Informazione
>
> Most za Beograd - Un ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari
>
> Associazione culturale di solidarietà con la popolazione jugoslava
>
> c/o RdB, via M. Cristina di Savoia 40, BARI - tel/fax 0805562663
>
> e-mail: ponte@... sito Web: www.isf.it/ponte - CF:93242490725
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> L?associazione opera per la diffusione di una cultura critica della
> guerra e il riavvicinamento tra i popoli con culture, etnie, religioni
> ed usanze diverse al fine di una equa e pacifica convivenza. Si
> impegna per la diffusione di un forte senso di solidarietà nei
> confronti della popolazione jugoslava e degli altri popoli vittime
> della guerra. Ripudia la guerra come mezzo di risoluzione delle
> controversie internazionali.
>
> In particolare l?associazione:
>
> - promuove, attraverso raccolte di fondi e donazioni iniziative di
> solidarietà nei confronti delle vittime della guerra nel campo
> sanitario, scolastico, alimentare e in ogni altro campo.
>
> - promuove iniziative di sostegno a distanza di bambini jugoslavi
>
> - promuove iniziative di gemellaggio tra enti locali italiani e
> jugoslavi, tra scuole italiane e jugoslave
>
> - promuove iniziative volte a far cessare immediatamente ogni forma di
> embargo nei confronti della Repubblica federale jugoslava e della
> repubblica serba.
>
> - promuove scambi culturali e di amicizia verso il popolo jugoslavo
>
> - promuove iniziative di conoscenza della storia e della cultura
> jugoslave
>
>
>
>
>
> L?associazione si riunisce abitualmente ogni mercoledì dalle ore 18.00
> alle 20.30
>
>
>
>
> INIZIATIVE DI SOLIDARIETA? CON I LAVORATORI DELLA ZASTAVA DI
> KRAGUJEVAC BOMBARDATA DALLA NATO
>
>
>
> Per tre settimane, dal 7 al 26 febbraio, tre delegati del sindacato
> dei lavoratori della Zastava, Milan Doncic (segretario del sindacato
> dei lavoratori della Zastava Iveco), Rajka Veljovic (responsabile
> dell?organizzazione delle ?adozioni a distanza?) e Sreten Milicevic
> (presidente del sindacato dei lavoratori della Zastava automobili)
> sono stati in Italia per un lungo giro di incontri-dibattito promosso
> dalla nostra associazione, Most za Beograd ? Un ponte per Belgrado in
> terra di Bari, in collaborazione con il coordinamento nazionale RSU,
> la FIOM di Lecco e di Brescia, associazioni e comitati locali..
>
> Con grande dignità e fermezza hanno portato in tante città ? Bari,
> Bisceglie, Putignano, Conversano, Taranto, Napoli, Roma, Firenze,
> Bologna, Reggio Emilia, Milano, Lecco, Brescia, Torino, Val di Susa,
> Savona, Mestre, Verona, Bolzano - la voce dei lavoratori di quella
> che, prima della distruzione della NATO, era la più grande fabbrica di
> automobili dei Balcani, hanno parlato delle enormi difficoltà di
> sopravvivenza di una popolazione operaia costretta, per la
> disoccupazione, a vivere con un sussidio della fabbrica equivalente a
> 15 marchi al mese, ed un sussidio statale ? in denaro o generi di
> prima necessità ? di altri 20. E dell?aumento delle malattie e della
> mortalità - i funerali cominciano all?alba e non sono ancora finiti al
> tramonto, ci raccontava Sreten - soprattutto tra i bambini e gli
> anziani a causa del freddo e dell?inquinamento provocato dalle bombe
> all?uranio impoverito e dalla terribile miscela di sostanze chimiche
> sprigionatasi con la distruzione della fabbrica. L?embargo, decretato
> dall?Unione Europea, priva la Jugoslavia, le cui industrie
> chimico-farmaceutiche sono state distrutte dai bombardamenti della
> NATO, anche della possibilità di acquistare i medicinali più comuni,
> dagli antibiotici al siero antitetanico.
>
> Contro l?embargo nei confronti della RFJ, voluto dai governi della UE
> e della NATO per imporre in Jugoslavia un governo ad essi gradito, si
> sono pronunciate le assemblee e sono stati sottoscritti appelli.
>
> Ma i tre delegati hanno testimoniato anche della straordinaria volontà
> dei lavoratori di resistere e ricostruire. Durante tutta l?estate,
> nonostante le alluvioni che hanno trasformato la fabbrica in un
> ammasso di fango e rottami, tutti gli operai, con turni ininterrotti,
> hanno sgomberato le macerie e ripulito i capannoni, salvando il
> salvabile di impianti e macchinari. E? stato così possibile riprendere
> la produzione di autovetture, anche se sinora solo in misura pressoché
> simbolica: rispetto alle 20.000 auto al mese che si producevano nel
> 1990, prima degli embargo contro la repubblica jugoslava, se ne sono
> prodotte a gennaio circa 500. In questa produzione diretta sono
> impegnati circa il 20% dei lavoratori; un altro 10% è impegnato nel
> lavoro di ricostruzione; il loro salario equivale a circa 70-80 marchi
> al mese. Il restante 70% - tra le cui famiglie sono selezionati i
> bambini più bisognosi per la ?adozione a distanza? - deve cercare di
> sopravvivere con il sussidio di disoccupazione.
>
> Gli incontri si sono svolti in sale pubbliche, sedi sindacali, scuole
> e fabbriche. In diverse occasioni è stato proiettato un video prodotto
> dai lavoratori della Zastava e il video di Fulvio Grimaldi ?Serbi da
> morire?, denuncia impietosa dei disastri provocati sulla vita degli
> uomini e sull?ambiente dall?aggressione della NATO. Nel complesso, gli
> incontri, hanno avuto, al tempo stesso, il carattere della
> testimonianza diretta e viva, della denuncia della ?guerra
> umanitaria?? grazie alla quale sono stati espulsi dal Kosovo 350.000
> persone, tra serbi, rom e altre minoranze etniche ? e della promozione
> di iniziative di solidarietà.
>
> A questo proposito vi sono stati incontri anche con rappresentanti
> istituzionali degli enti locali (sindaci, assessori, consiglieri) e
> con dirigenti sindacali. I delegati della Zastava hanno ribadito con
> fermezza, sulla base del principio di autodeterminazione, che le
> iniziative di solidarietà non possono essere volte a condizionare la
> situazione politica del loro paese: devono essere i lavoratori e i
> cittadini jugoslavi a decidere in piena autonomia, senza pressioni e
> ricatti economici dei governi dei paesi aderenti alla NATO, chi e come
> governerà il loro paese. Va respinta nettamente la pretesa di stampo
> neocoloniale di imporre dall?esterno governo e governanti. Al
> vergognoso ricatto dell?embargo si oppongono la resistenza e la
> dignità di un popolo che non intende piegarsi ai diktat della NATO.
>
>
>
> Sulla base dei dati forniti dai delegati della Zastava (salari per chi
> è in produzione di 70-80 marchi, sussidi di disoccupazione di 15
> marchi) si comprende bene quanto sia significativo il nostro
> contributo di solidarietà di 50 DM al mese per le famiglie dei
> lavoratori della Zastava (?adozione a distanza?) e come sia importante
> estendere e sviluppare queste iniziative di solidarietà.
>
> Questo invito è già stato accolto da alcuni sostenitori di Bolzano,
> che si sono fatti essi stessi promotori in prima persona di una
> campagna di ?adozioni a distanza? e da diversi altri che, oltre la
> loro adesione, hanno portato quella dei loro compagni di lavoro, dei
> loro amici, dei loro conoscenti. Sta crescendo anche il numero delle
> ?adozioni? collettive di classi scolastiche, circoli aziendali,
> circoli e associazioni schieratisi contro la guerra. Grazie a questo
> impegno di singoli e di gruppi, la nostra associazione ha già
> realizzato 130 ?adozioni? e dovrebbe giungere entro marzo ? quando
> saranno consegnati ai lavoratori della Zastava altri contributi di
> solidarietà ? a realizzarne 160.
>
> Anche il libro di ?poeti dilettanti? (Gli assassini della tenerezza ?
> poesie contro la guerra alla Jugoslavia, con presentazione di Fulvio
> Grimaldi, ed. La Città del Sole, Napoli, 1999, L. 15.000), sta
> contribuendo, oltre che alla critica nei confronti della guerra alla
> Jugoslavia, alla campagna di solidarietà. Un ringraziamento
> particolare va all?editore Sergio Manes, che si è accollato tutte le
> spese editoriali e di stampa, facendo sì che l?intero ricavato delle
> vendite possa essere devoluto ai lavoratori della Zastava (il prezzo
> di copertina del libro corrisponde ad un sussidio mensile di
> disoccupazione...). Finora tra Bari (regione Puglia), Napoli, Roma,
> Lecco, Brescia, Bolzano sono state vendute 800 copie. Almeno
> altrettante sono in circolazione (in parte anche attraverso
> l?ordinaria distribuzione editoriale, che sottrarrà purtroppo una
> consistente percentuale).
>
> Altre somme per i lavoratori della Zastava e le ?adozioni a distanza?
> sono state raccolte con contributi individuali o iniziative locali (da
> quelle estive, con la mostra itinerante nelle piazze di Puglia Hanno
> fatto un deserto e lo chiamano pace, alla serata di solidarietà
> organizzata dagli studenti del Liceo ?Scacchi? di Bari, a quella
> organizzata dal Servizio Civile Internazionale ai ?Giardini di
> Atrebil? di Bari, a quella di ?Otium? di Bari o del circolo del PRC di
> Gravina). In tutto, dall?inizio della nostra attività (luglio ?99)
> abbiamo raccolto e consegnato ai lavoratori della Zastava 48.500.000
> lire. La raccolta di contributi è cresciuta notevolmente negli ultimi
> due mesi, frutto del lavoro di sensibilizzazione svolto
> dall?associazione attraverso conferenze, incontri, proiezione di
> video, mostre fotografiche. Al momento della loro partenza da Bari
> abbiamo consegnato ai delegati della Zastava 31.900.000 lire (è solo
> la somma raccolta dall?associazione di Bari: altri contributi essi
> hanno ricevuto da Napoli, Bolzano, ecc.): una somma irrilevante se
> confrontata al costo di uno solo delle migliaia di missili NATO che
> hanno seminato terrore e morte in Jugoslavia; eppure una cifra
> significativa, che testimonia la condanna della guerra e i sentimenti
> di solidarietà di tanti cittadini italiani (e del mondo: ci sono
> pervenuti contributi anche dalla Germania). Oltre questo contributo in
> denaro, sono stati raccolti e consegnati, sia in precedenza che
> ultimamente, medicinali (raccolti a Bari e in gran parte dal comitato
> di solidarietà di Napoli).
>
--
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
> Most za Beograd - Un ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari
>
> Associazione culturale di solidarietà con la popolazione jugoslava
>
> c/o RdB, via M. Cristina di Savoia 40, BARI - tel/fax 0805562663
>
> e-mail: ponte@... sito Web: www.isf.it/ponte - CF:93242490725
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> L?associazione opera per la diffusione di una cultura critica della
> guerra e il riavvicinamento tra i popoli con culture, etnie, religioni
> ed usanze diverse al fine di una equa e pacifica convivenza. Si
> impegna per la diffusione di un forte senso di solidarietà nei
> confronti della popolazione jugoslava e degli altri popoli vittime
> della guerra. Ripudia la guerra come mezzo di risoluzione delle
> controversie internazionali.
>
> In particolare l?associazione:
>
> - promuove, attraverso raccolte di fondi e donazioni iniziative di
> solidarietà nei confronti delle vittime della guerra nel campo
> sanitario, scolastico, alimentare e in ogni altro campo.
>
> - promuove iniziative di sostegno a distanza di bambini jugoslavi
>
> - promuove iniziative di gemellaggio tra enti locali italiani e
> jugoslavi, tra scuole italiane e jugoslave
>
> - promuove iniziative volte a far cessare immediatamente ogni forma di
> embargo nei confronti della Repubblica federale jugoslava e della
> repubblica serba.
>
> - promuove scambi culturali e di amicizia verso il popolo jugoslavo
>
> - promuove iniziative di conoscenza della storia e della cultura
> jugoslave
>
>
>
>
>
> L?associazione si riunisce abitualmente ogni mercoledì dalle ore 18.00
> alle 20.30
>
>
>
>
> INIZIATIVE DI SOLIDARIETA? CON I LAVORATORI DELLA ZASTAVA DI
> KRAGUJEVAC BOMBARDATA DALLA NATO
>
>
>
> Per tre settimane, dal 7 al 26 febbraio, tre delegati del sindacato
> dei lavoratori della Zastava, Milan Doncic (segretario del sindacato
> dei lavoratori della Zastava Iveco), Rajka Veljovic (responsabile
> dell?organizzazione delle ?adozioni a distanza?) e Sreten Milicevic
> (presidente del sindacato dei lavoratori della Zastava automobili)
> sono stati in Italia per un lungo giro di incontri-dibattito promosso
> dalla nostra associazione, Most za Beograd ? Un ponte per Belgrado in
> terra di Bari, in collaborazione con il coordinamento nazionale RSU,
> la FIOM di Lecco e di Brescia, associazioni e comitati locali..
>
> Con grande dignità e fermezza hanno portato in tante città ? Bari,
> Bisceglie, Putignano, Conversano, Taranto, Napoli, Roma, Firenze,
> Bologna, Reggio Emilia, Milano, Lecco, Brescia, Torino, Val di Susa,
> Savona, Mestre, Verona, Bolzano - la voce dei lavoratori di quella
> che, prima della distruzione della NATO, era la più grande fabbrica di
> automobili dei Balcani, hanno parlato delle enormi difficoltà di
> sopravvivenza di una popolazione operaia costretta, per la
> disoccupazione, a vivere con un sussidio della fabbrica equivalente a
> 15 marchi al mese, ed un sussidio statale ? in denaro o generi di
> prima necessità ? di altri 20. E dell?aumento delle malattie e della
> mortalità - i funerali cominciano all?alba e non sono ancora finiti al
> tramonto, ci raccontava Sreten - soprattutto tra i bambini e gli
> anziani a causa del freddo e dell?inquinamento provocato dalle bombe
> all?uranio impoverito e dalla terribile miscela di sostanze chimiche
> sprigionatasi con la distruzione della fabbrica. L?embargo, decretato
> dall?Unione Europea, priva la Jugoslavia, le cui industrie
> chimico-farmaceutiche sono state distrutte dai bombardamenti della
> NATO, anche della possibilità di acquistare i medicinali più comuni,
> dagli antibiotici al siero antitetanico.
>
> Contro l?embargo nei confronti della RFJ, voluto dai governi della UE
> e della NATO per imporre in Jugoslavia un governo ad essi gradito, si
> sono pronunciate le assemblee e sono stati sottoscritti appelli.
>
> Ma i tre delegati hanno testimoniato anche della straordinaria volontà
> dei lavoratori di resistere e ricostruire. Durante tutta l?estate,
> nonostante le alluvioni che hanno trasformato la fabbrica in un
> ammasso di fango e rottami, tutti gli operai, con turni ininterrotti,
> hanno sgomberato le macerie e ripulito i capannoni, salvando il
> salvabile di impianti e macchinari. E? stato così possibile riprendere
> la produzione di autovetture, anche se sinora solo in misura pressoché
> simbolica: rispetto alle 20.000 auto al mese che si producevano nel
> 1990, prima degli embargo contro la repubblica jugoslava, se ne sono
> prodotte a gennaio circa 500. In questa produzione diretta sono
> impegnati circa il 20% dei lavoratori; un altro 10% è impegnato nel
> lavoro di ricostruzione; il loro salario equivale a circa 70-80 marchi
> al mese. Il restante 70% - tra le cui famiglie sono selezionati i
> bambini più bisognosi per la ?adozione a distanza? - deve cercare di
> sopravvivere con il sussidio di disoccupazione.
>
> Gli incontri si sono svolti in sale pubbliche, sedi sindacali, scuole
> e fabbriche. In diverse occasioni è stato proiettato un video prodotto
> dai lavoratori della Zastava e il video di Fulvio Grimaldi ?Serbi da
> morire?, denuncia impietosa dei disastri provocati sulla vita degli
> uomini e sull?ambiente dall?aggressione della NATO. Nel complesso, gli
> incontri, hanno avuto, al tempo stesso, il carattere della
> testimonianza diretta e viva, della denuncia della ?guerra
> umanitaria?? grazie alla quale sono stati espulsi dal Kosovo 350.000
> persone, tra serbi, rom e altre minoranze etniche ? e della promozione
> di iniziative di solidarietà.
>
> A questo proposito vi sono stati incontri anche con rappresentanti
> istituzionali degli enti locali (sindaci, assessori, consiglieri) e
> con dirigenti sindacali. I delegati della Zastava hanno ribadito con
> fermezza, sulla base del principio di autodeterminazione, che le
> iniziative di solidarietà non possono essere volte a condizionare la
> situazione politica del loro paese: devono essere i lavoratori e i
> cittadini jugoslavi a decidere in piena autonomia, senza pressioni e
> ricatti economici dei governi dei paesi aderenti alla NATO, chi e come
> governerà il loro paese. Va respinta nettamente la pretesa di stampo
> neocoloniale di imporre dall?esterno governo e governanti. Al
> vergognoso ricatto dell?embargo si oppongono la resistenza e la
> dignità di un popolo che non intende piegarsi ai diktat della NATO.
>
>
>
> Sulla base dei dati forniti dai delegati della Zastava (salari per chi
> è in produzione di 70-80 marchi, sussidi di disoccupazione di 15
> marchi) si comprende bene quanto sia significativo il nostro
> contributo di solidarietà di 50 DM al mese per le famiglie dei
> lavoratori della Zastava (?adozione a distanza?) e come sia importante
> estendere e sviluppare queste iniziative di solidarietà.
>
> Questo invito è già stato accolto da alcuni sostenitori di Bolzano,
> che si sono fatti essi stessi promotori in prima persona di una
> campagna di ?adozioni a distanza? e da diversi altri che, oltre la
> loro adesione, hanno portato quella dei loro compagni di lavoro, dei
> loro amici, dei loro conoscenti. Sta crescendo anche il numero delle
> ?adozioni? collettive di classi scolastiche, circoli aziendali,
> circoli e associazioni schieratisi contro la guerra. Grazie a questo
> impegno di singoli e di gruppi, la nostra associazione ha già
> realizzato 130 ?adozioni? e dovrebbe giungere entro marzo ? quando
> saranno consegnati ai lavoratori della Zastava altri contributi di
> solidarietà ? a realizzarne 160.
>
> Anche il libro di ?poeti dilettanti? (Gli assassini della tenerezza ?
> poesie contro la guerra alla Jugoslavia, con presentazione di Fulvio
> Grimaldi, ed. La Città del Sole, Napoli, 1999, L. 15.000), sta
> contribuendo, oltre che alla critica nei confronti della guerra alla
> Jugoslavia, alla campagna di solidarietà. Un ringraziamento
> particolare va all?editore Sergio Manes, che si è accollato tutte le
> spese editoriali e di stampa, facendo sì che l?intero ricavato delle
> vendite possa essere devoluto ai lavoratori della Zastava (il prezzo
> di copertina del libro corrisponde ad un sussidio mensile di
> disoccupazione...). Finora tra Bari (regione Puglia), Napoli, Roma,
> Lecco, Brescia, Bolzano sono state vendute 800 copie. Almeno
> altrettante sono in circolazione (in parte anche attraverso
> l?ordinaria distribuzione editoriale, che sottrarrà purtroppo una
> consistente percentuale).
>
> Altre somme per i lavoratori della Zastava e le ?adozioni a distanza?
> sono state raccolte con contributi individuali o iniziative locali (da
> quelle estive, con la mostra itinerante nelle piazze di Puglia Hanno
> fatto un deserto e lo chiamano pace, alla serata di solidarietà
> organizzata dagli studenti del Liceo ?Scacchi? di Bari, a quella
> organizzata dal Servizio Civile Internazionale ai ?Giardini di
> Atrebil? di Bari, a quella di ?Otium? di Bari o del circolo del PRC di
> Gravina). In tutto, dall?inizio della nostra attività (luglio ?99)
> abbiamo raccolto e consegnato ai lavoratori della Zastava 48.500.000
> lire. La raccolta di contributi è cresciuta notevolmente negli ultimi
> due mesi, frutto del lavoro di sensibilizzazione svolto
> dall?associazione attraverso conferenze, incontri, proiezione di
> video, mostre fotografiche. Al momento della loro partenza da Bari
> abbiamo consegnato ai delegati della Zastava 31.900.000 lire (è solo
> la somma raccolta dall?associazione di Bari: altri contributi essi
> hanno ricevuto da Napoli, Bolzano, ecc.): una somma irrilevante se
> confrontata al costo di uno solo delle migliaia di missili NATO che
> hanno seminato terrore e morte in Jugoslavia; eppure una cifra
> significativa, che testimonia la condanna della guerra e i sentimenti
> di solidarietà di tanti cittadini italiani (e del mondo: ci sono
> pervenuti contributi anche dalla Germania). Oltre questo contributo in
> denaro, sono stati raccolti e consegnati, sia in precedenza che
> ultimamente, medicinali (raccolti a Bari e in gran parte dal comitato
> di solidarietà di Napoli).
>
--
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
REPUBBLICA CECA
* Lanci di uova contro Madeleine Albright in visita a Brno
* In vista blocchi stradali da parte degli agricoltori
* Praga, conferenza "UN ANNO DOPO: cause, coerenza e conseguenze della
crisi del Kosovo". La relazione di uno dei partecipanti (in italiano) ed
il dispaccio della Tanjug
UCRAINA
Come riportato in un messaggio precedente
( http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/43.html? ) il Parlamento
ucraino, che ha una maggioranza di sinistra, all'inizio di febbraio e'
stato messo nella impossibilita' di svolgere il proprio ruolo
istituzionale da parte delle forze di polizia fedeli al presidente
filo-occidentale Kuchma (vittorioso, grazie a brogli, nelle recenti
elezioni), ed ai parlamentari della minoranza di destra che hanno
occupato l'aula.
Ecco le ragioni, ed i risultati, di questo colpo di stato:
* Visita a Kiev degli alti ufficiali NATO; comunicato congiunto
* E' partita la contro-riforma agraria
* E' partita la colossale svendita delle imprese pubbliche
* L'analisi della Stratfor Intelligence sul processo di inglobamento
dell'Ucraina nella NATO in funzione antirussa
NOTA: la gran parte dei contributi sono stati diffusi dalla mailing list
STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.HOME-PAGE.ORG
---
LANCI DI UOVA
Protesters Throw Eggs at Albright
By Nadia Rybarova
Associated Press Writer
Monday, March 6, 2000; 8:01 a.m. EST
BRNO, Czech Republic –– Shouting "death to American imperialism,"
two men hurled eggs at Secretary of State Madeleine Albright today after
she told a university audience that defense of common values sometimes
requires countries to pay a financial price.
After finishing a speech to an enthusiastic audience at Tomas Masaryk
University in this industrial city 125 miles southeast of Prague,
Albright was milling about in the crowded entrance hall as bystanders
cheered.
Suddenly, two men shouted "death to American imperialism" and began
hurling eggs. Albright was spattered slightly with bits of egg but most
of them were intercepted by her bodyguards, said a U.S. official who
asked that his name not be published.
She was rushed upstairs quickly before leaving for another appearance.
Police Capt. Zdenek Lubas said several people were detained for
questioning but declined to give further details.
The incident marred an otherwise warm reception here on the second day
of Albright's four-day visit to the land of her birth.
Before the speech, she met privately with about a dozen students from
the Gypsy minority to discuss affirmative action and other ideas for
improving their conditions. She also received a gold medal Wednesday
from the university named after a Czech president who was born near here
100 years ago.
During her speech, Albright referred to a pledge by Czech President
Vaclav Havel to cancel a $30 million sale of cooling duct parts by a
Czech company to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant.
Although Iran insist the plant is for peaceful production of
electricity, the United States fears the Iranians are trying to develop
a nuclear weapons program.
Noting that this former Soviet Bloc state joined NATO last year,
Albright said preventing the spread of nuclear weapons was a high
priority of the Western alliance.
As with any goal worth achieving, it is not without cost," Albright
said, speaking in English. "To keep the best technology from falling
into the wrong hands, American firms are required to forgo many
potentially profitable contracts. But a similar responsibility rests
upon the shoulders of all who pledged to defend the best interests of
the Euro-Atlantic community."
Albright said Washington has urged all its allies to "meet that
responsibility so that our common security is protected and the future
safer for our children and theirs."
Iran denies any nuclear weapons program and insists that the power plant
at Bushehr is simply for the peaceful generation of electricity.
"We consider the campaign around Bushehr conducted by the Czech
government and the local media a gift to the American minister Madeleine
Albright linked to her visit," Sharif Khodai, the acting Iranian
ambassador to Prague, told the newspaper Pravo.
Later, Albright was to join Havel for a visit to the nearby town of
Hodonin, where Masaryk was born. Masaryk led Czechoslovakia from 1918
until 1935 and was also a close friend of President Woodrow Wilson.
Albright has urged Czechs to follow the example of Masaryk, a towering
figure in Eastern European democratic history. She has said they should
pursue his goals here and throughout the region, including Yugoslavia.
Using that theme, U.S. officials said Albright has urged the Czechs to
undertake judicial reform and encourage tolerance for the country's
Gypsy, or Roma, minority.
"Masaryk's dream was to have Europe whole and free," Albright said
Sunday at a joint news conference with Havel in Prague Castle. She
quoted Masaryk as saying democracy was not an act but a "pursuit" that
must be continually developed.
She has also encouraged the Czech Republic to become more involved in
Western moves to bring democracy to Yugoslavia's main republic, Serbia,
and to help promote ethnic stability in Kosovo, a province of Serbia.
After visiting Masaryk's shrine, Albright was to return today to Prague,
where she was scheduled to hold a roundtable discussion with Eastern
European non-governmental organizations to discuss ways of promoting
democratization in Serbia.
Albright said Sunday that the people of Serbia "do not deserve" an
autocratic leader like President Slobodan Milosevic.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, she said the
United States had been urging the Serbian opposition movement to end its
divisions and prove to Serbs that "they represent an alternate choice."
Albright also said democratically minded leaders from former Soviet Bloc
countries could offer advice to opposition figures in Serbia on how to
unite in the face of authoritarian rule.
Albright's father, Josef Korbel, a Czech diplomat, fled with his wife
and children to London as Germany took control of Czechoslovakia at the
onset of World War II. When the communists took over Czechoslovakia in
1948, the family then migrated to the United States.
After the fall of communism here, the Czech and Slovak republics split
into two countries in 1993.
---
BLOCCHI STRADALI
(The Czech Republic is held up as a showcase and
prototype for the new EU-style privatized Eastern
European economy. How well's it's working - for the
populace, anyway - is indicated below...."Agricultural
production last year was 14 pct. higher than in 1998,
but at the same time revenue of farmers fell by Kc15bn
[$1=36.9 Koruna/Kc]....[T]he main reasons for the
strike are the non-payment of wages to employees,
growing unemployment...and fear [concerning] social
and pension reforms.")
* Farmers to strike by blocking Prague motorways
PRAGUE, Mar 7, 2000 -- (CTK - Czech News Agency) The
Association of Independent Trade Unions (ASO) has
declared a warning strike for Wednesday, 12:00 noon,
in protest against the pertinent authorities' failure
to solve social problems, ASO chairman Bohumir Dufek
said at a press conference today.
Farmers will block some Prague motorways for half an
hour. Dufek did not specify what motorways. "We will
block a certain Prague motorway. Farmers have no other
option how to call attention to their problems," said
Dufek, adding that the unions have enough people to do
this. He would not give any details because, as he
said, he wanted to protect personal safety of
participants in the protest.
Agricultural production last year was 14 pct higher
than in 1998 but at the same time revenues of farmers
fell by Kc15bn, the Agricultural Chamber president
Vaclav Hlavacek said at the beginning of March. Dufek
said that the main reasons for the strike are the non-
payment of wages to employees, growing unemployment
due to the non-existence of a plan to help the Czech
Republic out of the current economic crisis and fear
from the prepared social and pension reforms.
The Trade Union Association of Railway Employees will
allegedly join the strike, halting railway passenger
transport for a quarter of an hour at 12:00 noon. ASO
groups together eight trade union associations with
around 230,000 employees. ((c) 2000 CTK - Czech News
Agency)
---
PRAGA: CONFERENZA
REMARK: this message contains an outline of the Conference which was
held in Prague, 26-28/2/2000. It is sent for information to the whole
italian "Committee of Scientists against the War" mailing list, to the
responsibles of the Italian Section of the "Clark" Tribunal for NATO
crimes, and to the participants' addresses gathered by the author at the
Conference itself.
AUTORE: Andrea Martocchia (Comitato Scienziate/i contro la guerra,
sezione italiana Tribunale contro i crimini della NATO, Coordinamento
Romano per la Jugoslavia) <martok@...>
TITOLO: "Un anno dopo: cause, coerenza e conseguenze della crisi del
Kosovo"
ORGANIZZATORI: "Res Publica" e' il gruppo promotore, di area
socialdemocratica (cfr. http://www.publica.cz/infoservis.htm )
INVITATI E PRESENTI: di circa 1000 realta', ceche e straniere, invitate
erano presenti solo 35 persone. Hanno "brillato" per la loro assenza ad
esempio gli italiani (solo due presenti, nonostante che l'invito avesse
girato in tutto l'arcipelago pacifista grazie alle mailing list di
Peacelink), sia tutti i paesi balcanici, ad eccezione ovviamente della
RF
di Jugoslavia.
NOTE PRELIMINARI: Ho partecipato solamente alla sessione della domenica
27/2, insieme a R. Gabriele (in rappresentanza della Fondazione Nino
Pasti
per la pace e l'indipendenza dei popoli e dello stesso Tribunale
"Clark").
Inoltre purtroppo non possedevo un registratore, ed ho pertanto preso
solo
appunti a mano di quello che mi sembrava piu' rilevante. Gli
organizzatori
pero' si sono ripromessi di mettere sul loro sito internet i contributi
che hanno raccolto.
RELAZIONI
La prima relazione che ho sentito era un contributo di carattere
tecnico sull'inquinamento causato dai bombardamenti, tenuto da un
professore di Chimica dell'Universita' di Brno il quale ha praticamente
riassunto quello che a riguardo e' contenuto nel libro "Imbrogli di
guerra" - pur senza conoscere il libro...
Un giovane di Pancevo ha poi letto un testo sulla situazione nella sua
citta' dopo i bombardamenti; tra le cose che mi sono rimaste impresse la
sua sottolineatura di come la NATO sia riuscita a far deteriorare i
rapporti interetnici in quella zona ed in tutta la multinazionale RF di
Jugoslavia.
Io stesso ho poi preso la parola per presentare il nostro Comitato, il
libro e dare la mia valutazione dello stato del movimento contro la
guerra. Ho parlato del lavoro della sezione italiana del Tribunale
"Clark"
e di come la attuale classe dirigente italiana abbia stracciato i valori
fondanti della Repubblica, nonche' quelli che la dovrebbero
caratterizzare
e differenziare rispetto alla opposizione di destra.
Un rappresentante dell'ambasciata della RFJ, dopo aver lamentato
l'assenza
dei rappresentanti degli altri paesi balcanici (che avrebbero potuto
raccontare le conseguenze per le loro societa' e per le loro economie
della politica "umanitaria" della NATO, ad es. i rumeni con il Danubio
bloccato), ha presentato una serie di documenti di fonte ufficiale
jugoslava contenenti
- gli effetti dei bombardamenti NATO ("White Book", cfr.
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/ oppure http://www1.mfa.gov.yu/ )
- l'elencazione degli atti terroristici e di violenza avvenuti a partire
dalla occupazione del territorio da parte delle truppe KFOR (circa 3500
azioni, di cui 110 contro i rom e circa 80 contro albanesi-kosovari
"traditori" come quelli iscritti al "nazicomunista" Partito Socialista
Serbo) che hanno causato in tutto 793 morti invisibili sui nostri
mass-media
- la distruzione di circa 80 chiese serbo-ortodosse, alcune delle quali
sotto tutela UNESCO.
Egli ha inoltre raccontato in che modo siano stati stravolti gli
equilibri
demografici della regione a partire dagli anni 70 (per non risalire
indietro al periodo dell'occupazione nazifascista), ha stigmatizzato la
maniera coercitiva in cui la NATO sta inglobando tutti gli stati
dell'area
ovvero sta costringendo paesi come la Grecia a partecipare ad operazioni
che rifiuterebbero, ed ha indicato esplicitamente la lobby della grande
industria transnazionale come "burattinai" della NATO, lobby che e' a
sua
volta diretta "da chi detiene i capitali" attraverso organizzazioni come
la Trilateral ed il gruppo Bilderberg (cfr. www.bilderberg.org).
Poi ha parlato un biochimico ceco, poi una dottoressa inglese della
organizzazione IPPNW (Intern. Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War, premio Nobel 1995) sulla strategia occidentale, sulla frustazione
russa e sulla corsa al riarmo.
Un socialdemocratico ceco, che si e' detto "tradito dal comportamento
dei
leaders della Internazionale Socialista", ha poi espresso, con toni di
estrema amarezza, la delusione per il modo in cui le speranze
"democratiche" della svolta del '90 siano state umiliate. Lo stesso
presidente Havel sta mostrando di essere in prima fila nello
schieramento
guerrafondaio internazionale, con dichiarazioni di stampo pannelliano
che
lasciano quantomeno perplessi quelli che un tempo lo stimavano; pertanto
e' stato indicato anche lui come un "criminale di guerra" alla stregua
dei
D'Alema, Blair, Clinton, eccetera. Allo stesso modo e' stata
sottolineata
l'assenza di quegli intellettuali che tanto avevano lavorato per
abbattere
il vecchio sistema e "democratizzare" la societa'. Questi sono stati
indicati come "prostitute", mentre il clima culturale e' stato definito
"disperato". Quale democrazia, quando la NATO interviene contro il suo
stesso statuto?
Il professore e saggista Rajko Dolecek (autore dell'importante
"J'accuse",
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Dolecek.html ) a questo
proposito ha ricordato come la NATO abbia aggredito la Jugoslavia pochi
giorni dopo l'entrata della Rep. Ceca nell'organizzazione lasciando di
stucco (per usare un eufemismo...) tanti che pure non erano a priori
contrari all'entrata nella NATO. Dal punto di vista dei diritti umani,
ha detto Dolecek, la NATO e' come "una prostituta che predica la
verginita'".
Un attivista polacco di Cracovia, che ha raccontato di conoscere
personalmente alcuni familiari del Pontefice, ha poi contestato, con
libri
e citazioni alla mano, il ruolo della Chiesa cattolica e del papa. Ha
detto delle cose estremamente interessanti, sulle quali pero' non mi
dilungo: basti citare la frase del Cardinale Glemp (ricordate?...) che
all'inizio dei bombardamenti li ha paragonati ad "una frusta di Dio che
si
abbatte su quel paese". Gli ha fatto eco una militante ceca della
Christian Peace Conference la quale ha raccontato del "sentimento di
essere manipolate/i", dell'arroganza dell'Occidente e del fatto che la
chiesa cristiana ha "due gambe, quella occidentale (cattolica) e quella
orientale (ortodossa)" le quali hanno pari dignita' anche se i loro
leaders non ne vogliono sentir parlare.
C'e' poi stato uno scambio di vedute sull'apparente contrasto tra
sovranita' degli Stati e diritti umani, che e' stato giudicato "una
assurdita'" se a parlarne sono quelli che violano la prima dicendo di
voler proteggere i secondi, previo poi violarli molto piu'
pesantemente...
Si e' fatto riferimento ad una conferenza della Association of
Lawyers against Nuclear Weapons, tenutasi all'Aia durante i
bombardamenti,
nella quale i circa 7000 partecipanti avrebbero approvato a maggioranza
una risoluzione che dichiarava illegale l'aggressione della NATO. Questa
risoluzione e' stata soggetta ad un embargo (censura) informativo
completo
sui media di tutti i paesi. Infine, sempre Dolecek ha presentato un suo
ragionamento sul carattere, a suo dire, non imparziale ne' legale del
Tribunale dell'Aia per i crimini commessi sul territorio della RFSJ.
Infine, i rappresentanti tedeschi del Tribunale Clark (si veda
http://www.nato-tribunal.de/ ) hanno parlato della loro intenzione di
coordinare tutte le attivita' a livello europeo, facendole sfociare in
una
grande sessione europea a Berlino il 2 e 3 giugno prossimi, che
precedera'
di una ventina di giorni la seduta internazionale finale, che si terra'
a
New York, patrocinata dallo stesso Clark e dall'IAC.
Clark comunque sara' a Praga il 23 marzo prossimo, sulla via per
Belgrado
dove celebrera' il primo anniversario della aggressione; e proprio per
il
23 a Praga la Fondazione Pasti ha proposto che si tenga una iniziativa
europea di coordinamento di tutte le sezioni europee del Tribunale.
A latere della giornata ho ancora da registrare i colloqui avuti
separatamente con vari partecipanti, colloqui resi particolarmente
piacevoli dai boccali di birra Pilsen che avevamo dinanzi. In
particolare
i cechi mi hanno detto che, secondo loro, non e' affatto vero che con il
"cambiamento del regime" le persone si sentano adesso molto piu' libere
di
esprimersi, visto che ad esempio sulle questioni della guerra della NATO
c'e' molta paura a dire in pubblico la propria opinione. Questo benche'
la
stragrande maggioranza dlla popolazione ceca sia stata certamente
contraria alle bombe, anche se i mass-media locali (ormai completamente
in
mano a corporation straniere, in particolare tedesche, come tedeschi
sono
i proprietari della Skoda...) hanno dato una immagine falsificata di
questo sentimento collettivo a forza di bordate propagandistiche.
Insomma,
sotto questo profilo la situazione e' identica a quella italiana.
Da me interrogato su di una questione diversa, e cioe' se sapesse
qualcosa
del colpo di Stato che c'e' stato in Ucraina un mese fa nel silenzio
completo della stampa occidentale, uno slovacco ha detto che anche nel
suo
paese c'e' stata censura completa sulle informazioni (li' e' soprattutto
la Fondazione Soros che ha in mano i media) e questo e' assurdo visto
che
l'Ucraina e' un paese immenso, con circa 50 milioni di abitanti... Ma
lui
aveva avuto occasione di parlare direttamente con alcuni lavoratori
ucraini immigrati, che gli hanno raccontato di essere tornati ai loro
paesi d'origine per votare alle presidenziali (vinte di stretta misura
dal
filo-occidentale Kuchma, autore del golpe di cui sopra) e che al seggio
elettorale hanno trovato le schede gia' firmate ed il voto gia'
espresso,
nonche' una serie di loschi figuri a "controllare" che non succedessero
incidenti... Dietro a tutta questa "democrazia" (?) c'e' da una parte
l'inglobamento dell'Ucraina nella NATO attraverso la Partnership for
Peace, cui si erano opposti anche la maggioranza dei parlamentari, e
dall'altra la privatizzazione di centinaia di imprese e dei latifondi,
sulla quale era in atto un forte scontro politico. Meno chiaro quale sia
adesso la situazione, dopo che un mese fa il parlamento e' stato
occupato
dai partiti di destra e molti deputati di sinistra sono entrati in
sciopero della fame.
(...) Andrea Martocchia
www.serbia-info.com/news
Call for lifting embargo against FR Yugoslavia
February 29, 2000
Embargo on FRY has to be suspended
Prague, February 28th - Participants in the international conference
"One year after: the causes, links and consequences of the Kosovo
crisis," that ends today in Prague, have called on the international
community to lift the sanctions against Yugoslavia.
