“The peaceful united Europe
[...] has brought us peace, freedom,
justice, human rights and
democracy over half a century.”
Angela Merkel in her New Year’s address 2012

Open letter to Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Madam Federal Chancellor,
dear Dr Merkel

First all the best wishes for the new year 2012 to you and your family.
Allow me some comments on the above-quoted statement in your New Year’s address. In recent times you can hear frequently that the peaceful united Europe had brought us peace, freedom, justice, human rights and democracy over half a century. Politicians justify the establishment of an united European state on the American model with this argumentation.
But I can only agree to this historical assessment to a limited extent.
If you mean Germany with “us”, then in my opinion it also applies to a limited extent.
Peace yes, but freedom in the light of subordination to the dictates of our American allies and Big Business? And justice, human rights and democracy? In the light of rampant child and old-age poverty, the monetary turmoil and the lack of a right to a say, many citizens are not feeling treated fairly and humanely or as mature citizens by the government, and they look worryingly towards an uncertain future.
But if by “us” all the peoples in Europe and all our brothers and sisters in the world are meant, then what is said is in stark contradiction to the stories of some of my friends from Serbia, Palestine, Somalia, Congo, Iraq or Afghanistan. Since more than a decade they have been covering news about bombed-out home countries, dead, war-injured, suffering from cancer and vegetating relatives, friends and acquaintances, who became homeless and hopeless. The people in the 1999 bombarded Serbia and in other parts of the world such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Congo, Somalia or Libya and elsewhere in Africa will perceive it as a cynicism that Europe – if you think about the European NATO countries which are allied with the USA – would have brought peace, freedom, justice, human rights and democracy in the light of the devastating bombing with partial nuclear weapons and in the light of the humiliating forays with which these countries were covered.
Europe would indeed be able bring the human achievements which you mentioned to all its citizens and the people of different cultures, if it reflected on its Western Christian roots. However, the will to do so does not exist yet.
Madam Federal Chancellor, I ask you to help ensure that Europe will do that someday.
My friends and I will play our part in that with pleasure.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Rudolf Hänsel, Lindau on Lake Constance

19th February 2012

German Television programme "Time Travel" broadcast in January 2012
Narrator: These are the photos that Rudolf Scharping didn't show. He didn't show the Albanians' weapons, their UCK badges and membership cards and their ammunition. He didn't show the clear evidence of fighting."

Henning Hensch (the photographer): "There can be no talk of a massacre here, and however inconvenient this might sound, these were military battles."

The extent of the lies told about what was happening in Yugoslavia in the 1990s in order to justify the war waged by NATO has long been known - but not acknowledged by the press and mass media in Europe or the USA.

The Sarajevo market bomb [Feb 1994]
was not set by Serbs but by Bosnian Muslims, as the UN later confirmed.

The skeletal "Serb concentration camp" victim was a nonsense,
as the BBC's John Simpson confirmed and the "10,000 deaths in Kosovo" were proved to be a complete myth.

Both the Commander of the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission in 1999 (just before Yugoslavia was attacked) Roland Keith and the former Canadian Ambassador in Belgrade James Bissett have condemned the war and defended the Yugoslav Government. Bissett said that the 1999 attack was a "put up job" and quotes the most revealing admission by the former British Defense Minister, Lord Gilbert, who told the British House of Commons in July 2000 that the terms that NATO sought to force upon Milosevic at Rambouillet were deliberately designed to provoke war.

Commander Keith described the KLA as a terrorist organisation which had a grip on most villages in Kosovo. He had direct experience of the lies told by villagers about ethnic cleansing and he said he never saw the Yugoslav Federal Army mistreat anyone in Kosovo.

Now we have a respected German televisions programme providing clear proof of the fraud practised by the German Government to justify to their public an attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. It is the equivalent of the "dodgy dossier" of that other great "builder of Europe" Tony Blair.

Germany's ambassador to Serbia, Wolfram Maas:

Serbs must explain to their children that 78 days of the NATO bombardment in 1999 was justified, so that they would not hate the Atlantic Alliance. ...

At a press conference in Belgrade regarding NATO, Germany's ambassador to Serbia, Wolfram Maas, said Serbs must explain to their children that the bombardment [78 days in 1999] was justified, so that they won't hate the Atlantic Alliance. "I must criticize government figures in Belgrade who continue to use expressions like 'NATO bombing'. "

Imagine you are walking down Knez Milosh street and your child asks you 'Daddy, who did this?' You answer him 'NATO'. And what do you expect that child to think about NATO? "

"That's not," Maas explained, "like when I was a boy in Germany and looked at the ruins in my city. I did not hate the one who had done that, because there were people who could tell me why he did that."

by DIANA JOHNSTONE  

What if pollsters put this question to citizens of the United States and the European Union :

“Which is more important, ensuring disgruntled Islamists freedom to overthrow the secular regime in Syria, or avoiding World War Three?”

I’ll bet that there might be a majority for avoiding World War III.

But of course, the question is never framed like that.

That would be a “realistic” question, and we Westerners from the heights of our moral superiority have no time for vulgar “realism” in foreign policy (except the eccentric Ron Paul, crying out in the wilderness of Republican primaries).

Because, in the minds of our political ruling class, the United States has the power to “make reality”, we need pay no attention to the remnants of whatever reality we didn’t invent ourselves.

Our artificial reality is coming into collision with the reality perceived by most or at least much of the rest of the world.  The tenants of these conflicting views of reality are armed to the teeth, including with nuclear weapons capable of leaving the planet to insects.

Twenty-eight MPs tabled a proposal in parliament on Thursday requesting a debate on the so-called occupation loan paid by the collaborationist government to Germany during the Second World War as well as the issues of reparations for victims of Nazi atrocities and looted treasures.
 
The proposal, signed by MPs from Pasok, New Democracy (ND), the Radical Left Coalition (Syriza) and independent deputies, calls on the issues be discussed in the presence of the ministers of finance, foreign affairs, defence and justice as well as representatives of all interested parties.
 
The signatories also called on parliament to adopt a clear stance on what they described as a “crucial national issue”.
 
The 28 MPs underlined that at an Italian-German financial conference held in Rome in 1942, the Axis powers arbitrarily decided that occupied Greece, as it had fought on the side of the Allies, was obliged to fund the country’s occupation through a "loan".
 
The MPs stressed that the now united German state owes Greece, a Second World War victor, roughly 54bn euros before interest, underlining that Greece was the victim of unparalleled cruelty inflicted by the Nazi forces.
 
The signatories stressed that Greece has been the subject of an obvious injustice because it is the only country to which Germany has not paid reparations. (AMNA, Athens News)

Aleksandar PAVIC
11.02.2012
 
In the tantrums thrown by the Western powers in the wake of the Russo-Chinese veto of their UN Security Council resolution on Syria, the US’s UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, expressed «disgust» at these two states’ behavior. In addition to these kinds of «hysterics» – as Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov so aptly described them – being calculated to rally the global media further against the two Eurasian giants, they also serve the purpose of directing attention away from the West’s own disastrous intervention track record. On February 8, just four days after the failed Syria resolution, the UNSC had a chance to discuss another Western interventionist «success story» – Kosovo.

Many might think that Russia’s and China’s reluctance to give a green light to foreign intervention in Syria is mostly based on the recent Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) experience. That is only partly true. For the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo has been under NATO/EU control for more than 12 years now – since June 10, 1999 – and offers a much better view of what Western intervention brings than the still-fresh, although already clearly disastrous, Libyan case.

The first thing that struck attention was the fact that the Assistant Secretary-General for UN Peacekeeping Operations, Edmond Mulet, referred to the situation in Kosovo at February 8 session as one of «fragile calm.» Remember – this is more than 12 years after Western powers have taken complete control of the territory, and almost four years since they have unilaterally recognized its «independence.» With tens of thousands of Western «peacekeepers» on the ground for over a decade and several billion dollars spent – we have nothing more than «fragile calm.» A «success story» – this is not.

Vuk Jeremić, the Foreign Minister of Serbia, whose province Kosovo still is according to UNSC Resolution 1244 (as well as Resolutions 1160, 1199, 1203 and 1239, all of which the Western powers have trampled in their unilateral recognition of the breakaway province), characterized the situation in Kosovo as «ghetto and barbed wire,» with the Serbian population being «the most imperiled in Europe.» Practically none of the over 200,000 people expelled from Kosovo since NATO and the EU have taken over have returned. The 100,000 or so Serbs and non-Albanians that have remained are waging a daily battle, not just for survival but for basic human rights. Pointing to this state of affairs, the Serbian FM cited reports of international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, OSCE and Transparency International, which talk of rampant corruption, discrimination against non-Albanians, politically influenced judiciary, inadequate witness protection, etc., while the European Commission has qualified the fight against corruption and organized crime as «inefficient.»

***

How to download eBooks?

White books are hosted on Google Doc.
Files are, about 1 GB so Google can not scan those files because they are too big.
When you get to the message:

Sorry, we are unable to scan this file for viruses.
The file exceeds the maximum size that we scan. Download anyway

You just have to click "Download anyway".

***

Free download (HQ PDF eBooks for printing):

NATO AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA - Documents Part One

NATO AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA - Documents Part Two

NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia - Documentary Evidence 24 March - 24 April 1999 - Part One

NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia - Documentary Evidence 25 April - 10 June 1999 - Part Two

Google Docs, White-books-Belgrade-forum:

http://goo.gl/5dJzf

***

Feel free to distribute and promote this evidence of NATO aggression.

Voice of Russia
December 29, 2011
John Robles

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the. Recorded on December 21, 2011:

Can you give us the latest on NATO and your predictions for 2012, as far as the ABM system in Europe and NATO global expansion in general? I know it’s a big question.

The past year, of course, has been a momentous one. I think it’s been a very troubling one in many regards. What we’ve seen this year in regard to NATO and what we’re likely to see an intensification of next year, 2012, is a follow-up on the Strategic Concept, as they call it, adopted at the Lisbon summit in November 2010, which is unveiling – and unleashing – NATO as an increasingly global political and military player. We saw this with the seven-month aerial campaign, air war, against Libya earlier this year where NATO flew an estimated 26,000 air missions against a small country with six million people, over 9,000 of which were combat sorties. We’re seeing that as a template. That’s pretty much how NATO officials and heads of state of major NATO countries have characterized it.

by Hannes Hofbauer

To eliminate a development project: Was this the reason behind waging war against Libya?

Since the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the Comecon and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation in 1991, three heads of states, odious to Western governments and institutions such as USA, EU and NATO were killed by them, respectively died under their responsibility. This is remarkable.
On the 11 March 1996 Slobodan Miloševic, former president of Yugoslavia, was left without medical help during his trial in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Den Haag and died in his cell in Scheveningen.
On the 30 December 2006 Saddam Hussein, former prime minister and president of Iraq was hanged in Al-Kadhimiya North-East of Baghdad.
On the 20 October 2011 Muammar al-Gaddafi was lynched in Sirte.
What do these three dead leaders have in common?
First and visible the brutal form of their elimination. No serious trial, no hearing, no international examination took place concerning their guilt or responsibility for alleged war crimes.
Western media convicted them by following the will of the Western military alliance surrounding NATO.
In the moment of their elimination all of them were presented as the personification of evil. This demonization even allowed exposing – in the case of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein and his sons – their distorted dead bodies to the public.
Media consumers were supposed to look at them as devils not as human beings. This form of brutalisation also shows a historical step backwards in terms of standards of civilization.
Miloševic, Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi were physically eliminated because they were enemies, not because of their crimes, and for sure: all three were criminals, responsible for monstrous crimes. But these crimes – repressive policy towards ethnic minorities and political opposition – served the West only as a pretext for military interventions.
This is the only interpretation possible because political oppression is taking place all over the world without the “international community” considering a military intervention.
From Saudi Arabia to Spain [Basque country], from Nigeria to Indonesia: Nato would have their hands full of work to send their armada to combat for human rights.
Only in specific cases the Western allies take military action, allegedly to protect civilians.
When and where are they doing that and what are the reasons behind?
The Western allies did not hunt down Slobodan Miloševic, Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Gaddafi because of their bad politics, but because of their good ones.
All three of them can be seen as different symbols of a “development dictatorship”.
This included social policy for the masses, efforts to achieve regional balance and economic modernization.
For some decades Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya had used a huge amount of public money to modernise society. Instead of administering the
state in favour of foreign investors, they used the means of the nationalization of industries for social and regional development.
Western firms had only restricted access to the markets. This was one of the reasons why Miloševic, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were considered as “odious” by the troika of Nato, USA ,and EU.
But also their geopolitical position made them suspicious to the Western allies.
Miloševic, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were leaders of societies on the periphery of the Western sphere of influence, historically as well as presently.
Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya – all three of them were key states between the two blocks in the period of the Cold War and they saw no reason to relinquish their independent stance towards western take-overs and eastern greediness.
Moscow and Washington, each guaranteed indirectly one half of this independence, leading to an increase in national self-confidence.
After the breakdown of the Soviet Union their self-confidence lost its backing leading directly into disaster. It looks as if the “in-betweens” of the two old geopolitical blocks had to suffer most under the advance of imperial strategies to streamline political regimes in order to take over economic core pieces.
And they were not willing to giveup political and economic independence completely, as they were asked for after the breakdown of the Soviet Union.

Chicago – May 2012

Sponsored by: Network for a NATO-Free World: Global Peace and Justice*

In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you please come to Chicago
For the help that we can bring

We can change the world

Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... to get better

Crosby, Stills & Nash

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is holding a summit meeting in Chicago, May 2012.  We, peace and justice activists, will gather at a counter summit to voice a new vision of global security and peace.

Join us in Chicago May 18 & 19 for a counter-summit conference to conceive and help build a more peaceful, economically secure and environmentally sustainable world.

 As the majority of the U.S. people know, it’s long past time to end the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan, bring home all U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world, to end the attacks on Libya and to begin to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction and redirect monies from wars and weapons back to our communities.

Despite its claims, NATO was never a defensive alliance, and since the end of the Cold War has been transformed into global alliance structured to wage “out of area” wars in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, as well as to “contain” China. NATO’s creed is aggressive, expansionist, militarist and undemocratic.

By EFRAIM ZUROFF
01/04/2012 23:28

A service for Hitler is unthinkable.
So why is the world quiet in response to a service for Ante Pavelić?

Imagine for a minute that memorial masses were held in two major cities in Germany on the anniversary of the death of Adolf Hitler. Needless to say, such a ceremony would arouse fury, indignation, and widespread protests not only in Germany, but throughout the entire world. Last week, the local equivalent of such an event took place in Croatia, but instead of anger and demonstrations, not a single word of protest was heard from anywhere in the country.

I am referring to the December 28 memorial masses conducted in Zagreb and Split (and perhaps elsewhere as well) to mark the 51st anniversary of the death of Ante Pavelić, the head of state of the infamous Independent State of Croatia, created by the Nazis and their Italian allies in 1941. Following its establishment, rule was turned over to the local fascist movement, the Ustasha, headed by its Poglavnik (leader) Ante Pavelić.

During the entire course of its brief existence (1941- 1945), the Ustasha sought to rid the country (which consisted of the area of today’s Croatia plus most of Bosnia-Herzegovina) of all its minorities, as well as their local political opponents. In order to do so, they established a network of concentration camps all over the country, the largest and most notorious of which was Jasenovac, located on the banks of the Sava River, southeast of Zagreb. There, many tens of thousands of innocent civilians were murdered in a variety of brutal ways, which earned the camp the nickname of the “Auschwitz of the Balkans.”

Arnold J. Toynbee:

History teaches us that when a barbarian race confronts a sleeping culture, the barbarian always wins.

Dear friend, comrade

The civic association Soldiers against War in the Czech Republic as a part of world peace and anti-war movement principally condemn any violation of sovereignty and aggressive war actions against the sovereign member states of the UNO.
We fully agree with your critical attitude towards the USA policy.

From the very beginning we condemn the USA/NATO aggression against FRY(Serbia) in 1999. In particular, we resolutely refuse a cynical statement of former president of the Czech Republic Václav Havel, who had the impudence to support the aggression as "humanitarian bombardment".
We evaluate the violent secession of Kosovo from the FRY (Serbia) as an act of aggression against the sovereign state incompatible with the UNO Charter.
We strongly refuse the unjustifiable recognition of this unilateral illegal act by the Czech government. This standpoint we have repeatedly expressed, both
on international forums and in our statements, addressed to constitutional representatives of the Czech Republic.
The building of the biggest USA military basis on the territory of Serbia in the Kosovo Province we condemn as the occupation of a part of the sovereign state. This illegally built basis not only violates Serbia´s sovereignty, but represent a serious threat to the region´s security and international peace, as well.

We shall always support rightful interests and rights of Serbia, not only in relation to the Kosovo Province.
We shall also support, and together with you demand the abolition of the USA/NATO military basis on the territory of Kosovo.

Sincerely yours,

Jiři Bureš
President of the Association
Soldiers Against War

Czech Republic /e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Interview with the serbian radio in Ottawa, Canada, in serbian:

Shocking video, possibly the best documentary ever made about political manipulations aimed at justifying the bombing of Serbia. This video was shown only once on the German Chanel One TV and then moved away.

Playlists of five parts:

Playlists on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdSm5ZkS5M&;list=PLA7FAD5AE9B50224B&feature=plpp_play_all

by Srdja Trifkovic• December 15, 2011 •

It’s been some years since Tom Fleming and I have indulged in seven-day mad dashes across the Balkans, speaking, lecturing and giving interviews, meeting interesting people over good food and drink. Last week’s tour, which took us to Belgrade and Banja Luka, had the tempo and feel of the old times, but it was on balance a melancholy affair. After two decades of trials and tribulations, Serbia is on what appears to be an irreversible downward spiral.

The dilemma facing the country was summed up by Dr. Fleming [start watching at 0:05:15] at a symposium at Belgrade’s Media Center on December 5. How does a small and weak nation respond to the challenge of a hostile and mighty foreign power which seeks to subjugate it? What is the right balance between defiance and subservience? That dilemma will not be resolved by a party program or by intellectuals writing manifestos. The only way to meet the challenge is to maintain faith and identity… and to procreate. In other words, the solution to Serbia’s woes is not structurally different from the solution to the malaise of some bigger and more important countries on both sides of the Atlantic which are also experiencing moral and cultural decrepitude and demographic decline.

This was inevitably the topic of conversation at a dinner we shared that evening with Dragan Acoviæ, our polyglot friend whose professional and social pursuits make him one of the best informed people in Belgrade. His assessment was gloomy: the West may be declining, but Serbia’s decline is far swifter. The country may be further fragmented (Vojvodina, Sanjak) well before America finally gives up her imperial pretensions and the European Union disintegrates under the weight of its insoluble contradictions. The cumulative effect of relentless Western hostility over the past two decades, currently on display in northern Kosovo, has taken its toll. Belgrade’s political scene is dominated by a corrupt “pro-European” coalition led by the Democratic Party (DS) of Boris Tadiæ. While it claims to be more patriotic, the leading opposition party—the Serbian National Party (SNS) of Tomislav Nikoliæ—is almost equally enthusiastic about the alleged advantages of joining the EU, and just as ambivalent when it comes to maintaining and defending Serbia’s claim to Kosovo. The Socialists (SPS), opportunistic as ever, are likely to remain in the ruling coalition no matter who forms the government after the next election. The Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) of my old friend Vojislav Koštunica and Šešelj’s Radicals (SRS) may get a third of the vote between them but are more or less certain to remain in the opposition.

