Jugoinfo

(english / deutsch / russkij / italiano)

Nuove interviste ai comunisti del Donbass

1) Maxim Chalenko, Secretary of the Communist Party – Lugansk Regional Committee
– Link
– Interview by Workers' World
2) Boris Litvinov, leader of the Communist Party of the Donetsk People’s Republic
– Links
– Interview by Newcoldwar.org, Nov 30, 2014
– Intervista di Veronika Yukhnina, 6 Agosto 2015
3) Ghost Brigade: July 29, one year since founding
– Links
– Ideological principles of the Ghost Brigade / Die Leitlinie der Brigade Prizrak
– July 1st: 40 days since the death of Ghost Brigade Commander Alexei Mozgovoi
– Ghost Brigade in solidarity with Greek people, Turkish & Kurdish comrades


Read also / Vedi anche:

Raising the Soviet flag on Donbass (Banda Bassotti Version – Voxkomm, 9 mar 2015)
Brigade Prizrak, Communist militiaman raising the Soviet flag on freed Debaltsevo
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdZ4R2mAX4U

Communists brought two special gifts to Brigade « Don » [sub ENG\SPA\POR\ITA] (Voxkomm, 23 dic 2014)
Communists of Workers’ Front organizzation, Association of Novorossia officers, brought two special gifts to Brigade « Don » that is fighting at the front…
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROsVn082giw

Victor Shapinov interview: Donbass uprising based in the 'Soviet world' (by Alexander Chalenko, Ukraina.Ru July 21, 2015)
Interview with Victor Shapinov, an active participant in the "Russian Spring" in Kharkov and Odessa, and coordinator of the Borotba (Struggle) movement...
http://redstaroverdonbass.blogspot.com/2015/08/victor-shapinov-interview-donbass.html

Ghost Brigade: Urgent Appeal for Humanitarian Assistance (By Darya Mitina, head of International Relations – United Communist Party of Russia, 22/7/2015)
http://redstaroverdonbass.blogspot.com/2015/06/ghost-brigade-urgent-appeal-for.html


=== 1: Maxim Chalenko ===

Read also:

Lugansk communist: ‘We fight first and foremost for peace’ (By Greg Butterfield – WW, June 17, 2015)
Workers World interviewed Ekaterina Popova, a leader of the Communist Party, Lugansk Regional Committee in the Lugansk People’s Republic. Popova is a founding member of the Forum of Communist, Socialist, Workers’, Environmental and Anti-Fascist Forces...
http://www.workers.org/articles/2015/06/17/lugansk-communist-we-fight-first-and-foremost-for-peace/

---


27/7/2015


By Greg Butterfield

Workers World interviewed Maxim Chalenko, Secretary of the Communist Party – Lugansk Regional Committee in the Lugansk People’s Republic (LC). Chalenko is a founder of the Forum of Communist, Socialist, Workers’, Environmental and Anti-Fascist Forces. He helped to organize the Donbass International Forum titled “Anti-Fascism, Internationalism, Solidarity” held on May 8 in Alchevsk. This is part 1 of the interview.

Workers World: Where did you grow up and go to school? How did you become involved in the communist movement?

Maxim Chalenko: I was born on June 30, 1980, in Severodonetsk, in the Lugansk region [then part of Soviet Ukraine]. I spent most of my youth in Lugansk city, where my family moved in 1990. I graduated from Lugansk School Number 57, then East Ukrainian State University with a degree in history and archiving. 

I’ve been active in the communist movement for 17 years. In 1997, I joined the Leninist Communist Youth Union of Ukraine (the youth organization of the Communist Party of Ukraine). I organized protests for the restoration of students’ rights in 2000-2003, and became a member of the Communist Party of Ukraine in 2000. 

In Kiev, I was active in the movement "Ukraine without Kuchma" in 2002, when police violently broke up our tent camp. Later I organized a series of protests of workers and miners in the Lugansk region. 

I was elected secretary of the Zhovtnevy District Committee of the Communist Party in Lugansk, then secretary of the Communist Party – Lugansk Regional Committee, Secretary of the Lugansk Municipal Committee of the Communist Party, and as a deputy to the Lugansk Regional Council.

WW: As a young person, what it was like to live through the collapse of the Soviet Union?

MC: As the son of a Soviet soldier, the collapse of the USSR hit me very hard. The destruction of this great country, whose cornerstone was to protect the workers’ interests, made many in the military burn with a desire to defend the Soviet Union. But unfortunately, after the collapse, those actively serving in the military were forbidden to speak of the USSR. 

Many communists began to focus their efforts and energy on trying to build a just, socialist society within the framework of the national states formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, including us in Ukraine. Perhaps this was one of the main reasons for our failures. 

In my opinion, the disintegration of the Soviet Union into national states, which each went into its own socio-political process, only sped up the transition from the socialist to the capitalist path. A powerful, ideologically cohesive communist movement was then split and disorganized. 

WW: Tell us about the activity of the communists in Lugansk following the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014.

MC: After the anti-people coup in Kiev -- and even during it, at the end of 2013 -- we organized the first militia squadron to protect the civilian population of Lugansk from fascism. Our goals were to protect the population from aggression, provocations and attacks by neo-fascists, and to protect monuments related to our history and culture. We worked to block the arrival of neo-Nazi militants from the West. 

We also took on the important task of opposing attempts by the Lugansk authorities to negotiate the conditions for their surrender to the Kiev junta. After all, capitalists in power are indifferent to the problems of the people; all that is important is to preserve and increase their capital. We understood this, and moreover, saw it happening in practice. 

Powerful politicians, dominated by members of the Party of Regions, were negotiating the surrender of Lugansk to the neo-fascists. With the tacit consent of the Kiev junta, they appointed new regional heads of the Interior Ministry, Prosecutor's Office and Security Service of Ukraine, whose purpose was to suppress the anti-fascist resistance in Lugansk. 

We proposed to organize a broad anti-fascist front to stop the spread of fascism to the East and also raised the issue of geopolitical choice. At that time the issue of the restoration of the USSR came to the fore. 

In the face of resurgent fascist ideology, including aggressive nationalism, we must intensify international work to demand the restoration of the USSR. We believe that now more than ever we have the basis to do it.

WW: What organizing and activities have you conducted since the start of the war?

MC: In April and May 2014, Lugansk residents were very worried about Slavyansk [in neighboring Donetsk] and its inhabitants, who were subjected to Ukrainian military aggression. We organized the first collection and shipment of humanitarian aid from Lugansk to the defenders of Slavyansk. No one realized that in a month we ourselves would need help. 

Later, when the war came to our door, we actively engaged in the collection and transfer of humanitarian aid to Lugansk from Russia. We were really helped by the Communist Party committees of Rostov and Voronezh. These two areas border Lugansk, and even before the war we had established a wonderful comradeship with them. We appealed for help and they immediately responded, organizing the collection of food, medicine and clothing through their party structures. Almost every week throughout the summer, we brought this assistance into the LC. 

Then, in early September, when the ceasefire agreement was signed in Minsk, we held a re-registration of the party ranks and started to restore our party structures. Some people had left, some had disappeared and did not respond to phone calls. Several communists were killed. The secretaries of the party committees were scattered, mainly engaged in solving problems in their cities. At that time communication and transportation were restored, and within a few months, we restored ties with all local organizations.

WW: Why did you decide to organize an international solidarity forum this spring?

MC: There were two reasons: First, it was the landmark 70 anniversary of the victory of socialism over fascism [the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II]; second, and most important, today the left-wing in Donbass is in great need of international support and assistance from allied organizations. 

In spite of high ideals, including our own, the movement of the People’s Republics along the socialist path has not been simple and unambiguous. Yes, at the initial stage, all the revolutionary movements of the streets and squares were associated with anti-fascism and the desire of the majority of the population to take the socialist path of development. But no one really voiced the slogans “factories to the workers” and “land to the peasants,” and the socialistic character of the republics remained only in form but not in essence.

The forum was significant in that it gave youth of Europe and the world an understanding of the conditions in which we are fighting today.



29/7/2015


By Greg Butterfield

Workers World interviewed Maxim Chalenko, Secretary of the Communist Party – Lugansk Regional Committee in the Lugansk People’s Republic (LC). Chalenko is a founder of the Forum of Communist, Socialist, Workers’, Environmental and Anti-Fascist Forces. He helped to organize the Donbass International Forum titled “Anti-Fascism, Internationalism, Solidarity” held on May 8 in Alchevsk. This is the second part of the interview.


