimer systématiquement l'agression en cours.
Les dispositions prises après la fin des bombardements tendent à
conditionner l'aide internationale aux résultats électoraux internes en
Yougoslavie et à privilégier l'aide en fonction des options politiques
prises par ses destinataires, ce qui constitue un moyen peu honorable
d'intervention politique dans les affaires internes d'un pays souverain.
Quant au Kosovo, il est devenu, sous l'administration créée suite à
l'agression de l'OTAN, une région quasiment mono-ethnique où les
minorités non albanaises, qu'elles soient serbe, rom, slave, musulmane,
juive, turque ou croate, ont dû fuir les attentats ou se réfugier dans
des ghettos.
Nous voudrions aussi souligner le fait que la guerre menée en
Yougoslavie revêt une signification qui dépasse de loin le cas de ce
pays. En effet, l'intervention de l'OTAN au Kosovo, sous la direction
des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, s'inscrit dans une série de choix opérés par
l'unique superpuissance du monde. Le gigantisme de son budget militaire;
le choix de maintenir l'OTAN malgré la dissolution du Traité de Varsovie
et la fin de l'URSS, puis de l'élargir à l'Est de l'Europe; le refus de
ratifier le Traité d'interdiction des essais nucléaires; le
développement des systèmes antimissiles et la récente révélation de
l'existence d'un système mondial d'écoute des communications privées et
officielles, tels sont les aspects les plus saillants d'un nouveau
modèle d'exercice du pouvoir dessiné à Washington et dont la seule
légitimité résiderait dans la possession et l'emploi d'outils de
coercition chaque fois plus performants.
Voilà pourquoi, nous invitons tous ceux qui partagent ces inquiétudes
et qui refusent que les bombes soient l'alternative à la légalité
internationale, à la négociation, au dialogue démocratique, à signer cet
appel et à faire de lui, partout dans le monde, un instrument de
résistance morale face au nouvel "ordre" planétaire qui s'annonce.
Premièrs signataires :
Olivier CORTEN, professeur au Centre de Droit International, Université
libre de Bruxelles (ULB); Eric DAVID, professeur à l'ULB; Barbara
DELCOURT, membre de l'Institut d'études européennes, professeur à l'ULB;
François HOUTART, professeur émérite à l'Université catholique de
Louvain (UCL); Pierre KLEIN, professeur à l'ULB, Paulette PIERSON-MATHY,
professeur à l'ULB, Yves ROGISTER, chargé de recherche auprès du CADOP,
université de Liège, François RIGAUX, professeur émérite à l'UCL, ancien
doyen de la Faculté de Droit, Jean SALMON, professeur émérite à l'ULB;
Eric SUY, professeur émérite à la KUL, ancien secrétaire général adjoint
des Nations Unies.
Les adhésions peuvent être envoyées aux adresses suivantes:
François Houtart, CETRI
5, Av. Sainte Gertrude
B- 1348 LOUVAIN LA NEUVE
par e-mail: action-kosovo@...
par fax : 010-45083152
Soutien financier: CETRI, N° de cpte 068-0602320-74; mention: l'Appel de
Bruxelles.
-
KOSOVO must not be forgotten:
BRUSSELS APPEAL
In the spring of 1999 Brussels, as the headquarters of NATO, was the
centre of decision and execution of the bombing of Yugoslavia by the 19
member nations of that organisation in the name of human rights. We,
active in or retired from the teaching of law, believe that the first
anniversary of such a serious event must not go unnoticed, but on the
contrary should induce every citizen to think seriously about the
enormous stakes.
The war was prepared, decided and prosecuted against the most
fundamental principles of international law.
NATO decided to take action after the Rambouillet talks broke down. And
yet these talks had made serious progress of the political issues before
last minute conditions, which were totally unacceptable to the Serbs,
led to an impasse. In other words, to war.
The outbreak of the war was a flagrant violation of the United Nations
Charter, which authorises the use of force only in exceptional cases of
legitimate self-defence or with the authorisation of the Security
Council. There were no such premises, in this case.
Finally, the way in which the bombing was carried out violates the rules
of international law which govern the conduct of hostilities. In
general, the systematic destruction of the economic infrastructure and
the means of communication, deliberately intended to discourage the
population and provoke an uprising, are incompatible with the
humanitarian principles invoked to justify them.