“WASHINGTON -- U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick stated for Voice of America that progress has been made in the dialogue, but that Kosovo's participation in regional forums has not been resolved yet, as well as that it is very bad that there are barricades in Kosovo”…

Comment:

First of all, it is very bad to take way 15% of the Serbian state territory by force and hand it over to the former terrorist leader Hashim Tachi and co;

Second, it is very bad that the US government violated sovereignty and territorial integrity of FRY (Serbia), guarantied by UN SC resolution 1244 (1244) and Serbia’s Constitution, by recognizing unilateral illegal secession of Prishtina and lobbying world-wide recognition of such an illegal act; 

Third, it is very bad that the US established military base Bondstil in Kosovo, said to be the biggest US base in the world, immediately following the NATO aggression in 1999, without asking permission neither from Serbia to which the territory belongs, nor from UN SC which still has mandate over the Province;

By William Dorich

I preface this review by admitting that I am not a film critic—however, I have written six books on Balkan history and as a journalist, many of my articles have been published dealing with the Balkans that have been reproduced in the International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times among others and published in the Serbian press for two decades.

In the Land of Blood and Honey, I wish to correct what I observed and relate my opinion as to the distortion of historic facts. I will leave the artistic side to those who are more qualified. Sex, violence and fabrication appear alive and well in Hollywood as cinematic tricks are used to distract and “entertain” us.

The letter to Eliot Engel, Member of USA Congress
by Stella L. Jatras,
5 December 2011

Please grant me the courtesy of reading my letter regarding the "USA for Kosova" Exhibition.

Congressman Engel, during one of your trips to Pristina, you spoke to the Kosovo Albanians stating that you wanted to be the first U.S. Ambassador to an "Independent Kosovo," in essence fomenting anarchy. At one time, there were 80,000 Serbs living in Pristina. Today, there are fewer than 150 elderly living in ghettos in fear for their lives from Albanian mobs.

If you are aware of the fact that Kosovo is Serbia’s Jerusalem, the cradle of the Serbian Orthodox Christian Church, it was not evident since you proceeded to support the Kosovo Liberation Army, an army that was described a terrorist one by Bosnian Envoy Robert Gelbard when he said, "I know a terrorist when I see one, and these men are terrorists." Does this mean nothing to you? Furthermore, these jihadists whom you support are engaged in sex slavery, prostitution, kidnapping and drugs. Over 80% of drugs going into Europe now come from Kosovo, your friends. All of this information is available to you.

Zivadin Jovanovic,
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Serbia

- Theses for a case study -

(Paper presented at the International Conference “Human Rights with the view to building a Culture of Peace”, held in Sao Paolo, Brazil, on 2nd and 3rd of December 2011)

It is true that the struggle for peace and the struggle for full respect of universal human rights, as defined by UN Declaration on protection of human rights, are interdependent and non-separable. Threats to peace, violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity, military interventions, aggressions and occupations go hand in hand with massive violations of the basic human rights.
It is clear that there are no humanitarian military interventions.  
NATO military aggression against Yugoslavia (Serbia) in the spring 1999 was launched to allegedly protect human rights of Kosovo Albanians. It was the first of that sort and without approval of UN Security Council. The precedent was used later in various other parts of the world whenever it suited the interests of USA and NATO: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. There are threats that it may be used against Syria, Iran or any other country.

Vojin Joksimovich, Ph.D
Modern Tokyo Times

KLA DETENTION CAMPS

In my late December essay in 2010  called Amorality of US Kosovo Policy: Friends with the Snake I have published reactions to the Council of Europe (CoE) 27-page report authored by the Swiss-Italian politician, senator and prosecuting lawyer Dick Marty. The report, after his two-year investigation, claimed that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) thugs headed by the current Kosovo prime minister Hashim Thaci, known as the “Snake,” abducted mostly Kosovo Serbs but also some Albanian so called “collaborators,” transported them to northern Albania, murdered them, extracted their organs like the kidneys, and sold them on the black market. These macabre Nazi/Croatian Nazi style crimes were covered up by the leading international organizations such as the UN, NATO, OSCE as well as the governments of leading western countries. NATO’s secret documents as well as an UN report have been leaked out clearly demonstrating that both of those international organizations had full knowledge of these grisly crimes and opted to cover them up in addition to several western governments, the U.S. and Germany in particular. While a EULEX investigation is being launched, it will focus on the grisly crimes committed by the Snake and his thugs but will not include an investigation of those who enabled these crimes to be covered up for over a decade. In addition, it is doubtful if EULEX is capable of conducting an all-encompassing inquiry. Hence, the most important question needs to be posed: Is the justice going to be served.

Talk by Michael Parenti on "The U.S. War on Yugoslavia" given May 16, 1999 in Seattle, WA.

RT
October 27, 2011
Robert Bridge

Like dominoes they are falling: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Even al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was taken out in a surprise ambush by US special forces at his secret hideout inside of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Since its first act of aggression on the territory of a sovereign state (on February 28, 1994, NATO aircraft shot down four jets in the Bosnian War) each successive NATO operation is revealing an increasingly disturbing trend: the leaders of the condemned countries are meeting violent, even barbaric ends. Has the rule of law taken a back seat in NATO's global juggernaut?

Compare the ‘natural’ death of Slobodan Milosevic, former President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, with that of the grisly murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Shortly after the end of the Yugoslavian War, which saw a massive NATO aerial bombardment that lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999, Milosevic was sent to The Hague to stand trial for charges of war crimes. Milosevic surprised his accusers by deciding to represent himself in the five-year trial. The case, however, abruptly ended without a verdict when the former four-term leader died of an apparent heart attack.

By George Szamuely
Global Research, October 23, 2011
antiwar.com - 2001-05-05

“REPETICIO MATER STUDIORUM EST”

This article was first published in 2001 by antiwar.com

There was good news recently in Washington. Six new directors joined the board of the US Government agency, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The six included such stalwart democrats like former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley "Demented Bomber" Clark, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke and Francis Fukuyama, who since his 1989 National Interest article "The End of History" has been ideologist-in-chief of post-Cold War neoconservatism.. Another new member is someone by the name of Julie Finley, described in the NED handout as "a prominent Republican Party activist who, as a Founder and Board Member of the US Committee on NATO, has worked actively on issues related to NATO expansion and the conflict in the Balkan region." A NATO expansionist and a Balkan activist – it does not sound as if "democracy’ is high on her agenda. Last year we learned that upon her departure from Foggy Bottom, Madeleine "Hideous Harridan" Albright would become president of the National Democratic Institute, an organization the NED bankrolls.  

Zivadin Jovanovic, president of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
ADDRESS AT THE WORLD PEACE COUNCIL’S (EUROPE) MEETING, BRUSSELS, OCTOBER 17-18, 2011

Europe and the World are undergoing profound, historic changes. The World is faced with tectonic economic and social crisis with unpredictable consequences. Social unrest and demands of impoverished masses are getting global proportions. The roots of the crisis have been misinterpreted, or misunderstood in mass media and establishment responsible to offer solutions. The ruling elites of the imperial powers are trying to solve the problems by printing money, subsidizing banks and corporations, drastically cutting social benefits, sale of public sectors and alike. Budgetary cuts, have been affecting all spheres of public services, but military expenditure. Military interventions under false pretexts, foreign military bases, violent changes of governments, militarization of political decision making have been expanding, particularly since NATO 1999 aggression against FR of Yugoslavia. So called “colored”, “spring” and other “democratic revolutions” have been mushrooming in parallel, or in combination, with military interventions of NATO dominated by USA. Both, military interventions and “democratic revolutions” let aside neo-colonial propaganda, have the same strategic objective – prolonging end expanding of the liberal corporate capitalistic system. Redistribution of the Planet’s natural, particularly, energy resources and the transfer of the burden of the crises to the underdeveloped part of the world are preconditions of such strategy.

Pravda.Ru
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

19.10.2011

NATO's next stop? It will have to be somewhere where there are Islamist terrorists to side with, somewhere whose population can be easily bombed, meaning somewhere defenceless and somewhere where the worst dregs of society can be turned into governors, politicians and ministers. Where could that be?

When we speak about Serbia and Kosovo, let us get certain things right from the start. Facts: Kosovo is Serbian. The Serbian nation has always included Kosovo. Kosovo is the heart that beats at the centre of the Serb psyche. The ones who planned for a Greater Albania were Hitler and Mussolini. Kosovo is Serbia. Kosovo always was Serbia, Kosovo always has been Serbia and Kosovo always will be Serbia, however many lines they draw on maps.

Declaration of this Convention of Support to Serbian People in Kosovo and Metohija condemns in strongest terms the armed attack of NATO/KFOR troops against the Serbian civilians in Jarinje, who were at the time engaged in a peaceful protest against the blockade of alternative road communication and forcible installation of Albanian Police and Customs at the administrative line checkpoints.

We further demand an investigation to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, and call for the action of the International Red Cross and other independent humanitarian organizations; this is necessary in order to establish the circumstances that had led to wounding a significant number of Serbian civilians and ill treatment of detained Serbs who were subsequently arrested in the aftermath of that event in joint actions of KFOR, UNMIK and the Albanian Police.

Global Research, October 13, 2011

Part I
by Michel Chossudovsky

There is a grassroots protest movement unfolding across America, which includes people from all walks of life, from all age groups, conscious of the need for social change and committed to reversing the tide.

The grassroots of this movement constitutes a response to the "Wall Street agenda" of financial fraud and manipulation which has served to trigger unemployment and poverty across the land.  

Does this movement constitute in its present form an instrument of meaningful reform and social change in America?

What is the organizational structure of the movement? Who are its main architects?

Has the movement or segments within this movement been co-opted?

This is an important question, which must be addressed by those who are part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement as well as those who, across America, support real democracy.

June 1, 2011 | From theTrumpet.com
The untold truth about Ratko Mladic By Richard Palmer

It was genocide. Charles Krauthammer called it “the largest ethnic cleansing of the entire Balkan wars.” A March 1999 New York Times article agreed with him.
“Investigators with the war-crimes tribunal in the Hague have concluded that this campaign was carried out with brutality, wanton murder and indiscriminate shelling of civilians,” Krauthammer wrote.
Is this the dreaded “Srebrenica” massacre, the “worst atrocity in Europe since the Second World War” perpetrated by the evil Serbs led by Ratko Mladic, who has now been arrested and will be brought to justice?
No.
This genocide was carried out by the Croats—the “good guys”—and so it was encouraged and praised by the West.
The massacre Krauthammer was describing was in the region of Krajina in Croatia. Croatian troops forced an estimated 200,000 Serbs to flee (National Post, March 13, 2004).
“A war that begins with civilian areas being shelled at 5 a.m. when women and children are asleep in their beds and ends with a massive exodus of more than 100,000 people is surely tantamount to ethnic cleansing,” said UN spokesman Chris Gunness.
According to Robert Fisk, writing in the Independent, the European Union’s confidential assessment from Krajina stated the following:
Evidence of atrocities; an average of six corpses p/day, continues to emerge … the corpses; some fresh, some decomposed, are mainly of old men. Many have been shot in the back of the head or had throats slit, others have been mutilated. Isolated pockets of elderly civilians report people recently gone missing or detained …. Endless Croat invitations for Serbs to return, guarantees of citizens’ rights and property rights, etc., have gushed forth from all levels …. However, Serbian homes and lands … continue to be torched and looted.
Contrary to official statements blaming it on fleeing Serbs and uncontrollable elements, the crimes have been perpetrated by the HV Croatian Army, the CR Croatian police and CR civilians. There have been no observed attempts to stop it and the indications point to a scorched-earth policy.
Two senior Canadian military officers present in Croatia at the time testified that the Croatians attacked indiscriminately and targeted civilians.
One of these officers, Maj. Gen. Andrew Leslie, estimated around 500 civilians were murdered.
“In the hospital itself, there were bodies stacked in the corridors,” he said. “There were bodies in almost every hospital bed. And there were bodies lying in the foyer, the reception area and some of the corridors” (National Post, Dec. 9, 2005).
Yugoslav envoy Vladimir Pavicevic claimed that 15,000 Serbs were dead in Krajina, and that this total included slain refugees and soldiers who had already surrendered (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Aug. 14, 1995). The International Committee of the Red Cross reported that 10,000 to 15,000 refugees were still missing, over three weeks after the initial attack (Sun Herald, Aug. 27, 1995).

Irish Times
October 1, 2011
Daniel McLaughlin in Jarinje

-Serbs accuse Nato troops, specifically Americans, of using live ammunition to disperse people who were protesting against ethnic-Albanian Kosovo police efforts to take control of customs points along the border with Serbia – a frontier that local Serbs insist they will never recognise.
-“Serbs are disappearing everywhere,” he adds. “Croatia, Macedonia, and they are under pressure in Montenegro. What could we possibly hope for from the Albanians?”
NATO Tries to Force Christian Serbs to Submit to Criminal Albanian Muslim “Authority”
September 27, 2011: Today, NATO forces in Kosovo opened fire on Serbian demonstrators protesting efforts by KFOR (NATO’s “Kosovo Force”) and the ironically designated European Union “rule of law” mission (“EULEX”) to force Serbs to submit to the illegal Albanian Muslim “authority” posing as an independent government in Priština. As summarized by retired U.S. diplomat Gerard Gallucci, who formerly served in Kosovo:
Mileva Premovic and her neighbours while away the afternoon in the shade of a broad tree. The unseasonable warmth makes it hard to imagine that the green Kapaonik mountains, rising up a few miles away in Serbia, will soon be white with snow and busy with skiers.
It would also be hard to believe that bullets were fired and blood shed here just a few days ago, were it not for the scars that blight Kosovo’s border zone.
Nearby fields are burned black from recent rioting and, just over the rise, US soldiers move warily behind a huge earth barricade and glinting coils of barbed wire. They warn off anyone approaching their position while they are still hundreds of metres away, their rifles clearly showing.
“It was frightening to see the demonstrators running, tumbling over each other to get away,” Premovic says of Tuesday’s clashes between Serbs and Nato troops. “There were hundreds of local people, young and old, and I could hear gunfire – tap-tap-tap. If the Americans want to kill me, then go ahead, I have nowhere else to go. But this has always been Serb land; there have never been Albanians here.”
Serbs accuse Nato troops, specifically Americans, of using live ammunition to disperse people who were protesting against ethnic-Albanian Kosovo police efforts to take control of customs points along the border with Serbia – a frontier that local Serbs insist they will never recognise.

Dear Mister  Jovanović,
many thanks for your email and support, which I truly appreciate.
I wish you lot of success to your Assembly today.
With kindest regards

Dick Marty

Reply:

Honorable Mr. Dick MARTI,
It is our honor to inform you that a number of independent, nonpartisan associations of Serbia organize the Assembly of Solidarity and support to the Serbian People in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija on September 27th, 2011, the Sava Conference Center, New Belgrade. Among the organizers are Association of the Families of abducted and lost persons, Association of Women from Kosovo and Metohija, Belgrade Forum, Serbian Diaspora and many others. All are grateful to you for your enormous courage and efforts to bring the truth of the destiny of the lost and abducted to the light of the day. We are aware of many obstacles and machinations to annul your efforts and results achieved so far in uncovering the truth, but we urge you to continue. Your great Project with the same devotion and energy. In this regard we would like you to just know that almost the whole nation of Serbia stands united behind you believing that Europe and the world are entitled to know the truth. Please, Mr. Dick Marti, accept assurances of our highest respect.

Živadin Jovanović
President

Link: http://youtu.be/3_TxfVLSXmI

by Srdja Trifkovic • September 15th, 2011
The E.U.-Russia Centre Conference, Munich, September 15, 2011

The “Strategic Partnership” between Berlin and Moscow is usually understood in the English-speaking world in somewhat simplified terms: Russian energy meets German technology with a lot of high-minded political rhetoric on top. In the meantime, the received wisdom goes, Germany remains firmly anchored in the Euro-Atlantic framework of political, economic and military institutions and relationships. In other words, Moscow may be Germany’s partner, “strategic” or otherwise, but Washington remains Berlin’s primary ally and its primary institutional focus is still in Brussels.
This may have been so over the years but it need not be so in the future. A foreign policy realist would argue that in the years ahead of us the German decision-making elite would be well advised to critically reconsider old assumptions and to develop an overall strategy of greater equidistance vis-à-vis Moscow and Washington. (Instead of equidistance, “more equal proximity” may be a better term.)
If German political, economic and civilizational interests are considered in realist terms, without the rhetorical ideological shackles of common values and ideals, it transpires that the Federal Republic has a more natural community of long-term geopolitical interests with Russia than with the United States.

Voice of Russia
August 13, 2011

A court in Cagliari in Italy has ruled that the Ministry of Defence must pay a half million euros in compensation to the family of a soldier who died from exposure to depleted uranium in NATO bombs that were dropped on Kosovo.

Depleted uranium is used in rockets and bombs for increasing their piercing capacity. It is slightly radioactive and highly toxic. The first Italian death from exposure to it was reported in 2001.

NATO widely used DU munitions during its 1990s campaigns in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Voice of Russia
August 13, 2011

A court in Cagliari in Italy has ruled that the Ministry of Defence must pay a half million euros in compensation to the family of a soldier who died from exposure to depleted uranium in NATO bombs that were dropped on Kosovo.

Depleted uranium is used in rockets and bombs for increasing their piercing capacity. It is slightly radioactive and highly toxic. The first Italian death from exposure to it was reported in 2001.

NATO widely used DU munitions during its 1990s campaigns in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Please take a look how it is organized and who stands behind it:

Democratic change has been demanded across the Middle East. But was what seems like a spontaneous revolution actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by 'revolution consultants' long in advance?

Revolution consultants are the worst nightmare of every regime. Srdja Popovic was a founder of the organisation 'Otpor', a revolution training school. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s and has now inspired a new generation of activists. Political commentators like William Engdahl are convinced Otpor is being financed by the USA. "The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies", says Ezzedine Zaatour of the Tunisian uprising. That book was written by an American, Gene Sharp, and is now considered the "revolution guide book", being used by opposition movements worldwide. As Optor release their latest gadget, a resistance training computer game sponsored by American organisations, world leaders are voicing their concerns. "This is called a gentle coup!", insists Hugo Chavez.

May 17, 2011
By George Friedman

With the Palestinians demonstrating and the International Monetary Fund in turmoil, it would seem odd to focus this week on something called the Visegrad Group. But this is not a frivolous choice. What the Visegrad Group decided to do last week will, I think, resonate for years, long after the alleged attempted rape by Dominique Strauss-Kahn is forgotten and long before the Israeli-Palestinian issue is resolved. The obscurity of the decision to most people outside the region should not be allowed to obscure its importance.

By Alexei Fenenko*

On June 25, twenty years ago, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia. This was followed by the Serbo-Croatian (1991 - 1995), Bosnian (1992 - 1995), Kosovo (1998 - 1999) and Macedonian (2001) wars, which became the official facts in textbooks on the history of international relations. Thus, the question arises: Do the Balkan wars of the 1990s offer something more than academic interest?