Representatives of ten European states at a three-day meeting, organized
by the non-governmental organization European Network for Peace and
Co-operation warned that the embargo, in general, in all countries where
it was applied, besides its inhumanity has proved to be completely
inefficient and politically shortsighted and that it affected most of
the population.
In today's closing discussions, it was concluded that NATO member
countries that have bombed for almost 80 days FR Yugoslavia, should pay
for the damages and rebuild everything they had destroyed in the
country.
Participants in the conferences stressed that without the inclusion of
FR Yugoslavia in all regional plans for the reconstruction of the
Balkans, of which that country is an inseparable and almost the most
important part, there will be no progress.
In the final document of the conference, which will be sent to the
Yugoslav Government and all other important international organizations,
institutions and governments of many countries, was included the protest
sent to UNESCO because of the destruction of Serbian Orthodox Churches
and monasteries in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as of facilities during
the bombing of all of Yugoslavia.
All the reports of the conference participants, among which were also
representatives of peace movements, and experts in different fields -
legal experts, historians, ecologists, biochemists, experts in atomic
energy - from Ireland, Great Britain, Yugoslavia, Poland, Italy,
Germany, Finland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, will be presented on
the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFFICIALI NATO
(Yet another step closer to Moscow, by the exact route used by Napoleon
and Hitler. But first NATO's 'expertise' will be employed to crush
internal opposition - a majority in both houses of parliament oppose
both Kuchma and NATO memebership, and were recently forcibly ousted from
a protest in the parliament building.
Reminiscent of Boris Yeltsin ringing the Russian parliament buiding with
tanks - remember that? - and firing on the legally elected speaker and
assistant speaker, killing perhaps hundreds of protesters holed up
there. Bill Clinton's and England's John Major's response to this -
truly unprecedented - destruction of a nation's parliament by the
military? They both applauded Boris Yeltsin as the "saviour of Russian
democracy," just as Clinton later commented on Yeltsin's first Chechnya
campaign by calling him "the Abraham Lincoln of his country."
But, quick, wipe all the above from your memory; we're not supposed to
remember any of those things.)
Tuesday February 29 8:42 AM ET
Ukraine Hosts Top NATO Officials, Eyes Closer Ties
By Dmitry Solovyov
KIEV, Ukraine (Reuters) - NATO leaders arrived in Ukraine on Tuesday for
a meeting that Kiev hopes will be a major step toward closer links
between the Western alliance and the former Soviet state seeking
integration into European structures.
``For the first time, 19 NATO ambassadors, the Secretary General and the
chief of the military committee come to Kiev together for this historic
meeting,´´ said Natalya Melnichuk, head of the NATO Information and
Documentation Center in Kiev.
Wednesday's meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, to be chaired by
NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, will be the 16th since Ukraine
signed a partnership charter with the alliance in 1997 but the first to
be held in Kiev.
Joining NATO is not on the agenda for Ukraine and Wednesday's meeting is
unlikely to take any key decisions. But Robertson, who previously
visited Kiev in late January, will stay on for an extra day for a
program of unofficial visits.
NATO and Ukrainian officials say the very composition of the gathering
will clearly demonstrate Western support for Ukraine's aspirations to
integrate into European structures.
Ukraine Seeks Place In Europe Via Ties With Nato
``I think Ukraine wanted to have a meeting in Kiev because it gives us a
chance to move the relationship forward, it raises (Ukraine´s)
profile,´´ a NATO official said.
``Ukraine has this policy of seeking greater integration into European
structures, and NATO sees this as completely in line with its own view
of NATO-Ukraine relations.´´
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma won re-election last November on
pledges to boost market reforms, build good relations with Russia and
integrate into Europe.
Experts say that after his landslide victory the timing is good for
Kuchma to demonstrate Ukraine's European vocation and cordial relations
with NATO, despite a strong leftist opposition in the country of 50
million.
``During the election voters supported Ukraine´s European
choice,´´ said presidential spokesman Olexander Martynenko.
``Ukraine sees its relations with NATO as ties with the most influential
European structure which is an important element of stability and
security in the region.´´
MOSCOW CLOSELY WATCHES UKRAINE-NATO RELATIONS Wednesday's meeting in
Kiev is likely to be closely watched by Ukraine's former imperial master
Moscow which froze its ties with NATO during the alliance's air strikes
on Yugoslavia last year. It agreed to revive relations only earlier this
month.
Ukrainian officials, under the pressure of public opinion in the
country, did not support the air strikes but at the same time condemned
Serbia for ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and never
suspended its ties with NATO.
``Now the military operation in Kosovo is over, Ukraine is taking part
in the KFOR operation there and what´s more, the president who got
re-elected can go ahead and pursue a strong policy with NATO,´´ the
NATO official said.
Ukraine has been an active participant in NATO military exercises within
the alliance's Partnership for Peace program with non-member states.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine did not oppose the accession of its neighbors
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the alliance.
NATO-Ukraine Commission Statement
2 March 2000
Statement
Today the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine ratified the
Partnership
for Peace Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), following its submission by
the President of Ukraine. The NATO-Ukraine Commission salutes this
decision which will further enhance the opportunities for carrying out
joint NATO-Ukraine activities as well as Partnership for Peace
exercises. As already demonstrated in other Partner countries, the
ratification of the SOFA will allow Ukraine to enjoy full military and
economic benefits of the Partnership for Peace programme. NATO and
Ukraine, together with individual Allies and Partners, look forward to
taking advantage of the new possibilities which have been opened by this
important decision of the Verkhovna Rada, including the use of the
Yavoriv
Training Centre.
The NATO-Ukraine Commission also welcomes the ratification of the Open
Skies Treaty by the Verkhovna Rada, which is another important
contribution
to transparency and arms control.
These two ratifications coincide propitiously with the first ever
meeting
of the Ukraine Commission in Ukraine. This took place yesterday in Kyiv
and enabled a full and fruitful exchange of views which bodes well for
the
future of the cooperation between Ukraine and NATO.
---
CONTRORIFORMA AGRARIA
(The near-orgasmic level of ecstasy and abandon in
this report's spin - on the brink, about to take off,
we see light, excited and so on - is not unjustified.
IMF/World Bank "suggestions" [We expect...] on
privatization of some of the largest tracts of grain
arable land in the world will trigger perhaps the
largest foreign-private land grab since the grand days
of European colonialism.)
"Ukraine, which faces foreign debt payments of $3.1
billion this year, has to prove its will to reform the
depressed economy for the International Monetary Fund
and World Bank to resume loans frozen at the end of
last year...."
"Land is number one issue."
Ukraine Farm Reform About To Take Off
KIEV, Mar 2, 2000 -- (Reuters) Ukraine is on the brink
of real farm reforms which could turn around the
Soviet-style sector but needs to take concrete steps
starting with land ownership to flesh out early moves,
World Bank officials said on Thursday.
"We are excited with what is happening at the moment,"
Gregory Jedrzejczak, head of the World Bank mission in
Ukraine, told Reuters. "We were in a dark tunnel, but
we see light now."
President Leonid Kuchma has issued a decree ordering
Soviet-era collective farms to disband and change to
private farms by April 1, but has not provided a
mechanism.
Ukraine, which faces foreign debt payments of $3.1
billion this year, has to prove its will to reform the
depressed economy for the International Monetary Fund
and World Bank to resume loans frozen at the end of
last year due to slow reforms.
Now Kuchma's farm decree has sent a strong positive
signal to international creditors and investors even
though it stopped short of introducing real private
land ownership.
NO REAL REFORM WITHOUT PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP
Analysts say Ukraine, which last year harvested its
lowest grain crop since 1945, may not revive its
agricultural sector until it enshrines into law rights
to buy, sell and use private land as collateral.
"If (Kuchma's) decree remains alone, it is not going
to resolve problems. We would like to see a more
comprehensive settlement," Csaba Csaki, the World Bank
agriculture policy adviser for Europe and Central
Asia, said, in English.
"Land is number one issue."
Parliament, which had been accused by Kuchma of
blocking reforms, now comprises a center-right
pro-market majority, and Csaki said the time was right
for passing laws on private land ownership and
property registration, key to enforcing rights.
Jedrzejczak said he felt the political elite in the
country of 50 million was largely supportive of
private land ownership.
"We have seen quite a dramatic change of attitude," he
said. "Six months ago, when you would talk to the
parliament or politicians, private land ownership was
a complete taboo."
He said fast land reform might allow Ukraine to
leverage its fertile black soil and regain its
historical role as a global agricultural producer.
Farms could lead the economy to growth.
EXPORTS MUST BE FREED TOO
Apart from land reform, the IMF and World Bank insist
Ukraine scrap a 23-percent tax on sunflower seed
exports and end excessive export tariffs on skins and
hides.
Officials say the taxes and tariffs aim to support the
budget and provide local processing firms with raw
materials but traders and creditors say they
contradict free market rules.
Jedrzejczak and Csaki said they expected parliament to
adopt laws liberalizing foreign trade after a promise
by the new government of reformist Prime Minister
Viktor Yushchenko to adhere to a free economy.
"We see the commitment (of the government). Now we
want legislation to translate into action,"
Jedrzejczak said.
He also expected deputies to ratify the bank's
Pre-Export Guarantee Facility which would help attract
private investors to Ukraine's cash-starved
agriculture and help provide farmers with machinery,
fuel and fertilizers.
Ratification of the $120 million facility, approved by
the World Bank in 1997, had been blocked by leftist
factions.
---
ORGIA DI PRIVATIZZAZIONI
Friday, February 25, 2000
Ukraine Accelerates Privatization
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
KIEV -- Ukraine's parliament passed a new
privatization program for 2000 that deputies from the
center-right majority said will relieve the state of
loss-making companies and boost the budget.
The parliament, or Verkhovna Rada, passed the project
Tuesday 236-17, the Rada's press service said.
The previously leftist-dominated parliament had
opposed adopting the bill, although analysts point out
that the state has been saddled with hundreds of
failing enterprises.
The new privatization program includes the sale of
more than 800 nonstrategic enterprises in the
transport, machinery, chemical, agricultural and food
industries.
The State Property Fund also renewed the privatization
process of Ukraine's nine energy companies, halted in
December, officials from the fund said.
Last week, the State Property Fund announced it was
preparing to tender a 92.53-percent stake in the huge
Oriana chemical complex, which produces
petroleum-based products and fertilizers.
-
(Ukraine, which has raised 1.507 million hryvnias
[national currency, roughly six to a dollar]from cash
sell-offs since 1992, plans to boost privatization
revenues to 2.5 billion hryvnias this year to help pay
crushing foreign debt obligations....Privatization is
a key part of a $2.6 billion International Monetary
Fund loan frozen in September 1999....)
BUSINESS NEWS
Ukraine 2000 State Sell-Offs Raise $27 Mln To Date
KIEV, Mar 1, 2000 -- (Reuters) Ukraine, which has set
ambitious privatization targets for this year, has
raised 150 million hryvnias ($27.29 million) from cash
sell-offs so far this year, the State Property Fund
said on Tuesday.
Olexander Bondar, who heads the fund, told a meeting
with regional media the government would raise another
91 million hryvnias from privatizing a stake in
leading steel mill Zaporizhstal in the next few days.
"We are lagging behind our schedule but we shall do
everything to meet the target," Bondar said, adding
that the planned figure for the first quarter was 500
million hryvnias.
Ukraine, which has raised 1.507 billion hryvnias from
cash sell-offs since 1992, plans to boost
privatization revenues to 2.5 billion hryvnias this
year to help pay crushing foreign debt obligations of
$3.1 billion due this year.
Privatization is a key part of a $2.6 billion
International Monetary Fund loan program frozen in
September 1999 over stalled reforms and ahead of a
presidential election.
Bondar said the fund hoped that privatization in key
energy, metallurgical, chemical and telecom sectors
would help meet the target. The fund plans to sell
stakes in some 3,000 large companies this year.
($=5.4975 hryvnias)
---
STRATFOR.COM's Global Intelligence Update - 2 March 2000
By The Internet's Most Intelligent Source of International News &
Analysis http://www.stratfor.com/
__________________________________________
Know the every move of your competitors -- even before they do.
Stratfor Intelligence Services http://www.stratfor.com/services/
__________________________________________
WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR WORLD
Scharping Trying to Dampen Russian-NATO Rift
http://www.stratfor.com/world/Commentaries/0003020245.htm
Wahid Wavers Between Western Oil Alliances and Asian Unity
http://www.stratfor.com/asia/commentary/0003020122.htm
Libya: Gadhafi Axes Government Ministries
http://www.stratfor.com/MEAF/commentary/0003020207.htm
__________________________________________
STRATFOR.COM Global Intelligence Update
2 March 2000
Finally, NATO Tests A Resurgent Russia - in Kiev
Summary
NATO's decision-making body - the North Atlantic Council - is
meeting in Kiev, Ukraine. This gathering in the most geopolitically
significant area of Russia's backyard is a direct challenge to the
Putin government's assertive new foreign policy. The alliance is
calling what it believes - indeed, hopes - to be Moscow's
nationalist bluff, painting a picture of the consequences the West
could present if it continues down its current path. The move,
however, is unlikely to dissuade the government in Moscow and will
likely only entrench Russian nationalists. Regardless, the
alliance's diplomatic thrust indicates a shift change in NATO-
Russian relations, likely for the worse.
Analysis
NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC), in its simultaneous capacity
as the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC), is meeting March 1-2.
Composed of ambassadorial-level representatives of the alliance's
19 member states, the NAC is the alliance's principal decision-
making body. The NUC, in turn, was formed in 1997 to bring the
alliance closer to Ukraine. With mixed success, NATO and Ukraine
have attempted to foster a closer relationship. What is significant
now is the location of the meeting. The alliance's decision-makers
are meeting in Kiev, not Brussels, the headquarters.
As striking as the location - in the most strategically important
nation on the periphery of Russia - is the timing. The meeting
appears to have been called in Kiev on relatively short notice. And
it is taking place as Russia's acting President Vladimir Putin
consolidates both his power and his foreign policy; the March
presidential elections are approaching, and until now, the West has
appeared bewildered by his actions both abroad and in the war in
Chechnya. With this gathering, it appears that the alliance is
sending two sharp messages: one of support to Kiev and one of
warning to Moscow.
NATO's relationship with Russia has changed dramatically and has
not truly recovered from the trough of last year's conflict over
Kosovo. Russia under former President Boris Yeltsin opened to the
West and is now afflicted with a criminalized economy, a
demoralizing loss of status and a dangerously ragged strategic
situation along its borders. Russia under Putin is not only
increasingly nationalist at home - as in the war in Chechnya - but
is pursuing a vastly different foreign policy abroad, one that is
forceful and decidedly independent of the West.
Indeed, it appears that after standing by idly the last several
months, Western governments are beginning to catch on and react -
albeit cautiously, even timidly. Western institutions are launching
initiatives around the Russian periphery. The European Union is
accelerating its expansion, earmarking $1 billion for Poland's
accession efforts last week - a quadrupling of previous outlays.
European Commission President Romano Prodi has alluded to tighter
links between the EU and NATO. NATO holds its first major military
exercise in a non-member's territory, in Sweden June 3-19. The
alliance is cooperating with neutral nations to arm the Baltic
states as well. And at the other end of Europe, Turkey is engaging
in intensive military exercise on its eastern border.
But the most striking aspect of the relationship between the
alliance, in particular, and Russia revolves around Ukraine.
Ukraine is the most strategically important piece of real estate
between Europe and Russia; neither can be secure without Ukraine.
And throughout the post-Cold War period, Ukraine has been
contested. It is economically dependent on Russia but has insisted
on ever closer ties with the West.
Much to Russia's dismay, NATO and Ukrainian forces have held joint
military exercises on the Black Sea and at a number of locations
ashore. NATO and Ukraine have also been busy building relationships
between their respective officer corps. The Ukrainiain military has
never made a secret of its desires to work with the West, recently
and pointedly declining a role in exercises with the Russian navy,
according to Deutsch Presse-Agentur. Ukrainian forces, however,
will participate in NATO's Cooperative Partner 2000 naval
exercises, June 19-30, in the Ukrainian sector of the Black Sea.
The NATO-Ukraine Commission has been the other important vehicle
for security cooperation. Indeed, one of the commission's first
actions, after being formed three years ago, was to establish the
Yavoriv military facility in western Ukraine as a training center
for the Partnership for Peace program - the first such facility in
the former Soviet Union. Ever since, Yavoriv has served as a base
of operations for NATO-sponsored exercises. Now, NATO's civilian
leadership arrives not only to meet but to tour a variety of
facilities.
It appears that this unusual meeting was called on comparatively
short notice; the first word appears to have come in late 1999,
according to spokesmen in Brussels, Washington and various
embassies. This suggests that the meeting is an outgrowth of the
events of late last year: when Russia's war in Chechnya was getting
underway and senior U.S. officials toured alarmed, neighboring
nations. The decision to meet in Kiev indicates a desire on the
part of NATO to send a message of support to Ukraine as well as a
warning to Moscow.
It is likely that this warning will be counterproductive. Russia's
First Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov visited Kiev on Feb.
22, in an apparent attempt to deepen Russia's influence over the
Ukrainian economy. After all, Putin, the acting Russian president,
draws support from the swells of Russian nationalism. An overly
bold Western gesture in Ukraine - perceived as vital by Russians -
will only strengthen nationalists. Further, a strategy of
confrontation will likely cause stress fractures within the
alliance. Also, the West has yet to offer the carrot as well as the
stick; Putin will refuse to back down if the only option is
resorting to a Yeltsin foreign policy.
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma seems to be scrabbling to stay
out of this brewing confrontation. Last week he left Kiev for a
two-week vacation in western Ukraine, according to a spokeswoman,
directing his foreign minister to deliver a speech to the NATO
gathering on his behalf. Neither in one camp nor the other, Ukraine
has been forced to gingerly tow a line between Moscow and Brussels.
With both now openly competing for Ukraine, Kuchma will find it
increasingly difficult - if not impossible - to maintain a balanced
policy.
Curiously, Moscow has not officially responded to the NAC meeting.
After meeting with Russian officials, German Defense Minister
Rudolf Scharping is currently en route from Moscow to Washington;
he is likely to carry at least a partial Russian response. Russia
seems to be waiting for the right time and place to voice its full
retort.
Like NATO, Russia has many cards to play. Ukraine's Russian
minority composes more than a quarter of the Ukrainian population.
Russian security services undoubtedly retain a strong presence. In
case of a conflict, no one in Kiev truly knows who would rally
behind the flag. Russian influence over Ukraine's economy is
deepening. Most importantly, despite the sheer size of Ukraine's
territory and population, it still shares a long and nearly
indefensible border with the Soviet Union's most powerful successor
state: Russia.
A showdown is quietly brewing. NATO is trying to expand its ability
to operate jointly with the forces of neutral nations and many
former Soviet states. But it would be a high-profile NATO push into
Ukraine that would ultimately tip the scale. Putin has decided that
Russia will no longer play second fiddle to the West; the Western
response is that if Russia wants a confrontation, one can most
certainly be provided. Such a message will only further fuel
Russia's nationalist fires.
(c) 2000, Stratfor, Inc. http://www.stratfor.com/
__________________________________________________
SUBSCRIBE to FREE, DAILY GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES by clicking on
http://www.stratfor.com/services/giu/subscribe.asp
UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES (GIU)
http://www.stratfor.com/services/giu/subscribe.asp
or send your name, title, organization, address, phone number, and
e-mail to alert@...
___________________________________________________
STRATFOR.COM 504 Lavaca, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512-583-5000 Fax: 512-583-5025
Internet: http://www.stratfor.com/
Email: info@...
___________________________________________________
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* Lanci di uova contro Madeleine Albright in visita a Brno
* In vista blocchi stradali da parte degli agricoltori
* Praga, conferenza "UN ANNO DOPO: cause, coerenza e conseguenze della
crisi del Kosovo". La relazione di uno dei partecipanti (in italiano) ed
il dispaccio della Tanjug
UCRAINA
Come riportato in un messaggio precedente
( http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/43.html? ) il Parlamento
ucraino, che ha una maggioranza di sinistra, all'inizio di febbraio e'
stato messo nella impossibilita' di svolgere il proprio ruolo
istituzionale da parte delle forze di polizia fedeli al presidente
filo-occidentale Kuchma (vittorioso, grazie a brogli, nelle recenti
elezioni), ed ai parlamentari della minoranza di destra che hanno
occupato l'aula.
Ecco le ragioni, ed i risultati, di questo colpo di stato:
* Visita a Kiev degli alti ufficiali NATO; comunicato congiunto
* E' partita la contro-riforma agraria
* E' partita la colossale svendita delle imprese pubbliche
* L'analisi della Stratfor Intelligence sul processo di inglobamento
dell'Ucraina nella NATO in funzione antirussa
NOTA: la gran parte dei contributi sono stati diffusi dalla mailing list
STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.HOME-PAGE.ORG
---
LANCI DI UOVA
Protesters Throw Eggs at Albright
By Nadia Rybarova
Associated Press Writer
Monday, March 6, 2000; 8:01 a.m. EST
BRNO, Czech Republic –– Shouting "death to American imperialism,"
two men hurled eggs at Secretary of State Madeleine Albright today after
she told a university audience that defense of common values sometimes
requires countries to pay a financial price.
After finishing a speech to an enthusiastic audience at Tomas Masaryk
University in this industrial city 125 miles southeast of Prague,
Albright was milling about in the crowded entrance hall as bystanders
cheered.
Suddenly, two men shouted "death to American imperialism" and began
hurling eggs. Albright was spattered slightly with bits of egg but most
of them were intercepted by her bodyguards, said a U.S. official who
asked that his name not be published.
She was rushed upstairs quickly before leaving for another appearance.
Police Capt. Zdenek Lubas said several people were detained for
questioning but declined to give further details.
The incident marred an otherwise warm reception here on the second day
of Albright's four-day visit to the land of her birth.
Before the speech, she met privately with about a dozen students from
the Gypsy minority to discuss affirmative action and other ideas for
improving their conditions. She also received a gold medal Wednesday
from the university named after a Czech president who was born near here
100 years ago.
During her speech, Albright referred to a pledge by Czech President
Vaclav Havel to cancel a $30 million sale of cooling duct parts by a
Czech company to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant.
Although Iran insist the plant is for peaceful production of
electricity, the United States fears the Iranians are trying to develop
a nuclear weapons program.
Noting that this former Soviet Bloc state joined NATO last year,
Albright said preventing the spread of nuclear weapons was a high
priority of the Western alliance.
As with any goal worth achieving, it is not without cost," Albright
said, speaking in English. "To keep the best technology from falling
into the wrong hands, American firms are required to forgo many
potentially profitable contracts. But a similar responsibility rests
upon the shoulders of all who pledged to defend the best interests of
the Euro-Atlantic community."
Albright said Washington has urged all its allies to "meet that
responsibility so that our common security is protected and the future
safer for our children and theirs."
Iran denies any nuclear weapons program and insists that the power plant
at Bushehr is simply for the peaceful generation of electricity.
"We consider the campaign around Bushehr conducted by the Czech
government and the local media a gift to the American minister Madeleine
Albright linked to her visit," Sharif Khodai, the acting Iranian
ambassador to Prague, told the newspaper Pravo.
Later, Albright was to join Havel for a visit to the nearby town of
Hodonin, where Masaryk was born. Masaryk led Czechoslovakia from 1918
until 1935 and was also a close friend of President Woodrow Wilson.
Albright has urged Czechs to follow the example of Masaryk, a towering
figure in Eastern European democratic history. She has said they should
pursue his goals here and throughout the region, including Yugoslavia.
Using that theme, U.S. officials said Albright has urged the Czechs to
undertake judicial reform and encourage tolerance for the country's
Gypsy, or Roma, minority.
"Masaryk's dream was to have Europe whole and free," Albright said
Sunday at a joint news conference with Havel in Prague Castle. She
quoted Masaryk as saying democracy was not an act but a "pursuit" that
must be continually developed.
She has also encouraged the Czech Republic to become more involved in
Western moves to bring democracy to Yugoslavia's main republic, Serbia,
and to help promote ethnic stability in Kosovo, a province of Serbia.
After visiting Masaryk's shrine, Albright was to return today to Prague,
where she was scheduled to hold a roundtable discussion with Eastern
European non-governmental organizations to discuss ways of promoting
democratization in Serbia.
Albright said Sunday that the people of Serbia "do not deserve" an
autocratic leader like President Slobodan Milosevic.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty, she said the
United States had been urging the Serbian opposition movement to end its
divisions and prove to Serbs that "they represent an alternate choice."
Albright also said democratically minded leaders from former Soviet Bloc
countries could offer advice to opposition figures in Serbia on how to
unite in the face of authoritarian rule.
Albright's father, Josef Korbel, a Czech diplomat, fled with his wife
and children to London as Germany took control of Czechoslovakia at the
onset of World War II. When the communists took over Czechoslovakia in
1948, the family then migrated to the United States.
After the fall of communism here, the Czech and Slovak republics split
into two countries in 1993.
---
BLOCCHI STRADALI
(The Czech Republic is held up as a showcase and
prototype for the new EU-style privatized Eastern
European economy. How well's it's working - for the
populace, anyway - is indicated below...."Agricultural
production last year was 14 pct. higher than in 1998,
but at the same time revenue of farmers fell by Kc15bn
[$1=36.9 Koruna/Kc]....[T]he main reasons for the
strike are the non-payment of wages to employees,
growing unemployment...and fear [concerning] social
and pension reforms.")
* Farmers to strike by blocking Prague motorways
PRAGUE, Mar 7, 2000 -- (CTK - Czech News Agency) The
Association of Independent Trade Unions (ASO) has
declared a warning strike for Wednesday, 12:00 noon,
in protest against the pertinent authorities' failure
to solve social problems, ASO chairman Bohumir Dufek
said at a press conference today.
Farmers will block some Prague motorways for half an
hour. Dufek did not specify what motorways. "We will
block a certain Prague motorway. Farmers have no other
option how to call attention to their problems," said
Dufek, adding that the unions have enough people to do
this. He would not give any details because, as he
said, he wanted to protect personal safety of
participants in the protest.
Agricultural production last year was 14 pct higher
than in 1998 but at the same time revenues of farmers
fell by Kc15bn, the Agricultural Chamber president
Vaclav Hlavacek said at the beginning of March. Dufek
said that the main reasons for the strike are the non-
payment of wages to employees, growing unemployment
due to the non-existence of a plan to help the Czech
Republic out of the current economic crisis and fear
from the prepared social and pension reforms.
The Trade Union Association of Railway Employees will
allegedly join the strike, halting railway passenger
transport for a quarter of an hour at 12:00 noon. ASO
groups together eight trade union associations with
around 230,000 employees. ((c) 2000 CTK - Czech News
Agency)
---
PRAGA: CONFERENZA
REMARK: this message contains an outline of the Conference which was
held in Prague, 26-28/2/2000. It is sent for information to the whole
italian "Committee of Scientists against the War" mailing list, to the
responsibles of the Italian Section of the "Clark" Tribunal for NATO
crimes, and to the participants' addresses gathered by the author at the
Conference itself.
AUTORE: Andrea Martocchia (Comitato Scienziate/i contro la guerra,
sezione italiana Tribunale contro i crimini della NATO, Coordinamento
Romano per la Jugoslavia) <martok@...>
TITOLO: "Un anno dopo: cause, coerenza e conseguenze della crisi del
Kosovo"
ORGANIZZATORI: "Res Publica" e' il gruppo promotore, di area
socialdemocratica (cfr. http://www.publica.cz/infoservis.htm )
INVITATI E PRESENTI: di circa 1000 realta', ceche e straniere, invitate
erano presenti solo 35 persone. Hanno "brillato" per la loro assenza ad
esempio gli italiani (solo due presenti, nonostante che l'invito avesse
girato in tutto l'arcipelago pacifista grazie alle mailing list di
Peacelink), sia tutti i paesi balcanici, ad eccezione ovviamente della
RF
di Jugoslavia.
NOTE PRELIMINARI: Ho partecipato solamente alla sessione della domenica
27/2, insieme a R. Gabriele (in rappresentanza della Fondazione Nino
Pasti
per la pace e l'indipendenza dei popoli e dello stesso Tribunale
"Clark").
Inoltre purtroppo non possedevo un registratore, ed ho pertanto preso
solo
appunti a mano di quello che mi sembrava piu' rilevante. Gli
organizzatori
pero' si sono ripromessi di mettere sul loro sito internet i contributi
che hanno raccolto.
RELAZIONI
La prima relazione che ho sentito era un contributo di carattere
tecnico sull'inquinamento causato dai bombardamenti, tenuto da un
professore di Chimica dell'Universita' di Brno il quale ha praticamente
riassunto quello che a riguardo e' contenuto nel libro "Imbrogli di
guerra" - pur senza conoscere il libro...
Un giovane di Pancevo ha poi letto un testo sulla situazione nella sua
citta' dopo i bombardamenti; tra le cose che mi sono rimaste impresse la
sua sottolineatura di come la NATO sia riuscita a far deteriorare i
rapporti interetnici in quella zona ed in tutta la multinazionale RF di
Jugoslavia.
Io stesso ho poi preso la parola per presentare il nostro Comitato, il
libro e dare la mia valutazione dello stato del movimento contro la
guerra. Ho parlato del lavoro della sezione italiana del Tribunale
"Clark"
e di come la attuale classe dirigente italiana abbia stracciato i valori
fondanti della Repubblica, nonche' quelli che la dovrebbero
caratterizzare
e differenziare rispetto alla opposizione di destra.
Un rappresentante dell'ambasciata della RFJ, dopo aver lamentato
l'assenza
dei rappresentanti degli altri paesi balcanici (che avrebbero potuto
raccontare le conseguenze per le loro societa' e per le loro economie
della politica "umanitaria" della NATO, ad es. i rumeni con il Danubio
bloccato), ha presentato una serie di documenti di fonte ufficiale
jugoslava contenenti
- gli effetti dei bombardamenti NATO ("White Book", cfr.
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/ oppure http://www1.mfa.gov.yu/ )
- l'elencazione degli atti terroristici e di violenza avvenuti a partire
dalla occupazione del territorio da parte delle truppe KFOR (circa 3500
azioni, di cui 110 contro i rom e circa 80 contro albanesi-kosovari
"traditori" come quelli iscritti al "nazicomunista" Partito Socialista
Serbo) che hanno causato in tutto 793 morti invisibili sui nostri
mass-media
- la distruzione di circa 80 chiese serbo-ortodosse, alcune delle quali
sotto tutela UNESCO.
Egli ha inoltre raccontato in che modo siano stati stravolti gli
equilibri
demografici della regione a partire dagli anni 70 (per non risalire
indietro al periodo dell'occupazione nazifascista), ha stigmatizzato la
maniera coercitiva in cui la NATO sta inglobando tutti gli stati
dell'area
ovvero sta costringendo paesi come la Grecia a partecipare ad operazioni
che rifiuterebbero, ed ha indicato esplicitamente la lobby della grande
industria transnazionale come "burattinai" della NATO, lobby che e' a
sua
volta diretta "da chi detiene i capitali" attraverso organizzazioni come
la Trilateral ed il gruppo Bilderberg (cfr. www.bilderberg.org).
Poi ha parlato un biochimico ceco, poi una dottoressa inglese della
organizzazione IPPNW (Intern. Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War, premio Nobel 1995) sulla strategia occidentale, sulla frustazione
russa e sulla corsa al riarmo.
Un socialdemocratico ceco, che si e' detto "tradito dal comportamento
dei
leaders della Internazionale Socialista", ha poi espresso, con toni di
estrema amarezza, la delusione per il modo in cui le speranze
"democratiche" della svolta del '90 siano state umiliate. Lo stesso
presidente Havel sta mostrando di essere in prima fila nello
schieramento
guerrafondaio internazionale, con dichiarazioni di stampo pannelliano
che
lasciano quantomeno perplessi quelli che un tempo lo stimavano; pertanto
e' stato indicato anche lui come un "criminale di guerra" alla stregua
dei
D'Alema, Blair, Clinton, eccetera. Allo stesso modo e' stata
sottolineata
l'assenza di quegli intellettuali che tanto avevano lavorato per
abbattere
il vecchio sistema e "democratizzare" la societa'. Questi sono stati
indicati come "prostitute", mentre il clima culturale e' stato definito
"disperato". Quale democrazia, quando la NATO interviene contro il suo
stesso statuto?
Il professore e saggista Rajko Dolecek (autore dell'importante
"J'accuse",
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Dolecek.html ) a questo
proposito ha ricordato come la NATO abbia aggredito la Jugoslavia pochi
giorni dopo l'entrata della Rep. Ceca nell'organizzazione lasciando di
stucco (per usare un eufemismo...) tanti che pure non erano a priori
contrari all'entrata nella NATO. Dal punto di vista dei diritti umani,
ha detto Dolecek, la NATO e' come "una prostituta che predica la
verginita'".
Un attivista polacco di Cracovia, che ha raccontato di conoscere
personalmente alcuni familiari del Pontefice, ha poi contestato, con
libri
e citazioni alla mano, il ruolo della Chiesa cattolica e del papa. Ha
detto delle cose estremamente interessanti, sulle quali pero' non mi
dilungo: basti citare la frase del Cardinale Glemp (ricordate?...) che
all'inizio dei bombardamenti li ha paragonati ad "una frusta di Dio che
si
abbatte su quel paese". Gli ha fatto eco una militante ceca della
Christian Peace Conference la quale ha raccontato del "sentimento di
essere manipolate/i", dell'arroganza dell'Occidente e del fatto che la
chiesa cristiana ha "due gambe, quella occidentale (cattolica) e quella
orientale (ortodossa)" le quali hanno pari dignita' anche se i loro
leaders non ne vogliono sentir parlare.
C'e' poi stato uno scambio di vedute sull'apparente contrasto tra
sovranita' degli Stati e diritti umani, che e' stato giudicato "una
assurdita'" se a parlarne sono quelli che violano la prima dicendo di
voler proteggere i secondi, previo poi violarli molto piu'
pesantemente...
Si e' fatto riferimento ad una conferenza della Association of
Lawyers against Nuclear Weapons, tenutasi all'Aia durante i
bombardamenti,
nella quale i circa 7000 partecipanti avrebbero approvato a maggioranza
una risoluzione che dichiarava illegale l'aggressione della NATO. Questa
risoluzione e' stata soggetta ad un embargo (censura) informativo
completo
sui media di tutti i paesi. Infine, sempre Dolecek ha presentato un suo
ragionamento sul carattere, a suo dire, non imparziale ne' legale del
Tribunale dell'Aia per i crimini commessi sul territorio della RFSJ.
Infine, i rappresentanti tedeschi del Tribunale Clark (si veda
http://www.nato-tribunal.de/ ) hanno parlato della loro intenzione di
coordinare tutte le attivita' a livello europeo, facendole sfociare in
una
grande sessione europea a Berlino il 2 e 3 giugno prossimi, che
precedera'
di una ventina di giorni la seduta internazionale finale, che si terra'
a
New York, patrocinata dallo stesso Clark e dall'IAC.
Clark comunque sara' a Praga il 23 marzo prossimo, sulla via per
Belgrado
dove celebrera' il primo anniversario della aggressione; e proprio per
il
23 a Praga la Fondazione Pasti ha proposto che si tenga una iniziativa
europea di coordinamento di tutte le sezioni europee del Tribunale.
A latere della giornata ho ancora da registrare i colloqui avuti
separatamente con vari partecipanti, colloqui resi particolarmente
piacevoli dai boccali di birra Pilsen che avevamo dinanzi. In
particolare
i cechi mi hanno detto che, secondo loro, non e' affatto vero che con il
"cambiamento del regime" le persone si sentano adesso molto piu' libere
di
esprimersi, visto che ad esempio sulle questioni della guerra della NATO
c'e' molta paura a dire in pubblico la propria opinione. Questo benche'
la
stragrande maggioranza dlla popolazione ceca sia stata certamente
contraria alle bombe, anche se i mass-media locali (ormai completamente
in
mano a corporation straniere, in particolare tedesche, come tedeschi
sono
i proprietari della Skoda...) hanno dato una immagine falsificata di
questo sentimento collettivo a forza di bordate propagandistiche.
Insomma,
sotto questo profilo la situazione e' identica a quella italiana.
Da me interrogato su di una questione diversa, e cioe' se sapesse
qualcosa
del colpo di Stato che c'e' stato in Ucraina un mese fa nel silenzio
completo della stampa occidentale, uno slovacco ha detto che anche nel
suo
paese c'e' stata censura completa sulle informazioni (li' e' soprattutto
la Fondazione Soros che ha in mano i media) e questo e' assurdo visto
che
l'Ucraina e' un paese immenso, con circa 50 milioni di abitanti... Ma
lui
aveva avuto occasione di parlare direttamente con alcuni lavoratori
ucraini immigrati, che gli hanno raccontato di essere tornati ai loro
paesi d'origine per votare alle presidenziali (vinte di stretta misura
dal
filo-occidentale Kuchma, autore del golpe di cui sopra) e che al seggio
elettorale hanno trovato le schede gia' firmate ed il voto gia'
espresso,
nonche' una serie di loschi figuri a "controllare" che non succedessero
incidenti... Dietro a tutta questa "democrazia" (?) c'e' da una parte
l'inglobamento dell'Ucraina nella NATO attraverso la Partnership for
Peace, cui si erano opposti anche la maggioranza dei parlamentari, e
dall'altra la privatizzazione di centinaia di imprese e dei latifondi,
sulla quale era in atto un forte scontro politico. Meno chiaro quale sia
adesso la situazione, dopo che un mese fa il parlamento e' stato
occupato
dai partiti di destra e molti deputati di sinistra sono entrati in
sciopero della fame.
(...) Andrea Martocchia
www.serbia-info.com/news
Call for lifting embargo against FR Yugoslavia
February 29, 2000
Embargo on FRY has to be suspended
Prague, February 28th - Participants in the international conference
"One year after: the causes, links and consequences of the Kosovo
crisis," that ends today in Prague, have called on the international
community to lift the sanctions against Yugoslavia.
Representatives of ten European states at a three-day meeting, organized
by the non-governmental organization European Network for Peace and
Co-operation warned that the embargo, in general, in all countries where
it was applied, besides its inhumanity has proved to be completely
inefficient and politically shortsighted and that it affected most of
the population.
In today's closing discussions, it was concluded that NATO member
countries that have bombed for almost 80 days FR Yugoslavia, should pay
for the damages and rebuild everything they had destroyed in the
country.
Participants in the conferences stressed that without the inclusion of
FR Yugoslavia in all regional plans for the reconstruction of the
Balkans, of which that country is an inseparable and almost the most
important part, there will be no progress.
In the final document of the conference, which will be sent to the
Yugoslav Government and all other important international organizations,
institutions and governments of many countries, was included the protest
sent to UNESCO because of the destruction of Serbian Orthodox Churches
and monasteries in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as of facilities during
the bombing of all of Yugoslavia.
All the reports of the conference participants, among which were also
representatives of peace movements, and experts in different fields -
legal experts, historians, ecologists, biochemists, experts in atomic
energy - from Ireland, Great Britain, Yugoslavia, Poland, Italy,
Germany, Finland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, will be presented on
the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFFICIALI NATO
(Yet another step closer to Moscow, by the exact route used by Napoleon
and Hitler. But first NATO's 'expertise' will be employed to crush
internal opposition - a majority in both houses of parliament oppose
both Kuchma and NATO memebership, and were recently forcibly ousted from
a protest in the parliament building.