Workers World: The Donbass International Forum was hosted by the Ghost Brigade anti-fascist militia in Alchevsk. How did that come about?

Maxim Chalenko: Originally, we planned to hold the forum in Lugansk city, but due to the worsening military confrontation and internal political situation, we decided to hold it in Alchevsk, the second largest city in the region. An invitation was extended by Brigade Commander Alexei Mozgovoi, who was ideologically a communist though not a member of the party, and he played an important role. I think the decision was correct; we not only held the forum, but also supported our ideological comrades in Alchevsk. [Mozgovoi and four other Ghost Brigade members were assassinated on May 23.]

WW: What were your impressions of the forum? What was achieved?

MC: One of the main objectives was to consolidate the efforts of leftist and anti-war organizations of the world on the issue of Donbass. This goal must seem very romantic, given current geopolitical realities, but we have already achieved some important steps. 

The forum brought together a large number of left-wing organizations that are interested in the situation of the anti-fascist resistance in the Donbass. Generally, our situation is quite unusual, and I’m aware of the many contradictions and disputes among leftists around the world in relation to our assessment of events, and most importantly, how communists, internationalists and anti-fascists should operate in these conditions.

Even during the forum, on a par with the wishes for victories in the struggle against fascism in Ukraine, there were questions about the role of the left in the events in Ukraine and Donbass. What position should we take in a situation where the main question is which side to take in a geopolitical confrontation? The answer is very complex and the opinion of one person or national organization is not enough. 

By and large, this was the second key objective of the forum: to begin a dialogue about the role of the left in events spurred by the geopolitical confrontation in southeastern Ukraine.

WW: The forum also announced the creation of an international solidarity committee. What will this body do?

MC: We are working for the creation of an international solidarity movement with Donbass, which we hope will be a platform to define a unified ideological position on the situation in Donbass and the forms and methods of work for left-wing political forces in these conditions. 

To that end, we have initiated these projects:

1. Assist in the formation of a Committee for Solidarity with Donbass in every country of Europe and the world.
2. Analysis of the situation in the Donbass, preparation of reports, information, and messages about the social and political environment.
3. Preparation and holding of international seminars, round tables, presentations, conferences and meetings related to the current situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics of Donbass.
4. Organization of solidarity actions, like those which took place following the death of Brigade Commander Mozgovoi.
5. Publication of newspapers, pamphlets and books.
6. Struggle against political repression in Ukraine, informational pickets in support of demands to release political prisoners in Ukraine. Creating a list of repressions in Ukraine. Picketing of Ukrainian embassies in Europe. Protest rallies in Kiev.
7. Promoting media that openly and honestly cover the events taking place in Donbass.
8. Creation of online media resources to disseminate accurate information about the situation in the struggling republics.

WW: How do you see the role of communists in Lugansk today?

MC: Today the communists in Lugansk, as well as in Ukraine, are experiencing a serious systemic crisis. We were not prepared for a serious geopolitical confrontation here, could not give an ideological assessment as the events were occurring, or answers on how to proceed. 

In fact, this problem is not unique to Lugansk. Here the issues were thrust to the forefront by the acute confrontation and war on our territory. But a similar trend is weakening leftist movements with repression and splits throughout the former Soviet Union. I'm afraid that we may soon witness the failure of the last bastion of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Russia. 

It must be understood that the potential for progress envisioned by communists after the collapse of the USSR has already completely exhausted itself. If we do not find adequate answers and develop new ways of working, we will be excluded from the country’s political life for many years to come.

Therefore, in Lugansk, it is necessary to consolidate all communists around a unified organization, and then develop a new strategy and methods of work for its realization. We must search for new social bases for the party among the working class to enhance its capacity and size. And most importantly, develop a clear position on where we are going and what is the role of the left in the modern realities of the young Lugansk and Donetsk republics. 

Another important issue is establishing an international left movement that will develop a concept of a fighting left in the new "post-unipolar" world that is today being built by the actions we have actively participated in.

WW: What is your vision for the future of socialism in Donbass?

MC: In many respects, it depends on whether we communists find successful ways of working to ensure the movement of the republics along the path of socialism, rather than something that may appear socialist in form, but is essentially a neoliberal state. 

We are developing an organization to unite all supporters of socialism-communism under the name "Union of the Left of Donbass," and to the extent possible, to influence the political development of the republic.

Respect and revolutionary greetings to all comrades!


=== 2: Boris Litvinov ===

LINKS:

Pioneer youth organization established in Makeyevka, Donetsk (May 19, 2015)
On May 19 in Makeyevka, a solemn rally was held devoted to establishing the Pioneer organization of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR). The initiator of the event was Deputy of the DNR National Soviet Boris Litvinov, reported the state media correspondent...
http://redstaroverdonbass.blogspot.it/2015/05/pioneer-organization-established-in.html?view=magazine 
В Макеевке создана пионерская организация (Министерство информации ДНР, 19 mag 2015)
19 мая в Макеевке состоялось торжественное собрание, посвященное основанию пионерской организации Донецкой Народной Республики. Инициатором мероприятия выступил депутат Народного Совета ДНР Борис Литвинов, сообщил корреспондент Государственного медиа-холдинга...
http://dnr-online.ru/news/v-makeevke-sozdana-pionerskaya-organizaciya/ 
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=aHrpFYkrIOA

Komsomol revived in Donetsk People’s Republic (June 8, 2015)
In Donetsk, the constituent congress of the Lenin Communist Youth League (LKSM) of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) was held June 7...
http://redstaroverdonbass.blogspot.com/2015/06/komsomol-revived-in-donetsk-peoples.html
VIDEO: Учредительный съезд Комсомола ДНР (Министерство информации ДНР, 8 giu 2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNi3wgtlR3k

---


Interview with Boris Litvinov

January 7, 2015

Boris Litvinov was interviewed by Halyna Mokrushyna for New Cold War.org on November 30, 2014 about the political situation in Donetsk, the region’s relations with Ukraine and Russia, and the future of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). Boris Litvinov is the former head of the Supreme Council of the DPR and is a deputy of the People’s Council of the DPR. He is the leader of the Communist Party of the Donetsk People’s Republic, founded in October 2014.

Is the project of the Donetsk People’s Republic supported by the population?

When we organized our referendum in May [referendum for the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic], we thought that common sense would prevail. We have 3.2 million voters in Ukraine Donetsk and 2,700,000 thousand voted, of which 2,511,000 voted for the creation of Donetsk republic. We believed in people’s right to self-determination.

We are united in our aspirations. That’s why we wanted a negotiated, ‘civilized’ separation with Ukraine. And indeed, at the beginning, it was going this way.

We knew that negotiations with Kyiv would be long and difficult, but we wanted a separation. We would cooperate with Kyiv, since we have a common economy and a common transportation system. We would share it and pay for it. But Kyiv decided otherwise. They started bombing us already during the day of referendum. And it got worse. Now we have a full-blown civil war.

Do you see your future with Ukraine?

I support united Ukraine with both hands. I was born here, I live here, and I am an ethnic Russian. We are different mentally and spiritually [from Western Ukraine – HM]. Several hundred years under Polish-Lithuanian rule created a certain Polish-Lithuanian spirit.

We in Eastern Ukraine are very young. Our Ukraine has only 150 years – before that was Dikoe pole (the wild plains). Our land is international. With the beginning of industrialization, people of all nationalities came here. It did not matter what nationality you were. What mattered was your readiness to build, to create. It came out particularly strong during the Soviet period. Added to this was the ideology of internationalism. That is why we are internationalists.

We do not want Kyiv’s idea of building a mono-ethnic state, and particularly the methods which they have been using since Yushchenko came to power. [1] We are internationalists. We do not want a state for one nation. This is a contradiction, and I do not see how we can resolve it.

Another contradiction that we have with Kyiv is their drive to join the European Union, which is not in a hurry to accept Ukraine. It is a rupture of links with Russia. We do not like this, and we do not think that Kyiv will turn towards the Eurasian Union [2] any time soon.

A third contradiction is the image of Russia as the enemy, which has been formed and imposed during 23 years of Ukrainian independence. It has been formed through education, ideology, arts. If a state creates an enemy, it has to protect itself against this enemy, or to fight it. Because Ukraine is too weak, it appeals to NATO and other Western allies. We know quite well that NATO cannot be allowed here, because this would be a direct threat to us and to our brothers and sisters in Russia.