That said, our wishing to express our unequivocal and unreserved
condemnation of the action taken by NATO in no way implies any support
of or complacency towards the Belgrade authorities and in particular
their management of the ethnic question. Similarly, our sustained
reprobation of the continuation, without any legal grounds, of the
bombing of Iraq and the embargo imposed on this country, must not be
interpreted as any allegiance to the Baghdad regime.
The war strategy that devastated Yugoslavia and made Kosovo non-liveable
produced more refugees and victims than would have been caused by any
other combination of force and diplomacy. So it must be contested, both
from the political and the moral point of view. It was accompanied by a
media campaign to systematically legitimise the operations under way.
The arrangements made at the end of the bombing are intended to make
international aid contingent to the results of elections in Yugoslavia
and make aid contingent on the political options adopted by its
beneficiaries, which is not a very honourable means of political
interventions in the internal affairs of a third country. For its part,
under the UN administration created in Kosovo following the NATO
aggression, this region has become a virtually mono-ethnical one, where
non-Albanian minorities, be they Serbs, Gypsies, Slavs, Muslims, Jews,
Turks or Croats, had to flee from attacks or take refuge in ghettos.
We should also like to underscore the fact that the consequences of the
war waged in Yugoslavia extend far beyond the borders of this country.
More specifically, NATO's intervention in Kosovo, under the leadership
of the United States, is in line with a series of choices made by the
sole remaining superpower. Its gargantuan military budget; keeping NATO
in place, in spite of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the end of
the USSR, and even to enlarge it by including Eastern Europe; projecting
armed force on the world arena by treating international institutions
with disdain; refusing to ratify the nuclear test ban treat; developing
anti-missile systems and, as recently discovered, a world-wide system
for eavesdropping on private and official calls are the most salient
aspects of a new model for exercising power charted in Washington, based
solely on the possession and use of ever more sophisticated instruments
of coercion.
That is why we call on all those who share these concerns and no longer
wish to see bombs as the alternative to international law, negotiations,
and democratic dialogue, to sign this appeal and turn it, everywhere in
the world, into an instrument of moral resistance against the new world
"order" that is emerging.
First signatories,
Olivier Corten, Professor at the Centre for International Law, Free
University of Brussels (ULB); Eric David, Professor at the ULB; Barbara
Delcourt, member of the Institute of European Studies, Professor at the
ULB;
François Houtart, Professor Emeritus at the Catholic University of
Louvain
(UCL); Pierre Klein, Professor at the ULB; Paulette Pierson-Mathy,
Professor at the ULB; Yves Rogister, Researcher at the CADOP, University
of
Liège; François Rigaux, Professor Emeritus at the UCL, former Dean of
the
Faculty of Law; Jean Salmon, Professor Emeritus at the ULB ; Eric Suy,
Professor Emeritus at the KUL ; former assistant general secretary of
the United Nations."
If you want to adhere to the Appeal, please send your name to:
CETRI
5, Av. Sainte Gertrude
1348 Louvain La Neuve
BELGIUM
By e-mail: action-kosovo@...
or fax to 32.10.453152
Financial support: CETRI; Account no. 000-1306002-91; mention:
Brussels Appeal
-
> Liste d'adhésions par pays au 01.06.2000
>
>
> ALLEMAGNE
>
>
> Altvater, Elmar; prefesseur à l'Université de Berlin; président de la
> Fondation
> Lelio Basso.