Reminiscent of Boris Yeltsin ringing the Russian parliament buiding with
tanks - remember that? - and firing on the legally elected speaker and
assistant speaker, killing perhaps hundreds of protesters holed up
there. Bill Clinton's and England's John Major's response to this -
truly unprecedented - destruction of a nation's parliament by the
military? They both applauded Boris Yeltsin as the "saviour of Russian
democracy," just as Clinton later commented on Yeltsin's first Chechnya
campaign by calling him "the Abraham Lincoln of his country."
But, quick, wipe all the above from your memory; we're not supposed to
remember any of those things.)
Tuesday February 29 8:42 AM ET
Ukraine Hosts Top NATO Officials, Eyes Closer Ties
By Dmitry Solovyov
KIEV, Ukraine (Reuters) - NATO leaders arrived in Ukraine on Tuesday for
a meeting that Kiev hopes will be a major step toward closer links
between the Western alliance and the former Soviet state seeking
integration into European structures.
``For the first time, 19 NATO ambassadors, the Secretary General and the
chief of the military committee come to Kiev together for this historic
meeting,´´ said Natalya Melnichuk, head of the NATO Information and
Documentation Center in Kiev.
Wednesday's meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, to be chaired by
NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, will be the 16th since Ukraine
signed a partnership charter with the alliance in 1997 but the first to
be held in Kiev.
Joining NATO is not on the agenda for Ukraine and Wednesday's meeting is
unlikely to take any key decisions. But Robertson, who previously
visited Kiev in late January, will stay on for an extra day for a
program of unofficial visits.
NATO and Ukrainian officials say the very composition of the gathering
will clearly demonstrate Western support for Ukraine's aspirations to
integrate into European structures.
Ukraine Seeks Place In Europe Via Ties With Nato
``I think Ukraine wanted to have a meeting in Kiev because it gives us a
chance to move the relationship forward, it raises (Ukraine´s)
profile,´´ a NATO official said.
``Ukraine has this policy of seeking greater integration into European
structures, and NATO sees this as completely in line with its own view
of NATO-Ukraine relations.´´
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma won re-election last November on
pledges to boost market reforms, build good relations with Russia and
integrate into Europe.
Experts say that after his landslide victory the timing is good for
Kuchma to demonstrate Ukraine's European vocation and cordial relations
with NATO, despite a strong leftist opposition in the country of 50
million.
``During the election voters supported Ukraine´s European
choice,´´ said presidential spokesman Olexander Martynenko.
``Ukraine sees its relations with NATO as ties with the most influential
European structure which is an important element of stability and
security in the region.´´
MOSCOW CLOSELY WATCHES UKRAINE-NATO RELATIONS Wednesday's meeting in
Kiev is likely to be closely watched by Ukraine's former imperial master
Moscow which froze its ties with NATO during the alliance's air strikes
on Yugoslavia last year. It agreed to revive relations only earlier this
month.
Ukrainian officials, under the pressure of public opinion in the
country, did not support the air strikes but at the same time condemned
Serbia for ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and never
suspended its ties with NATO.
``Now the military operation in Kosovo is over, Ukraine is taking part
in the KFOR operation there and what´s more, the president who got
re-elected can go ahead and pursue a strong policy with NATO,´´ the
NATO official said.
Ukraine has been an active participant in NATO military exercises within
the alliance's Partnership for Peace program with non-member states.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine did not oppose the accession of its neighbors
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the alliance.
NATO-Ukraine Commission Statement
2 March 2000
Statement
Today the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine ratified the
Partnership
for Peace Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), following its submission by
the President of Ukraine. The NATO-Ukraine Commission salutes this
decision which will further enhance the opportunities for carrying out
joint NATO-Ukraine activities as well as Partnership for Peace
exercises. As already demonstrated in other Partner countries, the
ratification of the SOFA will allow Ukraine to enjoy full military and
economic benefits of the Partnership for Peace programme. NATO and
Ukraine, together with individual Allies and Partners, look forward to
taking advantage of the new possibilities which have been opened by this
important decision of the Verkhovna Rada, including the use of the
Yavoriv
Training Centre.
The NATO-Ukraine Commission also welcomes the ratification of the Open
Skies Treaty by the Verkhovna Rada, which is another important
contribution
to transparency and arms control.
These two ratifications coincide propitiously with the first ever
meeting
of the Ukraine Commission in Ukraine. This took place yesterday in Kyiv
and enabled a full and fruitful exchange of views which bodes well for
the
future of the cooperation between Ukraine and NATO.
---
CONTRORIFORMA AGRARIA
(The near-orgasmic level of ecstasy and abandon in
this report's spin - on the brink, about to take off,
we see light, excited and so on - is not unjustified.
IMF/World Bank "suggestions" [We expect...] on
privatization of some of the largest tracts of grain
arable land in the world will trigger perhaps the
largest foreign-private land grab since the grand days
of European colonialism.)
"Ukraine, which faces foreign debt payments of $3.1
billion this year, has to prove its will to reform the
depressed economy for the International Monetary Fund
and World Bank to resume loans frozen at the end of
last year...."
"Land is number one issue."
Ukraine Farm Reform About To Take Off
KIEV, Mar 2, 2000 -- (Reuters) Ukraine is on the brink
of real farm reforms which could turn around the
Soviet-style sector but needs to take concrete steps
starting with land ownership to flesh out early moves,
World Bank officials said on Thursday.
"We are excited with what is happening at the moment,"
Gregory Jedrzejczak, head of the World Bank mission in
Ukraine, told Reuters. "We were in a dark tunnel, but
we see light now."
President Leonid Kuchma has issued a decree ordering
Soviet-era collective farms to disband and change to
private farms by April 1, but has not provided a
mechanism.
Ukraine, which faces foreign debt payments of $3.1
billion this year, has to prove its will to reform the
depressed economy for the International Monetary Fund
and World Bank to resume loans frozen at the end of
last year due to slow reforms.
Now Kuchma's farm decree has sent a strong positive
signal to international creditors and investors even
though it stopped short of introducing real private
land ownership.
NO REAL REFORM WITHOUT PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP
Analysts say Ukraine, which last year harvested its
lowest grain crop since 1945, may not revive its
agricultural sector until it enshrines into law rights
to buy, sell and use private land as collateral.
"If (Kuchma's) decree remains alone, it is not going
to resolve problems. We would like to see a more
comprehensive settlement," Csaba Csaki, the World Bank
agriculture policy adviser for Europe and Central
Asia, said, in English.
"Land is number one issue."
Parliament, which had been accused by Kuchma of
blocking reforms, now comprises a center-right
pro-market majority, and Csaki said the time was right
for passing laws on private land ownership and
property registration, key to enforcing rights.
Jedrzejczak said he felt the political elite in the
country of 50 million was largely supportive of
private land ownership.
"We have seen quite a dramatic change of attitude," he
said. "Six months ago, when you would talk to the
parliament or politicians, private land ownership was
a complete taboo."
He said fast land reform might allow Ukraine to
leverage its fertile black soil and regain its
historical role as a global agricultural producer.
Farms could lead the economy to growth.
EXPORTS MUST BE FREED TOO
Apart from land reform, the IMF and World Bank insist
Ukraine scrap a 23-percent tax on sunflower seed
exports and end excessive export tariffs on skins and
hides.
Officials say the taxes and tariffs aim to support the
budget and provide local processing firms with raw
materials but traders and creditors say they
contradict free market rules.
Jedrzejczak and Csaki said they expected parliament to
adopt laws liberalizing foreign trade after a promise
by the new government of reformist Prime Minister
Viktor Yushchenko to adhere to a free economy.
"We see the commitment (of the government). Now we
want legislation to translate into action,"
Jedrzejczak said.
He also expected deputies to ratify the bank's
Pre-Export Guarantee Facility which would help attract
private investors to Ukraine's cash-starved
agriculture and help provide farmers with machinery,
fuel and fertilizers.
Ratification of the $120 million facility, approved by
the World Bank in 1997, had been blocked by leftist
factions.
---
ORGIA DI PRIVATIZZAZIONI
Friday, February 25, 2000
Ukraine Accelerates Privatization
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
KIEV -- Ukraine's parliament passed a new
privatization program for 2000 that deputies from the
center-right majority said will relieve the state of
loss-making companies and boost the budget.
The parliament, or Verkhovna Rada, passed the project
Tuesday 236-17, the Rada's press service said.
The previously leftist-dominated parliament had
opposed adopting the bill, although analysts point out
that the state has been saddled with hundreds of
failing enterprises.
The new privatization program includes the sale of
more than 800 nonstrategic enterprises in the
transport, machinery, chemical, agricultural and food
industries.
The State Property Fund also renewed the privatization
process of Ukraine's nine energy companies, halted in
December, officials from the fund said.
Last week, the State Property Fund announced it was
preparing to tender a 92.53-percent stake in the huge
Oriana chemical complex, which produces
petroleum-based products and fertilizers.
-
(Ukraine, which has raised 1.507 million hryvnias
[national currency, roughly six to a dollar]from cash
sell-offs since 1992, plans to boost privatization
revenues to 2.5 billion hryvnias this year to help pay
crushing foreign debt obligations....Privatization is
a key part of a $2.6 billion International Monetary
Fund loan frozen in September 1999....)
BUSINESS NEWS
Ukraine 2000 State Sell-Offs Raise $27 Mln To Date
KIEV, Mar 1, 2000 -- (Reuters) Ukraine, which has set
ambitious privatization targets for this year, has
raised 150 million hryvnias ($27.29 million) from cash
sell-offs so far this year, the State Property Fund
said on Tuesday.
Olexander Bondar, who heads the fund, told a meeting
with regional media the government would raise another
91 million hryvnias from privatizing a stake in
leading steel mill Zaporizhstal in the next few days.
"We are lagging behind our schedule but we shall do
everything to meet the target," Bondar said, adding
that the planned figure for the first quarter was 500
million hryvnias.
Ukraine, which has raised 1.507 billion hryvnias from
cash sell-offs since 1992, plans to boost
privatization revenues to 2.5 billion hryvnias this
year to help pay crushing foreign debt obligations of
$3.1 billion due this year.
Privatization is a key part of a $2.6 billion
International Monetary Fund loan program frozen in
September 1999 over stalled reforms and ahead of a
presidential election.
Bondar said the fund hoped that privatization in key
energy, metallurgical, chemical and telecom sectors
would help meet the target. The fund plans to sell
stakes in some 3,000 large companies this year.
($=5.4975 hryvnias)
---
STRATFOR.COM's Global Intelligence Update - 2 March 2000
By The Internet's Most Intelligent Source of International News &
Analysis http://www.stratfor.com/
__________________________________________
Know the every move of your competitors -- even before they do.
Stratfor Intelligence Services http://www.stratfor.com/services/
__________________________________________
WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR WORLD
Scharping Trying to Dampen Russian-NATO Rift
http://www.stratfor.com/world/Commentaries/0003020245.htm
Wahid Wavers Between Western Oil Alliances and Asian Unity
http://www.stratfor.com/asia/commentary/0003020122.htm
Libya: Gadhafi Axes Government Ministries
http://www.stratfor.com/MEAF/commentary/0003020207.htm
__________________________________________
STRATFOR.COM Global Intelligence Update
2 March 2000
Finally, NATO Tests A Resurgent Russia - in Kiev
Summary
NATO's decision-making body - the North Atlantic Council - is
meeting in Kiev, Ukraine. This gathering in the most geopolitically
significant area of Russia's backyard is a direct challenge to the
Putin government's assertive new foreign policy. The alliance is
calling what it believes - indeed, hopes - to be Moscow's
nationalist bluff, painting a picture of the consequences the West
could present if it continues down its current path. The move,
however, is unlikely to dissuade the government in Moscow and will
likely only entrench Russian nationalists. Regardless, the
alliance's diplomatic thrust indicates a shift change in NATO-
Russian relations, likely for the worse.
Analysis
NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC), in its simultaneous capacity
as the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC), is meeting March 1-2.
Composed of ambassadorial-level representatives of the alliance's
19 member states, the NAC is the alliance's principal decision-
making body. The NUC, in turn, was formed in 1997 to bring the
alliance closer to Ukraine. With mixed success, NATO and Ukraine
have attempted to foster a closer relationship. What is significant
now is the location of the meeting. The alliance's decision-makers
are meeting in Kiev, not Brussels, the headquarters.
As striking as the location - in the most strategically important
nation on the periphery of Russia - is the timing. The meeting
appears to have been called in Kiev on relatively short notice. And
it is taking place as Russia's acting President Vladimir Putin
consolidates both his power and his foreign policy; the March
presidential elections are approaching, and until now, the West has
appeared bewildered by his actions both abroad and in the war in
Chechnya. With this gathering, it appears that the alliance is
sending two sharp messages: one of support to Kiev and one of
warning to Moscow.
NATO's relationship with Russia has changed dramatically and has
not truly recovered from the trough of last year's conflict over
Kosovo. Russia under former President Boris Yeltsin opened to the
West and is now afflicted with a criminalized economy, a
demoralizing loss of status and a dangerously ragged strategic
situation along its borders. Russia under Putin is not only
increasingly nationalist at home - as in the war in Chechnya - but
is pursuing a vastly different foreign policy abroad, one that is
forceful and decidedly independent of the West.
Indeed, it appears that after standing by idly the last several
months, Western governments are beginning to catch on and react -
albeit cautiously, even timidly. Western institutions are launching
initiatives around the Russian periphery. The European Union is
accelerating its expansion, earmarking $1 billion for Poland's
accession efforts last week - a quadrupling of previous outlays.
European Commission President Romano Prodi has alluded to tighter
links between the EU and NATO. NATO holds its first major military
exercise in a non-member's territory, in Sweden June 3-19. The
alliance is cooperating with neutral nations to arm the Baltic
states as well. And at the other end of Europe, Turkey is engaging
in intensive military exercise on its eastern border.
But the most striking aspect of the relationship between the
alliance, in particular, and Russia revolves around Ukraine.
Ukraine is the most strategically important piece of real estate
between Europe and Russia; neither can be secure without Ukraine.
And throughout the post-Cold War period, Ukraine has been
contested. It is economically dependent on Russia but has insisted
on ever closer ties with the West.
Much to Russia's dismay, NATO and Ukrainian forces have held joint
military exercises on the Black Sea and at a number of locations
ashore. NATO and Ukraine have also been busy building relationships
between their respective officer corps. The Ukrainiain military has
never made a secret of its desires to work with the West, recently
and pointedly declining a role in exercises with the Russian navy,
according to Deutsch Presse-Agentur. Ukrainian forces, however,
will participate in NATO's Cooperative Partner 2000 naval
exercises, June 19-30, in the Ukrainian sector of the Black Sea.
The NATO-Ukraine Commission has been the other important vehicle
for security cooperation. Indeed, one of the commission's first
actions, after being formed three years ago, was to establish the
Yavoriv military facility in western Ukraine as a training center
for the Partnership for Peace program - the first such facility in
the former Soviet Union. Ever since, Yavoriv has served as a base
of operations for NATO-sponsored exercises. Now, NATO's civilian
leadership arrives not only to meet but to tour a variety of
facilities.
It appears that this unusual meeting was called on comparatively
short notice; the first word appears to have come in late 1999,
according to spokesmen in Brussels, Washington and various
embassies. This suggests that the meeting is an outgrowth of the
events of late last year: when Russia's war in Chechnya was getting
underway and senior U.S. officials toured alarmed, neighboring
nations. The decision to meet in Kiev indicates a desire on the
part of NATO to send a message of support to Ukraine as well as a
warning to Moscow.
It is likely that this warning will be counterproductive. Russia's
First Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov visited Kiev on Feb.
22, in an apparent attempt to deepen Russia's influence over the
Ukrainian economy. After all, Putin, the acting Russian president,
draws support from the swells of Russian nationalism. An overly
bold Western gesture in Ukraine - perceived as vital by Russians -
will only strengthen nationalists. Further, a strategy of
confrontation will likely cause stress fractures within the
alliance. Also, the West has yet to offer the carrot as well as the
stick; Putin will refuse to back down if the only option is
resorting to a Yeltsin foreign policy.
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma seems to be scrabbling to stay
out of this brewing confrontation. Last week he left Kiev for a
two-week vacation in western Ukraine, according to a spokeswoman,
directing his foreign minister to deliver a speech to the NATO
gathering on his behalf. Neither in one camp nor the other, Ukraine
has been forced to gingerly tow a line between Moscow and Brussels.
With both now openly competing for Ukraine, Kuchma will find it
increasingly difficult - if not impossible - to maintain a balanced
policy.
Curiously, Moscow has not officially responded to the NAC meeting.
After meeting with Russian officials, German Defense Minister
Rudolf Scharping is currently en route from Moscow to Washington;
he is likely to carry at least a partial Russian response. Russia
seems to be waiting for the right time and place to voice its full
retort.
Like NATO, Russia has many cards to play. Ukraine's Russian
minority composes more than a quarter of the Ukrainian population.
Russian security services undoubtedly retain a strong presence. In
case of a conflict, no one in Kiev truly knows who would rally
behind the flag. Russian influence over Ukraine's economy is
deepening. Most importantly, despite the sheer size of Ukraine's
territory and population, it still shares a long and nearly
indefensible border with the Soviet Union's most powerful successor
state: Russia.
A showdown is quietly brewing. NATO is trying to expand its ability
to operate jointly with the forces of neutral nations and many
former Soviet states. But it would be a high-profile NATO push into
Ukraine that would ultimately tip the scale. Putin has decided that
Russia will no longer play second fiddle to the West; the Western
response is that if Russia wants a confrontation, one can most
certainly be provided. Such a message will only further fuel
Russia's nationalist fires.
(c) 2000, Stratfor, Inc. http://www.stratfor.com/
__________________________________________________
SUBSCRIBE to FREE, DAILY GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES by clicking on
http://www.stratfor.com/services/giu/subscribe.asp
UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES (GIU)
http://www.stratfor.com/services/giu/subscribe.asp
or send your name, title, organization, address, phone number, and
e-mail to alert@...
___________________________________________________
STRATFOR.COM 504 Lavaca, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512-583-5000 Fax: 512-583-5025
Internet: http://www.stratfor.com/
Email: info@...
___________________________________________________
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
MIRACOLI
I giornali di tutto il mondo hanno riportato, il 4/3/2000, della
prodigiosa guarigione del criminale cileno Augusto Pinochet, liberato
senza condizioni in nome dei diritti umani dal governo britannico.
Viste le sue gravi condizioni di salute, su iniziativa dell'ex-primo
Ministro Thatcher Pinochet moribondo era stato anche gratificato con un
preziosissimo piatto d'argento, l'"armada plate", ispirato alla
sconfitta della flotta spagnola da parte di Sir Francis Drake nel
Cinquecento, a sottolineare la recente sconfitta della richiesta
spagnola di estradizione. Imbarcato a Londra in fretta e furia su di un
aereo speciale, Pinochet in poche ore ha raggiunto il Cile, e subito
all'aereoporto si e' alzato dalla sedia a rotelle ed ha cominciato a
deambulare come non gli succedeva da mesi, salutando con il bastone
levato in segno di vittoria.
Questo episodio ha evocato a qualcuno la vicenda del Managing Director
della birra Guinness il quale anni fa, condannato per una truffa per
milioni di sterline, si sottrasse al carcere a causa del suo grave stato
di salute, dovuto al morbo di Alzheimer, e pote' cosi' immediatamente
aprire una nuova fabbrica di birra...
(Fonti: "The Times" 5/3/2000, tutti i quotidiani italiani del 4/3/2000,
mailing list stopnato@... )
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
I giornali di tutto il mondo hanno riportato, il 4/3/2000, della
prodigiosa guarigione del criminale cileno Augusto Pinochet, liberato
senza condizioni in nome dei diritti umani dal governo britannico.
Viste le sue gravi condizioni di salute, su iniziativa dell'ex-primo
Ministro Thatcher Pinochet moribondo era stato anche gratificato con un
preziosissimo piatto d'argento, l'"armada plate", ispirato alla
sconfitta della flotta spagnola da parte di Sir Francis Drake nel
Cinquecento, a sottolineare la recente sconfitta della richiesta
spagnola di estradizione. Imbarcato a Londra in fretta e furia su di un
aereo speciale, Pinochet in poche ore ha raggiunto il Cile, e subito
all'aereoporto si e' alzato dalla sedia a rotelle ed ha cominciato a
deambulare come non gli succedeva da mesi, salutando con il bastone
levato in segno di vittoria.
Questo episodio ha evocato a qualcuno la vicenda del Managing Director
della birra Guinness il quale anni fa, condannato per una truffa per
milioni di sterline, si sottrasse al carcere a causa del suo grave stato
di salute, dovuto al morbo di Alzheimer, e pote' cosi' immediatamente
aprire una nuova fabbrica di birra...
(Fonti: "The Times" 5/3/2000, tutti i quotidiani italiani del 4/3/2000,
mailing list stopnato@... )
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
IPSE DIXIT
"La liberta' di espressione non e' la liberta' di mentire"
William COHEN, Ministro della Difesa USA,
conferenza stampa a Sofia, 3 ottobre 1997
http://www.panweb.sicap.it/alex/Yugo/index.html
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
"La liberta' di espressione non e' la liberta' di mentire"
William COHEN, Ministro della Difesa USA,
conferenza stampa a Sofia, 3 ottobre 1997
http://www.panweb.sicap.it/alex/Yugo/index.html
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Comit. Intern.sta Arco Iris <ale.ramon@...>
> To: <Recipient list suppressed>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:06 PM
> Subject: FESTIVAL MONDIALE DELLA GIOVENTU' IN ALGERIA (2001)
>
> Riceviamo e Diffondiamo:
>
> Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica,
> E-mail:"wfdy@..."
>
> Stimati/e Compagni/e ed Amici/che,
>
> Riceviate un affettuoso saluto da parte della vicepresidenza della
> Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica.
>
> Dall'ultima assemblea generale realizzatasi a Cipro nel gennaio del 1999,
> la nostra amata Federazione ha avuto un anno pieno di attività in tutto il
> mondo. Siamo stati presenti o le nostre organizzazioni hanno rappresentato
> la Federazione in diversi avvenimenti importanti.
>
> Bisogna sottolineare che quest'anno abbiamo organizzato la riunione del
> Consiglio Generale della FMGD, in Vietnam, dove abbiamo approvato che la
> sede del prossimo FESTIVAL MONDIALE DELLA GIOVENTU' E DEGLI STUDENTI sarà,
> nel 2001, ad Algeri (Algeria). Nell'ambito dello stesso, la Federazione
> Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica e tutte le organizzazioni progressiste
> del mondo intero organizzeranno un Festival Antiimperialista, per la
> Autodeterminazione dei Popoli e per la Pace.
>
> L'anno che viene trasformeremo la città di Algeri in una bella
> dimostrazione che i nostri sogni sono più vivi che mai e, al tempo stesso,
> riceveremo la calorosa accoglienza del popolo algerino che ci attenderà.
>
> Vi inviamo informazioni sulle ultime attività alle quali ha preso parte la
> Federazione, come la visita in Palestina, dove abbiamo avuto la possibilità
> di incontrare Yasser Arafat, o come la visita al combattente popolo
> jugoslavo che ha resistito ai bombardamenti della NATO e vi sottolineiamo
> l'accoglienza ricevuta da parte della Gioventù del Partito Socialista Serbo
> (SPS), che ha ricevuto due delle nostre delegazioni della FMGD.
>
> Aggressione contro la Jugoslavia
>
> Durante la guerra contro la Jugoslavia la FMGD ha giocato un ruolo
> importante, dal momento che ha organizzato due visite di solidarietà al
> popolo ed alla gioventù jugoslava.
>
> Abbiamo ricevuto un grande appoggio da parte della Gioventù del Partito
> Socialista Serbo, che ci ha accompagnato in questa visita, dandoci la
> dovuta attenzione. Abbiamo avuto la possibilità di visitare Belgrado e
> altre città della Jugoslavia. In queste abbiamo visto fabbriche, ponti,
> stazioni di radio e televisioni, strade e centinaia di edifici pubblici,
> distrutti dai bombardamenti assassini della NATO.
>
> Abbiamo avuto l'opportunità di vedere anche la resistenza della coraggiosa
> e combattente gioventù jugoslava, che in ogni momento ha resistito ed ha
> denunciato i bombardamenti giornalieri contro il suo territorio.
>
> Con il pretesto di difendere gli jugoslavi del Kosovo, gli Stati Uniti ed i
> loro alleati hanno ucciso migliaia di donne, bambini ed anziani e - con le
> loro bombe giornaliere contro ospedali, scuole, fabbriche di Pristina e di
> altre città del Kosovo Jugoslavo - hanno causato l'evacuazione di tutta la
> regione. A Belgrado abbiamo partecipato a manifestazioni di solidarietà,
> così abbiamo visitato l'ultimo ponte di Belgrado che si è mantenuto in
> piedi grazie alla vigilanza giornaliera del popolo jugoslavo, che voleva
> evitare che il ponte fosse bombardato. In America Latina le nostre
> organizzazioni hanno portato avanti manifestazioni in luoghi pubblici e di
> fronte alle ambasciate dall'Uruguay a Cuba, dal Brasile all'Ecuador.
> Inoltre, il giorno 17 febbraio, la FMGD è stata presente al Congresso del
> Partito Socialista Serbo (SPS) come invitata speciale ed ha partecipato ad
> un seminario in Solidarietà con il Popolo Jugoslavo, organizzato dalla
> Gioventù del Partito Socialista Serbo. Al Congresso hanno partecipato più
> di cento delegazioni internazionali.
>
> Visita in Palestina
>
> Allo stesso modo abbiamo visitato la Palestina. Siamo stati invitati dalla
> Unione Generale degli Studenti Palestinesi (GUPS) e dalla Autorità
> Nazionale Palestinese. E' stata una visita importante dato che abbiamo
> avuto la possibilità di visitare università, scuole e di riunirci con tutti
> i leaders studenteschi e di portare loro il nostro supporto per la
> creazione dello Stato Palestinese. A partire da questo, abbiamo avuto una
> riunione con il Presidente Yasser Arafat che ha dichiarato che continua la
> propria lotta in favore dello Stato Palestinese, manifestando una grande
> riconoscenza per la nostra visita. La FMGD si è impegnata a proseguire il
> suo appoggio alla lotta e alla creazione dello Stato Palestinese,
> organizzando anche attività di appoggio, insieme alle organizzazioni
> aderenti, nei loro rispettivi paesi. Quest'anno si terrà un Seminario
> Internazionale di Appoggio alla creazione dello Stato Palestinese che avrà
> luogo in Palestina ed al quale saremo presenti.
>
> Congressi e Seminari
>
> La FMGD ha anche assistito ad alcuni Congressi organizzati dalle nostre
> organizzazioni, così come al Congresso della Gioventù Comunista del Cile
> (Cile), al Seminario Internazionale di Solidarietà con la Colombia
> (Colombia), al Congresso della Gioventù Comunista Colombiana, la JUCO
> (Colombia), al Congresso della Gioventù Popolare Socialista (Messico), al
> Seminario dell'Anniversario della Organizzazione della Gioventù del Partito
> Nazionale Popolare (Giamaica), al Seminario Internazionale sul
> Neoliberismo, realizzatosi a La Habana (Cuba). Ci sono stati, poi, molti
> altri eventi ai quali, sfortunatamente, non abbiamo potuto assistere, però
> ai quali hanno partecipato le organizzazioni federate alla FMGD.
>
> Riunione del Consiglio Generale della FMGD,
> organizzata nel gennaio del 2000, ad Hanoi
>
> La riunione del Consiglio Generale è stata molto importante dal momento che
> si sono discussi diversi punti come quello del finanziamento, delle
> affiliazioni, il Piano d'Azione e del prossimo Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù Democratica.
>
> Nuove affiliazioni:
>
> Europa: Lega della Gioventù Comunista della Jugoslavia, Unione della
> Gioventù Comunista della Federazione Russa, Unione Socialista della
> Gioventù Popolare della Slovacchia, Lega della Gioventù Comunista
> dell'Armenia.
>
> Medio Oriente: Unione Nazionale degli Studenti Algerini.
>
> Asia: Lega Generale degli Studenti di Burma.
>
> Dall'America Latina non ci sono state affiliazioni o richieste, però
> bisogna sottolineare che nell'Assemblea Generale si è approvata
> l'affiliazione di varie organizzazioni latinoamericane, come la Gioventù
> del Movimento 26 Marzo (J26M, Uruguay), la Casa della Gioventù del Paraguay
> (CJP, Paraguay), la Gioventù Socialista Brasiliana (JSB, Brasil), la
> Gioventù del Partito del Movimento Democratico Brasiliano (JPMDB Brasil).
>
> Finanziamenti:
>
> Sfortunatamente poche organizzazioni pagano le quote annuali e solo due le
> pagano con regolarità, la Gioventù Rivoluzionaria 8 Ottobre e la Unione dei
> Giovani Comunisti di Cuba (UJC).
>
> Piano d'azione per il 2000
>
> - Campagne Nazionali e Regionali per il 55° Anniversario della FMGD
>
> - Campagna Internazionale per l'estinzione della NATO
>
> - Campagna Internazionale contro il ruolo distruttore del FMI e della Banca
> Mondiale e per la cancellazione dei debiti esteri dei paesi in via di
> sviluppo
>
> - Campagna Internazionale per la fine delle armi nucleari
>
> - Realizzazione di un evento di commemorazione del 55° anniversario dei
> bombardamenti contro Hiroshima e Nagasaki
>
> - Evento Internazionale sui Diritti delle Donne a Nuova Delhi, India
> (ottobre)
>
> - Conferenza Internazionale di Solidarietà con il Popolo del Sahara
> Occidentale e per la sua indipendenza (ottobre)
>
> - Campagna Internazionale di Solidarietà con il Popolo e la Gioventù
> Palestinese e per la creazione del suo Stato
>
> - Il 10 novembre - realizzazione di manifestazioni internazionali per la
> fine della disoccupazione
>
> - Settembre: Manifestazione a Praga contro la riunione del Fondo Monetario
> Internazionale
>
> - Riunione Internazionale Preparatoria per il 15° Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù a La Habana
>
> - Partecipazione al Congresso della Unione Internazionale degli Studenti in
> Libia
>
> - Partecipazione al Congresso della OCLAE a La Habana
>
> Congresso della OCLAE
>
> La FMGD parteciperà al congresso della OCLAE attraverso il suo presidente e
> le organizzazioni della vicepresidenza per l'America Latina, la Gioventù
> Rivoluzionaria 8 Ottobre (JR8, Brasile) e la UJC (Cuba). Il congresso della
> OCLAE è la principale attività del Continente Latinoamericano quest'anno
> per questo invitiamo tutte le organizzazioni federate ed amiche a
> presenziare questo importante evento.
>
> Festival Mondiale della Gioventù e degli Studenti: ALGERIA 2001
>
> La discussione sulla organizzazione del prossimo Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù e degli Studenti è stata la più importante durante la Riunione del
> Consiglio Generale. Prima della riunione c'erano tre paesi candidati senza
> menzionare le decine di altri paesi che anche avevano manifestato la loro
> intenzione di dar luogo al Festival.
>
> Dopo un lungo dibattito è stata scelta l'Algeria come sede del 15° Festival
> che si realizzerà nel 2001. Abbiamo approvato che il prossimo Festival deve
> continuare ad essere una manifestazione Antiimperialista, per la Pace e la
> Sovranità dei Popoli e dei Giovani di tutto il mondo.
>
> Abbiamo scelto l'Algeria perché ha mostrato le condizioni necessarie per
> organizzare il Festival nel 2001. L'anno prossimo porteremo il nostro
> appoggio totale al popolo algerino così come il nostro omaggio per la sua
> lotta di Liberazione Nazionale e per l'importante contributo all'Umanità.
> La UNGA - Unione Nazionale della Gioventù Algerina- già stà portando avanti
> i preparativi per l'organizzazione e per la ricezione di tutti i delegati
> partecipanti. Per questo convochiamo tutte le organizzazioni federate ed
> affiliate alla FMGD a partecipare al prossimo Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù e degli Studenti.
>
> A breve inviaremo le informazioni relative al FESTIVAL. La prima Riunione
> Internazionale preparatoria per il prossimo Festival sarà a La Habana nel
> giugno di quest'anno, pero ancora stiamo fissando la migliore data per tale
> riunione con l'idea di facilitare la presenza delle diverse organizzazioni.
>
> Stimati/e Amici/che e Compagni/e,
> queste sono le principali informazioni che vi invio da Budapest, Ungheria.
> Avremo molte attività per questo chiedo a tutte le organizzazioni di
> informarci sulle loro attività di quest'anno perché possiamo divulgarle a
> tutte le nostre organizzazioni, della FMGD. Avremo il Congresso della OCLAE
> a cui dovremo partecipare per prepararci al prossimo Festival Mondiale
> della Gioventù e degli Studenti, in Algeria nel 2001.
>
> Vi chiediamo di inviare i vostri numeri di telefono, e-mail, indirizzi per
> l'attualizzazione del nostro registro.
>
> Stiamo traducendo i documenti della riunione del Consiglio Generale della
> FMGD in spagnolo e, a breve, li staremo inviando attraverso la posta
> elettronica.
>
> Attentamente,
> Cristiano Aristimunha Pinto
> Vicepresidente FMGD
> (Rappresentante della Gioventù Rivoluzionaria 8 Ottobre- Brasile)
>
> Indirizzi e contatti in Ungheria:
> Telefono/fax: (00361) 350 22 02 (FMGD)
> Telefono/fax: (00361) 209 15 25 (Abitazione)
> E-mail: chris_fmjd@... (personale)
> jr8@... (JR8)
> wfdy@... (FMGD)
>
> -----------------------------
> Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica
> 1389 Budapest - pob 147 - Ungheria
> Tel/fax: +361 350 22 02 / 350 12 04
> E-Mail: <wfdy@...>
> -----------------------------
> La Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica è una organizzazione non
> governativa con status consultivo presso l'ONU e relazione operativa presso
> l'UNESCO. Riconosciuta con merito per la pace dal Segretario Generale delle
> Nazioni Unite nel 1987.
> -----------------------------
>
> =============================
> Comitato Internazionalista Arco Iris
> Via don Minzoni 33 - 25082 Botticino Sera (BS)
> Tel/Fax: 030 - 2190006
> E-mail:"ale.ramon@..."
> http://www.presos.org/italia
--
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Comit. Intern.sta Arco Iris <ale.ramon@...>
> To: <Recipient list suppressed>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 4:06 PM
> Subject: FESTIVAL MONDIALE DELLA GIOVENTU' IN ALGERIA (2001)
>
> Riceviamo e Diffondiamo:
>
> Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica,
> E-mail:"wfdy@..."
>
> Stimati/e Compagni/e ed Amici/che,
>
> Riceviate un affettuoso saluto da parte della vicepresidenza della
> Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica.
>
> Dall'ultima assemblea generale realizzatasi a Cipro nel gennaio del 1999,
> la nostra amata Federazione ha avuto un anno pieno di attività in tutto il
> mondo. Siamo stati presenti o le nostre organizzazioni hanno rappresentato
> la Federazione in diversi avvenimenti importanti.
>
> Bisogna sottolineare che quest'anno abbiamo organizzato la riunione del
> Consiglio Generale della FMGD, in Vietnam, dove abbiamo approvato che la
> sede del prossimo FESTIVAL MONDIALE DELLA GIOVENTU' E DEGLI STUDENTI sarà,
> nel 2001, ad Algeri (Algeria). Nell'ambito dello stesso, la Federazione
> Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica e tutte le organizzazioni progressiste
> del mondo intero organizzeranno un Festival Antiimperialista, per la
> Autodeterminazione dei Popoli e per la Pace.
>
> L'anno che viene trasformeremo la città di Algeri in una bella
> dimostrazione che i nostri sogni sono più vivi che mai e, al tempo stesso,
> riceveremo la calorosa accoglienza del popolo algerino che ci attenderà.
>
> Vi inviamo informazioni sulle ultime attività alle quali ha preso parte la
> Federazione, come la visita in Palestina, dove abbiamo avuto la possibilità
> di incontrare Yasser Arafat, o come la visita al combattente popolo
> jugoslavo che ha resistito ai bombardamenti della NATO e vi sottolineiamo
> l'accoglienza ricevuta da parte della Gioventù del Partito Socialista Serbo
> (SPS), che ha ricevuto due delle nostre delegazioni della FMGD.
>
> Aggressione contro la Jugoslavia
>
> Durante la guerra contro la Jugoslavia la FMGD ha giocato un ruolo
> importante, dal momento che ha organizzato due visite di solidarietà al
> popolo ed alla gioventù jugoslava.
>
> Abbiamo ricevuto un grande appoggio da parte della Gioventù del Partito
> Socialista Serbo, che ci ha accompagnato in questa visita, dandoci la
> dovuta attenzione. Abbiamo avuto la possibilità di visitare Belgrado e
> altre città della Jugoslavia. In queste abbiamo visto fabbriche, ponti,
> stazioni di radio e televisioni, strade e centinaia di edifici pubblici,
> distrutti dai bombardamenti assassini della NATO.
>
> Abbiamo avuto l'opportunità di vedere anche la resistenza della coraggiosa
> e combattente gioventù jugoslava, che in ogni momento ha resistito ed ha
> denunciato i bombardamenti giornalieri contro il suo territorio.
>
> Con il pretesto di difendere gli jugoslavi del Kosovo, gli Stati Uniti ed i
> loro alleati hanno ucciso migliaia di donne, bambini ed anziani e - con le
> loro bombe giornaliere contro ospedali, scuole, fabbriche di Pristina e di
> altre città del Kosovo Jugoslavo - hanno causato l'evacuazione di tutta la
> regione. A Belgrado abbiamo partecipato a manifestazioni di solidarietà,
> così abbiamo visitato l'ultimo ponte di Belgrado che si è mantenuto in
> piedi grazie alla vigilanza giornaliera del popolo jugoslavo, che voleva
> evitare che il ponte fosse bombardato. In America Latina le nostre
> organizzazioni hanno portato avanti manifestazioni in luoghi pubblici e di
> fronte alle ambasciate dall'Uruguay a Cuba, dal Brasile all'Ecuador.
> Inoltre, il giorno 17 febbraio, la FMGD è stata presente al Congresso del
> Partito Socialista Serbo (SPS) come invitata speciale ed ha partecipato ad
> un seminario in Solidarietà con il Popolo Jugoslavo, organizzato dalla
> Gioventù del Partito Socialista Serbo. Al Congresso hanno partecipato più
> di cento delegazioni internazionali.
>
> Visita in Palestina
>
> Allo stesso modo abbiamo visitato la Palestina. Siamo stati invitati dalla
> Unione Generale degli Studenti Palestinesi (GUPS) e dalla Autorità
> Nazionale Palestinese. E' stata una visita importante dato che abbiamo
> avuto la possibilità di visitare università, scuole e di riunirci con tutti
> i leaders studenteschi e di portare loro il nostro supporto per la
> creazione dello Stato Palestinese. A partire da questo, abbiamo avuto una
> riunione con il Presidente Yasser Arafat che ha dichiarato che continua la
> propria lotta in favore dello Stato Palestinese, manifestando una grande
> riconoscenza per la nostra visita. La FMGD si è impegnata a proseguire il
> suo appoggio alla lotta e alla creazione dello Stato Palestinese,
> organizzando anche attività di appoggio, insieme alle organizzazioni
> aderenti, nei loro rispettivi paesi. Quest'anno si terrà un Seminario
> Internazionale di Appoggio alla creazione dello Stato Palestinese che avrà
> luogo in Palestina ed al quale saremo presenti.