All these contradictions are very hard to resolve in the near future. Only time will resolve them and show who was right and who was wrong. With time we will reconcile. But still we continue killing each other…

We do not have the motivation to kill, we are defending ourselves. Those who come to our land do not have the motivation to kill, either. Who comes here? Workers and peasants. They come to kill their own people because they have a different opinion. We did not come to their land, they came to ours. Most of them have been forced. Of course, there are ideologically driven individuals among them. But most of them are soldiers, officers who fulfill their duty. They are forced to fight this civil war.

How did the ‘Anti-Maidan movement begin in Donetsk?

I was on Maidan Square three times – in November, when it all started, in December, and in early February. I saw how it all unfolded. In the second half of February, the wave reached us in Donetsk and Donetsk region. We stood up because we did not want Maidan ideology to invade our land.

The first confrontation happened on February 21, when Pravyi Sektor [3] planned to come to Donetsk to take by assault the regional administration building and to destroy monuments to Lenin and other symbols of Soviet epoch. We stood in front of the Lenin monument – communists, members of the Party of Regions, monarchists, other rightist and leftist movements – protecting it as a symbol of our land. We stood up and remained there till the end of May. Tents have been taken down, as nothing threatens our symbols anymore.



En francais: MONTÉNÉGRO : LA VENTE DES BIENS PUBLICS, SECRET D’ÉTAT
Monitor (Monténégro) | Traduit par Persa Aligrudić | jeudi 6 août 2015 – Toutes les informations sur les procédures de privatisation des entreprises monténégrines seront inaccessibles au public et considérées comme secrets d’État pour les cinq prochaines années....

---


RASPRODAJA DRŽAVNE IMOVINE: KAD NEZNANJE I KORUPCIJA POSTANU SLUŽBENA TAJNA: Svi na pod - ovo je privatizacija

PETAK, 15 MAJ 2015
MONITORING - BROJ 1282

Svi podaci o bivšim i budućim postupcima tokom (pre)prodaje13 crnogorskih preduzeća iz aktuelnog talasa privatizacije ostaće nedostupni javnosti narednih pet godina, pošto su ih nadležni proglasili tajnom.

Odluka donijeta krajem januara obuhvata sledećih 13 kompanija (ili djelove njihove imovine): Institut Dr Simo Milošević, AD Montecargo, Montenegroerlajnz, Budvansku rivijeru, HTP Ulcinjska rivijera, Institut crne metalurgije Nikšić, Poliex AD Berane, Pošte Crne Gore, Novi du-vanski kombinat, fabriku oružja Montenegro defence industry, hotel Park u Bijeloj, fabrički krug nekadašnjeg Gornjeg Ibra u centru Rožaja i, konačno, ,,sve aktivnosti na definisanju budućih odnosa između Vlade i kompanije A2A u vezi sa ugovorom o dokapitalizaciji i djelimičnoj privatizaciji EPCG".

Odluku je, na prijedlog Tenderske komisije (njen predsjednik je Branko Vujović) usvojio Savjet za privatizaciju i kapitalne investicije (predsjednik Savjeta je premijer Milo Đukanović).

,,Cijenjeno je da bi objavljivanje ovih informacija izazvalo štetne po-sljedice za bezbjednost i interese Crne Gore, koje su od većeg značaja od interesa javnosti da zna tu informaciju. Imajući to u vidu, podaci sadržani u tenderskoj dokumentaciji i ponudama označavaju se tajnim podatkom sa stepenom tajnosti povjerljivo", navodi se u Odluci koju je potpisao sekretar Savjeta Aleksandar Tičić. Usvojeni dokument predviđa da će pristup podacima koji su označeni kao tajni imati samo članovi Tenderske komisije i Savjeta za privatizaciju ,,kada im je to potrebno u vršenju njihovih poslova i zadataka".

Prema zvaničnoj interpretaciji, ideja o uvođenju tajnosti u proces privatizacije stigla je iz Tenderske komisije, odnosno od njenog predsjednika. Branko Vujović objašnjava kako je prijedlog posljedica zahtjeva zainteresovanih partnera. Oni su, navodno, tražili da se zaštite njihovi komercijalni i finansijski podaci, pošto bi im to, kaže Vujović, ,,moglo nanijeti štetu".

Teško je zamisliti način na koji bi objavljivanje ,,komercijalnih i finansijskih podataka" iz nekog privatizacionog postupka moglo naškoditi Dojče Telekomu, Telenoru, Helenik Petroleumu, Iberostar Grupi, ili nekoj od stranih banaka iz Mađarske, Austrije, Francuske koje ovdje imaju svoje filijale. Ozbiljne kompanije, u ozbiljnim državama, imaju obavezu javnog objavljivanja podataka koje Vujović & company žele sakriti. Njihovu reputaciju može narušiti pokušaj da se nešto sakrije.

Nije li Njujorška berza kaznila Dojče Telekom zato što njihova akvizicija u Podgorici (Telekom CG) nije imala usvojen završni račun? Kao što je i Ministarstvo finansija SAD istoj kompaniji razrezalo skoro 100 miliona dolara kazne zbog koruptivnih radnji tokom privatizacije Telekoma. Za to vrijeme nadležni u Podgorici su bespogovorno izvršavali naređenja onih koju su u korupciju bili umiješani.

Otkud priča o šteti usljed objavljivanja poslovnih podataka? Odgovor bi bio mnogo lakši kada bi saznali ko se sve skrivao iza razno raznih of-šor firmi koje su dolazile ovdje da kroz proces privatizacije operu novac ili uzmu kredite zalažući friško privatizovane nekretnine – i pobjegnu odakle su i došli.

Velikodušno, Vujović u Vijestima insistira da će članovi skupštinske Komisije za kontrolu privatizacije moći da vide ,,sva dokumenta", ali će morati ,,poštovati oznaku povjerljivosti". To znači da ono što vide neće smjeti da podijele sa bilo kim. Ako iko, onda zna Branko Vujović: javnosti do danas nijesu prezentovana sva dokumenta nijedne crnogorske privatizacije. Iako njih ne čuva veo državne tajne, već samo lični interes aktera.

Uostalom, predsjednik Tenderske komisije nije stvarni autor ideje o uvođenju službene i državne tajne u proces privatizacije. Kao što ni Tičić nije adresa sa koje je stigla konačna odluka o tom pitanju.

Proces je započeo premijer. „Nećemo gušiti slobodu medija", širokogrud je bio krajem 2011. „Ali ono što moramo uraditi to je da zaštitimo investitore, da bi se oni ovdje osjetili sigurni, da bi nam pomogli da pokrenemo krupne razvojne projekte...". Potom je Đukanović pomenuo nekoliko investitora koje mediji, navodno, pokušavaju otjerati iz Crne Gore (iako su, izuzev jednog koji je bankrotirao, svi pomenuti i danas tu). Među pomenutima, iz nekog razloga, nijesu bila lica s potjernica: Taskin Šinavatra, Sergej Polanski, Oleg Deripaska, Muhamed Dahlan, Darko Šarić, Safet Kalić, Naser Keljmendi, niti vlasnici Timora, Akora, MMNS-a, CEAC-a i mnoštva drugih, manjih i većih of-šor kompanija koje su Crnu Goru ojadile za desetine i stotine miliona eura.

Iz opozicionih partija i NVO koje prate proces privatizacije konstatuju da usvojenom Odlukom nije ostavljena mogućnost da neko – parlament, recimo – ima pravo provjeriti zakonitost postupanja članova Tenderske komisije, Savjeta i Vlade.

Privatizacionim vlastima bi, dakle, trebalo vjerovati na riječ. Da li je to moguće?

Vladom i Savjetom za privatizaciju predsjedava Milo Đukanović, čovjek direktno infiltriran u makar tri velike privatizacione afere. Afera Telekom temelji se na tvrdnji administracije SAD (SEC – tamošnja komisija za kontrolu trgovine hartijama od vrijednosti) ,,da je Ana Kolarević primila mito u ime svog brata (Mila Đukanovića – prim. Monitora) u vezi sa kupovinom akcija Telekoma Crne Gore".

Temelji afere KAP udareni su u kafeu Grand u kome su Đukanović i Deripaska, dogovorili posao mimo propisanih tenderskih pravila. Koju godinu kasnije pravila su ponovo prekršena da bi se umjesto raskida ugovora na štetu stvarnih i fiktivnih Rusa (do danas je tajna ko stoji iza trećine vlasništva of-šor kompanije koja je kupila KAP) sklopio Ugovor o poravnanju koji su poreski obveznici pomogli sa nekoliko stotina miliona svog novca. Danas Crna Gora i Deripaska svoje račune izravnavaju na međunarodnoj arbitraži.