I think they do. The conflicts in the former Yugoslavia took on global significance almost immediately. They became the platform for the formation of the contemporary world order, while at the same time revealing its new contradictions. In this sense, the Balkan wars of the 1990s taught us five lessons that are still relevant today.

Par KOMNEN BECIROVIC:

Ce 29 juin 2011, le général Gallois aurait eu cent ans. Il ne lui eût manqué que quelques dix mois pour gravir ce sommet de l’existence que peu d'humains atteignent, avant de basculer dans l’au-delà, que ce soit la vie éternelle ou le néant. De sorte que nous, ses amis, ses disciples, ses admirateurs, ne célébrerons pas cette année son anniversaire, comme nous l’avions fait pendant plus de trois lustres depuis que j’ai eu la chance de le connaître, de bénéficier de sa pensée rayonnante, de son amitié, de son indéfectible soutien moral dans les épreuves que traversait mon peuple. Il aura été pendant de nombreuses années le patriarche de la juste cause serbe dans un Occident fourvoyé, ayant fait sienne la cause des ennemis héréditaires des Serbes.

by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

June 27, 2011

After the State Department announced its new programs aimed at spreading democracy around the world, some activists say the US is fostering regime change in countries not aligned with American foreign policy goals.

The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor has requested proposals on how to foster change in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as Cuba. The US claims the best of intentions, saying it wants to strengthen independent civil society groups in those countries.

Lawyer and journalist Eva Golinger believes differently: “It's just really another form of provoking regime change. They're just trying to do it under a different guise or different facade, saying that somehow with the best intentions they are promoting democracy, but in reality it's just promoting the US agenda.”

Among other things, the State Department is financing the creation of stealth wireless networks that would enable activists to communicate outside the reach of governments in countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, according to participants in the projects.

Web link to Youtube playlist "European security in the light of Elections 2012":

http://goo.gl/1Cxz8

Fw: UNAC Announces Major Mobilization Against NATO/G8 in Chicago
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff"
Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:38 pm (PDT)

From the United National Antiwar Committee coordinating committee:

Challenge the NATO War Makers in Chicago May 15-22, 2012

The White House has just announced that the U.S. will host a major international meeting of NATO, the US-commanded and financed 28-nation military alliance, in Chicago from May 15 to May 22, 2012. It was further announced that at the same time and place, there will be a summit of the G-8 world powers. The meetings are expected to draw heads of state, generals and countless others.

At a day-long meeting in New York City on Saturday, June 18, the United National Antiwar Committee’s national coordinating committee of 69 participants, representing, 47 organizations, unanimously passed a resolution to call for action at the upcoming NATO meeting.

UNAC is determined to mount a massive united outpouring in Chicago during the NATO gathering to put forth demands opposing endless wars and calling for billions spent on war and destruction be spent instead on people’s needs for jobs, health care, housing and education.

Global Research, June 19, 2011

Ismael Hossein-zadeh:

In light of the brutal death and destruction wrought on Libya by the relentless US/NATO bombardment, the professed claims of “humanitarian concerns” as grounds for intervention can readily be dismissed as a blatantly specious imperialist ploy in pursuit of “regime change” in that country.

There is undeniable evidence that contrary to the spontaneous, unarmed and peaceful protest demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, the rebellion in Libya has been nurtured, armed and orchestrated largely from abroad, in collaboration with expat opposition groups and their local allies at home. Indeed, evidence shows that plans of “regime change” in Libya were drawn long before the insurgency actually started in Benghazi; it has all the hallmarks of a well-orchestrated civil war [1].

It is very tempting to seek the answer to the question “why regime change in Libya?” in oil/energy. While oil is undoubtedly a concern, it falls short of a satisfactory explanation because major Western oil companies were already extensively involved in the Libyan oil industry. Indeed, since Gathafi relented to the US-UK pressure in 1993 and established “normal” economic and diplomatic relations with these and other Western countries, major US and European oil companies struck quite lucrative deals with the National Oil Corporation of Libya.

Statements of the former Nuremberg prosecutor. He died in 2002.
Chicago Tribune, May 10, 1999
***
Opinion of the people:

U.S. aggression

WASHINGTON-As the bombs, smart and dumb, fall ceaselessly on Serbia, Montenegrins and sometimes Albanians, on bridges, waterworks,electric generation plants and factories, and on trains, trucks and homes, the remorseless crusade for
"humanitariansm" presses forward to the applause of journalistic and academic shills. To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, we are busy creating a desert, which we can then call peace.
For the United States, alias "NATO," the planning and launching of this war by the president heightens the abuse and undermining of warmaking authority under the Constitution. (It seems to be accepted that the president can order his personal army to attack any country he pleases). The bombing war also violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the
Nazis attacked Poland to prevent "Polish atrocities" against Germans.

Overwhelming Majority Of Serbs Reject NATO
Posted by: "Rick Rozoff"
Jun 14, 2011 6:43 pm

Voice of Russia:
June 14, 2011

Serbians not too keen on joining NATO - Alexander Vatutin

-“NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 79 days. Over 800 children were killed, the number of cancer patients has increased by six times because the alliance used shells with depleted uranium, and the country suffered damage of more than $200 billion. In the end, it was due to NATO that Serbia lost Kosovo which makes up 15% of its territory. This is how the alliance contributed to the good of our country”.

An overwhelming majority of the Serbians have a negative opinion of the plans of their leadership to start the process of joining NATO. This was obviously demonstrated on Monday, ahead of the NATO conference on strategic military partnership in Belgrade. Hundreds of people went into the streets to protest against President Boris Tadic’s pro-NATO policy.

For ordinary Serbians NATO is first of all associated with devastating bombings of Belgrade in 1999. According to public opinion polls, 75% of Serbian citizens do not accept the policy of joining the alliance.

Many people believe that holding a NATO conference so soon after the extradition of General Ratko Mladic to the Hague is an act of national humiliation. Instead of suing NATO in the International Court for numerous victims and the collapse of Yugoslavia, the authorities are developing a close military cooperation with the bloc.

Moreover, the Serbian Defence Ministry has declared that “holding the conference will raise the clout of the country on the international arena”. This is not a very politically correct explanation for their own people, believes the head of the Centre for Studying the Current Balkan Crisis Yelena Guskova:

“People have not forgotten the bombings, deprivations, grief and isolation of the country. This is why they march in the streets protesting against NATO. The country’s leadership is sure that holding the conference in Belgrade is a sign of a good attitude to Serbia. But if Serbia, which was bombed in the past, joins NATO, this will be the justification of the NATO policy in that period and Serbia will pass its own indictment.”

Serbians who live in Kosovo and Metohija are also utterly disappointed. Serbia lost its lands exactly because of the NATO policy. Serbian politician Marko Jaksic calls the decision of the Serbian authorities to host the NATO conference “masochistic”:

“NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 79 days. Over 800 children were killed, the number of cancer patients has increased by six times because the alliance used shells with depleted uranium, and the country suffered damage of more than $200 billion. In the end, it was due to NATO that Serbia lost Kosovo which makes up 15% of its territory. This is how the alliance contributed to the good of our country”.

However, it would be wrong to say that all Serbians are against integration with Europe. They support cooperation with the EU and joining it in the future, but they do not want to join NATO. This is what Alexander Karasiov, the head of a department of the Institute of Slavonic Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, says:

“There is a consensus about joining the EU. Most Serbians are in favour of this, joining the EU is important for both intellectuals and businessmen. As for relations with NATO, the problem is much more complicated. We can see a definite rift here. The majority of those who want the country to join the EU are against Serbia joining NATO”.

The head of the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Irenaeus condemned the holding of a NATO conference in Belgrade. According to him, the wounds inflicted by the alliance on the Serbian people have not yet healed.

In March 1999, NATO countries, led by the United States, began a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, mainly in Serbia and Montenegro.

Due to the fact that aircraft used shells with depleted uranium cores the local residents who were in the areas of the bombing have seen a dramatic increase in mortality rates and an increased number of congenital diseases in children.

The NATO operation, undertaken without UN sanctions, continued for about three months. Its purpose was to protect Kosovar Albanians from the Serbian authorities, who started a military operation against the militant Albanian terrorist organization "The Kosovo Liberation Army."

See and download photos from two albums here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/110726448310205699773/2012?feat=directlink

https://picasaweb.google.com/beoforum/2012?feat=directlink

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff"
June 14, 2011

Written by John Daly:

Is NATO Being Used by Washington In Libya to Hurt Chinese Interests?

-Africans (which of course includes Libyans) apparently prefer Chinese goods and Chinese-built schools to hectoring human rights lectures, loans with interest fees and conditions that would make a Mafia don blanch and a hail of bombs and bullets.
Russia, which has not deployed its military outside its borders since the collapse of the USSR, is viewing events in North Africa with more dispassion and insight than the chattering punditry in Washington.

Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
European Security and 2012 Elections
Belgrade – June 9, 2011

James George Jatras - U.S.A.

In America, we have an expression for eliminating a political opponent.   We say we have “nailed his scalp to the wall.”  This of course is a reference to the practice among some American native Indian peoples of taking as trophies the scalps of their enemies.  European settlers also adopted the custom, even paying bounties for Indian scalps.

The actual practice of scalping vanished with our frontier, but to this day we Americans use the expression if a targeted politician is defeated, or if a notorious criminal is apprehended.  This is especially true of evil foreign enemies.   You can Google it for yourself and see.

Komnen Becirovic et Marc Portemont:

(version fort opportunément illustrée renvoyant à de nombreux liens)

http://www.lesmanantsduroi.com/articles2/article35866.php (I)

http://www.lesmanantsduroi.com/articles2/article35868.php (II)

BELGRADE FORUM FOR A WORLD OF EQUALS
International Conference “European Security in the light of Elections 2012”
List of participants

(June 9th, 2011, Belgrade, Sava Conference Center )

I. Serbia:

1. Ivica Dacic, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Interior, Serbia ( to be confirmed)
2. Vuk Jeremic, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Serbia ( to be confirmed)
3. Dusan Bajatovic, MP (SPS), Chairman of the Board for Defense and Security, Serbia
4. Zivadin Jovanovic, Chairman of the Belgrade Forum for a World of  Eaquals
5. Tomislav Nikolic, MP, Head of SNS MPs Group, President of Serbian Progressive Party, Serbia
6. Dragan Todorovic, MP, Head of the SRS MPs Group, Deputy President of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS)
7. Bozidar Delic, MP (SRS), Vice-Chairman of the National Assembly, Serbia
8. Jovan Palalic, MP (DSS) Chairman of the Board for local self-government, Serbia
9. Dejan Mirovic, MP, Serbian Raical Party, Serbia
10. Dragutin Matanovic,  Advisor to the Vice-Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior, Serbia
11. Stevica Dedjanski, Center for International Corporation, Serbia
12. Dragomir Andjelkovic, political analyst, Serbia
13. Dr Dragan Petrovic, IMPP, Serbia
14. Prof. dr Miodrag Zecevic, President of SUBNOR, Serbia
15. Milos Mitrovic, President, Millennium Group, Serbia
16. Biljana Jorgacevic, Millennium Group, Serbia
17. Dragomir Vucicevic, Chairman of the Assembly of Belgrade Forum.
18. Prof. Dr Radovan Radinovic, Belgrade Forum
19. Prof. Oskar Kovac, Megatrend University, Belgrade Forum
20. Milan Bjelogrlic, Belgrade Forum
21. Dr Stanislav Stojanovic, Belgrade Forum
22. Milica Arezina, Belgrade Forum
23. Dr Zoran Vujovic, Belgrade Forum
24. Zlatan Kikic, Belgrade Forum
25. Veljko Curcic, Belgrade Forum
26. Radoslav Jovanovic, Belgrade Forum
27. Prof. Dr Djordje Blagojevic, Belgrade University
28. Vladimir Krsljanin, Belgrade Forum
29. Miroslav Lazanski, Commentator, “Politika” daily'', Serbia
30. Prof. Djordje Blagojevic, Belgrade University
31. Prof. Sava Zivanov, Belgrade University
32. Radoslav Jovanovic, Belgrade Forum

II- From Other Countries:

1. Alexander Babakov, Vice-speaker of State Duma, Russia
2. Mikhail Starshinov, MP, member of Committee for Security, State Duma, Russia
3. James Jatras, USA
4. Arno Carica, France
5. Anton Kutev, MP, Bulgaria
6. Nikolay Petrov, MP, Bulgaria
7. Helen Teplitskaia, President, American-Russian Chamber of Commerce & Industry. Managing Director, Imnex International, USA
8. Charles Crawford,   Diplomat, Great Britain
9. Slavko Mitrovic, Adviser to the President of Republic of Srpska
10. Mladen Bosic, MP, President of SDS, Republic of Serbska
11. Guliano Godino, MP, Italy
12. Enrico Paoli, MP, Italy
13. Alessandro Bertoldi, Italy
14. Alessandro Musolino, PdL, Italy
15. Christopher Black, Lowyer, Canada
16. Nikolay Kabanov, MP,Latvia
17. Tamas Vargha, MP, member of Foreign Affairs Committee, Hungary
18. Vladimir Lepekhin, Director, Institute of EvraAZES, Russia
19. Serguey Serebrennikov, Director, Institute of International Integration, Russia
20. Serguey Pravosudov, Director, Institute of National Energy, Russia
21. Dragan Stanojevic, President, International Organization of Serbian Diaspora of Euro-Asia
22. Anatoly Tolstoukhov, Special Adviser to the Prime-minister of Ukraine
23. Mikhail Plisyuk, Institute ODKB, Russia
24. Jan Mladek, Czekh Republic
25. Alexander Vorobyev, Russia
26. Kornel Andzsans-Balogh, Energy Expert, Korvinus University, Hungary
27. Radojica Živković, MP, Montenegro
28. Ivan Vasilkovic, MP, President of the Serbian Democratic Parties, Macedonia
29. Dejan Besliev, Macedonia

III- Ambassadors:

1. H.E. Mr. Alexandar V. Konuzin, Ambassador of Russian Federation to Serbia

BELGRADE FORUM FOR A WORLD OF EQUALS

International conference
“European Security in the Light of 2012 Elections”
Belgrade, June 9, 2011, Sava-Centre

PROGRAMME

June 8, 2011   

During the day - Arrival of participants (airport pick up, transfer to Belgrade Intercontinental Hotel)

June 9, 2011

9.00 – 9.30 – Registrations of participants
9.30 – 10.00 – Conference opening
Address by Ivica Dacic, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Interior, Serbia (to be confirmed)
Address by H.E.Alexander Konuzin, Ambassador of Russia to Serbia

10.00 – 12.00 1-st Plenary Session “Political and Economic Cooperation in Europe after 2012 Elections”

• Zivadin Jovanovic, President of Belgrade Forum “Trends and challenges in International Relations”
• Serguey Serebrennikov, General Director, Institute of International Integration (Russia) “Expectations of Russian citizens from 2011-12 electoral campaigns”
• Tomislav Nikolic, MP, Chairman, Serbian Progressive Party “2012 Elections in Serbia and Russia: scenarios and consequences”
• Anton Kutev, MP, Bulgaria “Political confrontation between left, right and nationalist forces in Europe”
• Jan Mladek, Czech Republic   “Cooperation between USA and Central and Eastern Europe: expectations from 2012 US Presidential elections”
• Vladimir Lepekhin, Director, Institute of Euro-Asian Economic Community  “Prospects of development of Euro-Asian Economic Community and the Custom Union”
• Jovan Palalic, MP, and Serbian Democratic Party “Serbia after 2012 elections: possible scenarious”
• Helen Teplitskaya, USA   “Possibilities for Western Investments in the Balkans and Russia: main trends and obstacles”
• Alessandro Bertoldi, MP, Italy, “Political mood of European young generation and their attitude to electoral campaigns: Italian example“.

11.30  - 12.00 – Discussion ( up to 5 minutes )
12.00 – 12.30 – coffee-break

12.30 -14.30  2-nd Plenary Session  “European Security After 2012 elections”

• Charles Crawford, Former ambassador, Great Britain, “ European Security in theLlight of 2012 elections from the UK Prospective”.
• Mikhail Starshinov, MP, Member of Security Committee, State Duma of Russia  “Cooperation between Russia and NATO”
• Dragan Todorovic, MP, Serbian Radical Party, Chairman, “External security of Serbia: NATO, CSTO or non-block status?”
• Mikhail Plisyuk, Executive director, Collective Security Treaty Organization Institute “CSTO - a factor of stability and security”
• Alessandro Musolino, Italy, member of Youth Parliament “ The role of Italy and Russia in th Light of a new European Security Policy”
• James Jatras, Balkan expert, USA, “Electoral campaign in the USA: relations with Europe and Russia”

14.00 – 14.30 – Discussion (up to 5 minutes)
14.30 – 15.30 – lunch, Sava Center restaurant

15.30 – 16.45 3-rd Plenary Session “Energy cooperation in Europe after 2012 elections”

• Dusan Bajatovic, MP, Chairman of Security and Defense Committee, Deputy Chair of Socialist Party of Serbia 
• Tamas Vargha, MP, Hungary “ Energy Security challenges – an EU perspective”
• Serguey Pravosudov, Director General, Institute of National Energy, Russia   “Russia-EU Energy dialogue: problems and prospects”
• Nikolay Kabanov, MP, Latvia “LNG-Terminal in Riga: political or economic solution?”
• Kornel Andzsans- Balogh, Hungary “ Energy Corporation in Europe after 2012 elections”
• Dragan Stanojevic, President, International Organizations of Serbian Diaspora of Euro-Asia, “Security of transit states”.

16.15 –16.45 - Discussion (up to 5 minutes)
16.45-17.00 – concluding remarks, Alexander Babakov, Vice-speaker of State Duma of Russia
17.30 – 19.30 – Cocktail, Sava Center restaurant

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
Belgrade, 24. 05. 2011.

To the participants of the 16th Congress of the Greek Committee for International Detente and Peace (EEDYE)

Dear Friends and Comrades,
On behalf of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, I wish to extend to all participants of the 16th Congress of the Greek Committee for International Detente and Peace my best and warmest greetings and sincere expressions of solidarity, with the best wishes for your successful work.
The leadership and members of the Belgrade Forum hold in highest regard our thriving cooperation, an outstanding level of our mutual friendship and the evident closeness in opinions on key issues, such as those concerning peace, security, democracy and overall progress.
Today and in the times to come, not only members and friends of the Belgrade Forum, but rather the entire Serbian nation will cherish a treasured memory of valiant and unreserved solidarity, support and noble assistance of activists and leaders of the EEDYE and the friendly Greek nation, given to Serbian people during NATO aggression against Serbia in 1999.
Comradely yours,
Zivadin Jovanovic
President of the Belgrade Forum
For a World of Equals

Letter of gratitude by the Secretariat EEDYE:

On behalf of the new elected National Council and Secretariat of EEDYE we would like to thank you for the warm message of support of your Organisations to our 16th Congress held last weekend in Athens.
The 16th Congress was attended by 233 elected delegates from 58 Local Peace Committees and concluded with the Political resolution and election of a 65 member National Council and a 11 member Secretariat.
The Secretariat elected as its new President comrade Stavros Tassos,the other posts will be filled in its next meeting. The old president Evangelos Machairas,got elected President of Honor of EEDYE.

Your message to our Congress was very encouraging and was read out to the delegates.It was warmly received and considered as very encouraging.