>
> Congressi e Seminari
>
> La FMGD ha anche assistito ad alcuni Congressi organizzati dalle nostre
> organizzazioni, così come al Congresso della Gioventù Comunista del Cile
> (Cile), al Seminario Internazionale di Solidarietà con la Colombia
> (Colombia), al Congresso della Gioventù Comunista Colombiana, la JUCO
> (Colombia), al Congresso della Gioventù Popolare Socialista (Messico), al
> Seminario dell'Anniversario della Organizzazione della Gioventù del Partito
> Nazionale Popolare (Giamaica), al Seminario Internazionale sul
> Neoliberismo, realizzatosi a La Habana (Cuba). Ci sono stati, poi, molti
> altri eventi ai quali, sfortunatamente, non abbiamo potuto assistere, però
> ai quali hanno partecipato le organizzazioni federate alla FMGD.
>
> Riunione del Consiglio Generale della FMGD,
> organizzata nel gennaio del 2000, ad Hanoi
>
> La riunione del Consiglio Generale è stata molto importante dal momento che
> si sono discussi diversi punti come quello del finanziamento, delle
> affiliazioni, il Piano d'Azione e del prossimo Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù Democratica.
>
> Nuove affiliazioni:
>
> Europa: Lega della Gioventù Comunista della Jugoslavia, Unione della
> Gioventù Comunista della Federazione Russa, Unione Socialista della
> Gioventù Popolare della Slovacchia, Lega della Gioventù Comunista
> dell'Armenia.
>
> Medio Oriente: Unione Nazionale degli Studenti Algerini.
>
> Asia: Lega Generale degli Studenti di Burma.
>
> Dall'America Latina non ci sono state affiliazioni o richieste, però
> bisogna sottolineare che nell'Assemblea Generale si è approvata
> l'affiliazione di varie organizzazioni latinoamericane, come la Gioventù
> del Movimento 26 Marzo (J26M, Uruguay), la Casa della Gioventù del Paraguay
> (CJP, Paraguay), la Gioventù Socialista Brasiliana (JSB, Brasil), la
> Gioventù del Partito del Movimento Democratico Brasiliano (JPMDB Brasil).
>
> Finanziamenti:
>
> Sfortunatamente poche organizzazioni pagano le quote annuali e solo due le
> pagano con regolarità, la Gioventù Rivoluzionaria 8 Ottobre e la Unione dei
> Giovani Comunisti di Cuba (UJC).
>
> Piano d'azione per il 2000
>
> - Campagne Nazionali e Regionali per il 55° Anniversario della FMGD
>
> - Campagna Internazionale per l'estinzione della NATO
>
> - Campagna Internazionale contro il ruolo distruttore del FMI e della Banca
> Mondiale e per la cancellazione dei debiti esteri dei paesi in via di
> sviluppo
>
> - Campagna Internazionale per la fine delle armi nucleari
>
> - Realizzazione di un evento di commemorazione del 55° anniversario dei
> bombardamenti contro Hiroshima e Nagasaki
>
> - Evento Internazionale sui Diritti delle Donne a Nuova Delhi, India
> (ottobre)
>
> - Conferenza Internazionale di Solidarietà con il Popolo del Sahara
> Occidentale e per la sua indipendenza (ottobre)
>
> - Campagna Internazionale di Solidarietà con il Popolo e la Gioventù
> Palestinese e per la creazione del suo Stato
>
> - Il 10 novembre - realizzazione di manifestazioni internazionali per la
> fine della disoccupazione
>
> - Settembre: Manifestazione a Praga contro la riunione del Fondo Monetario
> Internazionale
>
> - Riunione Internazionale Preparatoria per il 15° Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù a La Habana
>
> - Partecipazione al Congresso della Unione Internazionale degli Studenti in
> Libia
>
> - Partecipazione al Congresso della OCLAE a La Habana
>
> Congresso della OCLAE
>
> La FMGD parteciperà al congresso della OCLAE attraverso il suo presidente e
> le organizzazioni della vicepresidenza per l'America Latina, la Gioventù
> Rivoluzionaria 8 Ottobre (JR8, Brasile) e la UJC (Cuba). Il congresso della
> OCLAE è la principale attività del Continente Latinoamericano quest'anno
> per questo invitiamo tutte le organizzazioni federate ed amiche a
> presenziare questo importante evento.
>
> Festival Mondiale della Gioventù e degli Studenti: ALGERIA 2001
>
> La discussione sulla organizzazione del prossimo Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù e degli Studenti è stata la più importante durante la Riunione del
> Consiglio Generale. Prima della riunione c'erano tre paesi candidati senza
> menzionare le decine di altri paesi che anche avevano manifestato la loro
> intenzione di dar luogo al Festival.
>
> Dopo un lungo dibattito è stata scelta l'Algeria come sede del 15° Festival
> che si realizzerà nel 2001. Abbiamo approvato che il prossimo Festival deve
> continuare ad essere una manifestazione Antiimperialista, per la Pace e la
> Sovranità dei Popoli e dei Giovani di tutto il mondo.
>
> Abbiamo scelto l'Algeria perché ha mostrato le condizioni necessarie per
> organizzare il Festival nel 2001. L'anno prossimo porteremo il nostro
> appoggio totale al popolo algerino così come il nostro omaggio per la sua
> lotta di Liberazione Nazionale e per l'importante contributo all'Umanità.
> La UNGA - Unione Nazionale della Gioventù Algerina- già stà portando avanti
> i preparativi per l'organizzazione e per la ricezione di tutti i delegati
> partecipanti. Per questo convochiamo tutte le organizzazioni federate ed
> affiliate alla FMGD a partecipare al prossimo Festival Mondiale della
> Gioventù e degli Studenti.
>
> A breve inviaremo le informazioni relative al FESTIVAL. La prima Riunione
> Internazionale preparatoria per il prossimo Festival sarà a La Habana nel
> giugno di quest'anno, pero ancora stiamo fissando la migliore data per tale
> riunione con l'idea di facilitare la presenza delle diverse organizzazioni.
>
> Stimati/e Amici/che e Compagni/e,
> queste sono le principali informazioni che vi invio da Budapest, Ungheria.
> Avremo molte attività per questo chiedo a tutte le organizzazioni di
> informarci sulle loro attività di quest'anno perché possiamo divulgarle a
> tutte le nostre organizzazioni, della FMGD. Avremo il Congresso della OCLAE
> a cui dovremo partecipare per prepararci al prossimo Festival Mondiale
> della Gioventù e degli Studenti, in Algeria nel 2001.
>
> Vi chiediamo di inviare i vostri numeri di telefono, e-mail, indirizzi per
> l'attualizzazione del nostro registro.
>
> Stiamo traducendo i documenti della riunione del Consiglio Generale della
> FMGD in spagnolo e, a breve, li staremo inviando attraverso la posta
> elettronica.
>
> Attentamente,
> Cristiano Aristimunha Pinto
> Vicepresidente FMGD
> (Rappresentante della Gioventù Rivoluzionaria 8 Ottobre- Brasile)
>
> Indirizzi e contatti in Ungheria:
> Telefono/fax: (00361) 350 22 02 (FMGD)
> Telefono/fax: (00361) 209 15 25 (Abitazione)
> E-mail: chris_fmjd@... (personale)
> jr8@... (JR8)
> wfdy@... (FMGD)
>
> -----------------------------
> Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica
> 1389 Budapest - pob 147 - Ungheria
> Tel/fax: +361 350 22 02 / 350 12 04
> E-Mail: <wfdy@...>
> -----------------------------
> La Federazione Mondiale della Gioventù Democratica è una organizzazione non
> governativa con status consultivo presso l'ONU e relazione operativa presso
> l'UNESCO. Riconosciuta con merito per la pace dal Segretario Generale delle
> Nazioni Unite nel 1987.
> -----------------------------
>
> =============================
> Comitato Internazionalista Arco Iris
> Via don Minzoni 33 - 25082 Botticino Sera (BS)
> Tel/Fax: 030 - 2190006
> E-mail:"ale.ramon@..."
> http://www.presos.org/italia
--
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
AUDIZIONI ALLA COMMISSIONE ESTERI DEL PARLAMENTO CANADESE -
SECONDA PARTE
In un precedente messaggio
( http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/79.html? )
abbiamo riportato alcune delle audizioni tenute ad Ottawa, alla Camera
dei Comuni, dinanzi allo Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade da parte di varie personalita' ritenute a vario
titolo "informate sui fatti" riguardo alla aggressione della NATO contro
la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia.
Continuiamo ora con la seconda parte del contributo di SERGE TRIFKOVIC,
professore di storia, responsabile per gli esteri di "Chronicles -
Magazine of American Culture", e con il contributo di MICHAEL MANDEL,
professore di diritto alla Osgoode Hall Law School, York University,
Toronto, che insieme ad altri avvocati ha presentato denuncia contro la
NATO al Tribunale dell'Aia per i crimini commessi sul territorio della
ex-RFSJ. La denuncia giace, tuttora "insabbiata", in qualche cassetto di
Carla dal Ponte.
Tutti i documenti sono stati diffusi dalla lista stopnat-@...
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:00:58 -0500
From: "minja m." <minja@...>
Send reply to: minja@...
To: KPAJ 3A HATO <kpaj-3a-hato@...>
Subject: Srdja Trifkovic in Ottawa House of Commons - Pt.
2
Trifkovic in Ottawa House of Commons - Pt. 2
HOUSE OF COMMONS - CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE -
COMITE PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES ET DU
COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL
UNEDITED COPY - COPIE NON EDITEE
• 0927 EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Ottawa, Thursday, February 17, 2000
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Lib.)):
Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting to order. So I'll ask the
people at the back of the room if they're going to have conversations to
go outside. I'm going to ask Ms. Swann from the Ottawa Serbian Heritage
Society if She could go first. Then we'll put Mr. Trifkovic. Mr. Dyer
hasn't arrived yet. I just want to warn everybody it may be a bit
chaotic
this morning. I'm not saying it isn't always chaotic but it may be more
chaotic than usual because we may be called for votes and this happened
the last time. So I apologize to the witnesses first if we're called out
of the room for votes. It just seems to be a bit- The House seems dans
un
peu de perturbation comme on dirait peut-être dans la langue française,
n'est-ce pas, and so we'll just have to deal with that if it occurs.
Otherwise we'll go on. But I'd ask the witnesses if you keep yourself To
10 minutes each and then we'll move to questions. [...] Mr. Trifkovic...
Mr. Serge Trifkovic (Individual Presentation): [... Text of presentation
as previously distributed... Transcript of ensuing Q&A follows herewith]
The Chairman: Thank you, sir. [... A member asked if it was preferable
to
have a world court to deal with human rights violations, or ad-hoc
tribunals for individual crisis areas...]
Ms. Serge Trifkovic: I was somewhat puzzled by the clear-cut choice
between the WCC [World Criminal Court] and ad hoc tribunals as the only
alternatives we are facing. To me it sounds a bit like the choice
between
cancer and leukemia. I do not believe that bureaucratically structured
and
politically motivated international quasi-judicial bodies are either
desirable or feasible. In any proper sense a "tribunal" is an impartial
forum for administration of justice. If the kangaroo court that goes by
the name of The Hague Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is any indicator, I
think the lesson of that particular body is that its model of justice is
Moscow 1938, and not Nuremberg in 1946. It was formed on a purely
political agenda by the Security Council, on the basis of Chapter 7. The
way it has acted, in terms of its procedures, its rule of evidence and
finally the selection of people to be indicted and prosecuted - and also
its refusal to indict and prosecute people who at prima facie should be,
such as the leaders of the 19 NATO countries -only indicates that it is
a
political body par excellence. There is no reason at all why a WCC would
be any different because, obviously, if you have the likes of Clinton
and
Blair deciding what is "necessary" and "feasible" in terms of
intervention, ultimately they would be deciding what is "necessary" and
"feasible" in terms of prosecution. The kind of political discipline in
the world that this would impose is eerily reminiscent of the Brave New
World of Huxley or "1984." I suspect that bodies such as the ones that
you
are mentioning will only take us a step further in the direction of
global totalitarianism in which the local and national traditions of law
and justice and jurisprudence- which are meaningful because they have
evolved within the context of a genuine, authentic national culture-
will
be replaced by something that is global, something that is allegedly
universal and, therefore, of necessity, ideological.
The Chair: Okay. I'm sorry, we're going to have to move on. It's a very
fascinating discussion. • 1025 [English] I've got to leave with with the
thought that you've always got to answer alternatives so I'll come to
you
and ask "What's your alternative". My alternative is that there's going
to
be United States imperial courts applying their jurisdiction around the
world to enforce it, so that may be worse for you. Anyway, that's just-
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: My alternative is to rediscover the beauty of a
society of nations in which enlightened national interests, based upon
the
Golden Rule of "I will not deny to anyone what I am asking for myself",
will be the basis of law and the basis of international relations. I am
not claiming that it was a long-lost golden age in Europe between
1815-1914, that we ought to yearn for in terms of reactionary nostalgia.
I'm simply saying that what we are offered as a replacement in the
Blairites' and Clintonistas' brave new world is infinitely worse and
infinitely more frightening.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, you asked.
The Chair: I asked, and that may be.We're going to go to Ms. Augustine
and
then we're going back to Mr. Strahl and Mr. Robinson.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[...]
I am grappling with what is the future of Kosovo, is it going to be an
international protectorate? Is it going to be an entity no longer linked
[to Serbia-Yugoslavia]? [...]
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: I would like to make a few comments about the
future because we keep forgetting the broad picture, what will happen in
the long term. The Kosovo crisis is primarily the result of the U.S.
involvement In the Kosovo situation. Until the moment Dick Holbrooke
decided that this was something they would tackle in a big way, it was -
I
insist - a low-level, unremarkable conflict, the likes of which we see
all
over the world, all of the time. At the moment there is a whole series
of
geopolitical reasons why the Washington administration wants to be
involved in the Balkans. I'm afraid we have no time to go into those in
any detail. But the important thing for the members of this Committee to
remember is that you shouldn't take the "humanitarian" and other alibis
as
face value. You should always assume that there is an agenda behind it.
One of them is to have a U.S. foothold in the European mainland that
will
not be subject to the ups-and-downs of the trans-Atlantic relationship,
so
that if and when the Germans, the French and others decide to create a
European Defence structure that will gradually detach West Europeans
from
NATO, which will ultimately lead to the closure of U.S. bases in Naples
and in Frankfurt and in Munich, there will be the assets in Skopje, and
in
Pristina, and in Tuzla, that will provide both the physical and the
political and military U.S. presence that will not be affected by such a
change in the relationship. When I say there are geopolitical reasons
which have a logic of their own, I am not claiming that in this
particular
case we can establish a definite sequence of events. • 1105 [English]
I'm
simply saying that humanitarian and moralistic claims by themselves are
neither a sufficient nor necessary explanation. In order to look at
Kosovo
in the longer term we have to ask the question: what will happen if and
when the United States administration after Clinton, or even after
whoever
comes after Clinton, loses interest in the Balkans? At the moment
they're
creating the demand for their involvement by creating a whole series of
small, fragmented and unviable units that, by themselves, have neither
the
political, nor cultural, nor historic meaning - such as Dayton-Bosnia,
such as Kosovo, such as, tomorrow maybe, Sanjak or Montenegro, Vojvodina
or whatever. If and when the presence of the underwriters in the Balkans
are removed, we will have another bout of Hobbesian free-for-all. And
that
is the tragedy of it all, because what is being done right now is not
the
foundation for a solid, just and durable peace, but just an
improvization
on an ad-hoc basis. It bears no relation to history, no relation to the
continuity of the political and cultural development in that part of
the
world, but satisfies the needs of the moment. I'm saying this not as
someone born in Serbia, but someone who is trying to look at the
political
essence of the problem - that so far the U.S. administration has
followed
the principle that all of the ethnic groups in the area can be satisfied
at the expense of the Serbs. The result is a sort of Carthaginian peace
imposed upon the Serbian nation that will create a constant source of
revanchist resentment among the Serbs, and determination to turn the
tables once Uncle Sam loses interest. I feel that there will be a war
again: the Serbs will fight to return Kosovo to their own rule, because
they feel Kosovo to have been unjustly detached. And so, whatever
scenario
the people in Brussels, London, Washington, Ottawa, or Bonn decide for
Kosovo today, it will not be worth the paper it's written on if it
doesn't
bear any relation to the geopolitical realities in the long term, and
those realities are fairly simple. You will not be able to impose
something called "multicultural" Kosovo, "multi-ethnic" Kosovo if people
on the ground - and I have primarily the Albanians in mind - are
determined to have a mono-ethnic Kosovo. By including 25% Serbian
members
in any quasi-representative bodies you introduce, you will not re-invent
a
"multi-ethnic Kosovo" in which grannies are able to return to their
apartments. At the moment the only way people in Kosovo will feel safe
and
secure living in their communities is if you have a de facto petition.
Whether it is accompanied by a constitutional and political model that
will sanctify that partition is neither here nor there. But in the long
term you have to realize that an imposed "peace" on the Serb nation that
does not take into account the legitimate interests of the Serbs, that
does not take into account the sort of give and take in which each party
will feel that it has lost something as well as gained something, will
be
unviable, will be unjust, and will be - in the long term - the source of
another conflict.
The Chairman: Okay. [...]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm going to pass to Mr. Robinson, but before I do, I
understand, Prof Trifkovic, you must leave shortly to catch a plane to
Europe- Mr. Serge Trifkovic: Actually, to Chicago- Mr. Chuck Strahl: To
Chicago. Mr. Serge Trifkovic: -and change to the plane for Amsterdam.
Mr.
Chuck Strahl: Right. Mr. Serge Trifkovic: I can stay for another 10
minutes. Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. When you're comfortable to leave just
leave. I want to say, then if you just do get up and go- Mr. Serge
Trifkovic: There will be no tears shed. Mr. Chuck Strahl: No. There will
be tears. They may be crocodile. They may be joy, who knows? But
certainly
I just want to say we appreciate very much you taking the time to come.
There's no doubt about it being a very interesting intervention. Please,
when you have to go, just feel free to get up and go and don't think us
rude if we don't properly acknowledge your very important contribution.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm afraid I'll have
to
leave around the same time. I'm not sure if the tears will be quite as
intense, but- The Chair: If the tears are shed- Some hon. members: Ha,
ha.
The Chair: Mr. Robinson, the tears are shed when you arrive, not when
you
leave.
Mr. Svend Robinson: I just had two questions, I guess for Mr. Trifkovic
and Ms. Swann, in particular. First, I wonder if you could just perhaps
elaborate a bit on some of the concerns around the current situation in
Pancevo and what your knowledge is of the situation in Pancevo. I had
the
opportunity to visit there and
The situation had the potential of being an environmental disaster. I'm
just wondering what the current analysis is of the outcome of the
bombing
in that area and what sort of testing has been done, for example, of the
environment, the water, the air and so on. Because there were serious
concerns about that. My second question, again to both of you. I wonder
if
you could talk a little bit about • 1120 [English] about the
responsibility of Serbs in Kosovo for wrongdoing. The United Nations
High
Commission on Refugees documented quite powerfully a major exodus of
Kosovar Albanians before March 24. I'm sure you're familiar with those
reports. You've seen those reports. Figures as many as 90,000 who had
left
their homes, left their villages. After the bombing started, did the
bombing exacerbate the flow of people. I have no doubt that it did.
Certainly a number of people who I spoke with pointed out how in some
cases Serbs on the ground were pointing up into the sky and saying you
were responsible for NATO. They felt that they were under siege from the
KLA, the NATO bombs and obviously when people are defenceless on the
ground they're totally vulnerable. It was a coward's war in many
respects,
but nevertheless people were driven out in huge numbers. Hundreds of
thousands of people left and were driven out. I was on a road from
Pristina down to the border with Macedonia, went through village after
village which were like ghost towns, houses had been burned to the
ground
in many cases and there's culpability for that and I want to hear from
you, both of you, some acknowledgement that yes we have to deal with
this
as well as part of the reckoning that must come out of this tragic
series
of events.
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: I'll deal with the second one and then I'll have to
go. I think the important thing to bear in mind in the Balkans is there
are no white hats and black hats and that's the fundamental problem that
we have faced with the coverage of the war in the media, and with
quasi-academic analysis, and with political decision-making. Very early
on
in this conflict an overall perception of the culpability of the Serbs
for
the Krajina, Bosnia and Kosovo was created even though very often the
reasons the Serbs reacted in the Krajina are very similar to the reasons
the Albanians reacted in Kosovo and vice versa. In some cases, the Serbs
were de facto separatists, wanting to secede from the separating entity.
In other times, they were the unitarists. In both cases they were deemed
wrong. But if you try to quantify the evil on all sides, it's impossible
to say that the Serbs proved qualitatively, fundamentally worse than
other
groups. Right now the Serbs constitute the largest refugee population
outside sub-Saharan Africa. To say that the Serbs have done evil things
is
almost a truism because in the Balkan imbroglio all sides have done very
evil things. If you want the Serbs to beat their chests and shout mea
culpa, well indeed, maybe they should because the Patriarch warned them
against
adopting some of the techniques and some of the feelings of their
enemies as they experienced them in 1941 to 1945 in the so-called
independent state of Croatia. [...] If this was the war to return the
Albanians, or in the memorable words of the then-British defence
minister
"Serbs out, Albanians back, NATO in", nobody is talking about "Serbs
back"
in Kosovo these days... a quarter of a million displaced Serbs and other
non-Albanians under NATO, in the aftermath of NATO's victory. So I will
be
the first to admit that the Serbs have done bad things just as everybody
else has done bad things; but it doesn't mean we are now going to ask
the
question how deserving are the Croats of being bombed • 1125 [English]
because they contributed "collectively" to the exodus of a quarter of a
million Serbs from the Krajina? How deserving are the Muslims of
castigation and bombing because right now, the whole of Sarajevo-until
1991, the second largest Serbian town after Belgrade - is Serbenfrei?.
If
we are to re-establish a modicum of reality in this debate, we have to
bear in mind that human fallibility and human culpability is not the
exclusive prerogative of anyone single ethnic group. Thank you.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Dyer, were you wanting to comment?
Mr. Gwynn Dyer: I was particularly struck by the use of the word
"Serbenfrei" to describe the Serbian authorities' removal of the Serbian
population of Sarajevo after the Dayton Accords. There were Serbians in
that city who were driven from their homes by the Serbian police. I was
there; I saw it. The idea that the Albanian Muslims and the Bosnian
Muslims and the Croats bear equal responsibility-all of them have done
bad
things. Of course bad things happen in war but neither the total of
refugees nor the total of dead nor the evidence of massacre suggests in
any way that there is shared responsibility equally indistinguishably
among the ethnic groups of the Balkans. Now this may be to some extent
because the Serbs inherited the heavy weapons of the Yugoslav army and
had
the ability to do more damage; I recognize that. The Bosnian Muslims
didn't have heavy artillery to shell Serbian villages as the Serbs did
to
shell Sarajevo. But I do find the line of argument which suggests that
there can be no distinguished distinction between Vukovar and Srebrenica
on the one hand, and the Krajina on the other hand. The Krajina Mark Two
-
when it was the Serbs who lost their homes - rather Mark One, when it
was
the Croatian inhabitants who were driven. I think is a travesty.
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: To claim that the Krajina is less of a crime than
"Srebrenica," even though the Krajina resulted in between 9 thousand and
12 thousand Serbian deaths, is a very curious argument, both morally and
intellectually. But in particular, I find it reprehensible that Kosovo
is
still referred to as a "massacre" because "the Kosovo massacre" is one
of
the biggest lies, media-mediated political lies of the decade, if not
the
century. In perspective, when a few decades pass, it will belong to the
same category as the bayonetted Belgian babies by the Kaiser's army in
1914. [...]
----
House of Commons-Canada
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Tuesday February 22, 2000
Testimony of Professor Michael Mandel
Personal Note
Allow me to tell you a little bit about myself and how I became involved
in this. I am a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School where I have
taught for 25 years. I specialize in criminal law and comparative
constitutional law with an emphasis on domestic and foreign tribunals,
including United Nations tribunals such as the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I have no personal interest in the
conflict in Yugoslavia – I have no Serbs or Albanians in my family and I
am not being paid by anyone. I became involved in this as a Canadian
lawyer who witnessed a flagrant violation of the law by my government
with unspeakably tragic results for innocent people of all the Yugoslav
ethnicities. I became involved as a Jew appalled by the grotesque and
deliberate misuse of the Holocaust to justify the killing and maiming of
innocent people for what I am convinced were purely self-interested
motives, the farthest thing from humanitarianism, in a cynical attempt
to manipulate the desire of Canadians to help their fellows on the other
side of the world.
Illegality of the War
The first thing to note about NATO's war against Yugoslavia is that it
was flatly illegal both in the fact that it was ever undertaken and in
the way it was carried out. It was a gross and deliberate violation of
international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter
authorizes the use of force in only two situations: self-defence or when
authorized by the Security Council.
The United Nations Charter provides in so far as is relevant:
Article 2
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,
first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Article 37
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article
33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall
refer it to the Security Council.
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is
in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to
recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it
may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.
These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations
and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in
Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may
take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may
include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or
land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence
shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in
any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council
under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security;
The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice is also clear.
For instance, it stated in its ruling against United States intervention
in Nicaragua:
In any event, while the United States might form its own appraisal of
the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of
force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such
respect. With regard to the steps actually taken, the protection of
human rights, a strictly humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible
with the mining of ports, the destruction of oil installations, or again
with the training, arming and equipping of the contras.
[CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST
NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (MERITS) Judgment of
27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p.134-135, paragraphs 267 and 268]
It should also be noted that the preliminary decision of the World Court
last year in Yugoslavia's case against 10 NATO countries, including
Canada, does not in the slightest contradict this. As Mr. Matas has
pointed out to you in his statement, this decision was taken on purely
jurisdictional grounds, first the United States' shameful refusal to
recognize the World Court's jurisdiction in general, and second Canada's
objection to jurisdiction in this specific case. But it is worth quoting
some paragraphs from the decision of the Court:
15. Whereas the Court is deeply concerned with the human tragedy, the
loss of life, and the enormous suffering in Kosovo which form the
background of the present dispute, and with the continuing loss of life
and human suffering in all parts of Yugoslavia;
16. Whereas the Court is profoundly concerned with the use of force in
Yugoslavia; whereas under the present circumstances such use raises very
serious issues of international law;
17. Whereas the Court is mindful of the purposes and principles of the
United Nations Charter and of its own responsibilities in the
maintenance of peace and security under the Charter and the Statue of
the court;
18. Whereas the Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties
appearing before it must act in conformity with their obligations under
the United Nations Charter and other rules of international law,
including humanitarian law.
[CASE CONCERNING LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (YUGOSLAVIA V. CANADA)
International Court of Justice, 2 June 1999]
To sum up, in the case of NATO's war on Yugoslavia, neither of the two
exclusive bases for the use of force (Security Council authorization or
self-defence) was even claimed by NATO.
As a violation of the United Nations Charter, the attack on Yugoslavia
was also a violation of the NATO Treaty itself and Canada's own domestic
law.
The NATO Treaty (1949), so far as is relevant, reads as follows:
[Preamble]: The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their
desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the
United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be
involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 7: This treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as
affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the
Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary
responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
The Canada Defence Act, in so far as relevant reads as follows:
31. (1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian forces or any
component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or
non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond
Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so
(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United
Nations Charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar
instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada.
The war's illegality is not disputed by any legal scholar of repute,
even those who had some sympathy for the war, for instance Mr. Mendes in
his presentation to this Committee. Of course, Mr. Mendes calls this a
"fatal flaw" in the UN Charter. I don't believe it is a flaw at all, for
reasons I'll elaborate. But I don't think the seriousness of this can be
glossed over one bit: the flagrant violation of the law by our
government is no small thing. Democracy is quite simply meaningless if
governments feel they can violate the law with impunity.
Humanitarian Justification
We all know that the leaders of the NATO countries sought to justify
this war as a humanitarian intervention in defence of a vulnerable
population, the Kosovar Albanians, threatened with mass atrocities.
A lot turns on this claim, but not the illegality of the war. In fact,
the reason why there is such unanimity among scholars on the illegality
of this war is that there is no "humanitarian exception" under
international law or the United Nations Charter. That does not mean that
there are no means for the international community to intervene to
prevent or stop humanitarian disasters, even to use force where
necessary. It just means that the use of force for humanitarian purposes
has been totally absorbed in the UN Charter. A state must be able to
demonstrate the humanity of its proposed intervention to the Security
Council, including, of course, the five permanent members possessing a
veto. Nor has the Security Council shown itself to be incapable of
acting in these situations. It issued numerous resolutions authorizing
action in this conflict (Resolutions 1160, 1199, and 1203 of 1998 and
Resolutions 1239 and 1244 of 1999, the last of which brought an end to
the bombing). The Security Council has also shown itself capable of
authorizing the use of force, for example its authorization of "all
necessary means" to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait in Resolution 678
of November 29, 1990, which gave Iraq until January 15, 1991 to
withdraw. Bombing by the Americans commenced on January 16.
But NATO did not even move a Resolution before the Security Council over
Kosovo. Nor did it use the alternative means of demonstrating to the
international community the necessity for its use of force in the
General Assembly's Uniting for Peace Resolution (1950), which allows the
General Assembly recommend action to the Security Council if 2/3 of
those present and voting agree:
[The General Assembly] Resolves that if the Security Council, because of
lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace,
breach of the peace or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall
consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate
recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the
case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed
force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and
security."
There are two basic reasons why these procedures were not utilized by
NATO in this case. In the first place, the most plausible explanation of
this whole war was that it was, at its foundation, nothing less than an
attempt by the United States, through NATO, to overthrow the authority
of the United Nations. In the second place, NATO could never have
demonstrated a humanitarian justification for what it was doing, because
it had none.
In law, as in morals, it is not enough for a humanitarian justification
to be claimed, it must also be demonstrated. To use an odious example,
but one which makes the point clearly enough, Hitler himself used a
humanitarian justification for invading Poland and unleashing World War
II: he claimed he was doing it to protect the German minority from
oppression by the Poles.
In the case of NATO, what had to be justified as a humanitarian
intervention was a bombing campaign that, in dropping 25,000 bombs on
Yugoslavia, directly killed between 500 and 1800 civilian children,
women and men of all ethnicities and permanently injured as many others;
a bombing campaign that caused 60 to100 billion dollars worth of damage
to an already impoverished country; a bombing campaign that directly and
indirectly caused a refugee crisis of enormous proportions, with about 1
million fleeing Kosovo during the bombing; a bombing campaign that
indirectly caused the death of thousands more, by provoking the brutal
retaliatory and defensive measures that are inevitable when a war of
this kind and intensity is undertaken, and by giving a free hand to
extremists on both sides to vent their hatred. What also has to be
justified is the ethnic cleansing that has occurred in Kosovo since the
entry of the triumphant KLA, fully backed by NATO's might, which has
seen hundreds of thousands of Serb (and Roma and Jewish) Kosovars driven
out and hundreds murdered, a murder rate that is about 10 times the
Canadian rate per capita.
These results were to be expected and they were predicted by NATO's
military and political advisers in their very careful planning of the
war which went back more than a year before the bombing commenced.
A humanitarian justification would have to show that this disaster was
outweighed by a greater disaster that was about to happen and would have
happened but for this intervention. The evidence for this, which must be
carefully scrutinized by this Committee, is meagre to say the least.
Nobody could seriously maintain that the conditions for a repeat of the
Bosnian bloodbath were there: this was not an all out civil war with
well-armed parties of roughly equal strength on each side and huge
ethnic enclaves fighting for their existence. These conditions simply
did not exist in Kosovo.
Nor did the facts indicate a humanitarian disaster would have occurred
but for NATO's bombing. A total of 2,000 people had been killed on both
sides in the prior two years of fighting between the KLA and the Serbs,
and violence was declining with the presence of UN observers. The
alleged massacre of 45 ethnic Albanians at Racak must be regarded with
the greatest suspicion, not only because of the circumstances, but also
because of involvement of the American emissary Mr. William Walker, with
his history of covert and illegal activities on behalf of the Americans
in Latin America.
Nor is the Report recently released by the OSCE of much value in
assessing the situation, since it was written and paid for by the NATO
countries themselves.
Even more importantly, the evidence is overwhelming that NATO did not
make serious efforts at averting a disaster and was not at all serious
about peace.
If we look at the Rambouillet negotiations, a number of perplexing
questions are raised: Why was the irredentist and insurrectionary KLA
preferred as the NATO interlocutor to the only popularly elected leader,
the moderate Ibrahim Rugova? Why, for that matter was Rugova ignored
during the war? Why did the US insist on a secret annex to the
Rambouillet Accord (Annex B) that would have allowed it to occupy all of
Serbia? Why did the final peace agreement look so much like what the
Serbs had agreed to before the bombing? Do we really think that NATO
could not have put the 10 billion dollars of bombs it dropped to working
out and under-writing a peace agreement that would have accommodated and
protected all sides if it were interested in humanity and not war? Why
are NATO countries so unwilling to spend money on reconstruction of
Kosovo, claiming that they have run out of money with less than one
billion dollars spent?
And where, to resolve these enormous doubts about whether NATO acted out
of humanitarian motives this time, is the evidence that these people
have ever acted from humanitarian motives before? With such huge holes
in its argument, we are entitled to cross-examine the leopard on his
spots. What about the failure to intervene with force in Rwanda? What
about the United States' own bankrolling of the repressive Suharto
regime in Indonesia? What about Turkey's violent repression of the
Kurds, a humanitarian disaster that has claimed 30,000 lives, not 2,000?
What about the United States itself? The richest country in the world
which creates social conditions so violent and racist that its normal
murder rate is in the realm of 20,000 per year, almost as high, per
capita as Kosovo right now - a country that puts 2 or 3 of its own
people to death by lethal injection every week. NATO has no humanitarian
lessons to teach the world.
Finally and very importantly, we must ask some serious questions about
the way in which this supposed humanitarian intervention was handled.
With the Kosovars supposedly in the hands of genocidal maniacs, NATO
gave 5 days warning between the withdrawal of the observers and the
launch of the attack. This was followed by seven days of bombing that
mostly ignored Kosovo itself. In other words, an invitation to genocide
that was not accepted, but one that was guaranteed to produce a refugee
flow to legitimate a massive bombing campaign.
As Ambassador Bissett told this committee last week, that NATO leaders
have no respect for the truth should startle no one. What of the claim
by Jamie Shea that it was the Serbs who bombed the Albanian refugee
convoy (until the independent journalists found bomb fragments "made in
U.S.A.")? What of the claim by a NATO general, with video up on the
screen, that the passenger train on the Grdelica bridge was going too
fast to avoid being hit (until somebody pointed out that the video had
been speeded up to three times its real speed)? What of the claim that
the Chinese Embassy was bombed because NATO's maps were out of date? Let
alone the claims by Mr. Clinton (and Mrs. Clinton) and Mr. Cohen that a
"Holocaust" was occurring in which perhaps 100,000 Kosovar men had been
murdered (until the bombing was over and the numbers dwindled to 2,108 -
and we have yet to be told who they were or how they died).
In fact most people in the world simply did not believe NATO's claim of
humanitarianism. A poll taken in mid-April and published by The
Economist shows that this was a very unpopular war, opposed by perhaps
most of the world's population both outside and inside the NATO
alliance.( "Oh what a lovely war!", The Economist, April 24, 1999
showing more than a third opposed in Canada, Poland, Germany, France and
Finland, almost an even split in Hungary, an even split in Italy and a
majority opposed in the Czech Republic, Russia and Taiwan) A poll taken
in Greece between April 29th and May 5th showed 99.5% against the war,
85% believing NATO's motives to be strategic and not humanitarian, and,
most importantly, 69% in favour of charging Bill Clinton with war
crimes, 35.2% for charging Tony Blair and only 14% for charging Slobodan
Milosevic, not far from the 13% in favour of charging NATO General
Wesley Clark and the 9.6% for charging NATO Secretary General Javier
Solana.( "Majority in Greece wants Clinton tried for war crimes", The
Irish Times, May 27, 1999).
Much more plausible than the humanitarian thesis is the one that the
United States deliberately provoked this war, that it deliberately
exploited and exacerbated another country's tragedy - a tragedy partly
of its own creation (we should not forget that the West's aggressive and
purely selfish economic policies that have beggared Yugoslavia over the
last ten years). NATO exists to make war, not peace. The arms industry
exists to make profits from dropping bombs. And the United States, by
virtue of its military might dominates NATO the way it does not dominate
the United Nations. The most plausible explanation then is that this
attack was not about the Balkans at all. It was an attempt to overthrow
the authority of the United Nations and make NATO, and therefore the
United States, the world's supreme authority, to establish the
"precedent" that NATO politicians have been talking about since the
bombing stopped. To give the United States the free hand that the United
Nations does not, in its conflicts with the Third World and its
rivalries with Russia, China and even Europe.
In other words, this was not a case of the United Nations being an
obstacle to humanitarianism. It was a case of using a flimsy pretext of
humanitarianism to overthrow the United Nations.
Not only was this an illegal war that had no humanitarian justification.
It was a war pursued by illegal means. According to admissions made in
public throughout the war (for instance during NATO briefings),
according to eye-witness reports and according to powerful
circumstantial evidence displayed on the world's television screens
throughout the bombing campaign -- evidence good enough to convict in
any criminal court in the world - these NATO leaders deliberately and
illegally made targets of places and things with only tenuous or slight
military value or no military value at all. Places such as city bridges,
factories, hospitals, marketplaces, downtown and residential
neighbourhoods, and television studios. The same evidence shows that, in
doing this, the NATO leaders aimed to demoralize and break the will of
the people, not to defeat its army.
The American group Human Rights Watch has just issued a lengthy report
documenting a systematic and massive violation of international
humanitarian law by NATO in Yugoslavia. They estimate the civilian
victims to be about 500. This figure should be taken as a minimum
because it is a number Human Rights watch says it can independently
confirm and that can be attributed directly to the bombing. It excludes
persons known to be killed as an indirect result of the bombing. Every
benefit of the doubt is given to NATO, a fact exemplified by the
Report's puzzling and actually undefended distinction between these
grave "violations of humanitarian law" and "war crimes". Human rights
Watch has also documented the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs in
attacks on civilian targets.
The reason these civilian targets are illegal is that civilians are very
likely to be killed or injured when such targets are hit. And all of the
NATO leaders knew that. They were carefully told that by their military
planners. And they still went ahead and did it.
And they did it without any risk to themselves or to their soldiers and
pilots. That's why this war was called a "coward's war". The cowardice
lay in fighting the civilian population and not the military, in bombing
from altitudes so high that the civilians, Serbians, Albanians, Roma,
and anybody else on the ground, bore all the risks of the "inevitable
collateral damage".
War Crimes Charges before the International Tribunal
But the fact that this war was illegal and unjustified has further very
serious implications. Mr. Chretien, Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Eggleton, along
with all the other NATO leaders, planned and executed a bombing campaign
that they knew was illegal and that they knew would cause the death and
permanent injury of thousands of civilian children women and men. Hard
as it is for us to accept, or even to say, killing hundreds or thousands
of civilians knowingly and without lawful excuse is nothing less than
mass murder. Milosevic was indicted in The Hague for 385 victims. The
total victims of the 98 people executed for murder in the United States
in 1999 was 129. Our leaders killed between 500 and 1800.
That is why, starting in April of last year and continuing to the
present day, dozens of lawyers and law professors, a pan-American
association representing hundreds of jurists, some elected legislators,
and thousands of private citizens from around the world, have lodged
formal complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague
charging NATO leaders with war crimes.