Konačno, afera Prva banka: tu je Vlada pod kontrolom Mila Đukanovića njegovom bratu Acu prodala kontrolni paket akcija tadašnje Nikšićke banke, kršeći procedure i pravila vezana za kvalifikovane vlasnike. Potom je i Milo Đukanović na krajnje netransparentan način postao suvlasnik banke. Kada je njihov menadžment doveo u opasnost novac klijenata i deponenata banke u pomoć je, sa 44 miliona eura priskočila Đukanovićeva Vlada. I taj novac je vraćen na krajnje problematičan način. Najvećim dijelom tek nakon što su Đukanović i Silvio Berluskoni, tadašnji premijer Italije, ugovorili rijetko viđen finansijski aranžman između države, A2A, EPCG i Prve banke. Danas, kada je – nakon petogodišnjeg partnerstva - vrijeme da se javnost upozna sa stvarnim efektima tog posla, Vlada poslove sa Italijanima stavlja na listu tajnih.

Potpis na spornu odluku Đukanovićevog Savjeta za privatizaciju stavio je Aleksandar Tičić, jedan od optuženih u aferi Košljun. Tičiću se sudi zbog optužbi da je, kao predsjednik Tenderske komisije za prodaju opštinskog zemljišta u Budvi, omogućio Vidu Rađenoviću i njegovim pomagačima (ili nalogodavcima) iz SO Budva da izvrše fiktivnu kupovinu zemljišta koje je kasnije preprodato po višestruko većoj cijeni.

Dokument kojim se predstojeće privatizacije proglašavaju tajnom predložio je Branko Vujović, čovjek kog će ekonomska misao pamtiti najviše po ugovoru koji je u julu 2009. potpisao sa zastupnicima MNSS (bivši vlasnici koji su Željezaru odvukli u stečaj): ,,Svaka strana je saglasna i garantuje da neće preduzeti bilo kakve pravne radnje protiv druge Strane i druga Strana neće biti ugrožena u vezi prethodnih kršenja ugovora, incidenata prevare, nemara ili bilo kakvih drugih pogrešnih radnji...", piše u Protokolu.

Vujović je i prvi crnogorski zvaničnik, uz Veselina Vukotića, kome se sudilo zbog nepoštovanja zakona u procesu privatizacije Jugopetrola. Nekada kotorskog – a danas podgoričkog. Vujović i Vukotić su, utvrdio je sud, kršili propise o privatizaciji ali su oslobođeni optužbi nakon što su njihove kolege iz Savjeta za privatizaciju posvjedočile da su u to bezakonje bili uključeni svi skupa. Iako je njihovo postupanje Crnu Goru koštalo 25 miliona njemačkih maraka, niko od nadležnih nije postavio pitanje odgovornosti Savjeta i Vlade za štetu. Umjesto toga, pokušavaju se sakriti buduća nepočinstva.

Hoćemo li zbilja, ostaviti koze da čuvaju kupus?


Al' se nekad dobro htjelo

Kakve su posledice nedostatka pravovremenih i objektivnih informacija na ekonomske performanse u jednoj zemlji, pita se dr Veselin Vukotić u radu Transparentnost u ekonomiji Crne Gore koji je objavio u junu 2001. godine. Poslovni partner premijera Đukanovića i suvlasnik UDG-ija tada je pisao kako "prljav novac neumitno proizvodi i prljavo društvo, prljave odnose među ljudima, povećanje stepena kriminalizacije i ugrožava ljudske slobode", objašnjavajući i najvažnije posljedice netransparentnosti:
- Potiskivanje konkurencije. Ukoliko je određeni broj ljudi i kompanija bliži izvoru informacija od drugih i ukoliko neprivilegovani uopšte nemaju dostup informacijama, tada se narušava energija koju proizvodi kompanija.
- Sakrivanje stvarne vlasničke strukture je takođe posledica netransparentnosti. Poslovanje pod tuđim imenom narušava primjenu zakona o kompaniji, odnosno proizvodi konflikt interesa u stvarnosti!
- Netransparentnost remeti ugled državne administracije i povjerenja u mjeri koju ona proizvodi u različitim oblastima, uključujući i mjere iz domena makroekonomske politike.
- Narušava se kvalitet poslovnih odluka, ukoliko postoji informacioni vakum.
- Netransparentna ekonomija stvara uslove za povećanje korupcije. Korupcija uvijek dovodi do nepredvidljive distribucije bogatstva, odnosno ona povećava pogrešnu alokaciju resursa u jednom društvu.
- Netransparentnost povećava zatvaranje društva, zatvaranje ekonomije i ekstra-rentu koju dobijaju oni koji su korisnici takvog zatvaranja.
- Netransparentnost je pogubna za strateške investitore, pogotovu za strane strateške partnere.
Rado bismo potpisali svaku od sedam teza profesora Vukotića. A da li bi i on to danas uradio?


Zoran RADULOVIĆ







[deutsch / english / srpskohrvatski
Diversamente che per il caso di "Srebrenica", i politici occidentali hanno brillato per la loro assenza ma anche per il loro complice silenzio in occasione dei festeggiamenti per il XX Anniversario della pulizia etnica delle Krajine, svoltisi in pompa magna il 4 agosto u.s. Assieme ai mass-media, e in linea con il comportamento sempre tenuto da allora, essi hanno così garantito omertà all'alleato croato, oggi membro a pieno titolo della Unione Europea, allo scopo di non nuocere alla sua stagione turistica.
Di seguito riportiamo il comunicato in tre lingue della associazione Veritas, che tramanda la memoria delle vittime serbe nelle Krajine e in Slavonia, e la segnalazione di un video e un documentario dedicati a quei fatti vergognosi.  (a cura di Italo Slavo)]

Isto pogledaj:

Izbjeglice iz Krajine posle Oluje dolaze u Banja Luku 08.08 1995
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBGHDaDVZmM

---


Bljesak je potpalio Oluju aka BLAST THAT LIGHTED THE STORM / The Flash That Lighted The Storm [2005] (CentarVeritas, 29 mar 2015)

For Fair use Only 

Film Bljesak je potpalio Oluju / The Flash That Lighted The Storm reditelja Aleksandra Bulata i scenariiste Dragoljuba Bulata, prikazuje kontinuitet terorističko-subverzivnog delovanja hrvatskog ustaškog pokreta u prvoj polovini 20. veka, s posebnim osvrtom na značaj uloge Rimokatoličke crkve u Hrvatskoj tokom genocida nad srpskim narodom od 1941. do 1945. u Nezavisnoj Državi Hrvatskoj, isto kao i u Operaciji Bljesak i Operaciji Oluja 1995. godine.

Film Bljesak je potpalio Oluju, u produkciji Radio-televizije Srbije i Serbicom-Filma, sa muzikom Sanje Ilića i Balkanike, premijerno je prikazan na 53. međunarodnom Festivalu dokumentarnog i kratkometražnog filma u Beogradu marta 2006. godine, u okviru Programa "Svedočenja", posvećenom ostvarenjima domacih autora koji se bave uzrocima i posledicama ratova na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije.

Film koristi filmske arhive RTSa, Dunav filma, Rojtersa, BBCa, TV ARDa, Faktuma. 
Govore: akademik prof dr Smilja Avramov i Savo Štrbac, direktor D.I.C. Veritas

***

The film Bljesak je potpalio Oluju / The Flash That Lighted The Storm, directed by Aleksandar Bulat, screenplay Dragoljub Bulat, features the continuity of the terroristic and subversive operations of the Croatian Ustasha movement in the first half of the XX century with special review of the Roman Catholic Church role in Croatia during the genocide of the Serb population from 1941 till 1945 in the Independent State of Croatia, as same as during Operation Flash and Operation Storm in 1995.