We are looking forward in strengthening further our bilateral bonds and our cooperation in the framework of the World Peace Council.

Comradely yours

The Secretariat of the EEDYE  31.5.2011

Unbelievable! Not so long ago, such a smiling happy family!
Where are they now?

Par KOMNEN BECIROVIC:

C’est tout un symbole de constater que trois guerres apocalyptiques sur quatre, menées au cours des douze dernières années par les Occidentaux, plus ou moins solidaires, d’abord contre la Serbie en 1999, puis contre l’Irak en 2003, enfin contre la Libye en 2011, ont été déclenchées au début du printemps; seule la guerre d’Afghanistan ayant été lancée en automne 2001. Comme si les décideurs de ces criminelles entreprises se plaisaient à transformer en deuil la fête de la nature, semant la mort et la désolation en plein réveil de la vie, obscurcissant par des myriades de leurs oiseaux de la mort le pur ciel et le radieux soleil printaniers vers lesquels tendent les créatures.

De même qu'en ce printemps 2011 où les bombes de l’Otan ne cessent de tomber sur la Libye, elles s’abattaient tout au long du printemps 1999 sur la Serbie, touchant indistinctement les objectifs militaires et civils, les habitations, les écoles, les hôpitaux, les immeubles administratifs, les centrales électriques, les stations d’épuration d’eau, les trains et les autobus en marche, les usines, les voies ferrées, les ponts, voire les monuments historiques, les églises, les cimetières, les parcs nationaux. Le spectacle qui s’offrait le plus souvent était celui des immeubles éventrés, de corps déchiquetés, carbonisés, réduits en cendres ayant encore la forme humaine, ou celui de gens hagards, désespérés errant dans les ruines.

Et ce brigandage sur la Serbie, cyniquement baptisé Merciful Angel, Ange miséricordieux, devait se poursuivre durant 78 jours et nuits, sans être interrompu même le jour de Pâques, provoquant des milliers de morts et de blessés, ainsi que la terreur des populations, la destruction des biens matériels se chiffrant à des dizaines de milliards de dollars, la contamination de l’environnement par l’uranium appauvri et d’autres matières toxiques. A ces grondements de l’apocalypse s’ajoutait le vacarme de la géhenne de la propagande médiatique déchaînée justifiant et vantant tous ces effroyables méfaits comme autant de glorieux exploits.  Dans le même temps, les hommes d’Etat beuglaient à l’unisson qu’ils ne faisaient pas la guerre au peuple serbe, mais à Milosevic. Tout comme on entendra la même rengaine au sujet de Saddam Hussein en 2003 et actuellement à propos de Khadafi.

Quelle faute inexpugnable, quel crime affreux avait commis la Serbie, comptant une huitaine de millions d’âmes, pour être si cruellement châtiée par la plus grande coalition militaire de l’histoire, regroupant sept à huit cent millions d’hommes et disposant de moyens militaires, économiques et médiatiques illimités? Avait-elle porté le moindre tort à une seule parmi la vingtaine de nations composant la fautive Alliance?  Disposait-elle d'armes de destruction massive ou bien devenait-elle le terroir du fascisme qu’il fallait étouffer dans l’œuf, comme le soutenait certains de ces inhumains humanistes parisiens dont Jacques Julliard, dans son ouvrage Ce fascisme qui vient ?

Pas la moindre ombre de tout cela, bien évidemment! Tout ce dont la Serbie avait été coupable, ce fut de tenter de juguler la rébellion armée d’une fraction de la population albanaise dans la province du Kosovo où elle avait développé une splendide civilisation au Moyen-âge et où se décida, lors de la fameuse bataille avec les Turcs en 1389, son sort pour des siècles. En fait, il s'agissait de la dernière phase d’un contentieux entre Serbes et Albanais qui remontait précisément à l’époque de la conquête turque des Balkans et à la conversion massive des Albanais à l’islam, la religion de l’occupant, ce qui les favorisa par rapport aux Serbes demeurés fidèles à la foi chrétienne. En tant que bras armé de la Turquie dans la région, les Albanais furent autorisés et même incités à se répandre par des moyens violents, tels que les massacres, les exodes, l'albanisation forcée des Serbes, sur la terre de Kossovo et de Métochie, en en devenant ainsi majoritaires.

Une fois rompus à l’art de se mettre au service du plus fort et d’en recevoir la récompense, les Albanais poursuivirent la même stratégie sous la tyrannie fasciste et communiste, en attendant la tyrannie droit-de-l’hommiste mondialiste, pour parachever leur emprise quasi-totale sur le Kosovo, la Jérusalem serbe. Suite à la désintégration de la Yougoslavie en 1992 et, malgré la pleine autonomie dont ils bénéficiaient au sein de la Serbie, les Albanais firent sécession, recourant d’abord au boycott des institutions d’Etat, puis aux actes terroristes sanglants perpétrés par la soi-disant Armée de libération du Kossovo, la redoutable Uçk.

Et alors que les forces de police et de l’armée serbes, en ce début de l’année 1999, avaient pratiquement neutralisé cette organisation qualifiée de terroriste seulement un an plutôt par l’envoyé du gouvernement américain dans les Balkans, Robert Gelbart, on se mit à la soutenir et exalter ses membres comme des combattants de la liberté. On extrapola, en présentant dans les médias l’opération des forces serbes comme un génocide en cours, en même temps qu’on dévoya l’antagonisme historique entre deux peuples, en une affaire idéologique, celle des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie dont les Albanais auraient été respectueux, contrairement aux Serbes qui en auraient été les violeurs.

Tandis que les autorités serbes s’efforçaient de juguler la terreur de l’Uçk qui faisait rage au Kosovo, on se livra à une supercherie télévisuelle en présentant une quarantaine de cadavres de rebelles ayant péri dans l’affrontement avec les forces serbes dans le village Ratchak, le 15 janvier 1999, comme étant des victimes civiles. Il fallait provoquer l’indignation générale et trouver une justification à la guerre. L’ordonnateur de ce macabre spectacle fut le chef de la Mission internationale d’observateurs au Kosovo, le sinistre William Walker qui avait fait ses preuves dans nombre de sales besognes dans plusieurs pays d'Amérique Centrale. Les Albanais sachant être redevables à leurs bienfaiteurs, une avenue à Pristina porte aujourd’hui son nom, tout comme un boulevard porte le nom de son patron Bill Clinton et une place celui de Madeleine Albright.

En fait, les humanitaristes de l’Ouest ne voulaient à aucun prix laisser échapper leur proie ni une occasion idéale d'assouvir enfin la soif du mal qui les habitait, puisque leur vœu le plus ardent durant des années était de bombarder les Serbes. Ceux-ci, à leurs yeux, étaient coupables de tous les maux de l’ex-Yougoslavie, alors que tous les autres, les Croates, les Slovènes, les Bosniaques et les Albanais, les vrais  responsables du drame yougoslave, en étaient exonérés et passaient pour des êtres pacifiques, démocrates, respectueux des droits de l’homme, et qui n’auraient jamais au cours de l’histoire porté le moindre tort aux Serbes. C’est sur cette grossière simplification à laquelle s’ajoutait l’ignorance, que les médias avaient fait porter leur choix et dans la voie duquel ils allaient désormais marcher. Il n’y avait dorénavant de cause plus sacrée sous le ciel que de secourir les civilisés albanais contre les barbares serbes!

Quant à l’Otan, elle se trouvait, depuis la chute du mur de Berlin en 1989, depuis la dissolution du pacte de Varsovie et l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique en 1991, en manque d’adversaire et en pleine mutation d’une alliance défensive en une alliance offensive en vue de l’établissement de l’hégémonie des Etats-Unis et, à leur traîne, de l’Europe, sur le monde. L’incurable russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski en avait développé les grandes lignes dans son Grand échiquier, paru en 1997. Il fallait d'urgence à l’Otan un ennemi, fût-ce une victime, pour justifier sa raison d’être, pour affirmer sa crédibilité et se faire redouter, ce qui s’accordait parfaitement avec l’impatience des bonnes âmes de s’abreuver des malheurs serbes. Ainsi, les pourparlers de Rambouillet en février-mars 1999, où l’on posa à la Serbie la condition impossible d’accepter que son territoire soit purement et simplement occupé par les forces de l’Otan, ne furent qu’une mascarade préludant à la guerre envisagée et planifiée de longue date.

Il faut dire que derrière les motivations humanistes, démocrates et droit-de-l’hommistes ostensiblement affichées, s'en cachaient d’autres beaucoup moins louables, voire réellement sordides, tant il est vrai que l'on peut parer les pires abominations par de plus hautes vertus. D’abord, le président étasunien, Bill Clinton, empêtré dans les mensonges sur ses relations avec sa stagiaire Monica Lewinsky, et ayant échappé de justesse à l’Impeachment au Congrès, voulait redorer son image universellement ternie, en se muant soudain de vulgaire libertin en archange de la morale internationale. Il se peut que, lorsque le Maître du monde prit la décision de bombarder la Serbie afin de voir fleurir sur ses ruines la démocratie et les droits de l’homme dans les Balkans, son cerveau eût été encore embué par la fumée du fameux cigare qu’il plongeait, avant de le déguster, dans la partie la plus intime du corps de la Stagiaire. A un moment, alors que les Serbes faisaient admirablement face au fléau, il proféra que les bombardements devraient se poursuivre pendant de longs mois, s’il le fallait.

Il ne pouvait avoir, dans ce dessein de se racheter de ses turpitudes aux yeux de l’opinion, de meilleur soutien qu'en la personne d’une femme âgée, trapue et obèse à la figure dont nulle cosmétique ne pouvait dissimuler le peu d’attrait, mais  maladivement belliciste. Au point que, quelques années auparavant, alors qu’elle était ambassadrice américaine à l’Onu, elle avait admonesté le général Colin Powell, chef d’état-major de l’Armée américaine, en lui lançant: à quoi bon disposer de tant de puissance militaire dont on parle tout le temps, si on ne l'emploie jamais! C’est également sur sa proposition au Conseil de sécurité que fut créée, en 1993, l’inquisition antiserbe de la Haye, dite Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie. Au début de son deuxième mandat en 1997, Clinton la nomma Secrétaire du Département d’Etat où elle donnera pleine mesure à ses talents, notamment avec la guerre du Kosovo.

Le lecteur l’a sans doute deviné: il s’agit de Madeleine Korbel Albright qui, en même temps que par des ardeurs guerrières, était mue, malgré son âge avancé, par d’autres ardeurs, si bien que sa vertu ne tarda à succomber au good looking du chef de l’Uçk, Hashim Thaci. La fameuse scène où devant les caméras elle fond dans les bras de l’Albanais, n’est que trop éloquente, certes, mais aussi le propre aveu de l’intéressée selon lequel Thaci était la seule personne qui pouvait entrer dans sa chambre à coucher sans s’annoncer.

En tout cas, parfaite incarnation de la communauté internationale au propre et au figuré, elle s’employa à entraîner celle-ci dans la guerre contre les Serbes, et en devint même l’âme damnée. Son origine tchèque juive, le martyre que les Serbes et les Juifs avaient subi dans la Croatie oustachie, l’engagement des Albanais du côté de l’Allemagne nazie, le salut qu’elle devait aux Serbes, son père étant diplomate à Belgrade en 1941, qui l’aidèrent avec sa famille à échapper aux camps de la mort allemands, ne constituèrent qu’une quantité négligeable devant sa soudaine compassion envers les pauvres Albanais et son ambition de contribuer à ce que la puissante Amérique, dans sa mission de répandre la démocratie sur la planète, trouve des appuis dans les Balkans, notamment dans le groupement terroriste albanais au Kosovo. Si bien que, lorsque, le dos au mur, le gouvernement serbe se montra prêt à accepter l’installation d’une base militaire américaine au Kosovo, elle refusa, persistant dans son option guerrière et justifiant ainsi pleinement le qualificatif bombing Albright, que la presse américaine elle-même ne tarda pas à lui attribuer. 

C’est ainsi que l’Otan s’engouffra dans la brèche ouverte par l’Histoire entre Serbes et Albanais, agissant en glaive, pire encore, en mercenaire de ces derniers. Mises à part les frappes relativement brèves que l’Alliance effectua sur les Serbes de Bosnie au début de l’automne 1995, c’est au Kosovo que l’Otan passa le Rubicon, en s’arrogeant désormais le droit d’intervenir hors des limites fixées par sa Charte fondatrice et en débutant la suite des guerres précitées, dans l'attente d’autres. Initiée et développée grandement en Bosnie, notamment avec la fable des camps de mort et de viol serbes, avec les massacres télévisuels de Sarajevo, puis avec le «génocide» de Srebrenica, c’est pourtant au Kosovo que s’élabora définitivement et à grande échelle la stratégie maudite qui depuis ne cesse d’être appliquée en produisant partout des ravages.

Elle consiste, suivant l’ancien précepte divide et impera, à semer la discorde, à allumer une ethnie contre une autre, à monter la minorité contre la majorité, à soutenir une poignée d’opposants, à exacerber les antagonismes du passé, au lieu de les calmer, à attiser les mécontentements, à contester les résultats électoraux, bref à créer les conditions du chaos au sein d’un Etat, pour pouvoir crier à la catastrophe humanitaire, à la répression, à l’apartheid, voire au génocide afin de trouver le prétexte pour voler à la rescousse de ses protégés à l'aide des bombes dont les détonations accompagnent le déchaînement des média-mensonges. Le but ultime étant d’installer un régime d’obédience, d’établir son influence, de disposer des richesses du pays et d’utiliser son territoire comme un point stratégique en vue d’autres conquêtes.

Si l’on excepte l’art sacré et l’épopée kosoviens naturellement serbes qui font partie intégrante du patrimoine de l’humanité, le Kosovo, qui était jusqu’alors essentiellement une question serbo-turco-albanaise, a acquis depuis 1999 une dimension mondiale, universelle, voire cosmique vu le branle-bas qu’il a provoqué dans l’univers. Comme s’il était dans les desseins de la Providence que le mal du monde se révélât précisément sur la terre du Kosovo qui, avec ses mille trois cents monastères, églises et chapelles, fut en réalité un vaste temple du Christ dont on s'apprêtait à célébrer le Deuxième millénaire. En effet, les guides de l’Occident chrétien ne trouvèrent rien de mieux pour le faire que d’y écraser sous les bombes, ainsi que dans toute la Serbie, les fidèles et les sanctuaires du Christ pour le compte des apostats du Christ, multiséculaires ravageurs du Kosovo!

Désormais l’Otan devait continuer à rimer avec Satan. Sans évoquer l’Afghanistan et l’Irak, il suffit, pour s’en persuader, de considérer les ravages opérés depuis deux mois en Libye, le pays le plus prospère du continent africain: des milliers de morts et de blessés sur place auxquels s’ajoutent ceux qui, sur des embarcations de fortune, fuyant l’enfer, périssent en mer; le bouleversement cataclysmique de la vie des populations, la fuite d’environ un million de travailleurs étrangers de toutes les catégories contraints de quitter le pays et s’entassant dans des camps installés dans les pays voisins en attendant de pouvoir regagner les leurs; l’anéantissement de biens matériels immenses réalisés pendant un demi-siècle; la contamination de l’environnement par les particules mortelles de l’uranium appauvri; la destruction de la couche d’ozone par le vol des milliers de bombardiers de l’Otan au-dessus de la Méditerranée en ajoutant le risque de voir les champs pétroliers s'enflammer et cette partie du monde étouffer sous des nuages apocalyptiques. Sans parler du coût que supportent les pays engagés dans la guerre, ni de la pollution par les mensonges déversés jour et nuit à travers les médias, de l'âme de centaines de millions de gens, en particulier en Europe et en Amérique, ainsi que dans le monde arabe. L’enfer libyen, tout comme l’enfer serbe, afghan et irakien, attend son Dante qui n’aura rien à inventer, mais à qui il suffira de copier la réalité, celle-ci dépassant la fiction, pour reprendre le mot célèbre de Dostoïevski.

C'est pourquoi, aujourd'hui, force est d’établir un bilan de ces douze années écoulées, en même temps que d'engager une réflexion tant en ce qui concerne la situation sur place qu’en ce qui concerne la tournure qu’a prise la politique de la fameuse communauté internationale, autrement dit les Occidentaux avec en tête l’Amérique ayant usurpé ce rôle, dans le sillage sanglant du Kosovo. De prime à bord, on peut affirmer qu’il n’y a pas de quoi pavoiser, bien au contraire: le bilan est des plus catastrophiques de sorte qu’on peut parler de cette période comme de douze années de désastre des Occidentaux au Kosovo, et ailleurs dans le monde où ils ont cherché à appliquer la stratégie kosovienne. Mais, pour dresser ce bref panorama, procédons par l’évocation des événements en suivant l’ordre chronologique.

S’étant mêlé d’un conflit historique multiséculaire entre Serbes et Albanais, l’Otan, du haut du ciel, a mis la Serbie à feu et à sang près de deux mois et demi durant, provoquant une orgie dévastatrice. Embourbée dans ses crimes qui commençaient à choquer l'opinion occidentale elle-même, l’Otan signa, le 9 juin 1999, sous une tente à Kumanovo, un cessez-le-feu avec les Serbes, prévoyant le retrait de leurs forces de la province et son occupation par les troupes de l’Otan dans le cadre de la résolution 1214 du Conseil de sécurité, qui fut votée peu avant. Elle garantissait la souveraineté de la Serbie sur la province du Kosovo sous l’égide des troupes de l’Otan, la Kfor, Kosovo Force, afin d’assurer la paix et la sécurité de tous les habitants de la province jusqu'à la mise en place de l’administration de l’Onu. Celle-ci prit corps dans la mission de l'Unmik, United Nations Mission in Kosovo, à la tête de laquelle fut nommé Bernard Kouchner ainsi récompensé d’avoir été l’un des principaux fauteurs de guerre contre les Serbes, aussi bien en Croatie et en Bosnie qu’au Kosovo.

Néanmoins, deux jours après la signature des accords de Kumanovo, le 11 juin, le monde se trouva un moment au bord de l’abîme: les unités russes commandées par le général Léonid Ivachov et faisant partie des casques bleus en Bosnie, traversèrent la Drina et descendirent au Kosovo où, devançant les troupes de l’Otan, elles occupèrent l’aéroport de Pristina. Le général Wesley Clark, commandant de l’Otan, envisagea de les bombarder, mais en fut dissuadé par son adjoint, le général britannique Michael Jackson qui déclara n’avoir aucune intention de déclencher une troisième guerre mondiale. L’affaire finit par être résolue au niveau diplomatique. 

Cependant, loin d’assurer la sécurité de la population serbe, la Kfor, soit par incurie, soit intentionnellement, l'abandonna aux mains de l’Uçk et de la population albanaise qui se mirent à assassiner les Serbes, à les enlever pour les conduire dans les camps en Albanie, à forcer environ un quart de million d’entre eux à l’exode, à piller leurs biens, à profaner et détruire leurs églises et leurs cimetières. Et c’est au milieu de ce désastre, s’y ajoutant la pollution du pays du fait de l’emploi des armes à l’uranium appauvri, que Bernard Kouchner s’écriait: «L’Europe est née au Kosovo, celle de droits de l’homme, celle que nous aimons». Un autre humaniste redoutable, Bernard-Henri Lévy renchérissait: «Merci aux avions de l’Otan, ce sont des avions de la liberté et de la démocratie.» Vu les ravages qu’ils font aujourd’hui à son instigation en Libye, on imagine le philosophe dans l’état d’extrême extase.