The particular complaint I am involved in was filed in May, 1999 and
names 68 individuals, including all the heads of government, foreign
ministers and defense ministers of the 19 NATO countries (including US
President Clinton, Secretaries Cohen and Albright, Canadian Prime
Minister Chretien, Ministers Axworthy and Eggleton and so on down the
list), and the highest ranking NATO officials, from then Secretary
General Javier Solana, through Generals Wesley Clark, Michael Short, and
official spokesman Jamie Shea.
The charges against them include the following:
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, contrary to
article 2 of the Statue of the Tribunal, namely the following acts
against persons or property protected under the provisions of the
relevant Geneva Convention: (a) wilful killing; (c) wilfully causing
great suffering or serious injury to body or health; (d) extensive
destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Violations of the laws or customs of war, contrary to Article 3 namely:
(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause
unnecessary suffering; (b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c)
attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings;(d) seizure of, destruction or willful
damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and
education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art
and science.
Crimes against humanity contrary to Article 5, namely: (a) murder; (i)
other inhumane acts.
Article 7 of the Statute provides for "individual criminal
responsibility" thus:
1. A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise
aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime
referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be
individually responsible for the crime.
2. The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State
or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve
such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment.
3. The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the
present Statute was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his
superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know
that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and
the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.
We have been in frequent contact with the Tribunal, travelling to the
Hague twice to argue our case with Chief Prosecutors Louise Arbour and
Carla Del Ponte and their legal advisers, filing evidence, legal briefs
and arguments in support of the case. I am filing with this Committee a
book of the evidence we have filed with the tribunal. I understand that
you already have the two volumes prepared by the government of
Yugoslavia. I would point out that these volumes have been confirmed as
"largely credible" by the Human Rights Watch Report.
Recently, Justice Del Ponte disclosed that she was studying an internal
document analyzing the many claims that have been made against NATO. My
latest word from her (February 8) is that she is still studying the
case.
Justice Del Ponte has said that if she is not prepared to prosecute NATO
she should pack up and go home, and I have to agree with her, because,
in that case, the Tribunal would be doing far more harm than good, only
legitimating NATO's violent lawlessness against people unlucky enough to
be ruled by "indicted war criminals", as opposed to the un-indicted kind
that govern the NATO countries.
This was the very purpose for which the United States sponsored this
tribunal in the first place, at least according to Michael Scharf,
Attorney-Advisor with the U.S. State Department, who, under Madeleine
Albright's instructions, actually drafted the Security Council
resolution establishing the Tribunal.
"the tribunal was widely perceived within the government as little more
than a public relations device and as a potentially useful policy
tool...Indictments also would serve to isolate offending leaders
diplomatically, strengthen the hand of their domestic rivals and fortify
the international political will to employ economic sanctions or use
force" (The Washington Post, October 3, 1999)
I must confess to you that my colleagues and I and the thousands of
others who have complained to the Tribunal have grave doubts about its
impartiality. We have given it the benefit of every doubt even in the
face of mounting evidence that it didn't deserve it: when, in January,
1999, then prosecutor Judge Louise Arbour made a rather dramatic
appearance at the border of Kosovo, lending credibility to contested
American accounts of atrocities at Racak, a precipitating justification
of the war itself; when, only days after the bombing had commenced, she
made an announcement of the Arkan indictment that had been secret from
1997; when she made television appearances with NATO leader Robin Cook,
already the subject of numerous complaints during the war to receive war
crimes dossiers; when she met with Madeleine Albright, herself by then
the subject of well-grounded complaints before the tribunal, and
Albright took the opportunity to announce that the United States was the
major provider of funds to the Tribunal; when, two weeks later, in the
midst of bombing, Judge Arbour announced the indictment of Milosevic, on
the basis of undisclosed evidence, for Racak and events which had
occurred only six weeks earlier in the middle of a war zone – on what,
in other words, must have been very flimsy and suspicious evidence; and
when, at the conclusion of the bombing Judge Arbour handed over the
investigation of war crimes in Kosovo to NATO countries' police forces
themselves - notwithstanding that they had every motive to falsify the
evidence.
I am sad to say, because the former prosecutor is now a judge of the
Supreme Court of Canada and an old colleague and friend of mine, of whom
we all want to be proud, that these could not be regarded as the acts of
an impartial prosecutor. Not when NATO was in the midst of a disastrous
war in flagrant violation of international law.
We sincerely hoped for better things from Judge Del Ponte coming as she
did from a country outside of the NATO alliance. But our expectations
have been progressively lowered. First, when she declared, immediately
upon taking the job, that her priorities were the prosecution of
Milosevic, something which clearly suited the NATO countries but which,
as we told her in November, could in no way be compatible with her sworn
duties. A prosecutor cannot declare that she is going to concentrate
only on some crimes and grant effective immunity to other criminals.
Then, when she made the observation that she was indeed investigating
complaints against NATO, and NATO reacted in its typically outrageous
fashion by attacking the Tribunal, Judge Del Ponte quickly issued
unseemly appeasing statements and went on a conciliatory mission to
Brussels.
I am saying all this to put the Committee on guard against delegating
its own judgment to this Tribunal which was set up as an instrument of
United States foreign policy and has given us so many grounds to suspect
that it sees itself the same way. Whatever this Tribunal decides to do
or not to do, it is incumbent on this Committee to scrutinize its
reasons and the evidence with the utmost care.
Let me end by citing to you the words of Justice Robert Jackson from his
opening statement to the Nurnberg Tribunal on November 21, 1945:
"But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable
in
a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible
to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied
against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a
useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations,
including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away
with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power
against the rights of their own people only when we make all men
answerable to the law." (The Nurnberg Case As Presented by Robert H.
Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States (New York: Cooper Square
Publishers Inc, 1971) at page 93)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
SECONDA PARTE
In un precedente messaggio
( http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/79.html? )
abbiamo riportato alcune delle audizioni tenute ad Ottawa, alla Camera
dei Comuni, dinanzi allo Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade da parte di varie personalita' ritenute a vario
titolo "informate sui fatti" riguardo alla aggressione della NATO contro
la Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia.
Continuiamo ora con la seconda parte del contributo di SERGE TRIFKOVIC,
professore di storia, responsabile per gli esteri di "Chronicles -
Magazine of American Culture", e con il contributo di MICHAEL MANDEL,
professore di diritto alla Osgoode Hall Law School, York University,
Toronto, che insieme ad altri avvocati ha presentato denuncia contro la
NATO al Tribunale dell'Aia per i crimini commessi sul territorio della
ex-RFSJ. La denuncia giace, tuttora "insabbiata", in qualche cassetto di
Carla dal Ponte.
Tutti i documenti sono stati diffusi dalla lista stopnat-@...
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:00:58 -0500
From: "minja m." <minja@...>
Send reply to: minja@...
To: KPAJ 3A HATO <kpaj-3a-hato@...>
Subject: Srdja Trifkovic in Ottawa House of Commons - Pt.
2
Trifkovic in Ottawa House of Commons - Pt. 2
HOUSE OF COMMONS - CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE -
COMITE PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES ET DU
COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL
UNEDITED COPY - COPIE NON EDITEE
• 0927 EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Ottawa, Thursday, February 17, 2000
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Lib.)):
Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting to order. So I'll ask the
people at the back of the room if they're going to have conversations to
go outside. I'm going to ask Ms. Swann from the Ottawa Serbian Heritage
Society if She could go first. Then we'll put Mr. Trifkovic. Mr. Dyer
hasn't arrived yet. I just want to warn everybody it may be a bit
chaotic
this morning. I'm not saying it isn't always chaotic but it may be more
chaotic than usual because we may be called for votes and this happened
the last time. So I apologize to the witnesses first if we're called out
of the room for votes. It just seems to be a bit- The House seems dans
un
peu de perturbation comme on dirait peut-être dans la langue française,
n'est-ce pas, and so we'll just have to deal with that if it occurs.
Otherwise we'll go on. But I'd ask the witnesses if you keep yourself To
10 minutes each and then we'll move to questions. [...] Mr. Trifkovic...
Mr. Serge Trifkovic (Individual Presentation): [... Text of presentation
as previously distributed... Transcript of ensuing Q&A follows herewith]
The Chairman: Thank you, sir. [... A member asked if it was preferable
to
have a world court to deal with human rights violations, or ad-hoc
tribunals for individual crisis areas...]
Ms. Serge Trifkovic: I was somewhat puzzled by the clear-cut choice
between the WCC [World Criminal Court] and ad hoc tribunals as the only
alternatives we are facing. To me it sounds a bit like the choice
between
cancer and leukemia. I do not believe that bureaucratically structured
and
politically motivated international quasi-judicial bodies are either
desirable or feasible. In any proper sense a "tribunal" is an impartial
forum for administration of justice. If the kangaroo court that goes by
the name of The Hague Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is any indicator, I
think the lesson of that particular body is that its model of justice is
Moscow 1938, and not Nuremberg in 1946. It was formed on a purely
political agenda by the Security Council, on the basis of Chapter 7. The
way it has acted, in terms of its procedures, its rule of evidence and
finally the selection of people to be indicted and prosecuted - and also
its refusal to indict and prosecute people who at prima facie should be,
such as the leaders of the 19 NATO countries -only indicates that it is
a
political body par excellence. There is no reason at all why a WCC would
be any different because, obviously, if you have the likes of Clinton
and
Blair deciding what is "necessary" and "feasible" in terms of
intervention, ultimately they would be deciding what is "necessary" and
"feasible" in terms of prosecution. The kind of political discipline in
the world that this would impose is eerily reminiscent of the Brave New
World of Huxley or "1984." I suspect that bodies such as the ones that
you
are mentioning will only take us a step further in the direction of
global totalitarianism in which the local and national traditions of law
and justice and jurisprudence- which are meaningful because they have
evolved within the context of a genuine, authentic national culture-
will
be replaced by something that is global, something that is allegedly
universal and, therefore, of necessity, ideological.
The Chair: Okay. I'm sorry, we're going to have to move on. It's a very
fascinating discussion. • 1025 [English] I've got to leave with with the
thought that you've always got to answer alternatives so I'll come to
you
and ask "What's your alternative". My alternative is that there's going
to
be United States imperial courts applying their jurisdiction around the
world to enforce it, so that may be worse for you. Anyway, that's just-
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: My alternative is to rediscover the beauty of a
society of nations in which enlightened national interests, based upon
the
Golden Rule of "I will not deny to anyone what I am asking for myself",
will be the basis of law and the basis of international relations. I am
not claiming that it was a long-lost golden age in Europe between
1815-1914, that we ought to yearn for in terms of reactionary nostalgia.
I'm simply saying that what we are offered as a replacement in the
Blairites' and Clintonistas' brave new world is infinitely worse and
infinitely more frightening.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, you asked.
The Chair: I asked, and that may be.We're going to go to Ms. Augustine
and
then we're going back to Mr. Strahl and Mr. Robinson.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[...]
I am grappling with what is the future of Kosovo, is it going to be an
international protectorate? Is it going to be an entity no longer linked
[to Serbia-Yugoslavia]? [...]
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: I would like to make a few comments about the
future because we keep forgetting the broad picture, what will happen in
the long term. The Kosovo crisis is primarily the result of the U.S.
involvement In the Kosovo situation. Until the moment Dick Holbrooke
decided that this was something they would tackle in a big way, it was -
I
insist - a low-level, unremarkable conflict, the likes of which we see
all
over the world, all of the time. At the moment there is a whole series
of
geopolitical reasons why the Washington administration wants to be
involved in the Balkans. I'm afraid we have no time to go into those in
any detail. But the important thing for the members of this Committee to
remember is that you shouldn't take the "humanitarian" and other alibis
as
face value. You should always assume that there is an agenda behind it.
One of them is to have a U.S. foothold in the European mainland that
will
not be subject to the ups-and-downs of the trans-Atlantic relationship,
so
that if and when the Germans, the French and others decide to create a
European Defence structure that will gradually detach West Europeans
from
NATO, which will ultimately lead to the closure of U.S. bases in Naples
and in Frankfurt and in Munich, there will be the assets in Skopje, and
in
Pristina, and in Tuzla, that will provide both the physical and the
political and military U.S. presence that will not be affected by such a
change in the relationship. When I say there are geopolitical reasons
which have a logic of their own, I am not claiming that in this
particular
case we can establish a definite sequence of events. • 1105 [English]
I'm
simply saying that humanitarian and moralistic claims by themselves are
neither a sufficient nor necessary explanation. In order to look at
Kosovo
in the longer term we have to ask the question: what will happen if and
when the United States administration after Clinton, or even after
whoever
comes after Clinton, loses interest in the Balkans? At the moment
they're
creating the demand for their involvement by creating a whole series of
small, fragmented and unviable units that, by themselves, have neither
the
political, nor cultural, nor historic meaning - such as Dayton-Bosnia,
such as Kosovo, such as, tomorrow maybe, Sanjak or Montenegro, Vojvodina
or whatever. If and when the presence of the underwriters in the Balkans
are removed, we will have another bout of Hobbesian free-for-all. And
that
is the tragedy of it all, because what is being done right now is not
the
foundation for a solid, just and durable peace, but just an
improvization
on an ad-hoc basis. It bears no relation to history, no relation to the
continuity of the political and cultural development in that part of
the
world, but satisfies the needs of the moment. I'm saying this not as
someone born in Serbia, but someone who is trying to look at the
political
essence of the problem - that so far the U.S. administration has
followed
the principle that all of the ethnic groups in the area can be satisfied
at the expense of the Serbs. The result is a sort of Carthaginian peace
imposed upon the Serbian nation that will create a constant source of
revanchist resentment among the Serbs, and determination to turn the
tables once Uncle Sam loses interest. I feel that there will be a war
again: the Serbs will fight to return Kosovo to their own rule, because
they feel Kosovo to have been unjustly detached. And so, whatever
scenario
the people in Brussels, London, Washington, Ottawa, or Bonn decide for
Kosovo today, it will not be worth the paper it's written on if it
doesn't
bear any relation to the geopolitical realities in the long term, and
those realities are fairly simple. You will not be able to impose
something called "multicultural" Kosovo, "multi-ethnic" Kosovo if people
on the ground - and I have primarily the Albanians in mind - are
determined to have a mono-ethnic Kosovo. By including 25% Serbian
members
in any quasi-representative bodies you introduce, you will not re-invent
a
"multi-ethnic Kosovo" in which grannies are able to return to their
apartments. At the moment the only way people in Kosovo will feel safe
and
secure living in their communities is if you have a de facto petition.
Whether it is accompanied by a constitutional and political model that
will sanctify that partition is neither here nor there. But in the long
term you have to realize that an imposed "peace" on the Serb nation that
does not take into account the legitimate interests of the Serbs, that
does not take into account the sort of give and take in which each party
will feel that it has lost something as well as gained something, will
be
unviable, will be unjust, and will be - in the long term - the source of
another conflict.
The Chairman: Okay. [...]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm going to pass to Mr. Robinson, but before I do, I
understand, Prof Trifkovic, you must leave shortly to catch a plane to
Europe- Mr. Serge Trifkovic: Actually, to Chicago- Mr. Chuck Strahl: To
Chicago. Mr. Serge Trifkovic: -and change to the plane for Amsterdam.
Mr.
Chuck Strahl: Right. Mr. Serge Trifkovic: I can stay for another 10
minutes. Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. When you're comfortable to leave just
leave. I want to say, then if you just do get up and go- Mr. Serge
Trifkovic: There will be no tears shed. Mr. Chuck Strahl: No. There will
be tears. They may be crocodile. They may be joy, who knows? But
certainly
I just want to say we appreciate very much you taking the time to come.
There's no doubt about it being a very interesting intervention. Please,
when you have to go, just feel free to get up and go and don't think us
rude if we don't properly acknowledge your very important contribution.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm afraid I'll have
to
leave around the same time. I'm not sure if the tears will be quite as
intense, but- The Chair: If the tears are shed- Some hon. members: Ha,
ha.
The Chair: Mr. Robinson, the tears are shed when you arrive, not when
you
leave.
Mr. Svend Robinson: I just had two questions, I guess for Mr. Trifkovic
and Ms. Swann, in particular. First, I wonder if you could just perhaps
elaborate a bit on some of the concerns around the current situation in
Pancevo and what your knowledge is of the situation in Pancevo. I had
the
opportunity to visit there and
The situation had the potential of being an environmental disaster. I'm
just wondering what the current analysis is of the outcome of the
bombing
in that area and what sort of testing has been done, for example, of the
environment, the water, the air and so on. Because there were serious
concerns about that. My second question, again to both of you. I wonder
if
you could talk a little bit about • 1120 [English] about the
responsibility of Serbs in Kosovo for wrongdoing. The United Nations
High
Commission on Refugees documented quite powerfully a major exodus of
Kosovar Albanians before March 24. I'm sure you're familiar with those
reports. You've seen those reports. Figures as many as 90,000 who had
left
their homes, left their villages. After the bombing started, did the
bombing exacerbate the flow of people. I have no doubt that it did.
Certainly a number of people who I spoke with pointed out how in some
cases Serbs on the ground were pointing up into the sky and saying you
were responsible for NATO. They felt that they were under siege from the
KLA, the NATO bombs and obviously when people are defenceless on the
ground they're totally vulnerable. It was a coward's war in many
respects,
but nevertheless people were driven out in huge numbers. Hundreds of
thousands of people left and were driven out. I was on a road from
Pristina down to the border with Macedonia, went through village after
village which were like ghost towns, houses had been burned to the
ground
in many cases and there's culpability for that and I want to hear from
you, both of you, some acknowledgement that yes we have to deal with
this
as well as part of the reckoning that must come out of this tragic
series
of events.
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: I'll deal with the second one and then I'll have to
go. I think the important thing to bear in mind in the Balkans is there
are no white hats and black hats and that's the fundamental problem that
we have faced with the coverage of the war in the media, and with
quasi-academic analysis, and with political decision-making. Very early
on
in this conflict an overall perception of the culpability of the Serbs
for
the Krajina, Bosnia and Kosovo was created even though very often the
reasons the Serbs reacted in the Krajina are very similar to the reasons
the Albanians reacted in Kosovo and vice versa. In some cases, the Serbs
were de facto separatists, wanting to secede from the separating entity.
In other times, they were the unitarists. In both cases they were deemed
wrong. But if you try to quantify the evil on all sides, it's impossible
to say that the Serbs proved qualitatively, fundamentally worse than
other
groups. Right now the Serbs constitute the largest refugee population
outside sub-Saharan Africa. To say that the Serbs have done evil things
is
almost a truism because in the Balkan imbroglio all sides have done very
evil things. If you want the Serbs to beat their chests and shout mea
culpa, well indeed, maybe they should because the Patriarch warned them
against
adopting some of the techniques and some of the feelings of their
enemies as they experienced them in 1941 to 1945 in the so-called
independent state of Croatia. [...] If this was the war to return the
Albanians, or in the memorable words of the then-British defence
minister
"Serbs out, Albanians back, NATO in", nobody is talking about "Serbs
back"
in Kosovo these days... a quarter of a million displaced Serbs and other
non-Albanians under NATO, in the aftermath of NATO's victory. So I will
be
the first to admit that the Serbs have done bad things just as everybody
else has done bad things; but it doesn't mean we are now going to ask
the
question how deserving are the Croats of being bombed • 1125 [English]
because they contributed "collectively" to the exodus of a quarter of a
million Serbs from the Krajina? How deserving are the Muslims of
castigation and bombing because right now, the whole of Sarajevo-until
1991, the second largest Serbian town after Belgrade - is Serbenfrei?.
If
we are to re-establish a modicum of reality in this debate, we have to
bear in mind that human fallibility and human culpability is not the
exclusive prerogative of anyone single ethnic group. Thank you.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Dyer, were you wanting to comment?
Mr. Gwynn Dyer: I was particularly struck by the use of the word
"Serbenfrei" to describe the Serbian authorities' removal of the Serbian
population of Sarajevo after the Dayton Accords. There were Serbians in
that city who were driven from their homes by the Serbian police. I was
there; I saw it. The idea that the Albanian Muslims and the Bosnian
Muslims and the Croats bear equal responsibility-all of them have done
bad
things. Of course bad things happen in war but neither the total of
refugees nor the total of dead nor the evidence of massacre suggests in
any way that there is shared responsibility equally indistinguishably
among the ethnic groups of the Balkans. Now this may be to some extent
because the Serbs inherited the heavy weapons of the Yugoslav army and
had
the ability to do more damage; I recognize that. The Bosnian Muslims
didn't have heavy artillery to shell Serbian villages as the Serbs did
to
shell Sarajevo. But I do find the line of argument which suggests that
there can be no distinguished distinction between Vukovar and Srebrenica
on the one hand, and the Krajina on the other hand. The Krajina Mark Two
-
when it was the Serbs who lost their homes - rather Mark One, when it
was
the Croatian inhabitants who were driven. I think is a travesty.
Mr. Serge Trifkovic: To claim that the Krajina is less of a crime than
"Srebrenica," even though the Krajina resulted in between 9 thousand and
12 thousand Serbian deaths, is a very curious argument, both morally and
intellectually. But in particular, I find it reprehensible that Kosovo
is
still referred to as a "massacre" because "the Kosovo massacre" is one
of
the biggest lies, media-mediated political lies of the decade, if not
the
century. In perspective, when a few decades pass, it will belong to the
same category as the bayonetted Belgian babies by the Kaiser's army in
1914. [...]
----
House of Commons-Canada
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Tuesday February 22, 2000
Testimony of Professor Michael Mandel
Personal Note
Allow me to tell you a little bit about myself and how I became involved
in this. I am a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School where I have
taught for 25 years. I specialize in criminal law and comparative
constitutional law with an emphasis on domestic and foreign tribunals,
including United Nations tribunals such as the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I have no personal interest in the
conflict in Yugoslavia – I have no Serbs or Albanians in my family and I
am not being paid by anyone. I became involved in this as a Canadian
lawyer who witnessed a flagrant violation of the law by my government
with unspeakably tragic results for innocent people of all the Yugoslav
ethnicities. I became involved as a Jew appalled by the grotesque and
deliberate misuse of the Holocaust to justify the killing and maiming of
innocent people for what I am convinced were purely self-interested
motives, the farthest thing from humanitarianism, in a cynical attempt
to manipulate the desire of Canadians to help their fellows on the other
side of the world.
Illegality of the War
The first thing to note about NATO's war against Yugoslavia is that it
was flatly illegal both in the fact that it was ever undertaken and in
the way it was carried out. It was a gross and deliberate violation of
international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter
authorizes the use of force in only two situations: self-defence or when
authorized by the Security Council.
The United Nations Charter provides in so far as is relevant:
Article 2
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,
first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Article 37
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article
33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall
refer it to the Security Council.
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is
in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to
recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it
may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.
These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations
and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in
Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may
take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may
include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or
land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence
shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in
any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council
under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security;
The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice is also clear.
For instance, it stated in its ruling against United States intervention
in Nicaragua:
In any event, while the United States might form its own appraisal of
the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of
force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such
respect. With regard to the steps actually taken, the protection of
human rights, a strictly humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible
with the mining of ports, the destruction of oil installations, or again
with the training, arming and equipping of the contras.
[CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST
NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (MERITS) Judgment of
27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports, 1986, p.134-135, paragraphs 267 and 268]
It should also be noted that the preliminary decision of the World Court
last year in Yugoslavia's case against 10 NATO countries, including
Canada, does not in the slightest contradict this. As Mr. Matas has
pointed out to you in his statement, this decision was taken on purely
jurisdictional grounds, first the United States' shameful refusal to
recognize the World Court's jurisdiction in general, and second Canada's
objection to jurisdiction in this specific case. But it is worth quoting
some paragraphs from the decision of the Court:
15. Whereas the Court is deeply concerned with the human tragedy, the
loss of life, and the enormous suffering in Kosovo which form the
background of the present dispute, and with the continuing loss of life
and human suffering in all parts of Yugoslavia;
16. Whereas the Court is profoundly concerned with the use of force in
Yugoslavia; whereas under the present circumstances such use raises very
serious issues of international law;
17. Whereas the Court is mindful of the purposes and principles of the
United Nations Charter and of its own responsibilities in the
maintenance of peace and security under the Charter and the Statue of
the court;
18. Whereas the Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties
appearing before it must act in conformity with their obligations under
the United Nations Charter and other rules of international law,
including humanitarian law.
[CASE CONCERNING LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (YUGOSLAVIA V. CANADA)
International Court of Justice, 2 June 1999]
To sum up, in the case of NATO's war on Yugoslavia, neither of the two
exclusive bases for the use of force (Security Council authorization or
self-defence) was even claimed by NATO.
As a violation of the United Nations Charter, the attack on Yugoslavia
was also a violation of the NATO Treaty itself and Canada's own domestic
law.
The NATO Treaty (1949), so far as is relevant, reads as follows:
[Preamble]: The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their
desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the
United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be
involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 7: This treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as
affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the
Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary
responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
The Canada Defence Act, in so far as relevant reads as follows:
31. (1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian forces or any
component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or
non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond
Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so
(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United
Nations Charter, the North Atlantic treaty or any other similar
instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada.
The war's illegality is not disputed by any legal scholar of repute,
even those who had some sympathy for the war, for instance Mr. Mendes in
his presentation to this Committee. Of course, Mr. Mendes calls this a
"fatal flaw" in the UN Charter. I don't believe it is a flaw at all, for
reasons I'll elaborate. But I don't think the seriousness of this can be
glossed over one bit: the flagrant violation of the law by our
government is no small thing. Democracy is quite simply meaningless if
governments feel they can violate the law with impunity.
Humanitarian Justification
We all know that the leaders of the NATO countries sought to justify
this war as a humanitarian intervention in defence of a vulnerable
population, the Kosovar Albanians, threatened with mass atrocities.
A lot turns on this claim, but not the illegality of the war. In fact,
the reason why there is such unanimity among scholars on the illegality
of this war is that there is no "humanitarian exception" under
international law or the United Nations Charter. That does not mean that
there are no means for the international community to intervene to
prevent or stop humanitarian disasters, even to use force where
necessary. It just means that the use of force for humanitarian purposes
has been totally absorbed in the UN Charter. A state must be able to
demonstrate the humanity of its proposed intervention to the Security
Council, including, of course, the five permanent members possessing a
veto. Nor has the Security Council shown itself to be incapable of
acting in these situations. It issued numerous resolutions authorizing
action in this conflict (Resolutions 1160, 1199, and 1203 of 1998 and
Resolutions 1239 and 1244 of 1999, the last of which brought an end to
the bombing). The Security Council has also shown itself capable of
authorizing the use of force, for example its authorization of "all
necessary means" to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait in Resolution 678
of November 29, 1990, which gave Iraq until January 15, 1991 to
withdraw. Bombing by the Americans commenced on January 16.
But NATO did not even move a Resolution before the Security Council over
Kosovo. Nor did it use the alternative means of demonstrating to the
international community the necessity for its use of force in the
General Assembly's Uniting for Peace Resolution (1950), which allows the
General Assembly recommend action to the Security Council if 2/3 of
those present and voting agree:
[The General Assembly] Resolves that if the Security Council, because of
lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace,
breach of the peace or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall
consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate
recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the
case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed
force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and
security."
There are two basic reasons why these procedures were not utilized by
NATO in this case. In the first place, the most plausible explanation of
this whole war was that it was, at its foundation, nothing less than an
attempt by the United States, through NATO, to overthrow the authority
of the United Nations. In the second place, NATO could never have
demonstrated a humanitarian justification for what it was doing, because
it had none.
In law, as in morals, it is not enough for a humanitarian justification
to be claimed, it must also be demonstrated. To use an odious example,
but one which makes the point clearly enough, Hitler himself used a
humanitarian justification for invading Poland and unleashing World War
II: he claimed he was doing it to protect the German minority from
oppression by the Poles.
In the case of NATO, what had to be justified as a humanitarian
intervention was a bombing campaign that, in dropping 25,000 bombs on
Yugoslavia, directly killed between 500 and 1800 civilian children,
women and men of all ethnicities and permanently injured as many others;
a bombing campaign that caused 60 to100 billion dollars worth of damage
to an already impoverished country; a bombing campaign that directly and
indirectly caused a refugee crisis of enormous proportions, with about 1
million fleeing Kosovo during the bombing; a bombing campaign that
indirectly caused the death of thousands more, by provoking the brutal
retaliatory and defensive measures that are inevitable when a war of
this kind and intensity is undertaken, and by giving a free hand to
extremists on both sides to vent their hatred. What also has to be
justified is the ethnic cleansing that has occurred in Kosovo since the
entry of the triumphant KLA, fully backed by NATO's might, which has
seen hundreds of thousands of Serb (and Roma and Jewish) Kosovars driven
out and hundreds murdered, a murder rate that is about 10 times the
Canadian rate per capita.
These results were to be expected and they were predicted by NATO's
military and political advisers in their very careful planning of the
war which went back more than a year before the bombing commenced.
A humanitarian justification would have to show that this disaster was
outweighed by a greater disaster that was about to happen and would have
happened but for this intervention. The evidence for this, which must be
carefully scrutinized by this Committee, is meagre to say the least.
Nobody could seriously maintain that the conditions for a repeat of the
Bosnian bloodbath were there: this was not an all out civil war with
well-armed parties of roughly equal strength on each side and huge
ethnic enclaves fighting for their existence. These conditions simply
did not exist in Kosovo.
Nor did the facts indicate a humanitarian disaster would have occurred
but for NATO's bombing. A total of 2,000 people had been killed on both
sides in the prior two years of fighting between the KLA and the Serbs,
and violence was declining with the presence of UN observers. The
alleged massacre of 45 ethnic Albanians at Racak must be regarded with
the greatest suspicion, not only because of the circumstances, but also
because of involvement of the American emissary Mr. William Walker, with
his history of covert and illegal activities on behalf of the Americans
in Latin America.
Nor is the Report recently released by the OSCE of much value in
assessing the situation, since it was written and paid for by the NATO
countries themselves.
Even more importantly, the evidence is overwhelming that NATO did not
make serious efforts at averting a disaster and was not at all serious
about peace.
If we look at the Rambouillet negotiations, a number of perplexing
questions are raised: Why was the irredentist and insurrectionary KLA
preferred as the NATO interlocutor to the only popularly elected leader,
the moderate Ibrahim Rugova? Why, for that matter was Rugova ignored
during the war? Why did the US insist on a secret annex to the
Rambouillet Accord (Annex B) that would have allowed it to occupy all of
Serbia? Why did the final peace agreement look so much like what the
Serbs had agreed to before the bombing? Do we really think that NATO
could not have put the 10 billion dollars of bombs it dropped to working
out and under-writing a peace agreement that would have accommodated and
protected all sides if it were interested in humanity and not war? Why
are NATO countries so unwilling to spend money on reconstruction of
Kosovo, claiming that they have run out of money with less than one
billion dollars spent?
And where, to resolve these enormous doubts about whether NATO acted out
of humanitarian motives this time, is the evidence that these people
have ever acted from humanitarian motives before? With such huge holes
in its argument, we are entitled to cross-examine the leopard on his
spots. What about the failure to intervene with force in Rwanda? What
about the United States' own bankrolling of the repressive Suharto
regime in Indonesia? What about Turkey's violent repression of the
Kurds, a humanitarian disaster that has claimed 30,000 lives, not 2,000?
What about the United States itself? The richest country in the world
which creates social conditions so violent and racist that its normal
murder rate is in the realm of 20,000 per year, almost as high, per
capita as Kosovo right now - a country that puts 2 or 3 of its own
people to death by lethal injection every week. NATO has no humanitarian
lessons to teach the world.
Finally and very importantly, we must ask some serious questions about
the way in which this supposed humanitarian intervention was handled.
With the Kosovars supposedly in the hands of genocidal maniacs, NATO
gave 5 days warning between the withdrawal of the observers and the
launch of the attack. This was followed by seven days of bombing that
mostly ignored Kosovo itself. In other words, an invitation to genocide
that was not accepted, but one that was guaranteed to produce a refugee
flow to legitimate a massive bombing campaign.
As Ambassador Bissett told this committee last week, that NATO leaders
have no respect for the truth should startle no one. What of the claim
by Jamie Shea that it was the Serbs who bombed the Albanian refugee
convoy (until the independent journalists found bomb fragments "made in
U.S.A.")? What of the claim by a NATO general, with video up on the
screen, that the passenger train on the Grdelica bridge was going too
fast to avoid being hit (until somebody pointed out that the video had
been speeded up to three times its real speed)? What of the claim that
the Chinese Embassy was bombed because NATO's maps were out of date? Let
alone the claims by Mr. Clinton (and Mrs. Clinton) and Mr. Cohen that a
"Holocaust" was occurring in which perhaps 100,000 Kosovar men had been
murdered (until the bombing was over and the numbers dwindled to 2,108 -
and we have yet to be told who they were or how they died).
In fact most people in the world simply did not believe NATO's claim of
humanitarianism. A poll taken in mid-April and published by The
Economist shows that this was a very unpopular war, opposed by perhaps
most of the world's population both outside and inside the NATO
alliance.( "Oh what a lovely war!", The Economist, April 24, 1999
showing more than a third opposed in Canada, Poland, Germany, France and
Finland, almost an even split in Hungary, an even split in Italy and a
majority opposed in the Czech Republic, Russia and Taiwan) A poll taken
in Greece between April 29th and May 5th showed 99.5% against the war,
85% believing NATO's motives to be strategic and not humanitarian, and,
most importantly, 69% in favour of charging Bill Clinton with war
crimes, 35.2% for charging Tony Blair and only 14% for charging Slobodan
Milosevic, not far from the 13% in favour of charging NATO General
Wesley Clark and the 9.6% for charging NATO Secretary General Javier
Solana.( "Majority in Greece wants Clinton tried for war crimes", The
Irish Times, May 27, 1999).
Much more plausible than the humanitarian thesis is the one that the
United States deliberately provoked this war, that it deliberately
exploited and exacerbated another country's tragedy - a tragedy partly
of its own creation (we should not forget that the West's aggressive and
purely selfish economic policies that have beggared Yugoslavia over the
last ten years). NATO exists to make war, not peace. The arms industry
exists to make profits from dropping bombs. And the United States, by
virtue of its military might dominates NATO the way it does not dominate
the United Nations. The most plausible explanation then is that this
attack was not about the Balkans at all. It was an attempt to overthrow
the authority of the United Nations and make NATO, and therefore the
United States, the world's supreme authority, to establish the
"precedent" that NATO politicians have been talking about since the
bombing stopped. To give the United States the free hand that the United
Nations does not, in its conflicts with the Third World and its
rivalries with Russia, China and even Europe.
In other words, this was not a case of the United Nations being an
obstacle to humanitarianism. It was a case of using a flimsy pretext of
humanitarianism to overthrow the United Nations.
Not only was this an illegal war that had no humanitarian justification.
It was a war pursued by illegal means. According to admissions made in
public throughout the war (for instance during NATO briefings),
according to eye-witness reports and according to powerful
circumstantial evidence displayed on the world's television screens
throughout the bombing campaign -- evidence good enough to convict in
any criminal court in the world - these NATO leaders deliberately and
illegally made targets of places and things with only tenuous or slight
military value or no military value at all. Places such as city bridges,
factories, hospitals, marketplaces, downtown and residential
neighbourhoods, and television studios. The same evidence shows that, in
doing this, the NATO leaders aimed to demoralize and break the will of
the people, not to defeat its army.
The American group Human Rights Watch has just issued a lengthy report
documenting a systematic and massive violation of international
humanitarian law by NATO in Yugoslavia. They estimate the civilian
victims to be about 500. This figure should be taken as a minimum
because it is a number Human Rights watch says it can independently
confirm and that can be attributed directly to the bombing. It excludes
persons known to be killed as an indirect result of the bombing. Every
benefit of the doubt is given to NATO, a fact exemplified by the
Report's puzzling and actually undefended distinction between these
grave "violations of humanitarian law" and "war crimes". Human rights
Watch has also documented the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs in
attacks on civilian targets.
The reason these civilian targets are illegal is that civilians are very
likely to be killed or injured when such targets are hit. And all of the
NATO leaders knew that. They were carefully told that by their military
planners. And they still went ahead and did it.
And they did it without any risk to themselves or to their soldiers and
pilots. That's why this war was called a "coward's war". The cowardice
lay in fighting the civilian population and not the military, in bombing
from altitudes so high that the civilians, Serbians, Albanians, Roma,
and anybody else on the ground, bore all the risks of the "inevitable
collateral damage".
War Crimes Charges before the International Tribunal
But the fact that this war was illegal and unjustified has further very
serious implications. Mr. Chretien, Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Eggleton, along
with all the other NATO leaders, planned and executed a bombing campaign
that they knew was illegal and that they knew would cause the death and
permanent injury of thousands of civilian children women and men. Hard
as it is for us to accept, or even to say, killing hundreds or thousands
of civilians knowingly and without lawful excuse is nothing less than
mass murder. Milosevic was indicted in The Hague for 385 victims. The
total victims of the 98 people executed for murder in the United States
in 1999 was 129. Our leaders killed between 500 and 1800.
That is why, starting in April of last year and continuing to the
present day, dozens of lawyers and law professors, a pan-American
association representing hundreds of jurists, some elected legislators,
and thousands of private citizens from around the world, have lodged
formal complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague
charging NATO leaders with war crimes.
The particular complaint I am involved in was filed in May, 1999 and
names 68 individuals, including all the heads of government, foreign
ministers and defense ministers of the 19 NATO countries (including US
President Clinton, Secretaries Cohen and Albright, Canadian Prime
Minister Chretien, Ministers Axworthy and Eggleton and so on down the
list), and the highest ranking NATO officials, from then Secretary
General Javier Solana, through Generals Wesley Clark, Michael Short, and
official spokesman Jamie Shea.
The charges against them include the following:
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, contrary to
article 2 of the Statue of the Tribunal, namely the following acts
against persons or property protected under the provisions of the
relevant Geneva Convention: (a) wilful killing; (c) wilfully causing
great suffering or serious injury to body or health; (d) extensive
destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Violations of the laws or customs of war, contrary to Article 3 namely:
(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause
unnecessary suffering; (b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c)
attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings;(d) seizure of, destruction or willful
damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and
education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art
and science.
Crimes against humanity contrary to Article 5, namely: (a) murder; (i)
other inhumane acts.
Article 7 of the Statute provides for "individual criminal
responsibility" thus:
1. A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise
aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime
referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be
individually responsible for the crime.
2. The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State
or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve
such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment.
3. The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the
present Statute was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his
superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know
that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and
the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.
We have been in frequent contact with the Tribunal, travelling to the
Hague twice to argue our case with Chief Prosecutors Louise Arbour and
Carla Del Ponte and their legal advisers, filing evidence, legal briefs
and arguments in support of the case. I am filing with this Committee a
book of the evidence we have filed with the tribunal. I understand that
you already have the two volumes prepared by the government of
Yugoslavia. I would point out that these volumes have been confirmed as
"largely credible" by the Human Rights Watch Report.
Recently, Justice Del Ponte disclosed that she was studying an internal
document analyzing the many claims that have been made against NATO. My
latest word from her (February 8) is that she is still studying the
case.
Justice Del Ponte has said that if she is not prepared to prosecute NATO
she should pack up and go home, and I have to agree with her, because,
in that case, the Tribunal would be doing far more harm than good, only
legitimating NATO's violent lawlessness against people unlucky enough to
be ruled by "indicted war criminals", as opposed to the un-indicted kind
that govern the NATO countries.
This was the very purpose for which the United States sponsored this
tribunal in the first place, at least according to Michael Scharf,
Attorney-Advisor with the U.S. State Department, who, under Madeleine
Albright's instructions, actually drafted the Security Council
resolution establishing the Tribunal.