Film The Flash That Lighted The Storm, produced by Radio Television of Serbia and Serbicom-Film, music by Balkanika, premiered at the 53rd International Festival of Documentary and Short Film Festival in Belgrade in March 2006, under the "Testimonials", dedicated to the achievements of local authors who are deal with the causes and consequences of the wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Documents: RTS, Danube Film, Reuters, BBC, ARD TV, Factum film archives.
Speakers: Academician Prof. Dr. Smilja Avramov and Savo Štrbac, director of DIC Veritas

Godina proizvodnje/Year of Production: 2005
Trajanje/Duration: 70 minuta/minutes
Režija/Director: Aleksandar Bulat
Scenario/Script: Dragoljub Bulat
Montaža/Editing: M. Milivojević
Originalna muzika/Music: BalKan2000
Kompzitor / Composer: Sanja Ilic
Projekat / Project: Sanja & Balkanika (PGP, 1999; SOKOJ 412790)
Ton/Sound: Đorđe Đurović

Produkcija/Production:
RTS
Serbicom-Film
Pre i post Produkcija /Pre & Post Production:
D.I.C. Veritas



=== S-H ===


D.I.C. Veritas: SAOPŠTENjE povodom godišnjice stradanja Srba u agresiji hrvatske vojske na RSK u avgustu 1995. godine („Operacija Oluja“)

Četvrtog avgusta 1995. godine oružane snage Republike Hrvatske, uz odobrenje i podršku NATO, u sadejstvu sa snagama Hrvatskog vijeća odbrane (HVO) i Armije BiH (ABiH), izvršile su agresiju na sjevernu Dalmaciju, Liku, Kordun i Baniju, odnosno na Srpsku autonomnu oblast Krajina, u sastavu tadašnje Republike Srpska Krajina (RSK).

Agresija je izvršena uprkos činjenicama da je ta oblast bila pod zaštitom UN-a, pod nazivom sektori “Jug” i “Sjever”, i da su predstavnici RSK dan prije u Ženevi i Beogradu prihvatili prijedlog međunarodne zajednice  o mirnom rješenju sukoba.

Protiv krajiških Srba (oko 230.000 žitelja sa oko 30.000 vojnika) angažovano je oko 200.000 vojnika, od kojih je direktno u operaciji učestvovalo 138.500 pripadnika HV-a, MUP-a  i HVO-a. Ako se tome dodaju snage ABiH i NATO, agresora je bilo više nego stanovnika u Krajini, a omjer vojnika bio je najmanje 7:1 u korist agresora.

Za nekoliko dana neravnopravne borbe slomljen je otpor Srpske vojske Krajine (SVK). Narod zapadne Krajine, njih preko 220.000, poučen “istorijskim iskustvom”, kreće u dotad najveću srpsku “seobu”, na istok braći po vjeri i naciji. I kad je prestao svaki otpor SVK, agresor je ubijao ljude koji nisu htjeli ili mogli sa svojih vjekovnih imanja, ali i one  u izbjegličkim kolonama, i do Une i preko Une, duboko u teritoriju tadašnje Republike Srpske.

Na evidenciji Veritasa nalaze se imena 1.853 poginulih i nestalih Srba iz ove akcije i poslije nje, od čega 1.202 (65%) civila, od kojih su oko tri četvrtine bili stariji od 60 godina. Među žrtvama se nalazi  545 (29%) žena, od kojih su oko četiri petine bile starije od 60 godina, što predstavlja jedan od “crnih” rekorda građanskog rata devedesetih prošlog vijeka  na prostorima prethodne Jugoslavije.

Od ukupnog broja žrtava do sada je rasvijetljena sudbina 1.002 lica, dok se na evidenciji nestalih vodi još  851 lice, od čega 614 civila, među kojima 310 žena. Hrvatska izbjegava bez valjanog razloga ekshumacije i poznatih mjesta ukopa sa oko 270 posmrtnih ostataka, pokopanih uglavnom pod oznakom “nepoznat”, što je jedinstven slučaj na području bivše Jugoslavije, kao što bez pravog razloga oteže i sa identifikacijama  294 ekshumiranih posmrtnih ostataka.

Oko 1.500 pripadnika SVK preživjelo je zarobljavanje, od kojih su mnogi suđeni i osuđeni na dugogodišnje kazne zatvora zbog krivičnog djela ratnog zločina. Oko 3.200 starih i nemoćnih, koji nisu htjeli ili nisu mogli napustiti ognjišta, na silu su internirani u logore za civile. Krajina je opustošena, opljačkana pa porušena i zapaljena. Nisu bili pošteđeni ni crkveni, kulturni, istorijski srpski, kao ni antifašistički spomenici.

Ova agresija, pod kodnim nazivom “Oluja”, sprovođena je, kao uostalom i one koje su joj prethodile (“Miljevački plato”, “Maslenica”, “Medački džep” i “Bljesak”), po taktici “spržene zemlje”, što je polovinom novembra 1995. godine doseglo razmjere potpunog zatiranja srpske zajednice u Krajini.

Iako je bilo očigledno da je hrvatska vlast preduzela ovu agresiju zbog optiranja teritorije bez srpske većine koja je na njemu živjela, Savjet bezbjednosti UN-a, osim “snažne osude hrvatske vojne ofanzive velikih razmjera” (R 1009/95), nije donio, ni ovoga puta, bilo kakve kaznene mjere protiv agresora.

Najveći paradoks ove agresije, kao i onih koje su joj prethodile, nalazi se u činjenici što je agresor bila članica UN-a, a Krajina zona pod zaštitom iste organizacije i što su neke druge članice te organizacije odobrile i učestvovale u samoj agresiji.

„Oluja“ je jedini događaj u kojima su Srbi iz Hrvatske žrtve, koji je suđen pred Međunarodnim krivičnim sudom za bivšu Jugoslaviju (MKSJ). Pretresno vijeće je jednoglasno zaključilo da su dvojica od trojice optuženih generala bili učesnici udruženog zločinačkog poduhvata, čija je zajednička svrha bila trajno uklanjanje srpskih civila iz Krajine silom ili prijetnjom silom, te ih osudilo: Antu Gotovinu na 24, a Mladena Markača na 18 godina zatvora.

Žalbeno vijeće je, tjesnom većinom, sa tri prema dva,  poništilo cijelu presudu Pretresnog vijeća i oslobodilo optužene generale po svim tačkama optužbe. Iako nije negiralo zločine utvrđene u prvostepenoj presudi, Žalbeno vijeće  nije našlo za shodno da optužene generale osudi ni po alternativnim vidovima odgovornosti.

Putem MKSJ ide i hrvatsko pravosuđe. Od nekoliko do sada procesuiranih pripadnika sopstvenih oružanih snaga za ratne zločine nad Srbima iz vremena “Oluje”, pravosnažno je osuđena samo jedna osoba (slučaj “Prukljan i Mandići”). U analima pravosudnog besčašća ostaće zapamćene oslobađajuće presude optuženima za zločine u Gošiću, Varivodama, Gruborima i Kijanima,  kao i dugogodišnja istraga bez pomaka  protiv NN lica za masakr hendikeparanih u Dvoru na Uni.

U direktnoj vezi sa operacijom “Oluja” je i parnični postupak pred  Federalnim sudom u Čikagu po tužbi krajiških Srba  protiv  konzultantske  firme MPRI, odnosno njene pravne sljednice,  podnesene  u avgustu 2010. godine, zbog naknade materijalne i nematerijalne štete u iznosu od 10,4 milijarde dolara,  po osnovu saučesništva u genocidu. Ovaj postupak je krajem prošle godine, uz pristanak obiju strana, ušao u fazu medijacije, koja će, kako se očekuje, trajati cijelu ovu godinu.

Međunarodni sud pravde (MSP) je kroz obrazloženje svoje presude iz februara ove godine operaciju “Oluja” kvalifikovao kao akciju etničkog čišćenja, koje nije doseglo nivo genocida – Hrvati su htjeli srpsku teritoriju bez Srba očekujući da oni sami odu, a ne da ih “unište u cjelosti ili djelimično”. A da bi ih natjerali da napuste svoja vjekovna ognjišta, granatirali su njihove gradove i izbjegličke kolone, ubijali i fizički i psihički zlostavljali zaostale civile i vojnike i sprečavali im povratak, ali ni to sve skupa, po ocjeni suda, nije doseglo nivo genocida (nedostaje “genocidna namjera”)

MSP je ovom presudom krajiškim Srbima  dao solidnu osnovu da pravnim putem nastave tražiti ostvarenje ostalih (sporednih) zahtjeva iz njihove kontratužbe: procesuiranje počinilaca svih ratnih zločina nad njihovim sunarodnicima, obeštećenje za uništenu imovinu i izgubljene živote, održivi povratak i puno poštivanje njihovih nacionalnih i ljudskih prava, uključujući i široku političku autonomiju kakvu im je međunarodna zajednica (UN, EU, SAD i RF), prije akcije “Oluja”, garantovala “Planom Z-4”.