Devant les malheurs spectaculaires des Serbes et la dévastation du Kosovo par les Albanais sous l’œil indifférent des troupes otanesques d'occupation, la classe politico-médiatique de l’Ouest se gaussait, quand elle ne ricanait pas, n’ayant d’autres mots que celui-ci : «Les Albanais se vengent.» Comme l’écrivait l’un de ses spécimens, Alexandre Adler, lors de l’exode d’un quart de million de Serbes de la Krajina, en août 1995, soutenant dans son Courrier international, qu’il ne fallait avoir aucune pitié envers les civils serbes. Quant à Kouchner, il fut promu héros national kosovar, comme le titrait avec condescendance Le Monde à l’époque. Ce fut pour peu qu’il ne portât de l’ombre au grand Skanderbeg qui, d’ailleurs, était d’origine serbe.

En cette même année 1999, fut entreprise, près de la ville d’Urosevac au Kosovo, la construction de la gigantesque base militaire américaine Bondsteel, qui devait abriter la garnison de plusieurs milliers d’hommes, considérée comme une étape de plus sur le chemin de l’encerclement de la Russie. Certains yeux se dessillèrent enfin sur le caractère altruiste de l’engagement des Etats-Unis dans l’affaire du Kosovo, d’autres demeurèrent dans leur cécité. Parallèlement à cette implantation, l’Uçk fut transformée en Corps de Protection du Kosovo, alors que ses anciens chefs, tels Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku, Ramus Haradinaj et d’autres, se métamorphosèrent en interlocuteurs valables et viables, en démocrates, en politiciens respectables. Quelques 80 mille Serbes qui réussirent à se maintenir dans la province, se trouvèrent désormais enfermés dans des enclaves, véritables ghettos entourés de barbelés, leurs habitants ne pouvant se déplacer, ni même les enfants se rendre à l’école, que sous l’escorte des soldats de la Kfor qui finalement leur offrit quelque protection.

Telle fut, très brièvement, l’abomination qui vit le jour suite au banditisme humanitariste de l’Otan dans les Balkans, et qui en même temps s'avéra la première guerre de l’Alliance depuis sa création en 1948. Faute d’adversaire, l’Union soviétique n’existant plus, elle s’en était trouvé un, en fait une victime, pour se livrer à une démonstration de sa puissance, à des manœuvres in vivo afin d’asseoir sa crédibilité et se montrer dorénavant redoutable pour quiconque serait tenté d’en contester la politique d’expansion en vue de la domination du monde. Cependant, bien davantage que la défaite des Serbes, c’est une gigantesque défaite morale de l’Occident qui se produisit au Kosovo.

Il faut être armé de la foi de Job pour pouvoir croire, après cette abomination, à des valeurs telles que la démocratie, les droits de l’homme, etc., tant prônées par les élites de l’Ouest et si effrontément bafouées par elles au Kosovo. Pire encore, avec la quantité de maux qui fut alors vomie dans l’univers, les hurlements s’unissant aux grondements de l’apocalypse, les mots meurtriers aux armes destructrices, c’est le bourreau incurable en l’homme qui y apparut! Tel que l’avait dévoilé le génie de Dostoïevski. Et on eût franchement désespéré de la créature humaine, si précisément de tels génies, et dans les domaines les plus divers, ne la rachetaient pas en démontrant qu’elle était capable d’autre chose aussi. Du reste, quelques consciences qui s’étaient levées de par le monde, alors que l’horreur de l’Otan battait son plein, le prouvèrent, en dépit du peu d’accès qu’elles eurent aux grands médias.

Puisque les caciques de l’Occident, Clinton, Blair, Schroeder et Chirac, avec la walkyrie Albright en tête, s’étaient jurés d’avoir la peau de Milosevic, ce fut chose faite: le 5 octobre 2000, suite aux résultats électoraux contestés, le régime de Milosevic fut renversé lors des manifestations organisées par l’Opposition démocratique de Serbie  conduite par Vojislav Kostunica et Zoran Djindjic. Le noyau militant Otpor qui joua un rôle décisif dans cette opération, reçut du gouvernement étasunien, d’après l’information divulguée par celui-ci, des subsides d’un montant s'élevant à environ 72 millions de dollars. Tactique qui sera appliquée lors d'événements semblables, à savoir lors des fameuses révolutions colorées fomentées pour installer des régimes d’obédience: notamment en Géorgie à travers la dite révolution des Roses en novembre 2003 amenant au pouvoir le fantoche Saakachvili, puis en Ukraine à travers la révolution baptisée orange intronisant le tout aussi fantoche Iouchtchenko, en décembre 2004.

Le 28 juin 2001, le jour sacré de Vidovdan pour les Serbes, en souvenir de la bataille homérique de Kosovo entre eux et les Turcs en 1389, Milosevic est mis aux fers et livré au tribunal de la Haye, qualifié à juste titre par les mal-pensants d’inquisition antiserbe, puisqu' elle est financée par les Etats de l’Otan. Comme l’enfer réclamait son lot de victimes, d’autres personnalités politiques et militaires serbes furent déférées par la suite au tribunal de la Haye. La magistrate suisse Carla Del Ponte qui en fut nommée la procureure, ne cessera des années durant de sévir contre les Serbes, en fermant quasiment les yeux sur les crimes des autres, des Albanais, des Bosniaques et des Croates, sans parler des crimes de l’Otan hissés au rang de bonnes actions.

Le monstre s’étant senti pousser des ailes durant la guerre contre la Serbie, l’Otan se lança, en octobre 2001 dans sa deuxième guerre, celle d’Afghanistan, accusé d’abriter les bases de l'organisation terroriste Al-Qaïda présumée responsable de l’attentat du World Trade Center à New-York, le 11 septembre 2001. Des voix n’ont cessé, depuis, de se faire entendre, expliquant que cette tragédie, qui se solda par environ 3000 morts, n’était en fait qu’une monstrueuse machination du gouvernement américain afin de pouvoir, sous prétexte de la lutte contre le terrorisme, entreprendre une guerre de conquête visant d'importants territoires stratégiques en Asie centrale. Les talibans, jusqu’alors enfants chéris de l’Amérique, en devinrent, à partir du moment où ils refusèrent de continuer d’obtempérer, ses pires ennemis. Et leur chef, fondateur d’Al-Qaïda, Bin Laden, créature américaine lors de l’occupation soviétique de l'Afghanistan et que l’on retrouve apparemment en Bosnie, de faire l’objet d’une longue traque qui ne devait se terminer que par son assassinat le 2 mai dernier au Pakistan, à moins qu'il ne fût mort bien avant de mort naturelle.

Une guerre qui s’éternise au prix d’immenses malheurs pour les Afghans, mais aussi provoquant des milliers de morts et de blessés dans les rangs de la coalition. Les meurtres d’innombrables civils afghans innocents, mis officiellement sur le compte de dégâts collatéraux, ont pris de telles proportions que le président fantoche Hamid Karzaï lui-même a récemment pu évoquer le départ des troupes de l’Otan, qui de toute façon est envisagé par le gouvernement américain, l’Otan ne pouvant venir à bout de la résistance afghane.

Cependant, la boîte de Pandore une fois ouverte avec le Kosovo, les maux, prenant de l'ampleur, ne tardèrent pas à s’en échapper: le 20 mars 2003, l’Otan, sans la France et l’Allemagne, débute sa troisième guerre, celle contre l’Irak avec l’intention de renverser le régime de Saddam Hussein faussement accusé de fabriquer des armes de destruction massive, opération baptisée Iraqui Freedom qui  soumit la terre de Mésopotamie où vit le jour la première civilisation, à la barbarie de nos humanistes. En effet, l’Irak demeure plongé dans un véritable enfer du fait d’un million de morts et peut-être autant de blessés, du fait de 4 millions de refugiés, du fait de la contamination de l’environnement par l’uranium appauvri, et du déchaînement quasi quotidien de la terreur exercée par les islamistes fondamentalistes qui n’existaient point sous Saddam. A ceux, bien majoritaires, qui s’opposaient à cette guerre, les sempiternels pousse-au-crime, tels que Bernard Kouchner, André Glucksmann, Bernard-Henri Lévy et le restant de la clique instigatrice de l’agression, rétorquaient: puisque l'on a réussi au Kosovo il n’y a pas de raison que l’on ne réussisse pas en Irak. On voit aujourd’hui la réussite: huit ans après tant de malheurs et des sommes astronomiques englouties, les Américains avec leurs affidés sont sur le point de décamper. Encore un désastre consécutif à celui du Kosovo.

L’administration onusienne de la province serbe n’ayant cessé d’agir en collusion avec les Albanais,  ceux-ci déclenchèrent, le 17 mars 2004, un pogrom à vaste échelle sur le restant des Serbes du Kosovo en les violentant, en les forçant de quitter leurs foyers, en se saisissant de leurs biens ou en les détruisant, sans épargner leurs églises, une trentaine s’ajoutant à la centaine vandalisées en 1999. Le prétexte pour cette vague de terreur sous l’œil indifférent ou presque de l’occupant otanien, fut la désinformation répandue par les médias albanais selon laquelle des garçons serbes avaient poussé trois garçons albanais dans la rivière Ibar en crue qui les avait emportés. Une désinformation que même l’Unmik, pourtant si favorable aux Albanais, finira par démentir.

La connivence entre les responsables occidentaux et les anciens chefs de l’Uçk,  convertis en politiciens, était telle que l’un des plus redoutables d’entre eux, Ramus Haradinaj, fut nommé, en décembre 2004, premier ministre du Kosovo.  Mais il s’avéra bientôt qu’il avait commis des crimes de guerre et des crimes contre l’humanité, de sorte qu’il dut abandonner son poste et être transféré à la Haye où il fut jugé, puis relâché en 2008, faute de preuves. Et pour cause, puisque dans son cas, comme dans plusieurs autres, les témoins avaient été liquidés. Néanmoins, il sera de nouveau arrêté en 2010 pour être rejugé.

Venue brièvement en amazone de la communauté internationale, le 29 juillet 1999, au Kosovo afin d’y sceller en compagnie de Kouchner le méfait de celle-ci sur les Serbes, Madeleine Albright devait y revenir au début de l'année 2004 en tant que  businesswoman prospère pour recueillir ses dividendes bien mérités. Son Albright Group avait mis la main sur Ipko Net, la téléphonie mobile du Kosovo, après l’éviction d’un tycoon local, Ekrem Luka, qui fut menacé de poursuites pour crimes de guerre et d'interdiction de visa vers les Etats-Unis. Pareillement, certains hauts fonctionnaires de l’Unmik s’embrigadèrent, à l’expiration de leur mandat, comme conseillers dans le gouvernement de Thaci.

Quant à Slobodan Milosevic, il fit face durant près d’un lustre  à l’inquisition de la Haye, démolissant point par point les chefs d’accusation portés contre lui, confondant les témoins, démontrant la responsabilité des autres dirigeants yougoslaves, ainsi que de leurs mentors étrangers dans la dislocation tragique de la Yougoslavie, dont il était désigné comme le seul coupable. Son livre My Defense témoigne de ce combat surhumain, livre traduit en plusieurs langues dont le français sous le titre Ma vérité et édité par la revue mensuelle BI, Balkans-Infos, qu’un groupe d’intellectuels français et serbes avec Louis Dalmas, avait fondée à l’époque où sévissait la pire désinformation sur les événements en ex-Yougoslavie, et qui naturellement existe toujours. Ne sachant quoi faire de ce prisonnier dont on ne pouvait venir à bout, le tribunal de Carla Del Ponte laissa mourir Slobodan Milosevic, le 11 mars 2006, faute de lui avoir prodigué les soins nécessaires qu’exigeait sa santé compromise durant des années d’enfermement. Cependant, un autre célèbre prisonnier serbe, éminent juriste et historien, Vojislav Seselj, fondateur du Parti radical serbe, continue avec le courage du héros mythique à faire face au fléau, tout en espérant ne pas subir le même sort que celui de Slobodan Milosevic.

Cependant, en dépit du basculement du Kosovo, au lendemain de la guerre contre la Serbie, dans les griffes de la mafia, dans le crime organisé, dans la corruption, dans le trafic en tous genres y compris celui des êtres humains, les politiciens de l’Ouest, loin de reconsidérer leur politique kosovienne incitèrent, bien au contraire, les dirigeants kosovars avec Hashim Thaci en premier lieu, à proclamer le Kosovo Etat indépendant. Ceux-ci le firent, le 18 février 2008, en violation totale de la résolution 1244 du Conseil de sécurité de juin 1999 qui, nous l’avons vu, garantissait le maintien de la province au sein de la Serbie. Le président Sarkozy avec son ministre des Affaires étrangères qui n’était autre que Bernard Kouchner, lança un appel vibrant aux membres de l’Union européenne afin qu'ils reconnaissent unanimement l’Etat kosovar. L’auteur de ces lignes lui adressa via Internet une lettre ouverte intitulée Prôner la civilisation à Paris, cautionner la barbarie au Kosovo, que reprit une douzaine de sites et qui est toujours accessible  sur le réseau.

Chose faite, excepté par les cinq Etats de l’Union ayant des problèmes avec leurs propres minorités, à savoir la Grèce, la Roumanie, la Slovaquie, l’Espagne, ainsi que Chypre. Devant l’évidence de l’arbitraire qui régnait au Kosovo, les Européens sous l'égide des Américains créèrent, en décembre 2008, un organisme nommé Eulex, European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, afin d’aider tant soit peu leur avorton d’Etat kosovar à faire ses premiers pas. Et naturellement, depuis que la communauté internationale moyennant le crime de l’Otan en avait accouché, l’avorton se trouvait sous la perfusion, chiffrée en milliards d’euros, de ses parrains.

Tout au long du conflit kosovien et durant la période qui suivit, en dépit du fait que des hommes et des femmes de conscience de par le monde n’avaient cessé, dans la mesure de leur moyens, de clamer la vérité sur le Kosovo, scandaleusement occultée par les responsables politiques et médiatiques de l’Ouest, rien n’était valable ni crédible venant du côté des Serbes ou de leurs amis, seules ayant droit de cité les vérités officielles politically correct. Or, le printemps 2008 vit venir un peu de lumière d’où on l’attendait le moins, à savoir de la part de Carla Del Ponte elle-même. Piquée dans son amour-propre suite à son remplacement par le juriste belge Serge Brammertz à la tête du tribunal de la Haye, ou bien touchée par la grâce du repentir d’avoir sévi contre les Serbes, elle publia, au mois d’avril, un livre intitulé La Chasse, moi et les criminels de guerre, qui allait être explosif.

C’est qu’elle y révélait que durant les événements du Kosovo, les chefs de l’Uçk, loués à l’Ouest comme les combattants de la liberté et dont la cause avait mis en branle la plus grand force de l’univers, l’Otan, se livraient à des crimes épouvantables tant sur les Serbes que sur les Albanais loyaux à l'égard de la Serbie, notamment à la sinistre pratique de l’extraction d’organes humains et de leur commerce. En outre, elle affirmait que toutes les tentatives d'enquête de la part de son tribunal s'étaient heurtées à des obstacles insurmontables, soit que les responsables de l’Unmik se taisaient, soit que l’on procédait à la liquidation des témoins albanais gênants. Soudain les Albanais qui jusqu’alors voyaient en Carla Del Ponte l’incarnation de la Justice, qui l’adulaient à l’instar de Mère Teresa, béatifiée par le pape, ou à l’instar de Madeleine Albright, promue par l’écrivain Ismaïl Kadaré, tante de tous les Albanais pour avoir fait guerroyer l’Amérique du côté albanais, se mirent à l’outrager, n’étant plus en reste derrière son célèbre captif Vojislav Seselj qui alla, dans un livre consacrée à sa geôlière, jusqu’à la traiter de prostituée, vu le peu d’impartialité dont faisait preuve son tribunal. Quant à l'Etat suisse, qui compte une importante minorité albanaise et qui, par là même, avait aussitôt reconnu l’Etat fantoche kosovar, il essaya d’étouffer l’affaire en reléguant Carla Del Ponte à l’autre bout de la planète en tant qu’ambassadrice de Suisse en Argentine.

Grisés par leurs tristes exploits au Kosovo, les otaniens dont le rôle principal se trouve toujours joué par les Américains, ne tardèrent pas à se livrer à des gesticulations ayant pour but l’installation d'un bouclier antimissile en Europe centrale et orientale, en Tchéquie, en Pologne, en Roumanie, afin de contrer la menace qui viendrait de l’Iran sur quelques 900 millions de gentils, paisibles et pacifiques Européens et Américains. En fait, c’était une manigance, une de plus depuis la chute du mur de Berlin, contre la Russie qui, en cas de réalisation de ce projet, se trouverait à la portée immédiate et presque instantanée de ces missiles. Depuis l’arrivée de Barack Obama à la Maison Blanche, l’affaire semble plus ou moins mise en sourdine, à l’exception toutefois de la Roumanie qui vient de commettre une grosse imprudence en acceptant de prêter son sol à l’installation des éléments ce fameux bouclier.

C’est dans ce climat malsain d’hostilité envers la Russie que le pitre géorgien Saakachvili, à l’instigation de ses maîtres de l’Ouest, lança, dans la nuit du 7 au 8 août 2008, une offensive sur l’Ossétie du Sud afin de recouvrer l’intégrité territoriale de la Géorgie, cette province avec celle de l'Abkhazie voisine se trouvant, depuis l’éclatement de l’Union en 1992, dans le cadre de la Fédération de Russie. La riposte de celle-ci fut foudroyante, l’invasion fut repoussée et la débâcle en quelques jours consumée. C’est en vain que la Russie fut vilipendée par les médias euro-américains, que l’Otan gesticula des menaces envers elle en envoyant ses navires dans la mer Noire, que d’aucuns, comme Kouchner, prônèrent des sanctions internationales, sinon la guerre, contre elle qui n’en tint absolument pas compte, mais alla jusqu’à laisser les Ossètes proclamer leur province Etat indépendant. Les Occidentaux crièrent à la violation du droit international, à l’atteinte à l’intégrité territoriale de la Géorgie, mais la réponse du berger à la bergère ne se fit pas attendre, les Russes invoquant le précédent de l'atteinte à la souveraineté de la Serbie par la reconnaissance du Kosovo, berceau de la nation serbe, comme un second Etat indépendant albanais dans les Balkans. Alors, pourquoi pas un Etat indépendant ossète dans le Caucase?

Bien que pressée par les puissances de l’Ouest de reconnaître leur marionnette d’Etat kosovar afin qu’elle puisse envisager l’entrée dans l’Union européenne, la Serbie s’opposa farouchement à cette reconnaissance et porta l’affaire, en octobre 2008, devant l’Assemblée Générale de l’Onu en faisant valoir que le droit international, à travers la transformation de sa province du Kosovo en un Etat étranger, avait été violé. Elle en obtint un succès diplomatique, puisque l’écrasante majorité des Etats votèrent pour la résolution de la Serbie, mais les Occidentaux essayèrent de noyer le poisson, de sorte que le contentieux fut porté devant la Cour International de Justice de la Haye qui, en juillet 2010, publia l’avis selon lequel le droit international par les dirigeants albanais et leurs parrains de l’Ouest n’avait pas été violé. Il reste que sur environ 192 Etats que comptent l’Onu, seules quelques dizaines ont jusqu’à présent reconnu l’Etat croupion kosovar. Les grands pays, tels que la Russie, la Chine, l’Inde, le Brésil, l’Afrique du Sud, ne l’ont pas fait. Nombre de pays islamiques, dont la Libye, non plus.