> Roksandic Mirjana ; Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research ;
> Rostock
> Wilke, Joachim; philosophe
>
> AUTRICHE
>
> Blau, Paul; professeur à l'Université de Vienne
> Meissner, Freda; journaliste
>
>
> BELGIQUE
>
> Algoet Peter ; filosoof, socratiker, Gent
> André Edgar ; prof. hon. univ. Mons-Hainaut ; Havré
> Arnauts Laurent ; avocat
>
> Bàrdos-Féltoronyi Nicolas ; professeur UCL
> Bekaert Xavier ; Université Libre de Bruxelles
> Benda Wim ; KU Leuven
> Berghezan Georges ; journaliste, Bruxelles
> Biot, Paul ; directeur du Centre de Théâtre Action
> Bouckaert André ; professeur. UCL
> Bovy Yannick ; journaliste
> Bricmont Jean ; professeur de physique, UCL
> Carton Bruno ; chargé de recherches GRESEA
> Collon Michel ; écrivain; journaliste
> De Belder Bert ; coordinateur Médecine pour le tiers-monde
> De Brabander Ludo ; Mouvement pour la Paix "Vrede vzw"
> Decroly Vincent ; député Parti Ecolo
> Dermagne Jean-Marie ; avocat, chargé de recherche au SIRDE,
> Louvain-la-Neuve
> De Vos Pol ; Président Ligue anti-impérialiste
> De Wilde Yvon ; documentaliste , Bruxelles
> Dhont Riet ; Parti du travail de Belgique
> Doyen, Paul, enseignant, Bruxelles
> Dutry Guillemine ; Grez-Doiceau
>
> Franchoo Serge ; chercheur Université Catholique Leuven
> Franck Robert ; prof. Université Catholique de Louvain
>
> Galand Pierre ; Ancien Président d'OXFAM-Belgique; Président du
CNPPD;
> Président du Forum Nord-Sud
> Georlette, Rob ; pharmacien à Putte
>
> Kapper, Alain ; chercheur
> Kerckhofs J.P. ; porte-parole de l'Appel pour une école démocratique"
> Kontodimas Christos ; journaliste
>
> Martens Ludo ; président du Parti du travail de Belgique
> Merckx Kris ; Nationaal woordvoerder Partij van de Arbeid van België
> Moins, Jacques; ancien député par Bruxelles; avocat; journaliste
>
> Nerinckx Wim ; Univ. Gent
>
> Peeters Anne ; directrice GRESEA
> Pestiau Jean ; professeur de physique, UCL
> Piérart Pierre ; prof. honoraire Université Mons-Hainaut
> Pôlet Claudine ; Comité de surveillance OTAN, Bruxelles
> Poznanski Marcel ; Comité de surveillance OTAN, Bruxelles
>
> Romain Roger ; ex-conseiller communal PCB
> Rossa Rosso Nadine ; secrétaire générale du Parti du travail de
Belgique
>
> Soetewey Jan ; Christenen voor het Socialisme
> Spriet Georges ; Vrede vzw
>
> Van den Hove Didier ; Louvain-la-Neuve
> Valverde t.a., Hernán ; avocat au barreau de Bruxelles ; licencié en
> droit
> international
> Vandepitte Marc ; Deurne
> Vanhoutte Peter ; volksvertegenwoodiger (député) Agalev
> Vanoost, Lode ; AGALEV (parti écolo-flamand), vice-président de la
> chambre
> de répresentants
> Versluys Jan ; Destelbergen
> Watté Jeroen ; KU Leuven
>
>
> BOSNIE HERZEGOVINE
>
> Past Martin S. ; Peace Office Outpost Sarajevo
>
> BULGARIE
>
> Doncheva Blagovesta
>
>
> CANADA
>
> Baillargeon Normand ; prof. Univ. du Québec, Montréal
> Soucy Pascal ; Gaspé
> Wells Christopher ; Hunter River, P.E.I.
>
>
> COSTA RICA
>
> Wagner Ureta Eric
>
>
> DANEMARK
>
> Diwan Zohair ; lecturer, economist
> Tarp Sven ; Associated professor Aarhus School of Business
>
>
> ESPAGNE
>
> Pena Lorenzo ; maître de recherche au CSIC, Madrid
> Rademacher, Gerda
> de Trazegnies Granda, Leopoldo ; prof. F.P.O. Sevilla
> Etxezarreta, Miren, Professeur d'économie appliqué; Université de
> Barcelona
>
>
> ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
>
> Chomsky Noam; Linguiste, écrivain, Professeur au Massachusets
Institut
> of
> Technology.
> d'Aymery Gilles ; Swans.com
> Dion Roland ; San Diego CA
> Feldman Alex ; Boston, MA
> Hey Nancy Alison ; Washington D.C.
> Johnstone, Diana ; journaliste
> Makara Petar ; IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown, NY
> Mitrovic-Minic Snezana ; Senior Software Engineer, Simon Fraser
> University,
> Burnaby, BC
> Progovac Ljiljana ; Associate Professor, Wayne State University,
> Detroit, MI
> Robertson Barton W. ; Torrance, CA
> Ward, Morehouse; Leading member of the Council on International and
> Public Affairs, New York
> Welsh Joe ; student, Ohio University
>
>
> FRANCE
>
> Albala, Nuri; Avocat à la Cour, Paris; membre de l'AIJD.