I umjesto da Hrvatska, i bez naloga MSP, odustane od slavljenja “akcije etničkog čišćenja i masovnih zločina” kao dvostrukog državnog praznika (“Dan pobjede i domovinske zahvalnosti” i “Dan hrvatskih branitelja”) koji se predhodnih godina slavili 5. avgusta, ove godine dodala je i vojnu paradu u Zagrebu za dan ranije, kada je i počeo pogrom krajiških Srba.

Naravno, međunarodna zajednica, uključujući NATO i EU, koje su Hrvatsku u međuvremenu primili u članstvo, ćuti kao što je ćutala i prije 20 godina.

U Beogradu i Banjaluci, 4. avgusta, 2015. godine

P R E D S J E D N I K
Savo Štrbac


=== ENG ===


D.I.C. Veritas: STATEMENT on The Occasion of The Anniversary of The Killings of The Serbs in The RSK in August 1995 („Operation Storm“)

On August 4th, 1995, Croatian Armed Forces, with the approval and support from NATO, in cooperation with the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) and Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH), launched an aggression on northern Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun and Banija, that is, on the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina, in the then Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK).

The aggression was launched despite the fact that the area was under the protection of the UN, under the name Sectors “South” and “North”, and that the representatives of the RSK accepted the proposal of the international community on peaceful resolution of conflicts the day before in Geneva and Belgrade.

Approximately 200,000 troops were deployed against the Krajina Serbs (around 230,000 inhabitants with around 30,000 troops), of which 138,500 members of the Croatian Army, police forces and HVO were directly involved in the operation. If we add the forces of the ABiH and NATO to this, the aggressor was more numerous than the population of Krajina, and the ratio of troops was at least 7:1 in favour of the aggressor.

In several days of an unequal fight, the resistance of the Serbian Army of Krajina (SVK) was broken. The people of western Krajina, over 220,000 of them, having learned from “historical experience”, sets off on the greatest Serbian “migration” until then, to the East, to their brothers in faith and nation. And when all resistance of the SVK ceased, the aggressor killed people who would not or could not leave their ancestral homes, but also those people in the refugee convoys, to the Una and beyond the Una, deep into the territory of the then Republika Srpska.

In the records of Veritas, there are the names of 1,853 killed and missing Serbs from this operation and after it, of which 1,202 (65%) are civilians, of which about three quarters were older than 60 years of age. Among the victims, there are 545 (29%) women, of which about four fifths were older than 60 years of age, which represents one of the “black” records of the civil war of the 90s of the last century on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

Of the total number of victims, the fates of 1,002 persons have been solved so far, while the registry of the missing still contains 851 persons, of which 614 civilians, including 310 women. Without a valid reason, Croatia avoids the exhumations of known burial sites with approximately 270 mortal remains, buried mostly under the designation “unknown”, which is a unique case in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, just as it stalls with the identification of 294 exhumed remains without a good reason.

About 1,500 members of the SVK survived imprisonment, of which many were tried and sentenced to long prison sentences for the criminal offense of war crime. About 3,200 of elderly and disabled, who would not or could not leave their homes, were interned in civilian camps. Krajina was ravaged, plundered, and then destroyed, and burnt down. Churches, cultural, and historical Serbian, as well as anti-fascist monuments were not spared either.

This aggression, under the code name “Storm”, was implemented, same as the ones that preceded it (“Miljevci Plateau”, “Maslenica”, “Medak Pocket” and “Flash”), by the “scorched earth” policy, reaching the proportions of complete extermination of the Serbian community in Krajina in mid-November 1995.

Although it was obvious that the Croatian Government had undertaken this aggression due to their opting for a territory free from the Serbian majority that had lived on it, the Security Council of the UN, other than “strong condemnation of the large-scale Croatian military offensive” (R 1009/95), once again did not impose any sanctions against the aggressor.

The greatest paradox of this aggression, as well as of those that preceded it, lies in the fact that the aggressor was a member of the UN and Krajina was an area under the protection of that same organization, and that other members of the organization approved and participated in the very aggression.

The “Storm” is the only event in which the Serbs from Croatia are the victims, that was tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Trial Chamber unanimously found that two of the three indicted generals participated in a joint criminal enterprise whose common purpose was the permanent removal of Serbian civilians from Krajina by force or threat of force, and sentenced them as follows: Ante Gotovina to 24, and Mladen Markac to 18 years in prison.

The Appeals Chamber overturned the entire judgement of the Trial Chamber and acquitted the accused generals on all counts, with a tight majority of three to two. Although it did not negate the crimes set out in the first instance, the Appeals Chamber did not see it fit to convict the accused generals even under alternative forms of accountability.

Croatian judiciary also follows in the ICTY’s footsteps. Of a few members of its own armed forces who have so far been prosecuted for war crimes against Serbs at the time of the “Storm”, only one person was convicted (the case “Prukljan and Mandici”). The acquittals for crimes in Gosic, Varivode, Grubori and Kijani, as well as the long investigation with no progress against unknown persons for the massacre of the disabled persons in Dvor na Uni will be remembered in the annals of judicial infamy.

Directly related to Operation “Storm” is a civil action before the Federal Court in Chicago upon a lawsuit of the Krajina Serbs against the consulting firm MPRI, that is, its legal successor, filed in August 2010, for the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 10.4 billion dollars, on the basis of complicity in genocide. At the end of the last year, with the consent of both parties, this procedure entered the mediation stage, which is expected to last this entire year.

In the reasoning of their judgement from February this year, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) qualified Opertion “Storm” as an operation of ethnic cleansing, which did not reach the level of genocide – Croats wanted the Serbian territory free from Serbs, expecting them to leave on their own, and not wanting to “destroy them entirely or in part”. And in order to make them abandon their ancestral homes, they shelled their cities and refugee convoys, killed and abused the remaining civilians and solders, both physically and mentally, and prevented their return, but not even all this together, in the opinion of the Court, reached the level of genocide (it is missing “genocidal intent”).

With this judgement, the ICJ provided a solid base to the Krajina Serbs to continue to seek the realization of other (secondary) requests from their counterclaim by legal means: the prosecution of perpetrators of all war crimes against their compatriots, compensation for destroyed property and lost lives, sustainable return, and full respect of their national and human rights, including broad political  autonomy that the international community (UN, EU, USA and RF) guaranteed to them with the “Z-4 Plan”, before Operation “Storm”.

And in stead of Croatia desisting, even without an order from the ICJ, from the celebration of “actions of ethnic cleansing and mass crimes“ as a double national holiday (“Victory and Homeland Thanksgiving Day” and “Day of Croatian Defenders”), which in the previous years were celebrated on August 5th, this year it also added a military parade in Zagreb a day earlier, when the pogrom of the Krajina Serbs had began.

Of course, the international community, including NATO and EU, that granted membership to Croatia in the meantime, is silent, just like it was silent 20 years ago.

 

In Belgrade and Banja Luka, on August 4th, 2015.

P R E S I D E N T
Savo Strbac


=== DEU ===


D.I.C. Veritas: Pressemitteilung anlässlich des Jahrestages der Tötung der Serben in der Krajina im August 1995 (“Operation Sturm”)

Am 4. August 1995 begannen die kroatischen Streitkräfte, unter Zustimmung und Unterstützung der NATO, mit Hilfe von kroatischer Armee, Polizei und der Armee Bosnien-Herzegowinas (Armija BiH) die Aggression auf Nord-Dalmatien, Lika, Kordun und Banija, bzw. auf das Gebiet der damaligen Republik Serbische Krajine (RSK).

Die Aggression erfolgte trotz der Tatsachen, dass dieses Gebiet unter UN-Schutz stand, unter den Namen Sektor „Süd“ und „Nord“, und dass Vertreter der RSK einen Tag zuvor in Genf und Belgrad den Vorschlag der internationalen Gemeinschaft einer friedlichen Lösung des Konflikts akzeptiert hatten.

In der Operation “Oluja” waren 138.500 Soldaten der kroatischen Armee , Polizei und bosnischen Einheiten beteiligt.Gegen die Krajina Serben (ca. 230.000 Einwohner mit ca. 30.000 Soldaten) – somit war das Kräfteverhältnis: mehr Aggressoren als Bewohner in der Krajina. Das Verhältnis der Soldaten betrug 7:1 zugunsten der kroatischen Aggressoren.

In den Gebieten in den die kroatischen Offensive statt fand,hat fast jeder serbische Bewohner verlassen. Die Kolonne der Flüchtlinge auf Traktoren und anderen Landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen sind über das Gebiet der serbisch bosnischen Kontrolle unterstanden haben, West und Nord Bosnien nach Serbien geflohen . Die Regierung Serbiens hat die Kolonne der Flüchtlinge in das Zentrum des Inneres Serbiens geleitet mit eingeschlossen ins Kosovo . Die Militäraktion “Oluja” zur schlimmsten ethnischen Säuberung auf dem Gebiet des ehemaligen Jugoslawien.