Malgré la conspiration du silence sur le Kosovo, entretenue par les fauteurs du mal et les médias sous leur coupe, nombre de commémorations en Serbie et dans le monde, organisées en mars 2009, à l’occasion du dixième anniversaire du martyre de la Serbie, victime de l’Otan, fit rompre ce silence. La plus importante de ces manifestations fut la conférence internationale qui se tint le 24 et le 25 mars sous les auspices du Forum de Belgrade animé par Zivadin Jovanovic, ministre des Affaires étrangères durant les événements du Kosovo. Ce fut l’occasion pour une cinquantaine de personnalités de divers pays de s’exprimer de la façon la plus défavorable sur la guerre de l’Otan contre la Serbie. Leurs interventions se trouvent réunies en un gros volume, intitulé The Twilight of the West. La conscience de la planète aura parlé, notamment à travers la voix de Pierre-Marie Gallois, de Louis Dalmas, de Michel Collon, de Franz Weber, de Michel Chossudovsky, de Rick Rozoff, de Neil Clark, de Velko Vekanov, de Serge Babourine, de Ramsay Clark, de Diana Johnstone, de Yelena Guskova, de Jean Visconti, de Fulvio Grimaldi, d’Alexandre Latsa, de James Bissett, de Jürgen Elsässer, de Willy Wimmer, de Thanassis Paphilis, d’Elmar Schmelling, de Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, de Soccoro Gomes et de nombreux autres.

Par contre, les voix des malfaiteurs et de leurs thuriféraires, si tonitruantes dix ans plutôt, furent quasiment absentes à l’occasion de cet anniversaire qui, toutefois, ne resta pas sans être marqué de façon plutôt aléatoire par le principal protagoniste de la guerre du Kosovo, Bill Clinton, depuis en retraite. Heureusement pour le monde, aimerait-on dire, si son successeur George Bush n’avait pas continué dans la même voie. Clinton se rendit, le 1 novembre 2009, au Kosovo – le criminel revient sur le lieu de son crime qu’il avait fait commettre du haut du ciel – pour inaugurer à Pristina sa propre statue dorée, mesurant plus de 3 mètres, élevée en haut du boulevard portant son nom. Il fut accueilli par une multitude d’Albanais en délire, le glorifiant comme leur héros, leur libérateur, lui témoignant son attachement sans bornes et perpétuant la tradition de leurs aînés qui en avaient fait autant en 1941, en s’écriant: le baba (père) Hitler est arrivé ou, plus loin encore,  celle de leurs ancêtres qui s’enorgueillissaient d’être les meilleurs fils du sultan. De sa voix gutturale, Clinton exprima sa satisfaction en caquetant qu’il n’avait jamais pensé que quelqu’un le représenterait aussi grand.

Et alors qu’il avait transformé le Kosovo en un véritable ghetto pour les Serbes et en une création mono-ethnique, corrompue et mafieuse, il se lança dans les éloges de la libre démocratie, free democracy, que sa guerre contre la Serbie aurait permis de voir s’épanouir au Kosovo. Il promit que son épouse Hillary, Secrétaire d’Etat de l’Administration Obama, veillerait sur eux en bonne mère, comme il l'avait fait en bon père. Une affaire de famille! Sauf que le haut visiteur n’avait pas apporté son fameux saxophone pour que la musique de cet instrument se mêlât à celle des instruments indigènes qui accompagnaient bruyamment la cérémonie.

Clinton fut suivi , le 8 juillet 2010, par son acolyte Tony Blair dont la visite se révéla l’occasion que lui soient présentés huit garçons albanais nommés d’après son prénom Tony qui, en même temps que son nom, restera comme l’un des plus infâmes de l’histoire du fait d’avoir engagé son pays dans des crimes contre trois nations qui n'avaient point nui à la Grande-Bretagne, à savoir contre la Serbie,  contre l’Irak et l’Afghanistan. Bien au contraire, la Serbie durant les deux guerres mondiales avait combattu aux côtés de l’Angleterre et de la France, alors que les Albanais ont été exactement du côté adverse. Qui plus est, lors de cette visite, Blair beugla que, jusqu'en 1918, le Kosovo n’avait jamais fait partie de la Serbie, alors que, comme tout le monde le sait, il en fut le berceau dès sa création à l’époque médiévale.

Entre temps se produisit au Kosovo un événement qui serait historique s’il n’était pas grand-guignolesque: le 1 mars 2010, Bernard Kouchner, en visite dans la province du Kosovo, fit un tour dans l’enclave serbe de Gratchanitsa où, lors de la conférence de presse, un journaliste lui demanda s’il était au courant de l’affaire du trafic d’organes humains qui se déroulait à l’époque où il était le chef de l’Unmik. Kouchner joue l’étonné, éclate d’un rire forcé et insulte le journalise en lui recommandant d’aller se faire soigner.

Près d’un an après son époux, Hillary Clinton, Secrétaire du Département d’Etat, visita, le 13 octobre 2010, le Kosovo et loua, elle aussi, la plus jeune démocratie, the youngest democracy! Dire le contraire de la vérité et agir contrairement à la réalité, tel est devenu aujourd’hui le mode de gouvernement. De même que l’information, tout au moins dans les cas qui nous occupent, a dégénéré en désinformation. Naturellement, la ministresse posa devant les caméras au pied de la statue dorée de son adoré mari, le temps ayant estompé les pratiques fellatrices avec la Stagiaire dans le Bureau ovale que l’on avait rebaptisé Bureau oral.

Cependant, la fin de l'année 2010 s’avéra calamiteuse pour la communauté internationale ayant accouché de l'Etat fantoche kosovar: le 16 décembre, le magistrat et sénateur suisse Dick Marty, chargé deux ans plutôt par le Conseil de l’Europe d’enquêter sur les crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité au Kosovo perpétrés par l’Uçk, avant, pendant et après l’intervention de l’Otan, présenta à Paris son rapport accablant sur le trafic d’organes mettant en cause les dirigeants kosovars en commençant par le premier d’entre eux, Hashim Thaci. Le 25 février 2011, le Rapport fut adopté par le Conseil de l’Europe à une écrasante majorité, et cela malgré les menaces du premier désigné, Hashim Thaci, d’intenter une action en justice contre Dick Marty, et la campagne qui fut lancée contre celui-ci tant parmi les Albanais du Kosovo que ceux d’Albanie et du Monténégro.

Le Rapport mettant en cause également les personnalités de l’Unmik et de l’Eulex, l’image du premier gouverneur onusien du Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, déjà fortement écornée par tant de compromissions, fut mise en lambeaux. La bouffonnerie de Gratchanitsa inonda les sites, de même que la fameuse photo où on le voit au lendemain de la guerre, grimacer en compagnie de quatre bourreaux du Kosovo, le général Wesley Clark, le général Michael Jackson, le général Agim Ceku et le chef de l’Uçk, Hashim Thaci, les mains mêlées en démonstration de l’entente et de l’harmonie parfaites.

C’est en vain qu’il essaya de minimiser les effets dévastateurs du Rapport de Dick Marty, qui soudain dévoilait pour qui l'on avait guerroyé, de qui l'on avait été les mercenaires volontaires, à quoi les élites de l’Ouest s’étaient attelées. On se mit à parler, y compris le journal local albanais Koha Dittore, de l’horreur des camps de l’Uçk en Albanie où l’on enfermait, torturait et charcutait les Serbes, et où l’on maltraitait les Albanais qui demeuraient loyaux vis-à-vis de l’Etat serbe ou qui tout simplement refusaient d’approuver les méthodes terroristes de l'Uçk et de lui prêter concours. Les mêmes médias comme Le Monde ou le New York Times, qui avaient servi d'officines à la propagande antiserbe, publiaient enfin des textes véridiques. D’autres, comme l’Independent et le Times, qui avaient fait paraître quelques avis contraires au plus noir de la diabolisation des Serbes, firent état de rapports secrets des services occidentaux sur les crimes perpétrés par les membres de l'Uçk, parfaitement connus par les chancelleries, mais aussi par l’Otan et l’Unmik, mais volontairement tus pour ne pas nuire à l’image de leurs protégés. Les politiciens de l’Ouest n’ont-ils pas agi tout au long du drame kosovien en complices, en mercenaires des Albanais, et en persécuteurs des Serbes? Mais confrontés à l’évidence, ils se décidèrent, quoiqu’à contrecœur, de faire pression sur le gouvernement de Thaci pour que soient arrêtés certains de ses compagnons d'armes et qu'un procès soit entamé à Pristina même, en attendant le jour où s’ouvrirait le procès de Thaci en personne.

Le saint évêque Nikolaï, prophète et prédicateur serbe, l’avait bien dit: «Enfermez la vérité, broyez-la, brûlez-la, et allez vous coucher pour dormir, vous la verrez le lendemain au réveil, se dresser devant vous en montagne menaçante.» C’est ce qui s’est passé avec la vérité sur le Kosovo. Etouffée, occultée, vouée aux gémonies, elle continuait de luire dans la nuit kosovare qui suivit l’occupation otano-albanaise de la province jusqu’au moment où le brave Dick Marty, à l’instar de Guillaume Tell dont la flèche ne manqua pas son tourmenteur, visa au cœur de l’imposture qu’ en Occident même un nombre important d’hommes et de femmes de vérité n’eut de cesse de dénoncer.

Par ailleurs, son enquête a démontré toute la nécessité de l'existence de la Suisse en tant qu’Etat neutre et en dehors de l’Union Européenne, car il est certain que nulle personnalité d’un Etat appartenant à celle-ci n’aurait jamais eu le courage moral de contredire l’aberrante politique européenne et étatsunienne conduite à l'encontre du Kosovo. Malgré les tentatives de la minimiser, voire de l’étouffer, l’affaire du monstrueux trafic d’organes humains par les chouchous d’Albright et compagnie, vient d’être portée en ce mi-mai devant le Conseil de sécurité de l’Onu. Non sans que la France, qui préside actuellement cet organisme, essaie de dévier l’affaire afin de protéger sa plus grande gloire interventionniste, son prophète de l’ingérence humanitaire, Bernard Kouchner, bien évidemment.

Cependant, au lieu de tirer leçon de ce salutaire éclatement de la vérité, l'on fit tout pour reproduire le scenario kosovien, comme si, une fois engagée, la dynamique du mal, désormais, ne pouvait être arrêtée. Ainsi, le 19 mars 2011, furent déclenchées, à l’initiative  du président Sarkozy, par la France, l'Angleterre et les Etats-Unis, en prélude à l’action commune de l’Otan, les frappes aériennes contre la Libye sous prétexte de se porter au secours des insurgés contre le régime de Mouammar Kadhafi, comme l’Otan il y a douze ans vola au secours des rebelles albanais contre le régime de Slobodan Milosevic. Avec la même effrayante disproportion de forces, avec la même rage destructrice, avec la même irresponsabilité d’infliger des dégâts irréparables à l’environnement, avec la même perversion de vouloir remédier à un mal en provoquant des maux innombrables, avec la même inconscience dans la dilapidation de sommes astronomiques en pleine crise économique, avec la même propagande éhontée qui fait frémir d’aise l’ombre de l'ancêtre Goebbels, avec le même aveuglement d’aller jusqu’au bout pour gagner, quitte à exterminer jusqu’au dernier des six millions de Libyens, comme l'on était prêt à le faire sur autant de Serbes. 

Hier en Serbie, en Afghanistan et en Irak, aujourd’hui en Libye, demain peut-être en Syrie et en Iran, au risque de conséquences encore plus terrifiantes, les forces du mal, catalysées au Kosovo, continuent d’être à l’œuvre: on ne cesse de courir de désastre en désastre, mais on s’accorde le satisfecit, comme s’il s’agissait de réussites, naturellement des droits de l’homme et la démocratie. Du reste, il eût été illusoire de s’attendre de la part de tels coryphées du genre humain que sont les dirigeants américains et européens, à ce qu’ils acceptassent de reconsidérer l’œuvre de leurs prédécesseurs, de même que la leur propre. Toutes proportions gardées, Chateaubriand l’avait bien dit: «Lorsqu’on ne peut effacer ses erreurs, on les divinise.»

C’est qu’avec la guerre du Kosovo l'on semble être irréversiblement entré dans une spirale maudite, dans un cycle de violences à grande échelle, comme si ceux qui s’imaginent maîtres du monde, étaient saisis d’un vertige du mal, comme s’ils avaient perdu le contrôle des coursiers de l'apocalypse, enfourchés il y a douze ans au Kosovo, de sorte que ceux-ci, débridés, risquent d’entraîner le monde dans l’abîme.

Paris, le 15 mai 2011.

Prepared and translated by Biljana Đorović:

Just before the publication of the American edition of the book by Edward Herman, "The Srebrenica Massacre: The Facts, Context, Politics", "Stamp" exclusively published the translation of the concluding chapter of this study. This is a release of immense importance for the Serbs, since this comprehensive analysis - scientific, documented and credible - in the west enthroned destroys the myth of Serbian Srebrenica as a paradigm of evil "Srebrenica massacre, Facts, Context, Politics" is the name of a brilliant, long-awaited study of Professor Edward Herman and associates (Philip Corwin, George Bogdanica, Tim Fenton, Jonathan Rupert, George Samuelija, Michael Mandela and Philip Hammond), which ends in triumph and falsehood dishonor of world politics, which is staging and blatant constructs and simulacra-establish the rule of discourse of the Srebrenica genocide.

This valuable book will appear in the Serbian language in the release of the fund "Historical Project Srebrenica", whose founder and director Stefan Karganović said: "This is a study whose importance to us enormous. Arrives as a gift and miracle from Professor Herman, a man devoid of vanity, which relentlessly unmasks the strategic and tactical, the system enabled and promoted technology activities neo-imperialism. "

Studies Edward Herman convincingly demonstrated the unlimited capacity of the media, intellectual elite and the public to support the aggression, terrorism and genocide, all sorts of crimes against humanity that the widespread violations of international law and norms of conduct imperial machine with NATO as a "pit bull imperial."
"Seal" has released two thematically and substantively important, interview with Professor Edward Herman: on the occasion of the English ("Monthley Review Press) and the Serbian edition of the study" a policy of genocide "(" Vesna info "), a book by its arguments largely influenced the official version of events problematization of recent world history - Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Darfur war and killing, Afghanistan, the Israeli invasion of Gaza, Sabra and Shatila ... The second theme was the politicization of genocide in the context of the wars in former Yugoslavia: mythic bloodshed - Racak; Croatian Operation Storm, the policy of the Srebrenica massacre.
The book "The Srebrenica massacre, Facts, Context, Politics" is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution "and should soon go out of print in the U.S.. In preparing the edition of the Serbian language, which will appear in the issue of fund "Historical Project Srebrenica", whose founder and director Stefan Karganović.
Readers of "Seals" are in a position to be among the first in the world gain access to the study, which destroys the myth of Serbian Srebrenica as a paradigm of evil.  

We selected a part of the final, tenth chapter, "Summary and Conclusions", written by Professor Edward Herman:

Regarding the texts that were published in The News (Vesti) from Frankfurt
(29 March, 2011) "In Bosnia 104,732 people died" and
the Evening News (Verernje novosti), Belgrade (30 March, 2011),
"The Hague: Released casualties in BiH"

The Institute for Research on the Suffering of the Serbs in the Twentieth Century states that the number of Serbian victims killed in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war was reduced in these articles by 9,623, according to the Institute's preliminary report.

Considering that the field research is still underway, the number of Serbian victims is not final and may be higher. We cannot reveal the research sites for now, because they are located on Muslim-controlled territory, where, experience has shown, such sites are often subjected to sabotage and the concealment of facts.

We recall that the Institute has published the results of earlier phases of research, and that there were a number of documented Bulletins with the names of Serbian victims from Birac, Sarajevo, BiH, Upper Drina regions, etc. Some of these are available on the website of the Institute (www.serb-victims.org).

Please note that the preparation of the final document on Serbian victims by municipalities and places of residence in the year 1991 is still in progress. The Institute will begin to publish it as soon as possible. The database of Serbian victims killed in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war includes a personal file with the necessary information and evidence and, of course, a personal ID number for each registered victim.

We emphasize that we are surprised by the reaction of some naive Serbian institutions and individuals regarding the publication of data that contain a significantly reduced number of Serbian victims during the 1992-1995 war (up to 9,623 fewer victims for now), who are obviously unaware of the horrible forgery and concealment of the true indicator of the extent of Serbian suffering, along the lines of the case of the WW II Jasenovac extermination camp in Croatia and the understated numbers of its victims.

In Belgrade, April 1, 2011

Institute for Research on the Suffering of the Serbs in the Twentieth Century
Milivoje Ivanisevic, president

Je n’ai jamais eu l’occasion dans ma vie, qui commence à être longue grâce à Dieu clément, de connaître un seul Libyen, pas plus que je n’ai jamais éprouvé une admiration particulière pour le colonel Khadafi, si ce n’est une sorte de nostalgie qui m’envahit en me remémorant le temps où il vint au pouvoir en 1969, par le fait même que j’étais alors dans la force de l’âge et que, de surcroît, je me trouvais sur une île enchantée de la Méditerranée quand j’en appris la nouvelle.

Cependant, si l’on se place sur le plan de la justice et de l’éthique les plus élémentaires, on ne peut demeurer insensible devant le sort cruel infligé soudain au peuple libyen par les dispensateurs des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie, d'autant plus que le peuple serbe dont je suis issu, subissait il y a douze ans un pareil fléau.