"the tribunal was widely perceived within the government as little more
than a public relations device and as a potentially useful policy
tool...Indictments also would serve to isolate offending leaders
diplomatically, strengthen the hand of their domestic rivals and fortify
the international political will to employ economic sanctions or use
force" (The Washington Post, October 3, 1999)
I must confess to you that my colleagues and I and the thousands of
others who have complained to the Tribunal have grave doubts about its
impartiality. We have given it the benefit of every doubt even in the
face of mounting evidence that it didn't deserve it: when, in January,
1999, then prosecutor Judge Louise Arbour made a rather dramatic
appearance at the border of Kosovo, lending credibility to contested
American accounts of atrocities at Racak, a precipitating justification
of the war itself; when, only days after the bombing had commenced, she
made an announcement of the Arkan indictment that had been secret from
1997; when she made television appearances with NATO leader Robin Cook,
already the subject of numerous complaints during the war to receive war
crimes dossiers; when she met with Madeleine Albright, herself by then
the subject of well-grounded complaints before the tribunal, and
Albright took the opportunity to announce that the United States was the
major provider of funds to the Tribunal; when, two weeks later, in the
midst of bombing, Judge Arbour announced the indictment of Milosevic, on
the basis of undisclosed evidence, for Racak and events which had
occurred only six weeks earlier in the middle of a war zone – on what,
in other words, must have been very flimsy and suspicious evidence; and
when, at the conclusion of the bombing Judge Arbour handed over the
investigation of war crimes in Kosovo to NATO countries' police forces
themselves - notwithstanding that they had every motive to falsify the
evidence.
I am sad to say, because the former prosecutor is now a judge of the
Supreme Court of Canada and an old colleague and friend of mine, of whom
we all want to be proud, that these could not be regarded as the acts of
an impartial prosecutor. Not when NATO was in the midst of a disastrous
war in flagrant violation of international law.
We sincerely hoped for better things from Judge Del Ponte coming as she
did from a country outside of the NATO alliance. But our expectations
have been progressively lowered. First, when she declared, immediately
upon taking the job, that her priorities were the prosecution of
Milosevic, something which clearly suited the NATO countries but which,
as we told her in November, could in no way be compatible with her sworn
duties. A prosecutor cannot declare that she is going to concentrate
only on some crimes and grant effective immunity to other criminals.
Then, when she made the observation that she was indeed investigating
complaints against NATO, and NATO reacted in its typically outrageous
fashion by attacking the Tribunal, Judge Del Ponte quickly issued
unseemly appeasing statements and went on a conciliatory mission to
Brussels.
I am saying all this to put the Committee on guard against delegating
its own judgment to this Tribunal which was set up as an instrument of
United States foreign policy and has given us so many grounds to suspect
that it sees itself the same way. Whatever this Tribunal decides to do
or not to do, it is incumbent on this Committee to scrutinize its
reasons and the evidence with the utmost care.
Let me end by citing to you the words of Justice Robert Jackson from his
opening statement to the Nurnberg Tribunal on November 21, 1945:
"But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable
in
a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible
to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied
against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a
useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations,
including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away
with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power
against the rights of their own people only when we make all men
answerable to the law." (The Nurnberg Case As Presented by Robert H.
Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States (New York: Cooper Square
Publishers Inc, 1971) at page 93)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Da "Il manifesto" del 18 Febbraio 2000:
VATICANO
A SAN PIETRO L'ORO DI PAVELIC
Duemila sopravvissuti al genocidio del regime ustascia fanno causa allo
Ior: rivendicano il tesoro depositato, o donato per grazia ricevuta, da
Pavelic al Vaticano
- MARCO AURELIO RIVELLI -
U na bomba che esplode scuotendo il Vaticano: George Zivkovich, classe
1937, serbo di religione ortodossa, residente in California, si è
recentemente rivolto ai tribunali americani citando in giudizio la Santa
Sede, e più precisamente l'Istituto per le opere di religione, lo Ior, cioè
la banca vaticana già protagonista di numerosi scandali negli ultimi
decenni. Zivkovich, che, ragazzo, era scampato al genocidio serbo
perpetrato dagli ustascia croati negli anni 1941-1945, rivendica il tesoro
che l'ex dittatore Ante Pavelic aveva lasciato in custodia, o donato per
grazia ricevuta, al Vaticano nel '45. Lo affiancano nell'azione giudiziaria
circa 2.000 compatrioti.
Il regime ustascia, portato al governo in Croazia in quegli anni, grazie
all'invasione delle forze dell'Asse, fu il più feroce espresso dai
nazifascisti. Più feroce ancora di quello hitleriano, ed è tutto dire: in
quello stato che contava poco più di sei milioni di abitanti, un terzo dei
quali serbi di religione ortodossa, gli ustascia massacrarono un milione di
questi unitamente a 50 mila ebrei e 30 mila zingari, cioè il 20 per cento
della popolazione. All'eccidio parteciparono numerosi sacerdoti e frati
cattolici con la complicità di vescovi, con la connivenza del Primate,
arcivescovo Stepinac, recentemente beatificato, il tutto con l'implicito
beneplacito di Pio XII.
Crollato il suo regno, Pavelic scappò insieme ai suoi gerarchi e a 500
religiosi cattolici fra i più compromessi nell'eccidio, trovando rifugio a
Roma dove visse per tre anni nascosto nel Collegio di San Girolamo degli
Illirici, in Via Tomacelli, edificio protetto dalla extraterritorialità
vaticana. Non giunse a mani vuote, ma, come tutti gli ospiti che si
rispettino, portò un dono: l'oro, i gioielli e i titoli rapinati alle
vittime. Anche a Stepinac aveva lasciato un presente, trentasei casse
d'oro, che l'arcivescovo si fece incautamente scoprire un anno dopo dal
governo di Tito. Il Vaticano ricambiò il munifico omaggio facendo fuggire
questo criminale in Argentina nel 1949, vestito in abiti talari e munito di
adeguato passaporto. Con le stesse modalità la Santa Sede aiutò a fuggire
duecento ustascia e cinquemila delinquenti nazisti, l'aristocrazia del
crimine, fra i quali il Dottor Mengele, Walter Rauff, Adolf Eichmann, Erick
Priebke, Franz Stangl. A capo dell'Organizzazione di soccorso vaticana, che
attivò quella che gli alleati denominarono rat line, la via dei topi, vi
erano Draganovic, monsignore ed ex colonnello ustascia, e il vescovo Alois
Hudal, titolare in Roma della chiesa di Santa Maria dell'Anima, uomo di
fiducia di papa Pacelli. Le memorie di Hudal pubblicate in tedesco dopo la
sua morte, rappresentano la più dettagliata documentazione della via dei
topi: "compito svolto per incarico del Vaticano", come egli afferma.
Dell'oro croato nascosto in Vaticano correvano voci fin dall'immediato
dopoguerra nell'ambiente dei servizi segreti. Gli ustascia emigrati in
Argentina si confidarono con le autorità di quel paese, attivando la stessa
Evita Peron, subito partita per l'Italia allo scopo di convincere Pio XII a
rispettare gli impegni presi con Pavelic di restituirgli una parte del
bottino. Evita tornò a Buenos Aires a mani vuote perché l'oro non era stato
restituito, ma affidato in gestione al vescovo Alberto di Jorio, presidente
dello Ior, e al suo alter ego Bernardino Nogara.
La regia vaticana nella via dei topi viene documentata per la prima volta
da un rapporto - top secret - inviato il 15 maggio 1947 dall'addetto
militare Usa a Roma Vincent LaVista, al Segretario di Stato americano
George Marshall, che dettaglia le responsabilità vaticane e la
partecipazione di numerosi sacerdoti all'attività illegale e clandestina.
LaVista informa che grossi quantitativi di oro, trafugato alle vittime,
sarebbero stati occultati nei Palazzi Apostolici. Questo documento segue di
poco quello dell'agente speciale del Tesoro Usa Emerson Bigelow, che
documenta come nelle casse vaticane sia finito un quantitativo d'oro per un
valore di 200 milioni di franchi svizzeri, depredato dagli ustascia.
Analoga affermazione viene dalle memorie di James V. Milano, comandante del
430 distaccamento del controspionaggio dell'Us Army's Counter Intelligence
Corps, il quale aggiunge altri particolari a quelli già noti.
Il 22 luglio 1997 il quotidiano francese Nice Matin, pubblica un articolo
intitolato "Oro croato al Vaticano?" L'amministrazione americana indaga su
un trasferimento di ottocento milioni di franchi francesi", nel quale è
scritto: "Bill Clinton ha annunciato ieri che il Dipartimento del Tesoro
sta studiando il documento d'archivio che rivela che la Santa Sede ha
conservato dell'oro dell'antico regime fascista di Croazia. Secondo il
documento, diffuso da una rete televisiva americana, una parte rilevante
delle riserve d'oro del regime fascista croato, del valore di circa
ottocento milioni di franchi, sotto forma di lingotti d'oro, sarebbe stato
immagazzinato presso il Vaticano, verso la fine della Seconda guerra
mondiale, per evitare che venisse sequestrato dagli alleati... Secondo voci
insistenti queste riserve, essenzialmente costituite da lingotti d'oro, in
seguito sarebbero state dirottate, a cura del Vaticano, verso la Spagna e
l'Argentina. L'estensore del documento afferma comunque di ritenere che
queste voci siano state diffuse dal Vaticano per nascondere la verità:
secondo lui quese riserve non hanno mai lasciato la cttà pontificia". La
Santa Sede, attraverso il portavoce del ppa, Joaquin Navarro Valls,
smentisce tutto, definendo le notizie riportate dal quotidiano francese
"informazioni senza alcun fondamento".
La certezza che il tesoro ustascia si trovi ancora in Vaticano riceve il
crisma dell'ufficialità il 2 giugno 1998 dal Rapporto Usa stilato dal
sttosegretario di Stato Usa Stuart Eizenstat, che afferma, fra l'altro, che
gli archivi ustascia furono portati in Vaticano, così come oro e gioielli.
Aggiunge che "anche se non ci sono prove dell'implicazione diretta del papa
e dei suoi consiglieri, sembra inverosimile che essi abbiano del tutto
ignorato ciò che stava accadendo. Le autorità vaticane hanno affermato di
non avere trovato alcun documento suscettibile di fare luce sulla questione
dell'oro ustascia". La reazione ufficiale di parte vaticana, espressa dal
portavoce pontificio Joaquin Navarro Valls è: "il segretario dell'Istituto
San Girolamo, che era all'epoca Krunoslav Draganovic, ha forse utilizzato
quest'oro unicamente a proprio titolo, senza l'autorizzazione dell'Istituto
e senza che il Vaticano lo sapesse".
L'avvocata americana Keelyn Friesen, che coordina l'azione giudiziaria
contro lo Ior e gli altri accusati di complicità nell'imboscamento del
tesoro ustascia promossa da Zivkovic e dai suoi compagni, promette
battaglia dura ed esige giustizia. Una giustizia, che se deve suonare
condanna per l'indegno agire di uomini della Chiesa, chiama anche in causa
tutti i successori di Pio XII.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
VATICANO
A SAN PIETRO L'ORO DI PAVELIC
Duemila sopravvissuti al genocidio del regime ustascia fanno causa allo
Ior: rivendicano il tesoro depositato, o donato per grazia ricevuta, da
Pavelic al Vaticano
- MARCO AURELIO RIVELLI -
U na bomba che esplode scuotendo il Vaticano: George Zivkovich, classe
1937, serbo di religione ortodossa, residente in California, si è
recentemente rivolto ai tribunali americani citando in giudizio la Santa
Sede, e più precisamente l'Istituto per le opere di religione, lo Ior, cioè
la banca vaticana già protagonista di numerosi scandali negli ultimi
decenni. Zivkovich, che, ragazzo, era scampato al genocidio serbo
perpetrato dagli ustascia croati negli anni 1941-1945, rivendica il tesoro
che l'ex dittatore Ante Pavelic aveva lasciato in custodia, o donato per
grazia ricevuta, al Vaticano nel '45. Lo affiancano nell'azione giudiziaria
circa 2.000 compatrioti.
Il regime ustascia, portato al governo in Croazia in quegli anni, grazie
all'invasione delle forze dell'Asse, fu il più feroce espresso dai
nazifascisti. Più feroce ancora di quello hitleriano, ed è tutto dire: in
quello stato che contava poco più di sei milioni di abitanti, un terzo dei
quali serbi di religione ortodossa, gli ustascia massacrarono un milione di
questi unitamente a 50 mila ebrei e 30 mila zingari, cioè il 20 per cento
della popolazione. All'eccidio parteciparono numerosi sacerdoti e frati
cattolici con la complicità di vescovi, con la connivenza del Primate,
arcivescovo Stepinac, recentemente beatificato, il tutto con l'implicito
beneplacito di Pio XII.
Crollato il suo regno, Pavelic scappò insieme ai suoi gerarchi e a 500
religiosi cattolici fra i più compromessi nell'eccidio, trovando rifugio a
Roma dove visse per tre anni nascosto nel Collegio di San Girolamo degli
Illirici, in Via Tomacelli, edificio protetto dalla extraterritorialità
vaticana. Non giunse a mani vuote, ma, come tutti gli ospiti che si
rispettino, portò un dono: l'oro, i gioielli e i titoli rapinati alle
vittime. Anche a Stepinac aveva lasciato un presente, trentasei casse
d'oro, che l'arcivescovo si fece incautamente scoprire un anno dopo dal
governo di Tito. Il Vaticano ricambiò il munifico omaggio facendo fuggire
questo criminale in Argentina nel 1949, vestito in abiti talari e munito di
adeguato passaporto. Con le stesse modalità la Santa Sede aiutò a fuggire
duecento ustascia e cinquemila delinquenti nazisti, l'aristocrazia del
crimine, fra i quali il Dottor Mengele, Walter Rauff, Adolf Eichmann, Erick
Priebke, Franz Stangl. A capo dell'Organizzazione di soccorso vaticana, che
attivò quella che gli alleati denominarono rat line, la via dei topi, vi
erano Draganovic, monsignore ed ex colonnello ustascia, e il vescovo Alois
Hudal, titolare in Roma della chiesa di Santa Maria dell'Anima, uomo di
fiducia di papa Pacelli. Le memorie di Hudal pubblicate in tedesco dopo la
sua morte, rappresentano la più dettagliata documentazione della via dei
topi: "compito svolto per incarico del Vaticano", come egli afferma.
Dell'oro croato nascosto in Vaticano correvano voci fin dall'immediato
dopoguerra nell'ambiente dei servizi segreti. Gli ustascia emigrati in
Argentina si confidarono con le autorità di quel paese, attivando la stessa
Evita Peron, subito partita per l'Italia allo scopo di convincere Pio XII a
rispettare gli impegni presi con Pavelic di restituirgli una parte del
bottino. Evita tornò a Buenos Aires a mani vuote perché l'oro non era stato
restituito, ma affidato in gestione al vescovo Alberto di Jorio, presidente
dello Ior, e al suo alter ego Bernardino Nogara.
La regia vaticana nella via dei topi viene documentata per la prima volta
da un rapporto - top secret - inviato il 15 maggio 1947 dall'addetto
militare Usa a Roma Vincent LaVista, al Segretario di Stato americano
George Marshall, che dettaglia le responsabilità vaticane e la
partecipazione di numerosi sacerdoti all'attività illegale e clandestina.
LaVista informa che grossi quantitativi di oro, trafugato alle vittime,
sarebbero stati occultati nei Palazzi Apostolici. Questo documento segue di
poco quello dell'agente speciale del Tesoro Usa Emerson Bigelow, che
documenta come nelle casse vaticane sia finito un quantitativo d'oro per un
valore di 200 milioni di franchi svizzeri, depredato dagli ustascia.
Analoga affermazione viene dalle memorie di James V. Milano, comandante del
430 distaccamento del controspionaggio dell'Us Army's Counter Intelligence
Corps, il quale aggiunge altri particolari a quelli già noti.
Il 22 luglio 1997 il quotidiano francese Nice Matin, pubblica un articolo
intitolato "Oro croato al Vaticano?" L'amministrazione americana indaga su
un trasferimento di ottocento milioni di franchi francesi", nel quale è
scritto: "Bill Clinton ha annunciato ieri che il Dipartimento del Tesoro
sta studiando il documento d'archivio che rivela che la Santa Sede ha
conservato dell'oro dell'antico regime fascista di Croazia. Secondo il
documento, diffuso da una rete televisiva americana, una parte rilevante
delle riserve d'oro del regime fascista croato, del valore di circa
ottocento milioni di franchi, sotto forma di lingotti d'oro, sarebbe stato
immagazzinato presso il Vaticano, verso la fine della Seconda guerra
mondiale, per evitare che venisse sequestrato dagli alleati... Secondo voci
insistenti queste riserve, essenzialmente costituite da lingotti d'oro, in
seguito sarebbero state dirottate, a cura del Vaticano, verso la Spagna e
l'Argentina. L'estensore del documento afferma comunque di ritenere che
queste voci siano state diffuse dal Vaticano per nascondere la verità:
secondo lui quese riserve non hanno mai lasciato la cttà pontificia". La
Santa Sede, attraverso il portavoce del ppa, Joaquin Navarro Valls,
smentisce tutto, definendo le notizie riportate dal quotidiano francese
"informazioni senza alcun fondamento".
La certezza che il tesoro ustascia si trovi ancora in Vaticano riceve il
crisma dell'ufficialità il 2 giugno 1998 dal Rapporto Usa stilato dal
sttosegretario di Stato Usa Stuart Eizenstat, che afferma, fra l'altro, che
gli archivi ustascia furono portati in Vaticano, così come oro e gioielli.
Aggiunge che "anche se non ci sono prove dell'implicazione diretta del papa
e dei suoi consiglieri, sembra inverosimile che essi abbiano del tutto
ignorato ciò che stava accadendo. Le autorità vaticane hanno affermato di
non avere trovato alcun documento suscettibile di fare luce sulla questione
dell'oro ustascia". La reazione ufficiale di parte vaticana, espressa dal
portavoce pontificio Joaquin Navarro Valls è: "il segretario dell'Istituto
San Girolamo, che era all'epoca Krunoslav Draganovic, ha forse utilizzato
quest'oro unicamente a proprio titolo, senza l'autorizzazione dell'Istituto
e senza che il Vaticano lo sapesse".
L'avvocata americana Keelyn Friesen, che coordina l'azione giudiziaria
contro lo Ior e gli altri accusati di complicità nell'imboscamento del
tesoro ustascia promossa da Zivkovic e dai suoi compagni, promette
battaglia dura ed esige giustizia. Una giustizia, che se deve suonare
condanna per l'indegno agire di uomini della Chiesa, chiama anche in causa
tutti i successori di Pio XII.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
The Economist January 29, 2000
Sins of the secular missionaries
Aid and campaign groups, or NGOs, matter more and more in world
affairs. But they are often far from being "non-governmental",
as they claim. And they are not always a force for good
A YOUNG man thrusts his crudely printed calling card at the
visitor. After his name are printed three letters: NGO. "What do you
do?" the visitor asks."I have formed an NGO.""Yes, but what does it
do?""Whatever they want. I am waiting for some funds and then I will
make a project."
Once little more than ragged charities, non-governmental
organisations
(NGOs) are now big business. Somalia, where that exchange took place,
is heaven for them. In large parts of the country, western
governments,
the United Nations and foreign aid agencies cannot work directly; it
is
too dangerous. So outsiders must work through local groups, which
become a powerful source of patronage. "Anybody who's anybody is an
NGO
these days," sighs one UN official.
And not just in Somalia. NGOs now head for crisis zones as fast as
journalists do: a war, a flood, refugees, a dodgy election, even a
world trade conference, will draw them like a honey pot. Last spring,
Tirana, the capital of Albania, was swamped by some 200 groups
intending to help the refugees from Kosovo. In Kosovo itself, the
ground is now thick with foreign groups competing to foster
democracy,
build homes and proffer goods and services. Environmental activists
in
Norway board whaling ships; do-gooders gather for the Chiapas rebels
in
Mexico.
In recent years, such groups have mushroomed. A 1995 UN report on
global governance suggested that nearly 29,000 international NGOs
existed. Domestic ones have grown even faster. By one estimate, there
are now 2m in America alone, most formed in the past 30 years. In
Russia, where almost none existed before the fall of communism, there
are at least 65,000. Dozens are created daily; in Kenya alone, some
240
NGOs are now created every year.
Most of these are minnows; some are whales, with annual incomes of
millions of dollars and a worldwide operation. Some are primarily
helpers, distributing relief where it is needed; some are mainly
campaigners, existing to promote issues deemed important by their
members. The general public tends to see them as uniformly
altruistic,
idealistic and independent. But the term "NGO", like the activities
of
the NGOs themselves, deserves much sharper scrutiny.
Governments' puppets?
The tag "Non-Governmental Organisation" was used first at the
founding
of the UN. It implies that NGOs keep their distance from officialdom;
they do things that governments will not, or cannot, do. In fact,
NGOs
have a great deal to do with governments. Not all of it is healthy.
Take the aid NGOs. A growing share of development spending, emergency
relief and aid transfers passes through them. According to Carol
Lancaster, a former deputy director of USAID, America's development
body, NGOs have become "the most important constituency for the
activities of development aid agencies". Much of the food delivered
by
the World Food Programme, a UN body, in Albania last year was
actually
handed out by NGOs working in the refugee camps. Between 1990 and
1994,
the proportion of the EU's relief aid channelled through NGOs rose
from
47% to 67%. The Red Cross reckons that NGOs now disburse more money
than the World Bank.
And governments are happy to provide that money. Of Oxfam's #98m
($162m) income in 1998, a quarter, #24.1m, was given by the British
government and the EU. World Vision US, which boasts of being the
world's "largest privately funded Christian relief and development
organisation", collected $55m-worth of goods that year from the
American government. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), the winner of
last
year's Nobel peace prize, gets 46% of its income from government
sources. Of 120 NGOs which sprang up in Kenya between 1993 and the
end
of 1996, all but nine received all their income from foreign
governments and international bodies. Such official contributions
will
go on, especially if the public gets more stingy. Today's young,
educated and rich give a smaller share of their incomes away than did
-- and do -- their parents.
In Africa, where international help has the greatest influence,
western governments have long been shifting their aid towards NGOs.
America's help, some $711m last year, increasingly goes to approved
organisations, often via USAID. Europe's donors also say that
bilateral
aid should go to NGOs, which are generally more open and efficient
than
governments. For the UN, too, they are now seen as indispensable. The
new head of the UN's Development Programme says the body "will put a
lot more emphasis on relations with NGOs". Most such agencies now
have
hundreds of NGO partners.
So the principal reason for the recent boom in NGOs is that western
governments finance them. This is not a matter of charity, but of
privatisation: many "non-governmental" groups are becoming
contractors
for governments. Governments prefer to pass aid through NGOs because
it
is cheaper, more efficient -- and more at arm's length -- than direct
official aid.
Governments also find NGOs useful in ways that go beyond the
distribution of food and blankets. Some bring back useful
information,
and make it part of their brief to do so. Outfits such as the
International Crisis Group and Global Witness publish detailed and
opinionated reports from places beset by war or other disasters. The
work of Global Witness in Angola is actually paid for by the British
Foreign Office.
Diplomats and governments, as well as other NGOs, journalists and the
public, can make good use of these reports. As the staff of foreign
embassies shrink, and the need to keep abreast of events abroad
increases, governments inevitably turn to private sources of
information. In some benighted parts of the world, sometimes only
NGOs
can nowadays reveal what is going on.
Take, for example, human rights, the business of one of the biggest
of
the campaigning NGOs, Amnesty International. Amnesty has around 1m
members in over 162 countries, and its campaigns against political
repression, in particular against unfair imprisonment, are known
around
the world. The information it gathers is often unavailable from other
sources.
Where western governments' interests match those of campaigning NGOs,
they can form effective alliances. In 1997, a coalition of over 350
NGOs pushed for, and obtained, a treaty against the use of landmines.
The campaign was backed by the usual array of concerned governments
(Canada, the Scandinavians) and won the Nobel peace prize.
NGOs are also interesting and useful to governments because they work
in the midst of conflict. Many were created by wars: the Red Cross
after the Battle of Solferino in 1859, the Save the Children Fund
after
the first world war, MSF after the Biafran war. By being "close to
the
action" some NGOs, perhaps unwittingly, provide good cover for spies
--
a more traditional means by which governments gather information.
In some cases, NGOs are taking over directly from diplomats: not
attempting to help the victims of war, but to end the wars
themselves.
Some try to restrict arms flows, such as Saferworld, which is against
small arms. Others attempt to negotiate ceasefires. The Italian
Catholic lay community of Sant' Egidio helped to end 13 years of
civil
war in Mozambique in 1992. International Alert, a London-based peace
research group, tried the same for Sierra Leone in the mid-1990s.
Last
year, Unicef (a part of the UN) and the Carter Centre, founded by
ex-President Jimmy Carter, brought about a peace deal of sorts
between
Uganda and Sudan. There are now roughly 500 groups registered by the
European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation. "Civil
war demands civil action," say the organisers.
Larger NGOs have pledged not to act as "instruments of government
foreign policy". But at times they are seen as just that. Governments
are more willing to pay groups to deliver humanitarian aid to a war
zone than to deliver it themselves. Last autumn, America's Congress
passed a resolution to deliver food aid to rebels in southern Sudan
via
USAID and sympathetic Christian groups (religious NGOs earn the label
RINGOs, and are found everywhere).
Perhaps the most potent sign of the closeness between NGOs and
governments, aside from their financial links, is the exchange of
personnel. In developing countries, where the civil service is poor,
some governments ask NGOs to help with the paperwork requested by the
World Bank and other international institutions. Politicians, or
their
wives, often have their own local NGOs. In the developed world,
meanwhile, increasing numbers of civil servants take time off to work
for NGOs, and vice versa: Oxfam has former staff members not only in
the British government, but also in the Finance Ministry of Uganda.
This symbiotic relationship with government (earning some groups the
tag GRINGO) may make the governments of developing countries work
better. It may also help aid groups to do their job effectively. But
it
hardly reflects their independence.
NGOS can also stray too close to the corporate world. Some, known to
critics as "business NGOs", deliberately model themselves on, or
depend
greatly on, particular corporations. Bigger ones have commercial
arms,
media departments, aggressive head-hunting methods and a wide array
of
private fund-raising and investment strategies. Smaller ones can be
overwhelmed by philanthropic businesses or their owners: Bill Gates,
the head of Microsoft, gave $25m last year to an NGO that is looking
for a vaccine for AIDS, transforming it overnight from a small group
with a good idea to a powerful one with a lot of money to spend.
The business of helping
In 1997, according to the OECD, NGOs raised $5.5 billion from private
donors. The real figure may well be higher: as leisure, travel and
other industries have grown, so too have charities. In 1995
non-profit
groups (including, but not only, NGOs) provided over 12% of all jobs
in
the Netherlands, 8% in America and 6% in Britain.
Many groups have come to depend on their media presence to help with
fund-raising. This is bringing NGOs their greatest problems. They are
adapting from shoebox outfits, stuffing envelopes and sending off
perhaps one container of medicines, to sophisticated
multi-million-dollar operations. In the now-crowded relief market,
campaigning groups must jostle for attention: increasingly, NGOs
compete and spend a lot of time and money marketing themselves.
Bigger
ones typically spend 10% of their funds on marketing and
fund-raising.
The focus of such NGOs can easily shift from finding solutions and
helping needy recipients to pleasing their donors and winning
television coverage. Events at Goma, in Congo, in 1994 brought this
problem home. Tens of thousands of refugees from Rwanda, who had
flooded into Goma, depended on food and shelter from the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees and from NGOs. Their dramatic plight drew
the
television cameras and, with them, the chance for publicity and huge
donations. A frantic scramble for funds led groups to lie about their
projects. Fearful that the media and then the public might lose
confidence in NGOs, the Red Cross drew up an approved list of NGOs
and
got them to put their names to a ten-point code of conduct,
reproduced
above.
Since then, NGOs have been working hard to improve. More than 70
groups and 142 governments backed the 1995 code of conduct, agreeing
that aid should be delivered "only on a basis of need". "We hold
ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from
whom we accept resources," they pledged. Yet in Kosovo last year
there
was a similar scramble, with groups pushing to be seen by camera
crews
as they worked. Personnel and resources were even shifted there from
worse wars and refugee crises in Africa.
As they get larger, NGOs are also looking more and more like
businesses themselves. In the past, such groups sought no profits,
paid
low wages -- or none at all -- and employed idealists. Now a whole
class of them, even if not directly backed by businesses, have taken
on
corporate trappings. Known collectively as BINGOs, these groups
manage
funds and employ staff which a medium-sized company would envy. Like
corporations, they attend conferences endlessly. Fund-raisers and
senior staff at such NGOs earn wages comparable to the private
sector.
Some bodies, once registered as charities, now choose to become
non-profit companies or charitable trusts for tax reasons and so that
they can control their spending and programmes more easily. Many big
charities have trading arms, registered as companies. One
manufacturing
company, Tetra Pak, has even considered sponsoring emergency food
delivery as a way to advertise itself. Any neat division between the
corporate and the NGO worlds is long gone. Many NGOs operate as
competitors seeking contracts in the aid market, raising funds with
polished media campaigns and lobbying governments as hard as any
other
business. Governments and UN bodies could now, in theory, ask for
tenders from businesses and NGOs to carry out their programmes. It
seems only a matter of time before this happens. If NGOs are cheap
and
good at delivering food or health care in tough areas, they should
win
the contracts easily.
Good intentions not enough
It could be argued that it does not matter even if NGOs are losing
their independence, becoming just another arm of government or
another
business. GRINGOs and BINGOs, after all, may be more efficient than
the
old sort of charity.
Many do achieve great things: they may represent the last hope for
civilians caught in civil wars, for those imprisoned unfairly and for
millions of desperate refugees. There are many examples of small,
efficient and inspirational groups with great achievements: the best
will employ local people, keep foreign expertise to a minimum,
attempt
precise goals (such as providing clean water) and think deeply about
the long-term impact of their work. Some of these grow into large,
well-run groups.
But there are also problems. NGOs may be assumed to be less
bureaucratic, wasteful or corrupt than governments, but
under-scrutinised groups can suffer from the same chief failing: they
can get into bad ways because they are not accountable to anyone.
Critics also suspect that some aid groups are used to propagate
western
values, as Christian missionaries did in the 19th century. Many NGOs,
lacking any base in the local population and with their money coming
from outside, simply try to impose their ideas without debate. For
example, they often work to promote women's or children's interests
as
defined by western societies, winning funds easily but causing social
disruption on the ground.
Groups that carry out population or birth-control projects are
particularly controversial; some are paid to carry out sterilisation
programmes in the poor parts of the world, because donors in the rich
world consider there are too many people there. Anti-"slavery"
campaigns in Africa, in which western NGOs buy children's freedom for
a
few hundred dollars each, are notorious. Unicef has condemned such
groups, but American NGOs continue to buy slaves -- or people they
consider slaves -- in southern Sudan. Clearly, buying slaves, if that
is what they are, will do little to discourage the practice of
trading
them.
NGOs also get involved in situations where their presence may prolong
or complicate wars, where they end up feeding armies, sheltering
hostages or serving as cover for warring parties. These may be the
unintended consequences of aid delivery, but they also complicate
foreign policy.
Even under calmer conditions, in non-emergency development work, not
all single-interest groups may be the best guarantors of long-term
success. They are rarely obliged to think about trade-offs in policy
or
to consider broad, cross-sector approaches to development. NGOs are
"often organised to promote particular goals...rather than the
broader
goal of development," argues Ms Lancaster. In Kosovo last spring,
"many
governments made bilateral funding agreements with NGOs, greatly
undermining UNHCR's ability to prioritise programmes or monitor
efficiency," says Peter Morris of MSF. This spring in Kosovo, "there
were instances of several NGOs competing to work in the same camps,
duplication of essential services," complains an Oxfam worker. And
whatever big international NGOs do in the developing world, they
bring
in western living standards, personnel and purchasing power which can
transform local markets and generate great local resentment. In
troubled zones where foreign NGOs flourish, weekends bring a line of
smart four-by-fours parked at the best beaches, restaurants or
nightclubs. The local beggars do well, but discrepancies between
expatriate staff and, say, impoverished local officials trying to do
the same work can cause deep antipathy. Not only have NGOs diverted
funds away from local governments, but they are often seen as
directly
challenging their sovereignty.
NGOs can also become self-perpetuating. When the problem for which
they
were founded is solved, they seek new campaigns and new funds. The
old
anti-apartheid movement, its job completed, did not disband, but
instead became another lobby group for southern Africa. As NGOs
become
steadily more powerful on the world scene, the best antidote to
hubris,
and to institutionalisation, would be this: disband when the job is
done. The chief aim of NGOs should be their own abolition.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Sins of the secular missionaries
Aid and campaign groups, or NGOs, matter more and more in world
affairs. But they are often far from being "non-governmental",
as they claim. And they are not always a force for good
A YOUNG man thrusts his crudely printed calling card at the
visitor. After his name are printed three letters: NGO. "What do you
do?" the visitor asks."I have formed an NGO.""Yes, but what does it
do?""Whatever they want. I am waiting for some funds and then I will
make a project."
Once little more than ragged charities, non-governmental
organisations
(NGOs) are now big business. Somalia, where that exchange took place,
is heaven for them. In large parts of the country, western
governments,
the United Nations and foreign aid agencies cannot work directly; it
is
too dangerous. So outsiders must work through local groups, which
become a powerful source of patronage. "Anybody who's anybody is an
NGO
these days," sighs one UN official.
And not just in Somalia. NGOs now head for crisis zones as fast as
journalists do: a war, a flood, refugees, a dodgy election, even a
world trade conference, will draw them like a honey pot. Last spring,
Tirana, the capital of Albania, was swamped by some 200 groups
intending to help the refugees from Kosovo. In Kosovo itself, the
ground is now thick with foreign groups competing to foster
democracy,
build homes and proffer goods and services. Environmental activists
in
Norway board whaling ships; do-gooders gather for the Chiapas rebels
in
Mexico.
In recent years, such groups have mushroomed. A 1995 UN report on
global governance suggested that nearly 29,000 international NGOs
existed. Domestic ones have grown even faster. By one estimate, there
are now 2m in America alone, most formed in the past 30 years. In
Russia, where almost none existed before the fall of communism, there
are at least 65,000. Dozens are created daily; in Kenya alone, some
240
NGOs are now created every year.
Most of these are minnows; some are whales, with annual incomes of
millions of dollars and a worldwide operation. Some are primarily
helpers, distributing relief where it is needed; some are mainly
campaigners, existing to promote issues deemed important by their
members. The general public tends to see them as uniformly
altruistic,
idealistic and independent. But the term "NGO", like the activities
of
the NGOs themselves, deserves much sharper scrutiny.
Governments' puppets?
The tag "Non-Governmental Organisation" was used first at the
founding
of the UN. It implies that NGOs keep their distance from officialdom;
they do things that governments will not, or cannot, do. In fact,
NGOs
have a great deal to do with governments. Not all of it is healthy.
Take the aid NGOs. A growing share of development spending, emergency
relief and aid transfers passes through them. According to Carol
Lancaster, a former deputy director of USAID, America's development
body, NGOs have become "the most important constituency for the
activities of development aid agencies". Much of the food delivered
by
the World Food Programme, a UN body, in Albania last year was
actually
handed out by NGOs working in the refugee camps. Between 1990 and
1994,
the proportion of the EU's relief aid channelled through NGOs rose
from
47% to 67%. The Red Cross reckons that NGOs now disburse more money
than the World Bank.
And governments are happy to provide that money. Of Oxfam's #98m
($162m) income in 1998, a quarter, #24.1m, was given by the British
government and the EU. World Vision US, which boasts of being the
world's "largest privately funded Christian relief and development
organisation", collected $55m-worth of goods that year from the
American government. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), the winner of
last
year's Nobel peace prize, gets 46% of its income from government
sources. Of 120 NGOs which sprang up in Kenya between 1993 and the
end
of 1996, all but nine received all their income from foreign
governments and international bodies. Such official contributions
will
go on, especially if the public gets more stingy. Today's young,
educated and rich give a smaller share of their incomes away than did
-- and do -- their parents.
In Africa, where international help has the greatest influence,
western governments have long been shifting their aid towards NGOs.
America's help, some $711m last year, increasingly goes to approved
organisations, often via USAID. Europe's donors also say that
bilateral
aid should go to NGOs, which are generally more open and efficient
than
governments. For the UN, too, they are now seen as indispensable. The
new head of the UN's Development Programme says the body "will put a
lot more emphasis on relations with NGOs". Most such agencies now
have
hundreds of NGO partners.
So the principal reason for the recent boom in NGOs is that western
governments finance them. This is not a matter of charity, but of
privatisation: many "non-governmental" groups are becoming
contractors
for governments. Governments prefer to pass aid through NGOs because
it
is cheaper, more efficient -- and more at arm's length -- than direct
official aid.
Governments also find NGOs useful in ways that go beyond the
distribution of food and blankets. Some bring back useful
information,
and make it part of their brief to do so. Outfits such as the
International Crisis Group and Global Witness publish detailed and
opinionated reports from places beset by war or other disasters. The
work of Global Witness in Angola is actually paid for by the British
Foreign Office.
Diplomats and governments, as well as other NGOs, journalists and the
public, can make good use of these reports. As the staff of foreign
embassies shrink, and the need to keep abreast of events abroad
increases, governments inevitably turn to private sources of
information. In some benighted parts of the world, sometimes only
NGOs
can nowadays reveal what is going on.
Take, for example, human rights, the business of one of the biggest
of
the campaigning NGOs, Amnesty International. Amnesty has around 1m
members in over 162 countries, and its campaigns against political
repression, in particular against unfair imprisonment, are known
around
the world. The information it gathers is often unavailable from other
sources.
Where western governments' interests match those of campaigning NGOs,
they can form effective alliances. In 1997, a coalition of over 350
NGOs pushed for, and obtained, a treaty against the use of landmines.
The campaign was backed by the usual array of concerned governments
(Canada, the Scandinavians) and won the Nobel peace prize.
NGOs are also interesting and useful to governments because they work
in the midst of conflict. Many were created by wars: the Red Cross
after the Battle of Solferino in 1859, the Save the Children Fund
after
the first world war, MSF after the Biafran war. By being "close to
the
action" some NGOs, perhaps unwittingly, provide good cover for spies
--
a more traditional means by which governments gather information.
In some cases, NGOs are taking over directly from diplomats: not
attempting to help the victims of war, but to end the wars
themselves.
Some try to restrict arms flows, such as Saferworld, which is against
small arms. Others attempt to negotiate ceasefires. The Italian
Catholic lay community of Sant' Egidio helped to end 13 years of
civil
war in Mozambique in 1992. International Alert, a London-based peace
research group, tried the same for Sierra Leone in the mid-1990s.
Last
year, Unicef (a part of the UN) and the Carter Centre, founded by
ex-President Jimmy Carter, brought about a peace deal of sorts
between
Uganda and Sudan. There are now roughly 500 groups registered by the
European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation. "Civil
war demands civil action," say the organisers.
Larger NGOs have pledged not to act as "instruments of government
foreign policy". But at times they are seen as just that. Governments
are more willing to pay groups to deliver humanitarian aid to a war
zone than to deliver it themselves. Last autumn, America's Congress
passed a resolution to deliver food aid to rebels in southern Sudan
via
USAID and sympathetic Christian groups (religious NGOs earn the label
RINGOs, and are found everywhere).