> Andréani Caroline ; comité "Halte à l'OTAN"
> Badiou, Alain; philosophe, dramaturge, professeur à l'École Normale
> Supérieur d'Ulm et à l'Université de Paris VII
> Ballin Bernard ; médecin ; Chazey-sur-Ain
> Belougne Dominique ; Université de Bordeaux II
> Bidard, Sophie ; site Internet Résistance, Paris
> Bourdieu Pierre ; sociologue, professeur au Collège de France
> Bullard Linda ; présidente Féd. int. des mouvements de l'agriculture
> biologique
> Debray, Régis ; écrivain
> Delorca, Frédéric; co-fondateur du site "Résistance", Paris
> Fonseca Jean-Marc
> Krivine Jean-Paul ; psychologue
> Labica Georges ; prof. émérite des Universités (F)
> Menexiadis Dimitri ; maître de conférences, Université Bretagne Sud,
> Lorient
> Miracle Sole, salvador ; chercheur CNRS, Marseille
> Pecker, Jean-Claude; Professeur honoraire d'Astrophysique théorique
au
> College de France.
> Pergnier Maurice ; Prof. émérite Univérsité Paris-Val de Marne
> Richier Jean-Paul ; medecin, Paris
> Van Muylder, Céline ; étudiante ;
> Weil, Roland; Avocat; Président de l'Association Internationale de
> Juristes
> Démocrates
>
>
> GRECE
>
> Axelos, Loukas ; écrivain
> Charamambidis, Michalist ; sociologue
> Damianakou, Maria ; écrivain
> Meletzis, Spyros ; photographe ; ancien résistant
> Kalomendou, Theophanie ; docteur en philosophie
>
>
> INDE
>
> Sharma, Jitendra; Senior Advocate at the Indias's Supreme Court;
> Secretary
> General, International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
>
>
> ISRAEL
>
> Budeiri Musa ; Bir Zeit Univ., Jérusalem
> Cohen Raya ;
> Eylon Debbie ; Jérusalem
> Matar Anat ; Tel Aviv Univ.
> Pelleg Sryck Tamar ; Human rights lawyer
> Weiss Ronit
> Wollin Amos ; journaliste, Tel Aviv
>
>
> ITALIE
>
> Amit Daniel ; Istituto "La Sapienza", Rome
> Gallo Domenico; juge, Rome
> Hambye Thomas ; chercheur au Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Rome
> La Valle, Ranieri; sénateur
> Marenco Franco ; ENEA, Roma
> Parisi Giorgio ; Université de Roma "La Sapienza"
> Tognoni, Gino; Sécretaire Général de la Fondation International Lelio
> Basso
>
>
> MEXIQUE
>
> Dvoeglazov Valeri ; Professeur, Mexico
> Lopez Castro Gabriel, Professeur, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico
> Lopez Laval Hilda ;
> Manko Vladimir S., Professeur, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico
>
>
> PALESTINE (territoires occupés)
>
> Budeiri Musa ; Bir Zeit Univ. , Jérusalem
>
>
> PAYS - BAS
>
> Dekker Nico ; Université libre d'Amsterdam
> de Tollenaere Herman ; écrivain historien, Leiden
> van Asseldonk Chris, Ton ; La Haye
>
> PHILIPPINES
>
> Mariano Rafael ; chairperson, BAYAN Philippines (New Patriotic
Alliance)
>
> Pagaduan-Araullo Carolina ; executive director, Philippine Peace
Center
>
>
> ROYAUME - UNI
>
> Browne Chedmond ; African history lecturer, Montserrat
> Hall Duncan ; chercheur
> Jayan, Nayar; professor at the School of Law; University of Warwick
> Liebling, Helen; psychologue, University of Warwick
> McGettigan Andrew ; social housing worker
> Paliwala, Abdul; professeur at the School of Law; University of
Warwick
> Rangwalla, Glenn; Political Sciences professor Cambridge University
> White Jonathan ; Research student
>
>
> RUSSIE
>
> Lukin Alexander; fondateur du Comité pour la Paix en Yougoslavie,
>
>
> SRI LANKA
>
> Bala, Tampoe; secrétaire général de la Ceylan Mercantil Industrie,
Sir
> Lanka
>
>
> SUISSE
>
> Sanz Markus ; membre fondateur du Comité pour la Paix en Yougoslavie,
> professeur au collège de Genève (CH) (050400)
> Weber, Franz; écologiste; président de la Fondation "Weber"
>
>
> VENEZUELA
>
> Pardo Adolfo ; dirigeant syndical, Caracas
>
>
> YOUGOSLAVIE
>
> Grubacic Andrej ; co-fondateur du site Résistance, Belgrade.
> Vidanovic Djordje ; Prof. Univ. Nis
>
>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