En effet, on constate la même promptitude à secourir, par l’apocalypse sur le pays tout entier, une fraction de la population en rupture avec le pouvoir central et se livrant au terrorisme: les séparatistes albano-kosovars dans un cas, les rebelles benghazouis dans l’autre, que l’on a allumés, aussi bien les uns que les autres, pour créer les conditions du chaos afin de trouver un prétexte pour intervenir et mettre ainsi la main sur le pays;

la même effroyable disproportion des forces dans un cas, comme dans l’autre: l’immensité des moyens militaires déployés contre la Libye, tout comme ils le furent contre la Serbie, aurait suffi pour s’attaquer à un grand Etat, tel que l'était, par exemple, l’Union soviétique au faîte de sa puissance;

la même clameur des médias, rivalisant dans l’hypocrisie, dans le mensonge et la diabolisation, modulant sur toutes les cordes du mal, assourdissant les voix véridiques, et s’unissant aux grondements de l’apocalypse qui montent à présent comme il y a douze ans, jusqu’aux astres;

la même litanie d’imprécations et de condamnations au sein de leurs conclaves où l’inhumanité mime l’humanité, la médiocrité la grandeur et où les pygmées, disposant des armes dévastatrices, s’imaginent dans le rôle des géants investis de la mission de refaçonner le monde, fût-ce au prix de sa perdition, tant est désastreuse leur vanité;

la même démentielle idée d’empêcher une prétendue catastrophe humanitaire, en en provoquant une vraie et sans bornes, ou bien d’arrêter un massacre télévisuel simulé de quelques civils, analogue à celui de Ratchak, en  meurtrissant du haut des airs des milliers d'êtres humains et en en terrorisant des millions d'autres, comme cela se passa naguère en Serbie avec leur démoniaque opération cyniquement baptisée Ange miséricordieux et se produit aujourd'hui en Libye avec leur équipée crépusculaire outrageusement  appelée Aube de l’Odyssée;

la même rage destructrice aveugle contre la Libye, tout comme celle contre la Serbie, que traduisait le glapissement du sinistre Jamie Shea, porte-parole de l’Otan, selon lequel on allait rejeter la Serbie à l’âge de pierre, la Libye risquant à son tour d’être transformée en terre maudite, puisque le chef de l’aviation britannique n’hésite pas à déclarer qu’il faudrait la bombarder pendant au moins six mois;

la même barbarie au nom de la civilisation, la même tyrannie au nom de la démocratie et la même carence de critères moraux que, pourtant, l’on n’a cessé d’invoquer pour justifier des entreprises monstrueuses, notamment les guerres contre la Serbie, contre l’Afghanistan, contre l’Irak, contre la Libye, sur lesquelles s’est clos le Deuxième et ouvert le Troisième millénaire du Christ, comme si dans cette accélération du mal – quatre guerres apocalyptiques en espace de douze ans seulement ! - Satan voyait son temps arrivé et se hâtait d’entraîner le monde dans l'abîme;

la même obstination pour abattre le tyran Khadafi, comme le tyran Milosevic, fût-ce au prix de l'extermination respective jusqu’au dernier des Serbes et Libyens, la fin, la prétendue instauration de la démocratie, justifiant les moyens, mais en fait dans le but de se rendre crédibles et redoutables, mus par leurs fantasmes de conquête du monde et de l’appropriation de ses richesses;

la même cohorte des humanitaristes, certes avec Kouchner en moins cette fois-ci, mais avec l’indéfectible Bernard-Henri Lévy métamorphosé en Méphisto de Sarkozy, et qui, à ses diverses impostures, bosniaque, kosovare, tchétchène, géorgienne, irakienne et afghane, ajoute l’imposture libyenne, en glorifiant les avions de l’Otan qui sèment la mort et la destruction dans ce pays d'Afrique, en tant qu'avions de la liberté et de la démocratie, pour reprendre l’expression qu’il utilisait lors des pareilles actions de la coupable coalition en Serbie;

la même irresponsabilité des responsables occidentaux, en exceptant cette foi-ci les sages dirigeants allemands, d’ensemencer l’Afrique du Nord, tout comme naguère les Balkans, par le mal de l’uranium appauvri et d’autres matières toxiques en générant une catastrophe écologique, comme si celle du Japon n’en était pas une de trop sur notre pauvre planète en proie aux puissances du mal.

Cependant, la différence entre l’opération menée contre la Serbie et celle conduite contre la Libye, serait que le relief plus ou moins montagneux de la Serbie, facilitait la tâche des résistants serbes, tandis que le terrain plat de la Libye laisse ses défenseurs exposés au fléau du haut du ciel. D’autre part, Milosevic, contrairement à Khadafi, était honni par les Occidentaux, alors que celui-ci, toutes ces dernières années, jouissait de leurs faveurs, comme en témoignent les accolades avec Berlusconi ou le spectacle mémorable avec Sarkozy dans le jardin du palais de Marignan où le Guide de sa droite serre la main du Président, tout ravissement, et de sa main gauche tient la bride de son chameau favori. Au méfait de la destruction du pays du légendaire Bédouin, qui était en plein essor, s’ajoute celui de la trahison des dirigeants occidentaux que le scandaleux Cavaliere sera le premier à expier quand le sirocco couvrira la Péninsule de poussières radioactives mortelles.

Force est de constater d'après ce qui précède, que les acteurs de la fameuse communauté internationale auront manqué cruellement d’imagination, ne trouvant rien de mieux que de fêter ce douzième anniversaire de l'assassinat du printemps serbe par l'assassinat du printemps libyen. Et quant au vieux Guide à l’altière allure, à la figure façonnée par les ans et par les luttes autant que par les soleils et les vents du désert, même si se trouvait avéré ce qu’ils ne cessent de ressasser actuellement sur lui, après l’avoir flatté, ils risquent d’en faire un martyr, voire le Héros du monde arabe et le Lion de l’Afrique, vu l’immensité des forces injustement dressées contre lui et auxquelles il fait face avec le courage des héros mythiques qui hantent les rivages libyens depuis les temps homériques.

American Thinker   March 29, 2011

Let us first look back to the bombing of Serbia by President Clinton and who was most instrumental in encouraging him.
According to Dean Murphy in the New York Times of October 2000,

"Hillary Clinton called for the US to reject isolationism and aggressively engage itself in world affairs in the tradition of President Truman at the end of WWII.

"She cited American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of foreign engagements she favored on moral and strategic grounds, but also suggested that Americans needed to consider becoming involved in solving crises that are not only military in nature."     

In other words Hillary urged Bill to launch the first "human rights war" in Bosnia and Kosovo. But in doing so she laid the foundation for an Islamic beachhead in territory previously fought over for centuries by Christian Serbs who were resisting Muslim invasion and conquest. 

Again, according to Gail Sheehy writing on December 9, 1999 in Hillary's Choice, page 345: On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President:

"I urged him to bomb. The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. The President expressed what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance?

"Hillary responded, "You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?"

The next day the President declared that force was necessary. Thus it was Hillary Clinton who urged her husband to bomb Serbia. And it was done, predominately, with the use of U.S. aircraft wearing NATO insignia and bombing from thousands of feet. Inevitably such indiscriminate force led to the destruction of bridges in Belgrade with untold numbers of Serbian civilians killed. Some humanitarian war!

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,
Comrades,

Allow me to express most warmly my gratitude for your kind invitation to me to take part in this important gathering and for the warm hospitality by our friendly hosts. I feel great satisfaction to have the honor to address this distinguished meeting of Peace Movements of the Balkans and the Middle East on behalf of Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. May I convey to you most warm greetings of the Belgrade Forum Leadership, together with their wish for the success of this gathering and for ever more successful collaboration of our movements.

Our meeting is being held at the moment when the situation in our region last few months is the matter of great concern, not only to the adherents of the Peace Movement but to all the peoples of our countries. Complete historic experience, so far, indicates that stable and prosperous Balkans and the Middle East are of prime interest, not only for our peoples, but because they have great impact on peace and stability in Europe and in the world. Situation in both of these regions is, however, very complex, with an array of political, security and socio-economic problems, carrying a danger of still deeper destabilization, even arm conflicts.

As you well know, the Balkans or, rather its western part, last twenty years was encountering many dramatic changes and was subject to experiments of the new NATO doctrine, with brutal violation of the International Law. Forceful disruption and partition of the former joint State – Yugoslavia, in a plot of internal separatist forces and external factors, was accompanied by a tragic civil war in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATO aggression on Serbia (then FR of Yugoslavia) in 1999 presented as a ‘Humanitarian intervention’, beyond huge number of civilian victims and destruction, led to the occupation of Kosovo and Metohija, to the purges of several hundred of thousands of Serbs and other non-Albanian inhabitants and, later, to the unulateral proclamation of independence of that Serbian province in 2008.

Kosovo and Metohia is today the main sorce of testabilization in the region. It is a spring bord for terrorism, Islamic extremism and drug, human and arms trafficking towards  Central and Western Europe. We give the full support to the iniciative of the Swiss parlamentarian  Mr. Dick Marty,  to investigate and to unvail full truth about illegal trade of human organs, extracted from Serbs kidnaped in Kosovo and Metogia, with direct involvement of some top leaders of the terrorist KLA (''Kosovo Liberation Army'').

Although during last ten years a remarkable progress is realized in normalization of relations between the newly created states, traces of distrust are still present and they are limiting the efforts for the establishment of normal political, economic, cultural and other ties. Known in history as mixture of peoples, cultures and religions, the Balkans, after fragmentation of Yugoslavia and creation of new states, has become “wealthier” with new national minorities, constructions and proclamations of more languages, and, even, new religions and churches.    
Special problem, not just for Serbia, but for the region as a whole, presents the illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohia, which remains unchanged and is the main source of destabilization in the Balkans. Serbia, regardless of pressure she has been exposed to, can not and will never recognize that illegal creation made by the NATO.

On the opposite side of the Mediterranean, dramatic happenings in the Arab world excite the international public. Protests and revolt have swept across the whole arab World, from the Atlantic costline to the shores of the Persian Gulf.  Although this revolutionary movement has its specifics from country to country, their common denominator is – the overthrowing of the autocratic regimes, reassertion of their national sovereignty and a more just distribution of national wealth. Mass movements in the North African and the Middle East countries have unveiled many problems, accumulated during the decades of autocratic rule and imperialist domination, but, at the same time, they have shown maturity of the Arab peoples, which is giving them new strength. These processes reflect an awakening of the Arab peoples, whose identity, particularity and culture have been neglected and under-estimated for a long time. All in all,  this are putting in question regional power set-up, which was quite convenient to the imperialist centers of power and to Israel.  It is about the process that makes the situation for the Arab People to get rid of the cheek of imperialism and finally get the Palestine rid of Israel’s occupation.

The emerging of mighty popular movements, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, is not suitable to the imperialist power centers of the West. From the beginning of these mass movements, western factors, especially the U.S., NATO, E.U., are trying hard to put them under control and manage their course in the way that corresponds to their strategic interests. Events in Libya have been a particular cause of concern. Although the character and demands of the anti-Gaddafi movement are not completely clear, serious danger of the foreign intervantion, the  partition of Libya and of larger and prolonged civil war is somthing that warris us all.   That would be neither in the interest of Libyan people nor the Arab world as a whole. The Belgrade Forum strongly rejects outside pressure, threats and any form of foreign intervention in Libya. Libyan people have their sovereign rights to ask for the changes in political, social and economic field in their country. We are convinced that Libyan people will overcome the present crises and find out the desired political solutions. It must not be permitted that Libya becomes North African military base of the United States and NATO, the springboard for manipulation with popular movements in Arab countries in the interest of the West and Israel.

War games about Libya, to which we assist these days, managed by the United States, E.U. and NATO, are the latest warning and doubtless evidence that our broader area is in focus of intensified interest of the novel NATO strategy, adopted at its summit in Lisbon on 20th November 2010. It is evident that external intervention in Libya under disguise of humanitarianism, has the goal to install control of the processes in the region, as well as on their energy and natural resources for the advantage of the imperialistic power centers. Legitimate is the aspiration of all peoples to express their aspirations and, indeed, their sovereign right to ask for the political, democratic, social and other changes in their own country. This, however, can not be the excuse for meddling from abroad or for the imposition of the solution by way of military intervention in contravention with the interest of peoples of these countries. Tragic experience of Serbia (the FR of Yugoslavia), who was subject to aggression in 1999, shows that NATO has no purpose to keep the peace, democracy or justice, but rather for the purpose of global domination of imperialism. We remind you that NATO, during the aggression twelve years ago, committed grievous crimes against the peace and humanity, killing thousands of civilians, using forbidden weapons with depleted uranium.

Overall experience from the end of last and the beginning of this century indicates that NATO is not defensive, but rather offensive, aggressive military alliance, whose real goals and practice are in contravention with basic principles of the UN Charter and the International Law. It is about military alliance that is trying hard, primarily on behalf of the United States, to discontinue unavoidable deep transformation in global relationship in the world, appearing not as a factor of peace, but factor of sharpening, confrontation and conflicts. Aggression on Serbia (FR of Yugoslavia) meant decisive turn about in change of the NATO strategy into offensive power, based on the doctrine of the “humanitarian intervention.” Actually, NATO has evolved as a tool for the attainment of American strategic goals on the global level.

At the last Summit in Lisbon the NATO goals „Going forward” were redefined so as to take the charge in decision-making on all global and regional issues, from civil wars and type of socio-political systems, to displacement of missiles, nuclear weapons, terrorism, or cyber security. Adopted strategic concept also endeavors NATO to additionally work-out the doctrine and military capability for the expeditionary operations world wide, which indicates the possibility of undertaking of new aggressive actions anywhere on the Planet. NATO pretends to be the sole guarantor of security in Europe, regardless of the fact that a score of European countries are not members of the Alliance. As such, the new Strategic concept of NATO means a serious threat for peace and security in the Mediterranean region, and broader in the world. The authors of that concept state, with surprising cynicism, that the Alliance is dedicated to the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to the Washington Agreement, which confirm desisive responsibility of the UN Security Council for safeguarding the peace and security. Bypassing exactly the United Nations and its Security Council, NATO had undertaken the aggression on Serbia (FR of Yugoslavia) and is evermore today showing up as a self-proclaimed peace protector, promoter of democracy, human rights and stability.

Although its existence during the Cold war could be formally justified, today the NATO is obsolete, unnecessary and detrimental. NATO has become the main hurdle to the democratization of international relations and its new interventionist strategy is the source of great danger for peace and security in the world. Confirmation of this is its expansion to the East, opening of its new military bases in Kosovo and Metohia, Bulgaria, Romania and other European countries, plan for installation of new missile systems in Europe, establishment of the NATO command for Africa and many other steps. Within this expansion action, Serbia is also subject to open pressure last few years to join the NATO. Great deal of population, some 75%, is against it, considering that Serbia should not be the member of any military alliance, but rather to remain neutral. Not just for the fact that Serbia was the target of NATO aggression, but also because its vital national interests are not compatible with aggressive nature, aims and strategy of NATO.

As for many peace-loving movements in Europe and in the world, for the majority of Serbia’s people there is nothing that justifies the existence of NATO, when world peace and security are in question. Therefor, the Belgrade Forum considers that all peace-loving forces of the world have to get united in their decisive request for the dissolution of the NATO alliance.

Yes to Pece! No to NATO!

Thank you for your attention.

The Centre for Research on Globalization presents Diana Johnstone, filmed in Belgrade, Serbia at the March 24, 2009 commemoration of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.

27 March 2011 | 15:26 | Source: Tanjug BRUSSELS -- MEP Pinno Arlacchi has said that Kosovo is the international community's biggest mistake in the past 12 years, adding that EULEX mission is a complete failure.

“The international community avoids going below the surface and looking into problems, it avoids admitting that Kosovo was a huge mistake, the biggest one in the past 12 years,” he told Tanjug.

“We created a mafia state and we care only about not letting the truth come out,” the Italian MEP added.

He pointed out that as a mission EULEX had so far been a complete failure, pointing out that the EU and the international community should stop having a false image of Kosovo as a stable place.

“The EU countries should start facing the truth and taking measures. The political situation in Kosovo and the fact that organized crime dominates its territory represent a huge threat to the security of the EU and the regional countries, even Albania,” said Arlacchi, a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament who actively took part in the creation of Italy's structures for combating mafia in the 1980s.

“EULEX has been a complete failure. They have no strategy or idea what to do, and they did not take into account Europe's experience in combating organized crime,” he underscored.

Remorse after 12 years:  Serbs, sorry for our crime

Former officer in the NATO force in Kosovo and Metohija, Christian Kas (Kristian Kahrs), has publicly asked forgiveness of the Serbian people because of the evil that they had been subjected to during and after the 1999 bombing.

At the crime scene ... Kas now lives in Belgrade and he is sorry for the injustices inflicted on the Serbs

Kas is the rank of Major 2000th The spent six months in Kosovo in the KFOR mission.
- A month ago I saw the Serbs from Kosovo in a refugee camp near Resnik Crabs and then I realized how much we have caused harm to people here. More than ten years, I felt a collective responsibility because we did not defend the Serbs in Kosovo. However, after that visit the camp I felt a personal and moral responsibility since I was a senior officer in NATO. I want to publicly ask for forgiveness from the Serbian people. We were unable to protect them from the Albanians, we are totally failed in its mission. We are responsible for ethnic cleansing, under our supervision have been expelled more than 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians - began Kas story for the Press.
Norway welcomed the start of the bombing of the military exercises of his army, and soon after he arrived in Kosovo. According to UN Resolution 1244, Kas was part of a mission that was supposed to protect minority populations from the persecution of Albanians.
- In early January 2000. year I arrived in Kosovo. I stayed there for six months and I worked on the staff as an officer for notification. I was a spokesman for KFOR, and in my responsibilities was the official site of the mission. I watched closely to make big mistakes in the field. I watched as the force of law enforcement, as we are too busy on the role of liberators Albanians. We were too discouraged when we were allowed to transform the KLA into the Kosovo Protection Corps and then in Kosovo police.

Black Balance:

• 78 days time the bombing of Yugoslavia, from 24 March to 10 June 1999.
• 3,500 people killed
• 89 children killed
• 1031 member of the military and police killed
• 12,500 people injured
• 2,700 children were injured
• 19 countries participated in the aggression
• 2300 air attacks carried out
• 995 facilities attacked
• 1150 combat aircraft participated
• 420 000 projectiles were fired

Kas said he did not know much about Serbia before the arrival of the mission. He was shocked by some of the details that he has learned.
- I was preparing to institute under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. There I met a lot of scientists who knew the situation in the Balkans. He was a prominent opponent of the bombing, told me that the authorities in Kosovo holds the mafia, that organized crime is widespread. He told me that there are data that suggest that the Albanians were the main heroin dealers in Norway. Later I was convinced of the truth of it - says Kas.
He remained as an officer of NATO in Kosovo by July 2000. year. After leaving military service he returned to Kosovo as a freelance journalist and remained there until February 2001. year.
- I will never forget the 16th February 2001. year. Then the terrorist attack occurred on the bus "Nis Express" in Podujevo. The attack was carried out Florim Ejupi. Then killed 12 Serbs. I was only an hour and a half after the massacre, and I saw bodies of killed Serbs, including the body of a child. Then I decided to leave. I moved to Serbia, where they still live and work as a freelance journalist. I do not want to go back to Norway, I want to live in Serbia - ending his confession Christian Kas.

(Excerpts from the article “Libya Shows how Goffy Intervention has Become”)

What’s even more absurd and futile than going to war to spread democracy and advance human rights? Intervention to stop regimes from “killing their own people.”

And still the administration, its media lackeys, and European amnesiacs offer the moral imperative of protecting Libyan civilians as the casus belli for the second most senseless humanitarian intervention this nation has undertaken.

The first came under another leftwing Democratic president. In 1999, then-President William Hefner Clinton dove into bed with the Islamists of the Kosovo Liberation Army. (Maybe he missed Monica.) In the 78 days we shocked and awed Yugoslavia, 3,000 civilians died.

We were there, Clinton informed us, to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims by Serbian Christians. When NATO turned Kosovo over to the KLA, none of the alleged mass graves were found. The ethnic cleansing came later, when victorious Albanians drove 277,000 Serbs from their homes, two-thirds of the province’s pre-war population.

In December 2010, a report by the Council of Europe charged Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim (the Snake) Thaci with harvesting the organs of Serb prisoners murdered for that purpose.

Aren’t humanitarian interventions fun?