Perhaps the most potent sign of the closeness between NGOs and
governments, aside from their financial links, is the exchange of
personnel. In developing countries, where the civil service is poor,
some governments ask NGOs to help with the paperwork requested by the
World Bank and other international institutions. Politicians, or
their
wives, often have their own local NGOs. In the developed world,
meanwhile, increasing numbers of civil servants take time off to work
for NGOs, and vice versa: Oxfam has former staff members not only in
the British government, but also in the Finance Ministry of Uganda.
This symbiotic relationship with government (earning some groups the
tag GRINGO) may make the governments of developing countries work
better. It may also help aid groups to do their job effectively. But
it
hardly reflects their independence.
NGOS can also stray too close to the corporate world. Some, known to
critics as "business NGOs", deliberately model themselves on, or
depend
greatly on, particular corporations. Bigger ones have commercial
arms,
media departments, aggressive head-hunting methods and a wide array
of
private fund-raising and investment strategies. Smaller ones can be
overwhelmed by philanthropic businesses or their owners: Bill Gates,
the head of Microsoft, gave $25m last year to an NGO that is looking
for a vaccine for AIDS, transforming it overnight from a small group
with a good idea to a powerful one with a lot of money to spend.
The business of helping
In 1997, according to the OECD, NGOs raised $5.5 billion from private
donors. The real figure may well be higher: as leisure, travel and
other industries have grown, so too have charities. In 1995
non-profit
groups (including, but not only, NGOs) provided over 12% of all jobs
in
the Netherlands, 8% in America and 6% in Britain.
Many groups have come to depend on their media presence to help with
fund-raising. This is bringing NGOs their greatest problems. They are
adapting from shoebox outfits, stuffing envelopes and sending off
perhaps one container of medicines, to sophisticated
multi-million-dollar operations. In the now-crowded relief market,
campaigning groups must jostle for attention: increasingly, NGOs
compete and spend a lot of time and money marketing themselves.
Bigger
ones typically spend 10% of their funds on marketing and
fund-raising.
The focus of such NGOs can easily shift from finding solutions and
helping needy recipients to pleasing their donors and winning
television coverage. Events at Goma, in Congo, in 1994 brought this
problem home. Tens of thousands of refugees from Rwanda, who had
flooded into Goma, depended on food and shelter from the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees and from NGOs. Their dramatic plight drew
the
television cameras and, with them, the chance for publicity and huge
donations. A frantic scramble for funds led groups to lie about their
projects. Fearful that the media and then the public might lose
confidence in NGOs, the Red Cross drew up an approved list of NGOs
and
got them to put their names to a ten-point code of conduct,
reproduced
above.
Since then, NGOs have been working hard to improve. More than 70
groups and 142 governments backed the 1995 code of conduct, agreeing
that aid should be delivered "only on a basis of need". "We hold
ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from
whom we accept resources," they pledged. Yet in Kosovo last year
there
was a similar scramble, with groups pushing to be seen by camera
crews
as they worked. Personnel and resources were even shifted there from
worse wars and refugee crises in Africa.
As they get larger, NGOs are also looking more and more like
businesses themselves. In the past, such groups sought no profits,
paid
low wages -- or none at all -- and employed idealists. Now a whole
class of them, even if not directly backed by businesses, have taken
on
corporate trappings. Known collectively as BINGOs, these groups
manage
funds and employ staff which a medium-sized company would envy. Like
corporations, they attend conferences endlessly. Fund-raisers and
senior staff at such NGOs earn wages comparable to the private
sector.
Some bodies, once registered as charities, now choose to become
non-profit companies or charitable trusts for tax reasons and so that
they can control their spending and programmes more easily. Many big
charities have trading arms, registered as companies. One
manufacturing
company, Tetra Pak, has even considered sponsoring emergency food
delivery as a way to advertise itself. Any neat division between the
corporate and the NGO worlds is long gone. Many NGOs operate as
competitors seeking contracts in the aid market, raising funds with
polished media campaigns and lobbying governments as hard as any
other
business. Governments and UN bodies could now, in theory, ask for
tenders from businesses and NGOs to carry out their programmes. It
seems only a matter of time before this happens. If NGOs are cheap
and
good at delivering food or health care in tough areas, they should
win
the contracts easily.
Good intentions not enough
It could be argued that it does not matter even if NGOs are losing
their independence, becoming just another arm of government or
another
business. GRINGOs and BINGOs, after all, may be more efficient than
the
old sort of charity.
Many do achieve great things: they may represent the last hope for
civilians caught in civil wars, for those imprisoned unfairly and for
millions of desperate refugees. There are many examples of small,
efficient and inspirational groups with great achievements: the best
will employ local people, keep foreign expertise to a minimum,
attempt
precise goals (such as providing clean water) and think deeply about
the long-term impact of their work. Some of these grow into large,
well-run groups.
But there are also problems. NGOs may be assumed to be less
bureaucratic, wasteful or corrupt than governments, but
under-scrutinised groups can suffer from the same chief failing: they
can get into bad ways because they are not accountable to anyone.
Critics also suspect that some aid groups are used to propagate
western
values, as Christian missionaries did in the 19th century. Many NGOs,
lacking any base in the local population and with their money coming
from outside, simply try to impose their ideas without debate. For
example, they often work to promote women's or children's interests
as
defined by western societies, winning funds easily but causing social
disruption on the ground.
Groups that carry out population or birth-control projects are
particularly controversial; some are paid to carry out sterilisation
programmes in the poor parts of the world, because donors in the rich
world consider there are too many people there. Anti-"slavery"
campaigns in Africa, in which western NGOs buy children's freedom for
a
few hundred dollars each, are notorious. Unicef has condemned such
groups, but American NGOs continue to buy slaves -- or people they
consider slaves -- in southern Sudan. Clearly, buying slaves, if that
is what they are, will do little to discourage the practice of
trading
them.
NGOs also get involved in situations where their presence may prolong
or complicate wars, where they end up feeding armies, sheltering
hostages or serving as cover for warring parties. These may be the
unintended consequences of aid delivery, but they also complicate
foreign policy.
Even under calmer conditions, in non-emergency development work, not
all single-interest groups may be the best guarantors of long-term
success. They are rarely obliged to think about trade-offs in policy
or
to consider broad, cross-sector approaches to development. NGOs are
"often organised to promote particular goals...rather than the
broader
goal of development," argues Ms Lancaster. In Kosovo last spring,
"many
governments made bilateral funding agreements with NGOs, greatly
undermining UNHCR's ability to prioritise programmes or monitor
efficiency," says Peter Morris of MSF. This spring in Kosovo, "there
were instances of several NGOs competing to work in the same camps,
duplication of essential services," complains an Oxfam worker. And
whatever big international NGOs do in the developing world, they
bring
in western living standards, personnel and purchasing power which can
transform local markets and generate great local resentment. In
troubled zones where foreign NGOs flourish, weekends bring a line of
smart four-by-fours parked at the best beaches, restaurants or
nightclubs. The local beggars do well, but discrepancies between
expatriate staff and, say, impoverished local officials trying to do
the same work can cause deep antipathy. Not only have NGOs diverted
funds away from local governments, but they are often seen as
directly
challenging their sovereignty.
NGOs can also become self-perpetuating. When the problem for which
they
were founded is solved, they seek new campaigns and new funds. The
old
anti-apartheid movement, its job completed, did not disband, but
instead became another lobby group for southern Africa. As NGOs
become
steadily more powerful on the world scene, the best antidote to
hubris,
and to institutionalisation, would be this: disband when the job is
done. The chief aim of NGOs should be their own abolition.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
REPUBBLICA
FEDERATIVA
SOCIALISTA
JUGOSLAVIA
Zotohem para flamurit të pionirëvet dhe para shokëvet
pionierë, që do të mësoj e do të jetoj si bir besnik i
Atdheut tim Republikeës Socialiste Federative të
Jugosllavisë. Zotohem që do të ruaj vëllazërimin e bashkimin
e popujvet tanë dhe lirinë e Atdheut, të fituar me gjakun e
djemvet tanë më të mirë.
PËR ATDHE ME TITON PËRPARA!
RROFTË 29 NËNTOR!
RROFTË SHOKU TITO!
Agim, Prishtinë
( http://www.sfrj.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/
------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERATIVA
SOCIALISTA
JUGOSLAVIA
Zotohem para flamurit të pionirëvet dhe para shokëvet
pionierë, që do të mësoj e do të jetoj si bir besnik i
Atdheut tim Republikeës Socialiste Federative të
Jugosllavisë. Zotohem që do të ruaj vëllazërimin e bashkimin
e popujvet tanë dhe lirinë e Atdheut, të fituar me gjakun e
djemvet tanë më të mirë.
PËR ATDHE ME TITON PËRPARA!
RROFTË 29 NËNTOR!
RROFTË SHOKU TITO!
Agim, Prishtinë
( http://www.sfrj.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/
------------------------------------------------------------
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA FRANCESE
-----Original Message-----
From: democrite <democrite@...>
Date: 16 May 1999 17:55
Subject: Yugoslavs in the French Resistance
>SMALL IN NUMBER, GREAT IN SACRIFICE
>
>YUGOSLAV IMMIGRATION
>
> Relatively speaking, Yugoslav immigrants died the most. Small in
>number, they were great in sacrifice. As early as 1939, at the time of
>mobilisation, more than 1,500 Yugoslavs had voluntarily joined the
>French army. Later, at the time of occupation, nearly 3,000 took part
>in the various Resistance movements. Everywhere, in Pas-de-Calais,
>Corrèze, Haute-Savoy, Moselle and Paris, Yugoslavs distinguished
>themselves by their bravery and courage. The attitude of the Yugoslav
>fighters and Resistance workers was always inspired by the strong
>friendship and sincere loyalty they felt towards the countries which
>welcomed them, and they gave ample proof of their attachment at the
>darkest times.
> At Nîmes, in the Maritime Alps, in the Ardennes and in Haute-Savoy,
>more than fifty Yugoslavs fell victim to Nazi barbarity. The first
>thing the Yugoslav Resistance fighters had done had been to direct their
>activity towards the Croatian troops dragooned into the ranks of the
>Wehrmacht. It was thanks to such action that near Grenoble, a Croatian
>unit blew up a depot where a large amount of ammunition and explosives
>were stored, killing many Germans.
> At Villefranche-de-Rouergue resided a regiment of engineers made up of
>about 1,300 Croats. They had ended up in this region - where the
>peasants reminded them of their far-off homeland by their sobriety and
>the homespun of their clothes - after having refused to leave for the
>Eastern front. These soldiers found it quite natural to consider France
>as a country of friends and the population was quick to recognise them
>as such. A mutual current of friendship soon formed. It was not long
>before the soldiers heard of the maquis and decided their duty was to
>act too. They thought up a plan of escape. But out of the 1,300, there
>was one traitor. Seeing they had been exposed, the others took action.
>After a judgement in the name of Tito, they shot their officers,
>occupied the town and proclaimed liberty. Immediately, Hitler's forces
>flooded in from the surrounding centres - Toulouse, Albi, Limoges and
>Rodez. The men hardly had time to split up into small groups and take
>to the maquis. They left the town together so that the population would
>not be trapped between two enemy fires, and took up position in the
>surrounding hills ready for an unequal battle.
> 200 Croats were killed in the fight. More than 400 were taken prisoner
>and shot in the barracks courtyard. The remaining 600 or so were able
>to escape and carried on fighting by the sides of the French Resistance
>fighters.
> In the Ardennes, there were groups of immigrant partisans. The
>"Marshal Tito" corp., of which two leaders died during combat, was made
>up of Yugoslavs. In the region of Nancy, on the road to Germany, it was
>groups of immigrants of Yugoslav origin and Soviet prisoners who had
>escaped, who prevented the Nazis from coming to the aid of Wehrmacht
>groups cut off from their bases. The names of these heroic brigades
>were "Paris Commune", "Stalingrad" and "Jelezniack".
> From the ranks of these fighters came Resistance leaders, like General
>Ljubomir ILITCH, who by their courage and their self-sacrifice in the
>struggle against the fascist occupying army, won the friendship of all
>the Resistance workers. In homage to the participation to the struggle
>of Yugoslavs against the common enemy, the French authorities gave the
>names of two of their heroes, MIRNIK and BOLTAR, who were shot by the
>Germans, to two streets in the towns of Avion (Pas-de-Calais) and
>Toulouse. In the South of France, near Toulouse, sixteen Yugoslav
>immigrant fighters were awarded either the War Cross or the Resistance
>Medal for their courage and dedication.
>
>GENERAL ILITCH
>
> General Ljubomir ILITCH, former commander in the International Brigades
>in Spain, commander of the F.F.I. of the resistance of immigrants in
>France during German occupation, and one of the most active organisers
>of the maquis guerrillas, tells in his memoirs how he managed to join
>the Resistance movement in France.
> "In 1940, the Germans and the Vichy leaders decided to shut up in the
>camps all the "troublesome" elements who had shown in the past true
>attachment to the cause of liberty, of democracy and, thus, to France.
>All the committed antifascists were thus imprisoned and their situation
>got worse as clandestine resistance became active and it transpired
>clearly what role all the foreigners living in France were to play! The
>Vichy and Gestapo jailers split the prisoners up into the "ringleaders",
>who were strong and thus a danger to them, and the majority who were
>less spirited, weakened as they were by hunger, deprivation and
>demoralisation. We "dangerous" ones were sent to the prison of Castres,
>which was used as a depot and as a station passed through by prisoners
>on their way to concentration camps in Germany. When we were undressed
>and stripped of our papers, baggage, family photos and even identity
>cards, we understood that our departure for the death camps was
>approaching. That was how the Germans arranged the papers of the
>political deportees and kept them carefully in their archives. Among us
>in prison there were also French officers and allies who had dropped by
>parachute, and Belgian and Polish officers, doing intelligence work for
>the allies. We were totally cut off from the outside world yet even then
>we were able to study all the obstacles in our way, the safety catches,
>the alarm bells and electronic alarm systems set up by the Germans in
>case of a possible escape. The escape took place in broad daylight,
>thanks to each one of us carrying out perfectly our tasks according to
>given instructions.
> There were 36 of us who escaped, plus two women from the English
>intelligence service. We made it to the mountains, and made those
>chasing us lose all trace of us. At last, after a week, we established
>contact with the clandestine maquis and partisans and got down to action
>at once. Four of us were Yugoslavs: we all wanted to join Tito without
>delay to fight in our own country. But the difficulties in leaving were
>great: we would have had to pass through Spain, and we had stayed there
>as volunteers in the International Brigades in '36 - '39. Our faces
>were known there... So while waiting to go, we all put ourselves at the
>disposal of the French Resistance and began to work together with the
>F.T.P."(1).
>
>Jean STANKOVITCH
>
> An article in the 4th September 1946 issue of "Le Havre Libre" recalled
>the memory of this young hero of Yugoslav origin.
> Born in Le Havre, Jean Stankovitch, after studying at Dicquemare
>school, was taken by the Obligatory Work Service in '43. Refusing
>immediately to go to Germany, he stayed for some time hidden in the town
>under the name of Jean Coquelin. However, the inaction to which his
>illegal situation constrained him was not suited to him. He suffered
>from it, and often opened up about his feelings to his friend Maurice
>Leboucher, who was to be much talked of later. Leboucher, understanding
>well that Jean Stankovitch was driven by a burning desire to make
>himself useful, did not hesitate to advise him to come and join him at
>the German submarine base, in Le Havre, where he was able to get him
>hired as electrician.
> Jean Stankovitch spent some time there, and enjoyed the good tricks his
>friend and himself played on the occupying forces, good tricks which
>could be called, in other words, sabotage. "They think I'm from an
>electricity school!" he would say to his close friends. And this trick
>alone was enough to thrill him.
> His mother, however, fearing bombings, soon decided to go and live in
>Belleville. Jean followed her, most unwillingly. But he could not
>remain inactive there either.
> And in the days following the arrival of the allies, he was glad to act
>as a courier for them, passing through the barricades that then isolated
>Le Havre. For, unknown to his mother, he was a member of the Resistance
>group "France before all". There he had met a young man, three years
>younger than him, and the two of them had fomented multiple projects to
>undermine German organisation wherever their modest means might be used,
>whenever the time came to get down to action.
> On Saturday 2nd September, when the tanks were officially announced,
>the two comrades could no longer keep still. Despite their families'
>advice to be cautious, they escaped and ran to meet the tanks. Bernard
>Lefebvre who was heading for Saint-Cyr was glad to be able to get a lift
>on a tank. He felt as if he was driving up the road of triumph.
> A few kilometres on, they heard that a volunteer was wanted to carry a
>letter from the allies' lines to a certain castle of Fontenay where
>there was still a German officer. Jean proposed himself, and set off at
>once in company of a young lady who spoke German. Once they got there,
>they were kept waiting for over an hour, after which they were chased
>away: the message was an order to surrender! Startled, the young lady
>and Jean Stankovitch found themselves in the road with bursts of fire
>beginning to rain down on them. They were amazed to still be alive, so
>much anger had they read in the eyes of the officer to whom they had
>unknowingly been assigned to propose capitulation. And even though they
>had failed in their mission, they were still glad to get away from their
>goal.
> That evening, after having served as liaison agents between the many
>Resistance groups, Jean and Bernard met up and, together with the other
>comrades, discussed besides the English tanks. It is not known how an
>Alsacian soldier managed to slip up to them and ask them to be kind
>enough to accept to serve as an intermediary between ten of his comrades
>and the Allies to whom they wanted to surrender. Promised that they
>would not be hurt, they decided to meet by a farm between 6.30 and
>7.00am. At the decided moment, Stankovitch and Lefevbre went to the
>place as arranged and waited. The firing from the barricades became
>heavier, and it was difficult for them to believe that the Alsacians
>would manage to get there under such an avalanche of bullets. And yet,
>since they had given their word, they were bent on keeping it, and tried
>to stay put. What happened in the moments which followed? Doubtless a
>shell exploding nearby or a low burst of gunfire took them by surprise.
>Both of them were touched. Bernard Lefebvre was killed outright and
>Jean Sankovitch, fatally wounded, died one hour later, after terrible
>suffering, at the first aid centre at Rolleville which he had been taken
>to.
>
>Sava KOVATCHEVITCH
>
> Sava Kovatchevitch, originally from the Lika district, had come to
>France in 1937 to earn a living and help his family a little. After
>occupying France, the Germans sent him to do labour in Düsseldorf,
>Germany. There, he began with the other workers to do sabotage, but the
>Gestapo was after him, especially as he was teaching the deported
>workers how to commit sabotage. He left at the moment he was about to
>be arrested. At the time, he was already in contact with Yugoslav and
>French prisoners and, alongside the patriots of Lorraine, was helping
>them.
> He was in Lorraine under the name "Pierre" and had a heavy, dangerous
>task. With the help of the patriots of Lorraine, he created a huge
>organization to get people through Germany and Lorraine towards France
>and its maquis. He made false identity papers with the help of the
>mayor of Baynville, Pierre Semmoni and Victor Florch, a post inspector
>in Nancy. Alongside the patriots from Lorraine - Emile Kodari, Louis
>Vagner, Albert Vaguer, Alphonse Vagner, Victor Picrona, Pierre Vagner,
>Jeannette Koisser, from Metz, and Louise Florch, also from Metz - Sava
>got men through into France and saved thier lives. French and Yugoslav
>prisoners in camps in Germany knew of this and those who escaped from
>the Stalag XII F. came to find him. He obtained them civilian clothes,
>false identity papers and food; he got them over the border and the
>rivers near Metz.
> Sava was discovered by Pavelitch's oustachis in charge of keeping tabs
>on the Croatian workers deported to Germany. The Gestapo arrested him
>and tortured him for 72 days , starving and beating him, so that he
>would denounce the organisation by which war prisoners, civilian
>deportees and saboteurs got away into France. This son of the Lika held
>out and never even thought of letting out anything at all.
> "If I must die, I may as well die as a man, and not tarnish my Lika, "
>Sava would say.
> In the end, the Gestapo sent him to join a labour company. He
>succeeded in escaping, and started his work once more, even more
>secretly than before. He was searched for intensely, and in August 1944
>the place became too hot beneath his feet and he was forced to leave.
>He made it to France and joined the maquis again.
>Among the Yugoslav fighters who died in action, let us mention:
>Dimitri KOTOUROVIC (1911 - 1944), former fighter in the International
>Brigades in Spain, initiator and organiser of the first F.T.P. (ndlt:
>Franc Tireur et Partisan) groups in Marseille. Was killed heroically at
>his post in April 1944.
>Victor FILIPIC, shot by the Gestapo after committing sabotage at
>Sallaumines.
>Sava PAVLICEK, killed while fighting on August 18th 1944 in Sauppe.
>Givorad BOGOSAVLJEVIC, killed by the Germans during battle in August
>1944 in Quincy-Voisins.
>Stanko NOVAKOVIC, killed in action at Verdun in August 1944.
>Michel ARIEFF, nicknamed "Tito", killed in action at Mausouées Farm in
>August 1944.
>Zika PETROVIC, 25 years old, escpaded war prisoner, killed in action in
>Meaux.
>Rudolf CUCEK and Victor ERJAVEC, two miners in Pas-de-Calais, together
>shot by the Germans.
>BRUNOVIC, from Bruay-en Artois, killed in action in August 1942.
>FAJS, from Bruay-en Artois, killed while he was opposing resistance to
>the police who had come to arrest him in May 1943.
>
>Notes:
>1. Quoted in "Unis" bulletin n° 52, 17.2.1946.
>(On les nommait des étrangers, Les immigrés dans la résistance, by
>Gaston Laroche, F.T.P.F. colonel, Boris Matline)
>
>Souvenir Franco-Soviétique,
>Jean LEVEQUE,
>Villa "Florelle",
>28410 BROUE
>
>Translated from the French by P.M.
>
>--
>Les "Editions Democrite" publient un mensuel en francais :
>> "Les dossiers du BIP" avec des traductions d'articles provenant de la
>> presse communiste(grecque, allemande, anglaise, turque, russe, espagnole,
>> portugaise...)sur des evenements qui interessent des lecteurs
>communistes.
>> Editions Democrite, 52, bld Roger Salengro, 93190 LIVRY-GARGAN, FRANCE
>> e-mail : democrite@...
>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: democrite <democrite@...>
Date: 16 May 1999 17:55
Subject: Yugoslavs in the French Resistance
>SMALL IN NUMBER, GREAT IN SACRIFICE
>
>YUGOSLAV IMMIGRATION
>
> Relatively speaking, Yugoslav immigrants died the most. Small in
>number, they were great in sacrifice. As early as 1939, at the time of
>mobilisation, more than 1,500 Yugoslavs had voluntarily joined the
>French army. Later, at the time of occupation, nearly 3,000 took part
>in the various Resistance movements. Everywhere, in Pas-de-Calais,
>Corrèze, Haute-Savoy, Moselle and Paris, Yugoslavs distinguished
>themselves by their bravery and courage. The attitude of the Yugoslav
>fighters and Resistance workers was always inspired by the strong
>friendship and sincere loyalty they felt towards the countries which
>welcomed them, and they gave ample proof of their attachment at the
>darkest times.
> At Nîmes, in the Maritime Alps, in the Ardennes and in Haute-Savoy,
>more than fifty Yugoslavs fell victim to Nazi barbarity. The first
>thing the Yugoslav Resistance fighters had done had been to direct their
>activity towards the Croatian troops dragooned into the ranks of the
>Wehrmacht. It was thanks to such action that near Grenoble, a Croatian
>unit blew up a depot where a large amount of ammunition and explosives
>were stored, killing many Germans.
> At Villefranche-de-Rouergue resided a regiment of engineers made up of
>about 1,300 Croats. They had ended up in this region - where the
>peasants reminded them of their far-off homeland by their sobriety and
>the homespun of their clothes - after having refused to leave for the
>Eastern front. These soldiers found it quite natural to consider France
>as a country of friends and the population was quick to recognise them
>as such. A mutual current of friendship soon formed. It was not long
>before the soldiers heard of the maquis and decided their duty was to
>act too. They thought up a plan of escape. But out of the 1,300, there
>was one traitor. Seeing they had been exposed, the others took action.
>After a judgement in the name of Tito, they shot their officers,
>occupied the town and proclaimed liberty. Immediately, Hitler's forces
>flooded in from the surrounding centres - Toulouse, Albi, Limoges and
>Rodez. The men hardly had time to split up into small groups and take
>to the maquis. They left the town together so that the population would
>not be trapped between two enemy fires, and took up position in the
>surrounding hills ready for an unequal battle.
> 200 Croats were killed in the fight. More than 400 were taken prisoner
>and shot in the barracks courtyard. The remaining 600 or so were able
>to escape and carried on fighting by the sides of the French Resistance
>fighters.
> In the Ardennes, there were groups of immigrant partisans. The
>"Marshal Tito" corp., of which two leaders died during combat, was made
>up of Yugoslavs. In the region of Nancy, on the road to Germany, it was
>groups of immigrants of Yugoslav origin and Soviet prisoners who had
>escaped, who prevented the Nazis from coming to the aid of Wehrmacht
>groups cut off from their bases. The names of these heroic brigades
>were "Paris Commune", "Stalingrad" and "Jelezniack".
> From the ranks of these fighters came Resistance leaders, like General
>Ljubomir ILITCH, who by their courage and their self-sacrifice in the
>struggle against the fascist occupying army, won the friendship of all
>the Resistance workers. In homage to the participation to the struggle
>of Yugoslavs against the common enemy, the French authorities gave the
>names of two of their heroes, MIRNIK and BOLTAR, who were shot by the
>Germans, to two streets in the towns of Avion (Pas-de-Calais) and
>Toulouse. In the South of France, near Toulouse, sixteen Yugoslav
>immigrant fighters were awarded either the War Cross or the Resistance
>Medal for their courage and dedication.
>
>GENERAL ILITCH
>
> General Ljubomir ILITCH, former commander in the International Brigades
>in Spain, commander of the F.F.I. of the resistance of immigrants in
>France during German occupation, and one of the most active organisers
>of the maquis guerrillas, tells in his memoirs how he managed to join
>the Resistance movement in France.
> "In 1940, the Germans and the Vichy leaders decided to shut up in the
>camps all the "troublesome" elements who had shown in the past true
>attachment to the cause of liberty, of democracy and, thus, to France.
>All the committed antifascists were thus imprisoned and their situation
>got worse as clandestine resistance became active and it transpired
>clearly what role all the foreigners living in France were to play! The
>Vichy and Gestapo jailers split the prisoners up into the "ringleaders",
>who were strong and thus a danger to them, and the majority who were
>less spirited, weakened as they were by hunger, deprivation and
>demoralisation. We "dangerous" ones were sent to the prison of Castres,
>which was used as a depot and as a station passed through by prisoners
>on their way to concentration camps in Germany. When we were undressed
>and stripped of our papers, baggage, family photos and even identity
>cards, we understood that our departure for the death camps was
>approaching. That was how the Germans arranged the papers of the
>political deportees and kept them carefully in their archives. Among us
>in prison there were also French officers and allies who had dropped by
>parachute, and Belgian and Polish officers, doing intelligence work for
>the allies. We were totally cut off from the outside world yet even then
>we were able to study all the obstacles in our way, the safety catches,
>the alarm bells and electronic alarm systems set up by the Germans in
>case of a possible escape. The escape took place in broad daylight,
>thanks to each one of us carrying out perfectly our tasks according to
>given instructions.
> There were 36 of us who escaped, plus two women from the English
>intelligence service. We made it to the mountains, and made those
>chasing us lose all trace of us. At last, after a week, we established
>contact with the clandestine maquis and partisans and got down to action
>at once. Four of us were Yugoslavs: we all wanted to join Tito without
>delay to fight in our own country. But the difficulties in leaving were
>great: we would have had to pass through Spain, and we had stayed there
>as volunteers in the International Brigades in '36 - '39. Our faces
>were known there... So while waiting to go, we all put ourselves at the
>disposal of the French Resistance and began to work together with the
>F.T.P."(1).
>
>Jean STANKOVITCH
>
> An article in the 4th September 1946 issue of "Le Havre Libre" recalled
>the memory of this young hero of Yugoslav origin.
> Born in Le Havre, Jean Stankovitch, after studying at Dicquemare
>school, was taken by the Obligatory Work Service in '43. Refusing
>immediately to go to Germany, he stayed for some time hidden in the town
>under the name of Jean Coquelin. However, the inaction to which his
>illegal situation constrained him was not suited to him. He suffered
>from it, and often opened up about his feelings to his friend Maurice
>Leboucher, who was to be much talked of later. Leboucher, understanding
>well that Jean Stankovitch was driven by a burning desire to make
>himself useful, did not hesitate to advise him to come and join him at
>the German submarine base, in Le Havre, where he was able to get him
>hired as electrician.
> Jean Stankovitch spent some time there, and enjoyed the good tricks his
>friend and himself played on the occupying forces, good tricks which
>could be called, in other words, sabotage. "They think I'm from an
>electricity school!" he would say to his close friends. And this trick
>alone was enough to thrill him.
> His mother, however, fearing bombings, soon decided to go and live in
>Belleville. Jean followed her, most unwillingly. But he could not
>remain inactive there either.
> And in the days following the arrival of the allies, he was glad to act
>as a courier for them, passing through the barricades that then isolated
>Le Havre. For, unknown to his mother, he was a member of the Resistance
>group "France before all". There he had met a young man, three years
>younger than him, and the two of them had fomented multiple projects to
>undermine German organisation wherever their modest means might be used,
>whenever the time came to get down to action.
> On Saturday 2nd September, when the tanks were officially announced,
>the two comrades could no longer keep still. Despite their families'
>advice to be cautious, they escaped and ran to meet the tanks. Bernard
>Lefebvre who was heading for Saint-Cyr was glad to be able to get a lift
>on a tank. He felt as if he was driving up the road of triumph.
> A few kilometres on, they heard that a volunteer was wanted to carry a
>letter from the allies' lines to a certain castle of Fontenay where
>there was still a German officer. Jean proposed himself, and set off at
>once in company of a young lady who spoke German. Once they got there,
>they were kept waiting for over an hour, after which they were chased
>away: the message was an order to surrender! Startled, the young lady
>and Jean Stankovitch found themselves in the road with bursts of fire
>beginning to rain down on them. They were amazed to still be alive, so
>much anger had they read in the eyes of the officer to whom they had
>unknowingly been assigned to propose capitulation. And even though they
>had failed in their mission, they were still glad to get away from their
>goal.
> That evening, after having served as liaison agents between the many
>Resistance groups, Jean and Bernard met up and, together with the other
>comrades, discussed besides the English tanks. It is not known how an
>Alsacian soldier managed to slip up to them and ask them to be kind
>enough to accept to serve as an intermediary between ten of his comrades
>and the Allies to whom they wanted to surrender. Promised that they
>would not be hurt, they decided to meet by a farm between 6.30 and
>7.00am. At the decided moment, Stankovitch and Lefevbre went to the
>place as arranged and waited. The firing from the barricades became
>heavier, and it was difficult for them to believe that the Alsacians
>would manage to get there under such an avalanche of bullets. And yet,
>since they had given their word, they were bent on keeping it, and tried
>to stay put. What happened in the moments which followed? Doubtless a
>shell exploding nearby or a low burst of gunfire took them by surprise.
>Both of them were touched. Bernard Lefebvre was killed outright and
>Jean Sankovitch, fatally wounded, died one hour later, after terrible
>suffering, at the first aid centre at Rolleville which he had been taken
>to.
>
>Sava KOVATCHEVITCH
>
> Sava Kovatchevitch, originally from the Lika district, had come to
>France in 1937 to earn a living and help his family a little. After
>occupying France, the Germans sent him to do labour in Düsseldorf,
>Germany. There, he began with the other workers to do sabotage, but the
>Gestapo was after him, especially as he was teaching the deported
>workers how to commit sabotage. He left at the moment he was about to
>be arrested. At the time, he was already in contact with Yugoslav and
>French prisoners and, alongside the patriots of Lorraine, was helping
>them.
> He was in Lorraine under the name "Pierre" and had a heavy, dangerous
>task. With the help of the patriots of Lorraine, he created a huge
>organization to get people through Germany and Lorraine towards France
>and its maquis. He made false identity papers with the help of the
>mayor of Baynville, Pierre Semmoni and Victor Florch, a post inspector
>in Nancy. Alongside the patriots from Lorraine - Emile Kodari, Louis
>Vagner, Albert Vaguer, Alphonse Vagner, Victor Picrona, Pierre Vagner,
>Jeannette Koisser, from Metz, and Louise Florch, also from Metz - Sava
>got men through into France and saved thier lives. French and Yugoslav
>prisoners in camps in Germany knew of this and those who escaped from
>the Stalag XII F. came to find him. He obtained them civilian clothes,
>false identity papers and food; he got them over the border and the
>rivers near Metz.
> Sava was discovered by Pavelitch's oustachis in charge of keeping tabs
>on the Croatian workers deported to Germany. The Gestapo arrested him
>and tortured him for 72 days , starving and beating him, so that he
>would denounce the organisation by which war prisoners, civilian
>deportees and saboteurs got away into France. This son of the Lika held
>out and never even thought of letting out anything at all.
> "If I must die, I may as well die as a man, and not tarnish my Lika, "
>Sava would say.
> In the end, the Gestapo sent him to join a labour company. He
>succeeded in escaping, and started his work once more, even more
>secretly than before. He was searched for intensely, and in August 1944
>the place became too hot beneath his feet and he was forced to leave.
>He made it to France and joined the maquis again.
>Among the Yugoslav fighters who died in action, let us mention:
>Dimitri KOTOUROVIC (1911 - 1944), former fighter in the International
>Brigades in Spain, initiator and organiser of the first F.T.P. (ndlt:
>Franc Tireur et Partisan) groups in Marseille. Was killed heroically at
>his post in April 1944.
>Victor FILIPIC, shot by the Gestapo after committing sabotage at
>Sallaumines.
>Sava PAVLICEK, killed while fighting on August 18th 1944 in Sauppe.
>Givorad BOGOSAVLJEVIC, killed by the Germans during battle in August
>1944 in Quincy-Voisins.
>Stanko NOVAKOVIC, killed in action at Verdun in August 1944.
>Michel ARIEFF, nicknamed "Tito", killed in action at Mausouées Farm in
>August 1944.
>Zika PETROVIC, 25 years old, escpaded war prisoner, killed in action in
>Meaux.
>Rudolf CUCEK and Victor ERJAVEC, two miners in Pas-de-Calais, together
>shot by the Germans.
>BRUNOVIC, from Bruay-en Artois, killed in action in August 1942.
>FAJS, from Bruay-en Artois, killed while he was opposing resistance to
>the police who had come to arrest him in May 1943.
>
>Notes:
>1. Quoted in "Unis" bulletin n° 52, 17.2.1946.
>(On les nommait des étrangers, Les immigrés dans la résistance, by
>Gaston Laroche, F.T.P.F. colonel, Boris Matline)
>
>Souvenir Franco-Soviétique,
>Jean LEVEQUE,
>Villa "Florelle",
>28410 BROUE
>
>Translated from the French by P.M.
>
>--
>Les "Editions Democrite" publient un mensuel en francais :
>> "Les dossiers du BIP" avec des traductions d'articles provenant de la
>> presse communiste(grecque, allemande, anglaise, turque, russe, espagnole,
>> portugaise...)sur des evenements qui interessent des lecteurs
>communistes.
>> Editions Democrite, 52, bld Roger Salengro, 93190 LIVRY-GARGAN, FRANCE
>> e-mail : democrite@...
>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
AUDIZIONI ALLA COMMISSIONE ESTERI DEL PARLAMENTO CANADESE
I contribuiti che diffondiamo in questo messaggio vengono dal Canada. Si
tratta di alcune audizioni tenute ad Ottawa, alla Camera dei Comuni,
dinanzi allo Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade da parte di varie personalita' ritenute a vario titolo "informate
sui fatti" riguardo alla aggressione della NATO contro la Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia. In particolare, i contributi seguenti sono le
testimonianze di JAMES BISSET, ex-ambasciatore canadese a Belgrado, ora
"indesiderato" nella stessa ambasciata canadese a Belgrado, e SERGE
TRIFKOVIC, professore di storia, responsabile per gli esteri di
"Chronicles - Magazine of American Culture".
Tutti i documenti sono stati diffusi dalla lista STOPNATO@...
===
Author: James Bisset
Publisher/Date: February 2000
Title: Notes for address to Standing Committee Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (Ca)
1: Introduction
I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity of speaking
this morning.
It is some comfort to know that although I was not allowed to speak to
anyone in the Canadian embassy in Belgrade during a recent visit there
that I am free to speak to members of the Canadian parliament.
I have been an out spoken critic of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I
believe it to have been a tragic mistake -- a historic miscalculation
that will have far reaching implications.
When NATO bombs fell on Yugoslavia in the spring and summer of last year
they caused more than just death and destruction in that country. The
bombs also struck at the heart of international law and delivered a
serious blow to the framework of global security that since the end of
the second world war has protected all of us from the horrors of a
nuclear war.
Kosovo broke the ground rules for NATO engagement and the aggressive
military intervention by NATO into the affairs of a sovereign state for
other than defensive purposes marked an ominous turning point in the
aims and objectives of that organization. It is important that we
understand this and seek clarification as to whether this was a
"one-off" aberration or a signal of fundamental change in the nature and
purposes of the organization. This is something the committee might well
examine in the course of its work.
2: An Illegal War
NATO's war in Kosovo was conducted without the approval of the United
Nations Security Council. It was a violation of international law, the
United Nations charter and its own article 1, which requires NATO to
settle any international disputes by peaceful means and not to threaten
or use force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations."
Apologists for NATO including our own foreign and defence ministers try
to avoid this issue by simply not mentioning it. There has been no
attempt to explain why the United Nations Security Council was ignored.
No effort to spell out under whose authority did NATO bomb Yugoslavia.
The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air strikes on
the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk of the ethnic
cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It was the bombing
that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.
As for the atrocities it now seems that here again we were lied to about
the extent of the crimes commited. United States Secretary of Defence
Cohen told us that at least 100,000 Kosovars had perished. Tony Blair
spoke of genocide being carried out in Kosovo. The media relished in
these atrocity stories and printed every story told to them by Albanian,
"eye witnesses." The myth that the war was to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities contiues to be perpetrated by department spokesmen and large
parts of the media.
No one wants to defend atrocities and the numbers game in such
circumstances becomes sordid. Nevertheless numbers do become important
if they are used to justify military action against a sovereign state.
in the case of Kosovo it appears that about 2000 people were killed
there prior to the NATO bombing. considering that a civil war had been
underway since 1993 this is not a remarkable figure and compared with a
great many other hot spots hardly enough to warrant a 79-day bombing
campaign. It is also interesting to note that the UN tribunal
indictement of Milosovic of May 1999, cites only one incident of deaths
before the bombing -- the infamous Racak incident -- which itself is
challenged by French journalists who were on the ground there and
suspect a frame-up involving US General Walker who sounded the alarm.
The Kosovo "war" reveals disturbing evidence of how lies and duplicity
can mislead us into accepting things that we instinctively know to be
wrong. Jamie Shea and other NATO apologists have lied to us about the
bombing. The sad thing is that most of the Canadian media, and our
political representatives have accepted without question what has been
told to us by NATO and our own foreign affairs spokesmen.
3: An Unecessary War
perhaps the most serious charge against the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
is that it was unnecessary. NATO chose bombing over diplomacy. Violence
over negotiation. NATO's leaders tried to convince us that dropping tons
of bombs on Yugoslavia was serving humanitarian purposes.
A UN Security Council resolution of October 1998 accepted by Yugoslavia,
authorized over 1300 monitors from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] to enter Kosovo and try to de-escalate the
fighting. from the accounts of a number of these monitors their task was
successful. While cease-fire violations continued on both sides the
intensity of the armed struggle was considerably abated.