Das Dokumentations-und Informationszentrum “Veritas” hat in seiner Datenbank 1.853 getötete und vermissten Serben von denen 1.202 (65%) Zivilisten sind, von denen Dreiviertel älter als 60 Jahre waren. Unter den Opfern sind 545 (29%) Frauen, von denen etwa Vierfünftel älter als 60 Jahre alt waren.

Von der gesamten Opferzahl sind bisher 1.002 Personenschicksale bekannt. Auf der Vermisstenliste werden noch immer 851 Personen geführt, davon 614 Zivilisten, untern ihnen 310 Frauen. Kroatien vermeidet ohne triftigen Grund die Exhumierung an bekannten Vergrabungsorten von etwa 270 menschlichen Überresten, begraben hauptsächlich unter der Kennzeichnung N.N. „Unbekannt“, was einmalig auf dem Gebiet des ehemaligen Jugoslawiens ist. Auch wird die Identifikation von 294 exhumierten menschlichen Überresten seitens Kroatiens unnötig in die Länge gezogen und somit verhindert.

„Oluja“ ist der einzige Fall, der vor dem Haager Kriegsverbrechtribunal (ICTY) landete, in dem Serben aus Kroatien die Opfer sind. In erster Instanz beschloss das Gericht einstimmig, dass zwei von drei angeklagten Generälen Täter waren im gemeinsamen verbrecherischen Unternehmen, dessen gemeinsamer Zweck die endgültige Säuberung serbischer Zivilisten aus der Krajina war mittels Gewalt oder Androhung von Gewalt. So wurde Ante Gotovina zu 24 und Mladen Markac zu 18 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt.

In zweiter Instanz, mit knapper Mehrheit von drei zu zwei Gegenstimmen, wurde das erste Urteil aufgehoben und die angeklagten Generäle wurden in allen Punkten der Anklage freigesprochen. Auch wenn die festgestellten Verbrechen aus erster Instanz nicht negiert wurden, befand die zweite Instanz es nicht für nötig, die angeklagten Generäle der alternativen Verantwortung nach für schuldig zu befinden.

Den Weg des ICTY geht auch die kroatische Justiz: Von einigen bisher prozessuierten Angehörigen der kroatischen Streitkräfte wegen Kriegsverbrechen an Serben aus der Zeit der Aktion „Oluja“ wurde rechtskräftig eine Person verurteilt (im Fall „Prkuljan und Mandici“. In den Annalen der Justiz-Unehre wird es festgehalten sein, dass Freisprüche erfolgten für die Verbrechen in Gosic, Varivode, Grubori und Kijani, wie auch die langjährige Untersuchung ohne Ergebnisse gegen NN Personen (unbekannte Personen) für das Massaker von behinderten Personen in Dvor an der Una.

In direktem Zusammenhang mit der Aktion “Oluja” steht auch der Fall vor dem Föderalen Gericht in Chicago, in dem Krajina Serben Klage erhoben gegen die amerikanische Beratungsfirma MPRI im August 2010. Der Klage nach fordern sie Entschädigung für materiellen und nicht-materiellen Schaden in Höhe von 10,4 Milliarden Dollar aufgrund von Mittäterschaft im Genozid. Dieser Fall ist Ende letzten Jahres in gegenseitigem Einverständnis zum Mediatorenfall (aussergerichtliche Einigungsverhandlungen) geworden. Es wird erwartet, dass der Einigungsprozess das ganze Jahr 2015 dauern wird.

Das Haager Tribunal hat in der Begründung seines Urteils im Februar diesen Jahres die Aktion “Oluja” qualifiziert als Aktion der ethnischen Säuberung, die nicht das Niveau eines Genozids erreichte – die Kroaten wollten serbisches Territorium ohne Serben und erwartet von ihnen, dass sie von alleine weggehen und nicht dass sie sie „vernichten völlig oder teilweise“. Um sie (die Serben) zu zwingen, ihre jahrhunderte alten Heimstätten zu verlassen, granatierten sie (die Kroaten) ihre Städte und Flüchtlingskolonnen, töteten und maltretierten sowohl psychisch als auch physisch die verbliebenen Zivilisten und Soldaten und verhinderten ihre Rückkehr, aber all das zusammen, nach Meinung des Gerichtes, erreichte nicht das Genozid-Niveau (es gäbe keine „Absicht des Genozids“).

Das ICTY hat mit diesem Urteil den Krajina Serben eine solide Grundlage gegeben mittels Rechtswege andere (Neben-) Forderungen aus der Gegenklage zu verlagen: Prozessuierung der Täter aller Kriegsverbrechen an ihren Landsleuten, Entschädigung für vernichtetes Eigentum und verlorene Leben, wirksame Rückkehr und volle Achtung ihrer nationalen und Menschenrechte, eingeschlossen auch eine breite politische Autonomie, wie sie ihnen seitens der internationalen Gemeinschaft (UN, EU, USA und Russlands) vor der Aktion „Oluja“ garantiert wurde mit dem „Plan Z-4“.

Und anstatt dass Kroatien auch ohne Anweisung des ICTY Abstand nimmt von der Feier der „Aktion der ethnischen Säuberung und Massenverbrechen“ als doppeltem Staatsfeiertag („Tag des Sieges und der Dankbarkeit der Heimat“ und „Tag der kroatischen Verteidiger“), der die vorherigen Jahre am 5. August gefeiert wurde, wurde dieses Jahr auch eine Militärparade in Zagreb einen Tag zuvor hinzugefügt, am 4. August, an dem auch die Vertreibung und Vernichtung der Krajina Serben begann.

Natürlich schweigt die internationale Gemeinschaft, NATO und EU inbegriffen, die mittlerweile Kroatien als Mitglied aufgenommen haben, sie schweigen wie sie auch vor 20 Jahren geschwiegen haben.

Belgrad und Banja Luka, 4. August 2015

Präsident
Savo Štrbac





Attualità dello sterminio atomico

1) 6-8 agosto 1945. Settant'anni dopo Hiroshima e Nagasaki, quel fungo è ancora sopra di noi (Manlio Dinucci)
2) Lettera aperta su Hiroshima e Nagasaki (di Socorro Gomes, Presidente del Consiglio Mondiale della Pace)


Read also:

'Lecciones no aprendidas de la guerra nuclear': 70 años del ataque a Hiroshima y Nagasaki (RT, 5 ago 2015)
Cáncer, mutaciones genéticas y mortalidad infantil. Estos días, el 6 y 9 de agosto, la humanidad conmemora el único caso de uso bélico de armas nucleares en su historia: el bombardeo de las ciudades japonesas de Hiroshima y Nagasaki por parte de EE.UU. Agresiones de este tipo no tienen fecha de caducidad y hoy, 70 años después, los ataques deben reconocerse como un crimen de lesa humanidad, postulan políticos rusos...

“In a Nuclear War the Collateral Damage would be the Life of All Humanity”. Conversations with Fidel Castro: Hiroshima and the Dangers of a Nuclear War
(By Fidel Castro Ruz and Prof Michel Chossudovsky – Global Research, Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1945)
From October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order. These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview...


=== 1 ===



Armi atomiche, attualità dell’Apocalisse

6-8 agosto 1945. Settant'anni dopo Hiroshima e Nagasaki, quel fungo è ancora sopra di noi

Manlio Dinucci 


«E’ una bomba atomica, la forza da cui il Sole trae la sua energia»: così il presidente Harry Truman descrive la terrificante arma che, il 6 agosto 1945, gli Usa sganciano su Hiroshima, seguita due giorni dopo da una bomba al plutonio su Nagasaki. La principale ragione dell’impiego dell’arma nucleare non è costringere alla resa il Giappone, ormai allo stremo, «senza perdita di vite americane», ma impedire che l’Unione sovietica partecipi all’invasione del Giappone ed estenda così la sua influenza alla regione del Pacifico. Gli Stati uniti cercano di trarre il massimo vantaggio dal fatto che, in quel momento, sono gli unici a possedere l’arma atomica. 

Appena un mese dopo il bombardamento nucleare di Hiroshima e Nagasaki, al Pentagono già calcolano che occorrerebbero oltre 200 bombe nucleari contro un nemico delle dimensioni dell’Urss. Gli Usa hanno già 11 bombe quando, il 5 marzo 1946, il discorso di Winston Churchill sulla «cortina di ferro» apre ufficialmente la guerra fredda. Nel 1949 gli Stati uniti hanno abbastanza bombe nucleari (oltre 200) da attaccare l’Unione sovietica. Nello stesso anno, però, l’Urss effettua la sua prima esplosione sperimentale. Comincia la corsa agli armamenti nucleari.

Il vantaggio a favore dell’Occidente cresce quando, nel 1952, la Gran Bretagna effettua la sua prima esplosione nucleare. Nel 1960 la Francia fa esplodere la sua prima bomba al plutonio. Inizia in questo periodo lo schieramento dei più micidiali vettori nucleari: i missili balistici intercontinentali. Negli anni Sessanta, i paesi dotati di armi nucleari passano da quattro a sei: la Cina fa esplodere la sua prima bomba nel 1964; Israele comincia a produrre segretamente armi nucleari probabilmente nel 1966. Negli anni Settanta, i paesi in possesso di armi nucleari aumentano da sei a otto: l’India effettua il suo primo test nel 1974; il Sudafrica effettua segretamente un test congiunto con Israele nel 1979. Inoltre, nel 1998, il Pakistan ammetterà di possedere armi nucleari, precedentemente costruite. 

Dal 1945 al 1991, l’anno in cui la disgregazione dell’Urss segna la fine della guerra fredda, vengono fabbricate circa 130mila testate nucleari: 70mila dagli Stati uniti, 55mila dall’Unione sovietica. Altre 5mila vengono fabbricate da Gran Bretagna, Francia, Cina, Israele, India, Pakistan e Sudafrica. Successivamente, dal «club nucleare» esce il Sudafrica, ma vi entra la Corea del Nord. 

Mentre il clima della guerra fredda comincia a cambiare, Usa e Urss firmano nel 1987 il Trattato sulle forze nucleari intermedie, che elimina i Pershing 2 e i Cruise statunitensi schierati in Europa occidentale, anche a Comiso, e gli SS-20 schierati sul territorio sovietico. Questo importante risultato è dovuto principalmente all’«offensiva del disarmo» lanciata dall’Unione sovietica di Gorbaciov: il 15 gennaio 1986, essa propone di attuare un programma complessivo per la messa al bando delle armi nucleari entro il 2000. Se gli Stati uniti accettassero tale proposta, si avvierebbe un reale processo di disarmo. 

A Washington approfittano invece della disgregazione dell’Urss e della conseguente crisi russa per acquisire nei confronti di Mosca  un crescente vantaggio anche nel campo delle forze nucleari. Trattati come lo Start I, firmato nel 1991, stabiliscono delle riduzioni quantitative degli arsenali nucleari, ma rendono possibile il loro ammodernamento. Campo in cui gli Usa pensano di poter prevalere, mentre a un certo punto si trovano di fronte una Russia che ha di nuovo la capacità di ammodernare il proprio arsenale. Washington rilancia il programma nucleare militare, investendovi miliardi di dollari. 

Si arriva così alla situazione odierna. Secondo la Federazione degli scienziati americani, gli Usa mantengono 1.920 testate nucleari strategiche pronte al lancio (su un totale di 7.300), in confronto alle 1.600 russe (su 8.000). Comprese quelle francesi e britanniche, le forze nucleari Nato dispongono di circa 8.000 testate nucleari, di cui 2.370 pronte al lancio. Aggiungendo quelle cinesi, pachistane, indiane, israeliane e nordcoreane, il numero totale delle testate nucleari viene stimato in 16300, di cui 4.350 pronte al lancio. Sono stime approssimative per difetto, in quanto nessuno sa esattamente quante testate nucleari vi siano in ciascun arsenale. E la corsa agli armamenti nucleari prosegue con la continua modernizzazione degli arsenali e la possibilità che altri paesi, anche firmatari del Tnp,  li costruiscano. 

Per questo la lancetta dell’«Orologio dell’apocalisse», il segnatempo simbolico che sul Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists indica a quanti minuti siamo dalla mezzanotte della guerra nucleare, è stata spostata da 5 a mezzanotte nel 2012 a 3 a mezzanotte nel 2015, lo stesso livello del 1984 in piena guerra fredda. Quello che scientificamente si sa è che, se la lancetta arrivasse a mezzanotte, suonerebbe l’ora della fine dell’umanità.
 
(il manifesto, 6 agosto 1945)



=== 2 ===


Lettera aperta su Hiroshima e Nagasaki

di Socorro Gomes, Presidente del Consiglio Mondiale della Pace | da cebrapaz.org.br

Traduzione di Marx21.it

L’anniversario di un’efferatezza e l’appello al rafforzamento della nostra lotta contro le armi nucleari

Nel 70° anniversario dei criminali bombardamenti statunitensi contro le città giapponesi di Hiroshima e Nagasaki, scriviamo per rafforzare la nostra solidarietà al popolo giapponese, vittima di questa terribile inaugurazione dell’uso delle armi nucleari nel nostro mondo. Rendiamo omaggio alle migliaia di vittime di questo crimine di guerra e contro l’umanità perpetrato dall’imperialismo statunitense, fino ad oggi impunito.

Le vittime non sono un numero: sono persone le cui vite furono private nel corso di quella che va considerata la più terribile espressione della promozione della guerra e della brutalità, ma che devono ricevere omaggio nella nostra lotta contro le armi di distruzione di massa e per la pace.

Nel momento in cui ricordiamo, esprimiamo la nostra solidarietà al popolo giapponese, offrendo il nostro appoggio e unendoci all’appello per lo sviluppo della lotta comune dei popoli per l’abolizione completa delle armi nucleari. Lamentiamo il fatto che, 45 anni dopo la sua adozione, il Trattato di Non Proliferazione delle Armi Nucleari (TNP), un documento superficiale e insufficiente, non abbia ancora liberato l’umanità dalla minaccia della guerra nucleare.

Rendiamo omaggio alle 300.000 vittime giapponesi e alle vittime delle attività nucleari degli Stati Uniti in luoghi come le Isole Marshall – che ancora oggi affrontano le conseguenze degli esperimenti attuati dagli Stati Uniti tra il 1946 e il 1958 – rinnovando il nostro appello al mondo per l’abolizione completa degli arsenali che mettono a rischio l’umanità.

Nel 1950, il Consiglio Mondiale della Pace lanciò l’Appello di Stoccolma, firmato da più di 350 milioni di persone che esigevano la “proibizione completa delle armi atomiche come strumento di intimidazione e assassinio di massa dei popoli”. Il documento, che riproponiamo 65 anni dopo, invita “tutti gli uomini e le donne di buona volontà in tutto il mondo ad aderire a questo appello”. Ma nonostante milioni di persone abbiano richiesto l’abolizione delle armi nucleari, la leadership mondiale continua a discutere attorno a un obiettivo molto meno ambizioso: la mera riduzione dell’arsenale esistente.

L’insuccesso delle conferenze sulla revisione del TNP, la cui ultima edizione ha avuto luogo nell’aprile 2015, è responsabilità dei regimi più ostili, con le loro politiche imperialiste di massacro, minacce e oppressione dei popoli: Israele e Stati Uniti. L’obiettivo di trasformare il Medio Oriente, una delle regioni più instabili a causa dell’iniziativa imperialista, è bastato a provocare la reazione israeliana, che ha fatto deragliare il processo attraverso gli USA.

Gli USA, a loro volta, che hanno allestito una messa in scena teatrale con la riduzione del loro arsenale, nascondono la tendenza alla sua “modernizzazione”: conservando il proprio “potere nucleare”, aumentano la letalità e la portata del loro arsenale, sebbene ridotto di numero. La loro politica, promossa attraverso la maggiore macchina da guerra conosciuta dall’umanità, l’Organizzazione del Trattato del Nord Atlantico (NATO), è basata sulla minaccia e l’aggressione ai popoli di tutto il pianeta.

Per questo, nell’orrendo anniversario, dichiariamo con forza, una volta di più, che ripudiamo il massacro del popolo giapponese e la minaccia della ripetizione di tale evento efferato. Rafforziamo la nostra lotta determinata per l’abolizione delle armi nucleari e delle armi di distruzione di massa. Nel nostro impegno antimperialista, abbiamo la certezza che l’unità tra noi riuscirà a sconfiggere la rabbia militarista e fautrice di guerra, perchè i popoli esigono la pace giusta.

Socorro Gomes,
Presidente del Consiglio Mondiale della Pace