The former Czech foreign minister, Jiri Dienstbier, and Canada's own
Rollie Keith of Vancouver -- both monitors for the OSCE on the ground in
Kosovo -- have publicly stated that there were no international refugees
over the last five months of the OSCE's presence in Kosovo and the
number of internally displaced only amounted to a few thousands in the
weeks leading up to the bombing.
The OSCE mission demonstrated that diplomacy and negotiation might well
have resolved the Kosovo problem without resorting to the use of force.
It was the failure of the United States to accept any flexibility in its
dealing with Belgrade in the weeks leading up to the war that spelled
diplomatic failure.
The adamant refusal of the USA to involve either the Russians or the
United Nations in the negotiations. The refusal to allow any other
intermediary to deal with Milosovic and finally the imposition of the
Rambouillet ultimatum which was clearly designed to ensure that
Yugoslavia had no choice but to refuse its insulting terms.
It is now generally accepted by those who have seen the Rambouillet
agreement that no sovereign state could have agreed to its conditions.
The insistence of allowing acess to all of Yugoslavia by NATO forces and
the demand that a referendum on autonomy be held within three years
guaranteed a Serbian rejection.
The Serbian parliament did, however, on March 23, state a willingness to
"examine the character and extent of an international presence in Kosovo
immediately after the signing of an autonomy accord acceptable to all
national communities in Kosovo, the local Serb minority included. " The
United States was not interested in pursuing this offer. NATO needed its
war. NATO's formal commitment to resolve international disputes by
peaceful means was thrown out the window.
The Rambouillet document itself was not easily obtained from NATO
sources. The chairman of the defence committee of the French National
Assembly asked for a copy shortly after the bombing commenced but was
not given a copy until a few days before the UN peace treaty was signed.
I hope that members of this committee have a copy to look at and will be
able to find out when and if Canada was informed of its conditions.
4: NATO's campaign a total failure
We have been asked to believe that the war in Kosovo was fought for
human rights. Indeed the president of the Czech republic received a
standing ovation in this House of Commons when he stated that Kosovo was
the first war fought for human values rather than territory. I suspect
even President Havel would have second thoughts about that statement now
that a large part of Yugoslav territory has in effect been handed over
to the Albanians.
The war allegedly to stop ethnic cleansing has not done so. Serbs
Gypsies, Jews, and Slav muslims are being forced out of Kosovo under the
eyes of 45,000 NATO troops. Murder and anarchy reigns supreme in Kosovo
as the KLA and criminal elements have taken charge. The United Nations
admits failure to control the situation and warns Serbs not to return.
The war allegedly to restore stability to the Balkans has done the
opposite.Yugoslavia's neighbors are in a state of turmoil. Montenegro is
on the edge of civil war. Macedonia is now worried that Kosovo has shown
the way for its own sizeable Albanian minority to demand
self-determination. Albania has been encouraged to strive harder to
fulfill its dream of greater Albania. Serbia itself has been ruined
economically. Embittered and disillusioned it feels betrayed and
alienated from the western democracies.
The illegal and unecessary war has alienated the other great nuclear
powers, Russia and China. These countries are now convinced that the
west cannot be trusted. NATO expansion eastward is seen as an aggressive
and hostile threat and will be answered by an increase in the nuclear
arsenal of both nations. After Kosovo who can with any conviction
convince them that NATO is purely a defensive alliance dedicated to
peace and to upholding the principles of the United Nations?
More seriously the NATO bombing has destroyed NATO's credibility. NATO
stood for more than just a powerful military organization. It stood for
peace; the rule of law, and democratic institutions. The bombing of
Yugoslavia threw all of that out the window.
No longer can NATO stand on the moral high ground. Its action in
Yugoslavia revealed it to be an aggressive military machine prepared to
ignore international law and intervene with deadly force in the internal
affairs of any state with whose actions or behaviour it does not agree.
5: Conclusions
There are those who believe that the long standing principle of state
sovereignty can be over ruled when human rights violations are taking
place in a country. Until Kosovo the ground rules for such intervention
called for Security Council authority before such action could be taken.
Apologists for NATO argue that it was unlikely Security Council
authority could have been obtained because of the veto power of China or
Russia. So it would appear rather than even try to get consent NATO took
upon itself the powers of the Security Council. I am not sure we should
all be comfortable with this development.
Undoubtedly there may be times when such intervention is justified and
immediately Rwanda comes to mind -- but intervention for humanitarian
reasons is a dangerous concept. Because who is to decide when to take
such action and under whose authority? Hitler intervened in
Czechoslovakia because he claimed the human rights of the Sudeten
Germans were being violated. Those who advocate a change in the current
rules for intervention are free to do so but until the rules change
should we not all obey the ones that still have legitimacy?
NATO made a serious mistake in Kosovo. Its bombing campaign was not only
an unmitigated disaster but it changed fundamentally the very nature and
purposes of the alliance. Does article 1 of the NATO treaty still stand?
Does NATO still undertake to settle any international disputes in which
it may become involved by peaceful means? Do the NATO countries still
undertake to refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the united
nations?
Kosovo should serve as a warning call that Canadian democracy needs a
shot in the arm to wake it up to the realities that foreign policy is
important--important because as happened one day last march Canadians
can wake up and find they are at war. Canadian pilots were bombing
Serbia. yet there was no declaration of war. The Canadian parliament was
not consulted. The majority of the Canadian people had no idea where
Kosovo was -- let alone understand why our aircraft were bombing cities
in a fellow nation state that had been a staunch ally during two world
wars.
It was not only Yugoslav soverignty that was violated by NATO's illegal
action. Canadian sovereignty was also abused. Canada had become involved
in a war without any member of the Canadian parliament or the Canadian
people being consulted.the ultimate expression of a nation's sovereignty
is the right to declare war. NATO abrogated this right.
If it essential that we give up some of our sovereignty as the price we
pay for membership in global institutons such as NATO then it is
mandatory that such institutions follow their own rules, respect thrule
of law, and operate within the generally accepted framework of the
United Nations charter. This NATO did not do. It is for this reason I
would suggest your committee must ask some tough questions about the
nature of Canada's involvement in the Kosovo war.
(James Bisset is the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, who was
recently physically barred by the Canadian government from entering the
embassy in Belgrade.)
===
Testimony by S. Trifkovic, House of Commons SCFAIT, Ottawa, 17/02/2000
GEO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO
Testimony by S. Trifkovic
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
House of Commons, Ottawa, February 17, 2000
The war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999 marks a significant
turning point, not only for America and NATO but also for “the West” as
a
whole. The principle of state sovereignty, and of the rule of law
itself, has
been subverted in the name of an allegedly humanitarian ideology. Facts
have been converted into fiction, and even the fictions invoked to
justify
the act are giving up all pretense to credibility. Old systems for the
protection of
national liberties, political, legal and economic, have now been
subverted into vehicles for their destruction. But so far from
demonstrating
the vigor of Western ruling elites in their ruthless pursuit of an
ideology of
multi-ethnic democracy and international human rights, the whole Balkan
entanglement may be as a disturbing revelation of those ruling elites’
moral and cultural decay. I shall therefore devote my remarks to the
consequences of the war for the emerging new international system, and –
ultimately – for the security and stability of the Western world itself.
Almost a decade separated ‘Desert Storm’ from ‘Humanitarian Bombing.’ In
1991 the Maastricht Treaty was signed, and the rest of the decade has
brought the gradual usurpation of traditional European sovereignty by a
corporate-controlled Brussels regime of unelected bureaucrats who now
feel
bold enough to tell Austria how to run its domestic affairs. On this
side
of the ocean we had the passage of NAFTA and in 1995 the Uruguay round
of GATT gave us the WTO. The nineties were thus a decade of gradual
foundation laying for the new international order. The denigration of
sovereign nationhood hypnotized the public into applauding the
dismantling
of the very institutions that offered the only hope of representative
empowerment. The process is sufficiently far advanced for President
Clinton to claim (“A Just and Necessary War,” NYT, May 23, 1999) that,
had
it not bombed Serbia, "NATO itself would have been discredited for
failing
to defend the very values that give it meaning."
The war was in fact both unjust and unnecessary, but the significance of
Mr. Clinton’s statement is in that he has openly declared null and void
the international system in existence ever since the Peace of Westphalia
(1648). It was an imperfect and often violated system, but nevertheless
it
provided the basis for international discourse from which only the
assorted red and black totalitarians have openly deviated. Since 24
March
1999 this is being replaced by the emerging Clinton Doctrine, a carbon
copy of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty that supposedly
justified the Soviet-led occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Like his
Soviet predecessor, Mr. Clinton used an abstract and ideologically
loaded
notion - that of universal “human rights” - as the pretext to violate
the law and
tradition. The Clinton Doctrine is rooted in the bipartisan hubris of
Washington’s foreign policy “elite,” tipsy on its own heady brew of the
“world’s last and only superpower.” Legal formalities are passé, and
moral
imperatives - never sacrosanct in international affairs - are replaced
by
a cynical exercise in situational morality, dependent on an actor’s
position within the superpower ’s value system.
And so imperial high-mindedness is back, but in a new form. Old
religion, national flags and nationalist rivalry play no part. But the
yearning
for excitement and importance, that took the British to Peking, Kabul
and
Khartoum, the French to Fashoda and Saigon, and the Americans to Manila,
has now re-emerged. As a result a war was waged on an independent nation
because it refused foreign troops on its soil. All other justifications
are post facto rationalizations. The powers that waged that war have
aided
and abetted secession by an ethnic minority, secession that – once
formally
effected - will render many European borders tentative. In the context
of
any other European nation the story would sound surreal. The Serbs,
however, have been demonized to the point where they must not presume to
be treated like others.
But the fact that the West could do anything it chose to the Serbs does
not explain why it should. It is hardly worth refuting, yet again, the
feeble excuses for intervention. “Humanitarian” argument has been
invoked.
But what about Kashmir, Sudan, Uganda, Angola, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka,
Algeria? Properly videotaped and Amanpourized, each would be good for a
dozen “Kosovos”. There was no “genocide,” of course. Compared to the
killing fields of the Third World Kosovo was an unremarkable,
low-intensity conflict, uglier perhaps than Northern Ireland a decade
ago,
but much less so than Kurdistan. A total of 2,108 fatalities on all
sides
in Kosovo until June 1999, in a province of over two million, favorably
compares to the annual homicide tally of 450 in Washington D.C.
(population 600,000). Counting corpses is poor form, but bearing in mind
the brutalities and “ethnic cleansings” ignored by NATO - or even
condoned, notably in Croatia in 1995, or in eastern Turkey - it is clear
that “Kosovo” is not about universal principles. In Washington Abdullah
Ocalan is a terrorist, but KLA are freedom fighters.
What was it about, then? “Regional stability”, we were told next: if we
didn ’t stop the conflict it would engulf Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, the
whole of the Balkans in fact, with much of Europe to follow. But the
cure
- bombing Serbia into detaching an ethnically pure-Albanian Kosovo to
the
KLA narco-mafia, under NATO’s benevolent eye – will unleash a chain
reaction throughout the ex-Communist half of Europe. Its first victim
will be
the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where the restive Albanian
minority comprises a third of the total population. And will the
Pristina
model not be demanded by the Hungarians in Rumania (more numerous
than Kosovo’s Albanians), and in southern Slovakia? What will stop the
Russians in the Ukraine, in Moldova, in Estonia, and in northern
Kazakhstan from following suit? Or the Serbs and Croats in the
chronically
unstable and unviable Dayton-Bosnia? And finally, when the Albanians get
their secession on the grounds of their numbers, will the same apply
when
the Latinos in southern California or Texas eventually outnumber their
Anglo
neighbors and start demanding bilingual statehood, leading to
reunification
with Mexico? Are Russia and China to threaten the United States with
bombing if Washington does not comply?
The outcome in Kosovo, for now, is in line with a deeply flawed model of
the new Balkan order that seeks to satisfy the aspirations of all ethnic
groups in former Yugoslavia - except the Serbs. This is a disastrous
strategy for all concerned. Even if forced into submission now, the
Serbs
shall have no stake in the ensuing order of things. Sooner or later they
will fight to recover Kosovo. The Carthaginian peace imposed on the
Serbs
today will cause chronic imbalance and strife for decades to come. It
will
entangle the West in a Balkan quagmire, and guarantee a new war as soon
as Mr. Clinton’s successors lose interest in underwriting the ill-gotten
gains
of America’s Balkan clients.
NATO has won, for now, but “the West” has lost. The war has undermined
the very principles that constitute the West, namely the rule of law.
The
notion of “human rights” can never provide a basis for either the rule
of
law or morality. “Universal human rights,” detached from any rootedness
in
time or place, will be open to the latest whim of outrage or the latest
fad for victimhood. The misguided effort to transform NATO from a
defensive alliance into a mini-U.N. with “out-of-area” self-appointed
responsibilities, is a certain road to more Bosnias and more Kosovos
down
the line. Now that the Clintonistas and NATO were “successful” in
Kosovo,
we can expect new and even more dangerous adventures elsewhere. But
next time around the Russians, Chinese, Indians and others will know
better than to buy the slogans about free markets and democratic human
rights, and the future of “the West” in the eventually inevitable
conflict may
be uncertain. Canada should ponder the implications of this course, and
gather the courage to say “no” to global interventionism – for its own
sake,
and for the sake of peace and stability in the world. Is it really
obliged to
watch in undissenting submission as a long, dangerous military
experiment
is mounted which will lead us to a real war for Central Asia? Will it
soon be
'defending' new KLAs against 'genocide' along Russia’s Islamic rim,
among
ethnic groups as yet unknown to the Western press that can provide a
series of excuses for intervention, all as good, that is as bad, as the
Kosovo
Albanian excuse?
Was Canada’s imperial history so sweet that it must seek another
imperial command-center, in Washington, to compensate for the loss of
London? Does Canada today feel comfortable with the emerging truth: that
it has less freedom of choice about war and peace than it did as a free
Dominion under the old Statute of Westminster? For there can be no doubt
that the war NATO was fighting in April and May 1999 was not intended,
or
willed, by anything which can be called the Alliance, when the use of
force
was plotted inside the Beltway in 1998.
It is worth asking how far this re-acquisition of minor imperial status
-
by Canada and other NATO members - is creating a media-led political
process that leaves national decision-making meaningless, beyond a
formal
cheer-leading function. It is also worth asking how it came to be that
the
chief war aim of NATO was 'keeping the Alliance together', what
disciplines it implies, and how easily, and bloodily, it can be
repeated.
The moral absolutism that was invoked by the proponents of intervention
as
a substitute for rational argument can no longer be sustained. Genuine
dilemmas about our human responsibility for one another must not be used
to reactivate the viral imperialism of the re-extended West. The more
arrogant the new doctrine, the greater the willingness to lie for the
truth. To be capable of “doing something” sustains moral self-respect,
if
we can suppress the thought that we are not so much moral actors as
consumers of predigested choices. At the onset of the Millenium we are
living in a virtual Coliseum where exotic and nasty troublemakers can be
killed not by lions but by the magical flying machines of the Imperium.
As
the candidates for punishment - or martyrdom - are pushed into the
arena,
many denizens of “the West” react to the show as imperial consumers, not
as citizens with a parliamentary right and a democratic duty to question
the proceedings.
May the results of your present inquiry prove me wrong. Thank you.
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Peter Bein [mailto:pbein@...]
>>>>Sent: February 10, 2000 4:16 PM
>>>>To: 'HilchJ@...'
>>>>Subject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am urging you that the following individuals be called to testify
before
>>>>the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(SCFAIT)
>>>>as expert witnesses re Canada's role in the conflict and
post-conflict
>>>>developments in Kosovo and Metohija. It is imperative that MPs in
SCAFIT
>>>>hear from and question experts who reflect all sides in this
conflict. The
>>>>MPs are already well acquainted with the perspectives of Canada's
military
>>>>and the Dept of Foreign Affairs, as their views were publicized for
many
>>>>months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mr. James Bissett, Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia,
Bulgaria and
>>>>Albania.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Michael Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University
of
>>>>Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Roland Keith from Vancouver, B.C.,who was stationed in Kosovo
as a
>>>>monitor with the
>>>>Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Director of Research at the International
Institute
>>of
>>>>Concern for Public Health in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Hari Sharma, professor emeritus of chemistry at the
University
>>of
>>>>Waterloo, Ontario.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Michael Mandel, professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law
School ,
>>>>York
>>>>University, Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Serge Trifkovic, an author, former university professor,
historian,
>>>>foreign affairs editor of the "Chronicles - Magazine of American
>>>>Culture".
>>>>
>>>>Mrs. Radmila Swann, a retired federal public servant and a founding
member
>>>>of
>>>>the Ottawa Heritage Society.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Nikola Rajkovic, a law student and a founding member of the
Centre for
>>>>Peace in the Balkans in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>I trust that testimonies of these people will add a great value to
the
>>>>hearings.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Peter Bein, P.Eng.
>>>>Vancouver B.C.
>>>>tel. +604 822 1685
>>>>fax +604 822 3033
>>>>e-mail: pbein@...
>>>>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
I contribuiti che diffondiamo in questo messaggio vengono dal Canada. Si
tratta di alcune audizioni tenute ad Ottawa, alla Camera dei Comuni,
dinanzi allo Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade da parte di varie personalita' ritenute a vario titolo "informate
sui fatti" riguardo alla aggressione della NATO contro la Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia. In particolare, i contributi seguenti sono le
testimonianze di JAMES BISSET, ex-ambasciatore canadese a Belgrado, ora
"indesiderato" nella stessa ambasciata canadese a Belgrado, e SERGE
TRIFKOVIC, professore di storia, responsabile per gli esteri di
"Chronicles - Magazine of American Culture".
Tutti i documenti sono stati diffusi dalla lista STOPNATO@...
===
Author: James Bisset
Publisher/Date: February 2000
Title: Notes for address to Standing Committee Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (Ca)
1: Introduction
I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity of speaking
this morning.
It is some comfort to know that although I was not allowed to speak to
anyone in the Canadian embassy in Belgrade during a recent visit there
that I am free to speak to members of the Canadian parliament.
I have been an out spoken critic of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I
believe it to have been a tragic mistake -- a historic miscalculation
that will have far reaching implications.
When NATO bombs fell on Yugoslavia in the spring and summer of last year
they caused more than just death and destruction in that country. The
bombs also struck at the heart of international law and delivered a
serious blow to the framework of global security that since the end of
the second world war has protected all of us from the horrors of a
nuclear war.
Kosovo broke the ground rules for NATO engagement and the aggressive
military intervention by NATO into the affairs of a sovereign state for
other than defensive purposes marked an ominous turning point in the
aims and objectives of that organization. It is important that we
understand this and seek clarification as to whether this was a
"one-off" aberration or a signal of fundamental change in the nature and
purposes of the organization. This is something the committee might well
examine in the course of its work.
2: An Illegal War
NATO's war in Kosovo was conducted without the approval of the United
Nations Security Council. It was a violation of international law, the
United Nations charter and its own article 1, which requires NATO to
settle any international disputes by peaceful means and not to threaten
or use force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations."
Apologists for NATO including our own foreign and defence ministers try
to avoid this issue by simply not mentioning it. There has been no
attempt to explain why the United Nations Security Council was ignored.
No effort to spell out under whose authority did NATO bomb Yugoslavia.
The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air strikes on
the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk of the ethnic
cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It was the bombing
that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.
As for the atrocities it now seems that here again we were lied to about
the extent of the crimes commited. United States Secretary of Defence
Cohen told us that at least 100,000 Kosovars had perished. Tony Blair
spoke of genocide being carried out in Kosovo. The media relished in
these atrocity stories and printed every story told to them by Albanian,
"eye witnesses." The myth that the war was to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities contiues to be perpetrated by department spokesmen and large
parts of the media.
No one wants to defend atrocities and the numbers game in such
circumstances becomes sordid. Nevertheless numbers do become important
if they are used to justify military action against a sovereign state.
in the case of Kosovo it appears that about 2000 people were killed
there prior to the NATO bombing. considering that a civil war had been
underway since 1993 this is not a remarkable figure and compared with a
great many other hot spots hardly enough to warrant a 79-day bombing
campaign. It is also interesting to note that the UN tribunal
indictement of Milosovic of May 1999, cites only one incident of deaths
before the bombing -- the infamous Racak incident -- which itself is
challenged by French journalists who were on the ground there and
suspect a frame-up involving US General Walker who sounded the alarm.
The Kosovo "war" reveals disturbing evidence of how lies and duplicity
can mislead us into accepting things that we instinctively know to be
wrong. Jamie Shea and other NATO apologists have lied to us about the
bombing. The sad thing is that most of the Canadian media, and our
political representatives have accepted without question what has been
told to us by NATO and our own foreign affairs spokesmen.
3: An Unecessary War
perhaps the most serious charge against the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
is that it was unnecessary. NATO chose bombing over diplomacy. Violence
over negotiation. NATO's leaders tried to convince us that dropping tons
of bombs on Yugoslavia was serving humanitarian purposes.
A UN Security Council resolution of October 1998 accepted by Yugoslavia,
authorized over 1300 monitors from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] to enter Kosovo and try to de-escalate the
fighting. from the accounts of a number of these monitors their task was
successful. While cease-fire violations continued on both sides the
intensity of the armed struggle was considerably abated.
The former Czech foreign minister, Jiri Dienstbier, and Canada's own
Rollie Keith of Vancouver -- both monitors for the OSCE on the ground in
Kosovo -- have publicly stated that there were no international refugees
over the last five months of the OSCE's presence in Kosovo and the
number of internally displaced only amounted to a few thousands in the
weeks leading up to the bombing.
The OSCE mission demonstrated that diplomacy and negotiation might well
have resolved the Kosovo problem without resorting to the use of force.
It was the failure of the United States to accept any flexibility in its
dealing with Belgrade in the weeks leading up to the war that spelled
diplomatic failure.
The adamant refusal of the USA to involve either the Russians or the
United Nations in the negotiations. The refusal to allow any other
intermediary to deal with Milosovic and finally the imposition of the
Rambouillet ultimatum which was clearly designed to ensure that
Yugoslavia had no choice but to refuse its insulting terms.
It is now generally accepted by those who have seen the Rambouillet
agreement that no sovereign state could have agreed to its conditions.
The insistence of allowing acess to all of Yugoslavia by NATO forces and
the demand that a referendum on autonomy be held within three years
guaranteed a Serbian rejection.
The Serbian parliament did, however, on March 23, state a willingness to
"examine the character and extent of an international presence in Kosovo
immediately after the signing of an autonomy accord acceptable to all
national communities in Kosovo, the local Serb minority included. " The
United States was not interested in pursuing this offer. NATO needed its
war. NATO's formal commitment to resolve international disputes by
peaceful means was thrown out the window.
The Rambouillet document itself was not easily obtained from NATO
sources. The chairman of the defence committee of the French National
Assembly asked for a copy shortly after the bombing commenced but was
not given a copy until a few days before the UN peace treaty was signed.
I hope that members of this committee have a copy to look at and will be
able to find out when and if Canada was informed of its conditions.
4: NATO's campaign a total failure
We have been asked to believe that the war in Kosovo was fought for
human rights. Indeed the president of the Czech republic received a
standing ovation in this House of Commons when he stated that Kosovo was
the first war fought for human values rather than territory. I suspect
even President Havel would have second thoughts about that statement now
that a large part of Yugoslav territory has in effect been handed over
to the Albanians.
The war allegedly to stop ethnic cleansing has not done so. Serbs
Gypsies, Jews, and Slav muslims are being forced out of Kosovo under the
eyes of 45,000 NATO troops. Murder and anarchy reigns supreme in Kosovo
as the KLA and criminal elements have taken charge. The United Nations
admits failure to control the situation and warns Serbs not to return.
The war allegedly to restore stability to the Balkans has done the
opposite.Yugoslavia's neighbors are in a state of turmoil. Montenegro is
on the edge of civil war. Macedonia is now worried that Kosovo has shown
the way for its own sizeable Albanian minority to demand
self-determination. Albania has been encouraged to strive harder to
fulfill its dream of greater Albania. Serbia itself has been ruined
economically. Embittered and disillusioned it feels betrayed and
alienated from the western democracies.
The illegal and unecessary war has alienated the other great nuclear
powers, Russia and China. These countries are now convinced that the
west cannot be trusted. NATO expansion eastward is seen as an aggressive
and hostile threat and will be answered by an increase in the nuclear
arsenal of both nations. After Kosovo who can with any conviction
convince them that NATO is purely a defensive alliance dedicated to
peace and to upholding the principles of the United Nations?
More seriously the NATO bombing has destroyed NATO's credibility. NATO
stood for more than just a powerful military organization. It stood for
peace; the rule of law, and democratic institutions. The bombing of
Yugoslavia threw all of that out the window.
No longer can NATO stand on the moral high ground. Its action in
Yugoslavia revealed it to be an aggressive military machine prepared to
ignore international law and intervene with deadly force in the internal
affairs of any state with whose actions or behaviour it does not agree.
5: Conclusions
There are those who believe that the long standing principle of state
sovereignty can be over ruled when human rights violations are taking
place in a country. Until Kosovo the ground rules for such intervention
called for Security Council authority before such action could be taken.
Apologists for NATO argue that it was unlikely Security Council
authority could have been obtained because of the veto power of China or
Russia. So it would appear rather than even try to get consent NATO took
upon itself the powers of the Security Council. I am not sure we should
all be comfortable with this development.
Undoubtedly there may be times when such intervention is justified and
immediately Rwanda comes to mind -- but intervention for humanitarian
reasons is a dangerous concept. Because who is to decide when to take
such action and under whose authority? Hitler intervened in
Czechoslovakia because he claimed the human rights of the Sudeten
Germans were being violated. Those who advocate a change in the current
rules for intervention are free to do so but until the rules change
should we not all obey the ones that still have legitimacy?
NATO made a serious mistake in Kosovo. Its bombing campaign was not only
an unmitigated disaster but it changed fundamentally the very nature and
purposes of the alliance. Does article 1 of the NATO treaty still stand?
Does NATO still undertake to settle any international disputes in which
it may become involved by peaceful means? Do the NATO countries still
undertake to refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the united
nations?
Kosovo should serve as a warning call that Canadian democracy needs a
shot in the arm to wake it up to the realities that foreign policy is
important--important because as happened one day last march Canadians
can wake up and find they are at war. Canadian pilots were bombing
Serbia. yet there was no declaration of war. The Canadian parliament was
not consulted. The majority of the Canadian people had no idea where
Kosovo was -- let alone understand why our aircraft were bombing cities
in a fellow nation state that had been a staunch ally during two world
wars.
It was not only Yugoslav soverignty that was violated by NATO's illegal
action. Canadian sovereignty was also abused. Canada had become involved
in a war without any member of the Canadian parliament or the Canadian
people being consulted.the ultimate expression of a nation's sovereignty
is the right to declare war. NATO abrogated this right.
If it essential that we give up some of our sovereignty as the price we
pay for membership in global institutons such as NATO then it is
mandatory that such institutions follow their own rules, respect thrule
of law, and operate within the generally accepted framework of the
United Nations charter. This NATO did not do. It is for this reason I
would suggest your committee must ask some tough questions about the
nature of Canada's involvement in the Kosovo war.
(James Bisset is the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, who was
recently physically barred by the Canadian government from entering the
embassy in Belgrade.)
===
Testimony by S. Trifkovic, House of Commons SCFAIT, Ottawa, 17/02/2000
GEO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO
Testimony by S. Trifkovic
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
House of Commons, Ottawa, February 17, 2000
The war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999 marks a significant
turning point, not only for America and NATO but also for “the West” as
a
whole. The principle of state sovereignty, and of the rule of law
itself, has
been subverted in the name of an allegedly humanitarian ideology. Facts
have been converted into fiction, and even the fictions invoked to
justify
the act are giving up all pretense to credibility. Old systems for the
protection of
national liberties, political, legal and economic, have now been
subverted into vehicles for their destruction. But so far from
demonstrating
the vigor of Western ruling elites in their ruthless pursuit of an
ideology of
multi-ethnic democracy and international human rights, the whole Balkan
entanglement may be as a disturbing revelation of those ruling elites’
moral and cultural decay. I shall therefore devote my remarks to the
consequences of the war for the emerging new international system, and –
ultimately – for the security and stability of the Western world itself.
Almost a decade separated ‘Desert Storm’ from ‘Humanitarian Bombing.’ In
1991 the Maastricht Treaty was signed, and the rest of the decade has
brought the gradual usurpation of traditional European sovereignty by a
corporate-controlled Brussels regime of unelected bureaucrats who now
feel
bold enough to tell Austria how to run its domestic affairs. On this
side
of the ocean we had the passage of NAFTA and in 1995 the Uruguay round
of GATT gave us the WTO. The nineties were thus a decade of gradual
foundation laying for the new international order. The denigration of
sovereign nationhood hypnotized the public into applauding the
dismantling
of the very institutions that offered the only hope of representative
empowerment. The process is sufficiently far advanced for President
Clinton to claim (“A Just and Necessary War,” NYT, May 23, 1999) that,
had
it not bombed Serbia, "NATO itself would have been discredited for
failing
to defend the very values that give it meaning."
The war was in fact both unjust and unnecessary, but the significance of
Mr. Clinton’s statement is in that he has openly declared null and void
the international system in existence ever since the Peace of Westphalia
(1648). It was an imperfect and often violated system, but nevertheless
it
provided the basis for international discourse from which only the
assorted red and black totalitarians have openly deviated. Since 24
March
1999 this is being replaced by the emerging Clinton Doctrine, a carbon
copy of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty that supposedly
justified the Soviet-led occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Like his
Soviet predecessor, Mr. Clinton used an abstract and ideologically
loaded
notion - that of universal “human rights” - as the pretext to violate
the law and
tradition. The Clinton Doctrine is rooted in the bipartisan hubris of
Washington’s foreign policy “elite,” tipsy on its own heady brew of the
“world’s last and only superpower.” Legal formalities are passé, and
moral
imperatives - never sacrosanct in international affairs - are replaced
by
a cynical exercise in situational morality, dependent on an actor’s
position within the superpower ’s value system.
And so imperial high-mindedness is back, but in a new form. Old
religion, national flags and nationalist rivalry play no part. But the
yearning
for excitement and importance, that took the British to Peking, Kabul
and
Khartoum, the French to Fashoda and Saigon, and the Americans to Manila,
has now re-emerged. As a result a war was waged on an independent nation
because it refused foreign troops on its soil. All other justifications
are post facto rationalizations. The powers that waged that war have
aided
and abetted secession by an ethnic minority, secession that – once
formally
effected - will render many European borders tentative. In the context
of
any other European nation the story would sound surreal. The Serbs,
however, have been demonized to the point where they must not presume to
be treated like others.
But the fact that the West could do anything it chose to the Serbs does
not explain why it should. It is hardly worth refuting, yet again, the
feeble excuses for intervention. “Humanitarian” argument has been
invoked.
But what about Kashmir, Sudan, Uganda, Angola, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka,
Algeria? Properly videotaped and Amanpourized, each would be good for a
dozen “Kosovos”. There was no “genocide,” of course. Compared to the
killing fields of the Third World Kosovo was an unremarkable,
low-intensity conflict, uglier perhaps than Northern Ireland a decade
ago,
but much less so than Kurdistan. A total of 2,108 fatalities on all
sides
in Kosovo until June 1999, in a province of over two million, favorably
compares to the annual homicide tally of 450 in Washington D.C.
(population 600,000). Counting corpses is poor form, but bearing in mind
the brutalities and “ethnic cleansings” ignored by NATO - or even
condoned, notably in Croatia in 1995, or in eastern Turkey - it is clear
that “Kosovo” is not about universal principles. In Washington Abdullah
Ocalan is a terrorist, but KLA are freedom fighters.
What was it about, then? “Regional stability”, we were told next: if we
didn ’t stop the conflict it would engulf Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, the
whole of the Balkans in fact, with much of Europe to follow. But the
cure
- bombing Serbia into detaching an ethnically pure-Albanian Kosovo to
the
KLA narco-mafia, under NATO’s benevolent eye – will unleash a chain
reaction throughout the ex-Communist half of Europe. Its first victim
will be
the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where the restive Albanian
minority comprises a third of the total population. And will the
Pristina
model not be demanded by the Hungarians in Rumania (more numerous
than Kosovo’s Albanians), and in southern Slovakia? What will stop the
Russians in the Ukraine, in Moldova, in Estonia, and in northern
Kazakhstan from following suit? Or the Serbs and Croats in the
chronically
unstable and unviable Dayton-Bosnia? And finally, when the Albanians get
their secession on the grounds of their numbers, will the same apply
when
the Latinos in southern California or Texas eventually outnumber their
Anglo
neighbors and start demanding bilingual statehood, leading to
reunification
with Mexico? Are Russia and China to threaten the United States with
bombing if Washington does not comply?
The outcome in Kosovo, for now, is in line with a deeply flawed model of
the new Balkan order that seeks to satisfy the aspirations of all ethnic
groups in former Yugoslavia - except the Serbs. This is a disastrous
strategy for all concerned. Even if forced into submission now, the
Serbs
shall have no stake in the ensuing order of things. Sooner or later they
will fight to recover Kosovo. The Carthaginian peace imposed on the
Serbs
today will cause chronic imbalance and strife for decades to come. It
will
entangle the West in a Balkan quagmire, and guarantee a new war as soon
as Mr. Clinton’s successors lose interest in underwriting the ill-gotten
gains
of America’s Balkan clients.
NATO has won, for now, but “the West” has lost. The war has undermined
the very principles that constitute the West, namely the rule of law.
The
notion of “human rights” can never provide a basis for either the rule
of
law or morality. “Universal human rights,” detached from any rootedness
in
time or place, will be open to the latest whim of outrage or the latest
fad for victimhood. The misguided effort to transform NATO from a
defensive alliance into a mini-U.N. with “out-of-area” self-appointed
responsibilities, is a certain road to more Bosnias and more Kosovos
down
the line. Now that the Clintonistas and NATO were “successful” in
Kosovo,
we can expect new and even more dangerous adventures elsewhere. But
next time around the Russians, Chinese, Indians and others will know
better than to buy the slogans about free markets and democratic human
rights, and the future of “the West” in the eventually inevitable
conflict may
be uncertain. Canada should ponder the implications of this course, and
gather the courage to say “no” to global interventionism – for its own
sake,
and for the sake of peace and stability in the world. Is it really
obliged to
watch in undissenting submission as a long, dangerous military
experiment
is mounted which will lead us to a real war for Central Asia? Will it
soon be
'defending' new KLAs against 'genocide' along Russia’s Islamic rim,
among
ethnic groups as yet unknown to the Western press that can provide a
series of excuses for intervention, all as good, that is as bad, as the
Kosovo
Albanian excuse?
Was Canada’s imperial history so sweet that it must seek another
imperial command-center, in Washington, to compensate for the loss of
London? Does Canada today feel comfortable with the emerging truth: that
it has less freedom of choice about war and peace than it did as a free
Dominion under the old Statute of Westminster? For there can be no doubt
that the war NATO was fighting in April and May 1999 was not intended,
or
willed, by anything which can be called the Alliance, when the use of
force
was plotted inside the Beltway in 1998.
It is worth asking how far this re-acquisition of minor imperial status
-
by Canada and other NATO members - is creating a media-led political
process that leaves national decision-making meaningless, beyond a
formal
cheer-leading function. It is also worth asking how it came to be that
the
chief war aim of NATO was 'keeping the Alliance together', what
disciplines it implies, and how easily, and bloodily, it can be
repeated.
The moral absolutism that was invoked by the proponents of intervention
as
a substitute for rational argument can no longer be sustained. Genuine
dilemmas about our human responsibility for one another must not be used
to reactivate the viral imperialism of the re-extended West. The more
arrogant the new doctrine, the greater the willingness to lie for the
truth. To be capable of “doing something” sustains moral self-respect,
if
we can suppress the thought that we are not so much moral actors as
consumers of predigested choices. At the onset of the Millenium we are
living in a virtual Coliseum where exotic and nasty troublemakers can be
killed not by lions but by the magical flying machines of the Imperium.
As
the candidates for punishment - or martyrdom - are pushed into the
arena,
many denizens of “the West” react to the show as imperial consumers, not
as citizens with a parliamentary right and a democratic duty to question
the proceedings.
May the results of your present inquiry prove me wrong. Thank you.
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Peter Bein [mailto:pbein@...]
>>>>Sent: February 10, 2000 4:16 PM
>>>>To: 'HilchJ@...'
>>>>Subject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am urging you that the following individuals be called to testify
before
>>>>the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(SCFAIT)
>>>>as expert witnesses re Canada's role in the conflict and
post-conflict
>>>>developments in Kosovo and Metohija. It is imperative that MPs in
SCAFIT
>>>>hear from and question experts who reflect all sides in this
conflict. The
>>>>MPs are already well acquainted with the perspectives of Canada's
military
>>>>and the Dept of Foreign Affairs, as their views were publicized for
many
>>>>months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mr. James Bissett, Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia,
Bulgaria and
>>>>Albania.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Michael Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University
of
>>>>Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Roland Keith from Vancouver, B.C.,who was stationed in Kosovo
as a
>>>>monitor with the
>>>>Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Director of Research at the International
Institute
>>of
>>>>Concern for Public Health in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Hari Sharma, professor emeritus of chemistry at the
University
>>of
>>>>Waterloo, Ontario.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Michael Mandel, professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law
School ,
>>>>York
>>>>University, Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Serge Trifkovic, an author, former university professor,
historian,
>>>>foreign affairs editor of the "Chronicles - Magazine of American
>>>>Culture".
>>>>
>>>>Mrs. Radmila Swann, a retired federal public servant and a founding
member
>>>>of
>>>>the Ottawa Heritage Society.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Nikola Rajkovic, a law student and a founding member of the
Centre for
>>>>Peace in the Balkans in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>I trust that testimonies of these people will add a great value to
the
>>>>hearings.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Peter Bein, P.Eng.
>>>>Vancouver B.C.
>>>>tel. +604 822 1685
>>>>fax +604 822 3033
>>>>e-mail: pbein@...
>>>>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
VIVA IL RE D'ITALIA E D'ALBANIA
S.A.R. il Principe Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia, partito da Ginevra con
un volo privato, in qualita' di rappresentante dell'Ordine dei Santi
Maurizio e Lazzaro, antico ordine dinastico dei Savoia, si e' recato in
Albania per adottare 600 kosovari:
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/kosovo.gif
Scortato dai Carabinieri del Regno, ha visitato i campi profughi:
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/campo.jpg
dove ha contribuito alle operazioni di soccorso umanitario organizzate
nell'ambito della Missione Arcobaleno:
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/campo2.jpg
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/campo3.jpg
Peccato pero' che il giovine abbia una nonna serba... Cosi' tanto un bel
ragazzo...
(Fonte: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8261/ )
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
S.A.R. il Principe Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia, partito da Ginevra con
un volo privato, in qualita' di rappresentante dell'Ordine dei Santi
Maurizio e Lazzaro, antico ordine dinastico dei Savoia, si e' recato in
Albania per adottare 600 kosovari:
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/kosovo.gif
Scortato dai Carabinieri del Regno, ha visitato i campi profughi:
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/campo.jpg
dove ha contribuito alle operazioni di soccorso umanitario organizzate
nell'ambito della Missione Arcobaleno:
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/campo2.jpg
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/campo3.jpg
Peccato pero' che il giovine abbia una nonna serba... Cosi' tanto un bel
ragazzo...
(Fonte: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8261/ )
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Jugocoord su Telegram
Jugocoord su Facebook