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

GrasstopsUSA respects the privacy of our members. We will never sell or rent your name to third parties. GrassTopsUSA is a 501c4 not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible.
GrasstopsUSA
8230 Catbird Circle 302
Lorton VA 22079
888-864-1964
888-239-9306 FAX

Serbia should preserve military neutrality – NATO membership issue to be decided by referendum only

It is in the lasting interest of Serbia to retain and reinforce military neutrality that was instituted by the decision of the National Assembly – is the key message of the participants in the Roundtable titled “Serbia and NATO”, held on the occasion of the 12th anniversary of launching of NATO aggression against Serbia (the FRY). NATO should not be ignored, but in mutual relations experiences from the past two decades must not be forgotten. NATO 1999 aggression was a crime against peace and humanity which marked Alliance’s turning point from a defensive into an offensive military block. NATO strategy aims at domination rather than democratization in international affairs. As demonstrated by all the aggressions and occupations committed so far, from the 1999 aggression on Serbia (the FRY), through Afghanistan, Iraq and nowadays Libya, these are but façade for taking control of energy and strategic minerals resources. NATO defends and tries to impose uni-polar world relationsin spite of global changes introducing multi-polar world order.
These are some of the positions and views presented in addresses of the participants in this Roundtable.

The Partnership for Peace (the PfP) that Serbia joined in 2006, at the Riga Summit, is quite sufficient framework for the mutual Serbia - NATO. Tactics of a “crawling” joining the Alliance is quite unacceptable. Serbia’s membership to NATO would bring much more detriment and risks upon Serbia than benefits. The concept of a balanced foreign policy requires a balanced security policy that is inexistent at present – was a unanimous view of speakers and participants in hours-long discussion.

Relations between Serbia and NATO are a strategic issue of the utmost national importance. This is supported by independent surveys, which show that more than 70% of Serbian citizens are against Serbia’s membership to the Alliance. The state leadership is obliged to respect this position. If the issue of Serbia’s membership to NATO ever comes to the agenda, it can only be decided only by citizens of Serbia at referendum.

The venue for this Roundtable was the Ceremonial Hall of the Municipal Assembly of Novi Beograd City Hall, and it was attended by several hundred guests from the country and from abroad. Exhibition of photos and books depicting the consequences of the 1999 NATO aggression accompanied the round table.

The events have been jointly organized by the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Club of Generals and Admirals, and the War veterans association of Serbia.

The participants paid tribute to the victims of aggression, recalling that, during 78-day long, incessant bombing, over 3,500 people were killed and additional 12,000 wounded. They recalled that 89 children lost their lives of NATO bombes; the infrastructure, economy, and public services were devastated; the use of depleted uranium, cluster and graphite bombes, destruction of chemical factories inflicted indiscriminate long-lasting consequences to the population and environment.

The participants gave full support to the Report of Mr. Dick Marty and the ensuing Resolution of the Council of Europe to the effect of establishing  the truth about human organs harvesting of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija abducted and killed by the terrorist KLA. The participants demanded action and full contribution of relevant state bodies of Serbia. Serbia and Serbian media have a moral obligation to counter any attempt to water down this initiative of Dick Marty and the Council of Europe.

Among the participants of the Round table were Prof. Radovan Radinović, Vladislav Jovanović, Zivadin Jovanovic, Zoran Vujić(Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs), Dr Stanislav Stojanović (Head of the Strategic Planning Department of the Minsitry of Defense), General Jovo Milanović, retired, Prof. Dr. Branko Krga, Prof. Dr. Peter Strutinski (Germany), Prof. Đorđe Vukadinović (“New Serbian Political Thought”), Dr Srđa Trifković, (“Chronicle”, the USA), Prof. Miodrag Zečević, Milovan Drecun, and others.

This Roundtable was also attended by several foreign diplomats accredited in Serbia.

The papers of the speakers will be published as the Roundtable Report and also uploaded to the website of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, at: (www.beoforum.rs).

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals holds that the armed assault of a group of countries against Libya goes beyond the scope of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, that it violates the principle of the international affairs enshrined in the United Nations Charter and, in its essence, is aimed at gaining effective control over the natural resources of that country.

It should be as clear as a day to anyone that there is no such a thing as humanitarian aggression.

As demonstrated by NATO aggression on Serbia/FRY twelve years ago, an aggression is bound to, and does, cause massive civilian deaths, and inflict destruction of infrastructure, economy and public services necessary for daily life of citizens. Aggression in general leads to destabilizing regions, stirring secessions, inciting terrorism and thriving international organized crime.

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals hereby joins the requests for immediate cessation of armed assault by a group of countries, in order to make it possible for the Libyan nation to deal with and solve its internal problems by peaceful means, while preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

Five years ago Yugoslavia's president died in The Hague. The local UN tribunal denied him adequate medical treatment. A conversation with Catherine Schütz

Cathrin Schütz, who holds a degree in political science and is a writer/analyst for Junge Welt, was a member of the defense team of Slobodan Milosevic before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) from 2002 on. Among her contributions was "The destruction of Yugoslavia - Slobodan Milosevic replies to his accusers," published by the Zambon-Verlag

On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the death of Slobodan Milosevic you will be protesting this Friday (March 11, 2011) in at the Office of the United Nations in Vienna. Why not in The Hague where the former Yugoslav and Serbian president died in his cell during his trial before the Yugoslavia Tribunal (ICTY)?

The UN has created a monster with the ICTY and we’re demanding to finally remove this monster from the world. The governments of the United States and Germany set up the ICTY in 1993 as the first ad hoc tribunal in the UN Security Council, although the SC has no legal authority for such a step. A UN body, which judges citizens of member states, is in fundamental contradiction to the UN Charter. At the illegal establishment in The Hague we see no one to discuss this with.

What interest did the U.S. and Germany pursue with the establishment of the ICTY?

Because Yugoslavia stood in the way of their drive to expand in Eastern Europe, they led the way to its destruction; both states share responsibility for the outbreak and escalation of secessionist civil wars. With full awareness of the results of their plans, they had already in 1993 by diplomatic and covert operations covered their hands with Balkan blood, and then invented a "court" that could be used as a weapon to pressure the warring parties. And it should judge the crimes committed in former Yugoslavia - in true NATO-style: bring the recalcitrant Serbs to their knees and acquit the NATO countries of their responsibility. With this in mind, protected by the ICTY, NATO conducted an aggressive war against Yugoslavia in 1999 without a UN mandate. Because of its financial resources and political connections NATO spokesman Jamie Shea had described the military alliance as a "friend of the ICTY" and thus proactively explained why there would be no charges brought for NATO's war crimes -- crimes that have been certified by Amnesty International.

But there do exist international standards for fair trials.

In order to carry out the political mission, the ICTY had to disregard standards that normally apply. The Serbian opposition leader Vojislav Seselj has been held in custody for eight years. This is a clear breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. In any rule of law a defendant has a right to know what he is accused of. The ICTY has made basic changes in the particulars of the indictments several times, even after the trial had begun. It changed its own rules umpteen times and constantly violated them. Milosevic was refused his guaranteed right to defend himself. Radovan Karadzic is threatened with the same. The principle of giving equal treatment to prosecution and defense was violated every day. The prosecutor held weekly press conferences in the ICTY, and Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, a renowned producer of anti-Serb propaganda, rushed regularly to the foyer to attack Milosevic to the media. Meanwhile our colleague was ejected from the building when he distributed a handout to a journalist. The huge budget of the ICTY stood behind the accusers. The Milosevic-defense had to rely on donations alone. When the German government criminalized the fundraising campaign, froze our funds and also blocked my account, the ICTY refused us any support. This greatly limited our work.

You describe the ICTY as anti-Serb. But there were also Croats and Bosnian Muslims convicted...

Although this was a three-sided civil war, about 80 percent of all defendants are Serbs, including many top politicians and senior military. Not so with the Croats and Bosnian Muslims. The Croatian General Ante Gotovina was indeed found responsible for notorious "ethnic cleansing of Krajina," which removed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, but not his superior officers. The same applies to the Bosnian Muslim Naser Oric. Although he boasted during the war to the Western press with the severed heads of Serbs, the ICTY says that no one can prove he is responsible for the attacks of his soldiers on the Serbs around Srebrenica. The U.S. journalists, who were the first to see his human war trophies, were never called to testify by the ICTY. The pseudo trials against non-Serbs are meant to demonstrate to the outside world the impartiality of the ICTY.

Former ICTY chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte will now render a judgment in the case of organ trafficking by the Albanian Kosovar mafia. Serbs from Kosovo were deported to Albania and were systematically eviscerated.

Del Ponte has demonstrated in her autobiography the information needed to expose the organ trade, which led to the investigation and the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Council of Europe, Dick Marty. But I wonder if she in her current involvement wants to cover up a bigger scandal. Marty has namely discovered that under Del Ponte 2003the ICTY destroyed evidence of organ harvesting by the criminal gangs in Kosovo!

The majority of the local media [in Berlin] then described Slobodan Milosevic as they describe Muammar al Gadhafi today. Take your pick: Either he was a megalomaniac, evil, genocidal, yes, even a new Hitler. You were part of his defense team. What was it like?

Lord David Owen, former EU Special Envoy for the Balkans, described Milosevic as a "Yugoslav” who was anything but an ideologue for a Greater Serbia or promoter of "ethnic cleansing." I agree with Owen. Milosevic often took Croats and Bosnian Muslims under his protection, and he stressed how they were used by the West and misled. He also mentioned in his defense the support of the Bosnian Muslim forces by foreign mujahideen. However, he was opposed to any overestimation of the "Islamic terror." He stressed instead that the U.S. was responsible for the importation of Islamic fighters. It was no coincidence that the non-Serbs facing charges also respected him.

I was impressed by the reports of the defense witnesses, with whom I had close contact. They were Western politicians, diplomats, military officers, journalists who, in one way or another, witnessed the war. And all of their statements they confirmed that the allegations against Milosevic were as false as everything else that has been reported about Yugoslavia.

How did Milosevic experience his imprisonment and trial?

He probably never believed that the presumption of innocence would apply to him was that he would experience a legitimate trial. But he held his head high and put his accusers on trial. He made no compromise, no deal that would bring him privileges. He was free inside, as he himself observed. He could not help but see the ICTY as a repressive political instrument that was used to punish political leaders like him who refused to unconditionally surrender to imperialism. More and more harassment was used in order to weaken his defense. Finally the Tribunal in early 2006 refused to allow him treatment at a heart clinic in Moscow, which assured that he would not survive the Tribunal.

During the wars in former Yugoslavia, most of the media were uncritically anti-Serb. How did you find the journalists at the trial?

The press was never interested in the content of the trial. When it became clear that the prosecutors couldn’t prove their allegations, and on the other hand Milosevic could expose the arming of Croatian and Bosnian Muslim sides and later the Kosovo-Albanian side by Germany and the United States, the trial was hushed up. They did not allow the image of Serbia as the aggressor to falter. The German media did not even report it when a German witness was clearly shaken at the Kosovo portion of the trial. Ex-army officer Dietmar Hartwig was head of European observers in Kosovo and on the spot until the beginning of the NATO attack. He experienced terror, not from Serbs, but from the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). And Bo Adam of the Berliner Zeitung newspaper was told by local Albanians, that the "innocent Kosovars" at Racak* were really combat deaths.
Usually no journalists were there, with the exception of Germinal Civikov, whose reports provide valuable evidence.

*In January 1999, casualties from a battle between KLA commandos and Serb police and army in Racak, Kosovo, were disguised as civilian deaths and Western politicians and media used the incident to promote anti-Serb propaganda leading to the war.

http://www.iacenter.org/balkans/milosevic031111/

By Rüdiger Göbel, Junge Welt www.jungewelt.de

Statement of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
- NATO Strategy – Divide and Rule -

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals expresses its solidarity with the Cypriot people and the Cyprus Peace Council in their firm opposition to the entry of the Cyprus Republic to the “Partnership for Peace of NATO.

NATO is a military arm of imperialism and should be disbanded not supported in any form, including so-called  “Partnership for Peace”. It is well known that NATO does not serve objectives of peace and justice, but objectives of global domination in the interest of corporate capital and military complex of the western countries, particularly USA. 

As the painful experiences of Cyprus and Serbia show, NATO does not support territorial integrity, sovereignty and freedom, but destruction, separatism and submission of other countries.  Divide and rule is NATO’s strategy.

In the eve of the twelfth anniversary of NATO aggression against Serbia (FR of Yugoslavia), we recall that NATO committed heavy crimes against peace and humanity, killing thousands of civilians, using forbidden armaments with depleted uranium and destroying economy. NATO has demonstrated in practice that it is not defensive, but offensive, aggressive military alliance, whose real objectives and practice contradict UN Charter and basic principles of international law.

Therefore, all peace loving forces in the world should unite in demanding that NATO be dissolved.

Once again, the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals reaffirms its full support to Cyprus Peace Council and to brotherly people of Cyprus in rejecting initiatives for the entrance of Cyprus to the “Partnership for Peace”.

A recent Council of Europe report says that during and after the 1998-99 Kosovo conflict, militia leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) tortured and killed hundreds of Serbs and political rivals in secret Albanian hideouts, removed their organs for sale and dumped their bodies in local rivers.

The report added that these people were also heavily involved in drug, sex and illegal immigrant trafficking across Europe. Yet while all this was going on, the NATO powers had decreed that Serbia should be bombed into accepting the KLA as Kosovo's legitimate rulers — rather than the more popular Democratic League of Kosovo headed by the nationalist intellectual Ibrahim Rugova advocating nonviolent independence.

Recent years have not been kind to Western policymakers. They have shown an almost unerring ability to choose the wrong people for the wrong policies. Think back to the procession of incompetents chosen to rescue Indochina from the communist enemy. Does anyone even remember their names today? Yet at the time they were supposed to be nation-savers.

Before that the United Kingdom, United States and Australia had banded to try to prevent Lee Kuan Yew from being elected prime minister of Singapore. He was seen as a crypto-communist. They preferred the incompetent pro-British Lim Yew Hock.

Then we saw the West, and Japan, throw their support behind the hapless Afghan President Hamid Karzai as the strongman to defeat the evil Taliban whom the U.S. had once embraced as the good Taliban.

If not for the end of the Cold War, we almost certainly would be seeing the U.S. and U.K. today once again backing Middle East dictators against their protesting masses.

And now we discover that the people chosen to take over Kosovo from Serbia were not quite the heroes they were made out to be at the time.

Western involvement in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia had more than its share of such mistakes. The Serbian forces resisting the breakup were accused of war crimes and ethnic cleansing. But anyone aware of that nation's troubled history should have realized that the Serbian minorities in Croatia and Bosnia would not accept domination by the successors to their former pro-Nazi oppressors.

Retaliations and violent resistance, including even the shocking Srebrenica killings, were inevitable. Besides, the final result was that close to a million Serbs had to seek refuge in Serbia itself. So who had been cleansing whom?

Kosovo too had seen wartime ethnic cleansing against Serbs by pro-Nazi elements. The cleansing continued during the 1990s as U.S.-trained KLA guerrillas targeted Serbs isolated in rural districts and towns (by then Belgrade's efforts to give the province autonomy had failed on the rock of ethnic Albanian noncooperation).

When Belgrade finally sent in troops to resist the guerrillas, it was accused of war crimes even though the illegitimate force used was much less than what we see when most other Western nations, the U.S. particularly, intervene against guerrillas they do not like.

When many ethnic Albanians fled temporarily after the NATO bombing intervention, that too was supposed to be Serbian ethnic cleansing.

Even after gaining power, the KLA violence and cleansings continued. Their victims included the Jewish and Roma minorities and ethnic Albanians who had cooperated with Serbia's attempt to offer autonomy. The trafficking of drugs, women and body organs continued, right under the noses of the U.N. forces sent in to maintain order. Rugova supporters were eliminated.

The U.S., U.K. and Germany bear most of the blame for this horror; Germany especially should have realized the passions that would be unleashed by any sudden breakup of the former Yugoslavia. But they seemed more interested in the geopolitical gains.

In exchange for helping the KLA, the U.S. got to add the strategic Bondsteel military base in Kosovo to its global base network. And the feisty U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright got to play world leader at the 1999 Rambouillet conference by decreeing that the dashing, handsome KLA leader Hashim Thaci was far preferable to the elderly, unpretentious Rugova as Kosovo's future leader, and that Serbia should be bombed if it did not agree. Belgrade's agreement to Rugova as leader of an independent Kosovo was dismissed as irrelevant.

One wonders how the Serbs saw this performance. Two generations earlier, they had been the only European nation with the courage to resist Nazi attack. They had been bombed and massacred as a result. Now they were to suffer again at the hands of the NATO-supporting European nations, most of whom had spinelessly succumbed to, or had even collaborated with, that former Nazi enemy.

True, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has now resolved that it is "extremely concerned" over the recent KLA revelations. But is that not rather too late?

And will we see apologies from the people behind the past policies, particularly from the likes of former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair who still boasts that his firm resolve against Serbian "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo led him to support the U.S. in Iraq? I doubt it.

Gregory Clark is a former Australian diplomat and longtime resident of Japan.

www.gregoryclark.net

Tanjug News Agency
February 26, 2011

-Ramush Haradinaj, Thaci and Haliti all began their careers in Switzerland, which was the center of KLA activities and the place where, prior to 1999, enormous money intended for the KLA financing had been collected.

FRANKFURT: The UN and France knew about KLA leaders' link with the organized crime and protected and sheltered them, Frankfurt-based Serbian language daily Vesti writes.

The daily cited statements from a testimony of a well-known French criminologist, Xavier Raufer, relating to one of the Albanian mafia bosses Xhavit Haliti, who is now deputy parliament speaker.

Haliti has been linked to the worst kind of mafia activities in reports by several Western intelligence services, as well as in a recent report by NATO and in a report Dick Marty submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

Raufer, a Paris-based professor of criminology, warned members of one of the committees of the French Senate already in 2003 that, after the establishment of the UN administration in Kosovo, Haliti had been arrested possessing drugs and a large amount of money but had nevertheless been immediately protected and released.

According to the record from a hearing in the French Senate held on March 12, 2003, dedicated to the national fight against drugs, in which Raufer answered questions by Senator Paul Giraud, a large number of criminals arrived in Western Europe at the time of the admission of refugees from Kosovo.

The French criminologist said that a number of security officials and university professors had warned the French government not to grant Haliti a visa when he had come to attend the talks on Kosovo's future in Rambouillet in 1999, stressing that Haliti was much more a mafia godfather than a small bandit-patriot, that he was a “mafioso of the first order”, one of the financiers and without any doubt the godfather of the young Hashim Thaci at the time.

Ramush Haradinaj, Thaci and Haliti all began their careers in Switzerland, which was the center of KLA activities and the place where, prior to 1999, enormous money intended for the KLA financing had been collected.

Belgrade, February 28th, 2011.

Dear Prof. Rajko Dolocek,

Members of Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and millions of friends in Serbia and Serbian Diaspora are grateful to you, to Mr. Vaclav Dvorzak, director of the film “Stolen Kosovo” and to all friends in the Check Republic and Poland who demonstrated last week in Prague, Bialvostok, Schechin, Krakow, Wroclaw and other cities, for their  solidarity with Serbs, for continues support to the integrity of Serbia and enormous contribution to spreading of the truth about events in the Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Shameful, double standard policy of the leading western governments,
which have been hiding the truth about human organs trade and other UCK mafia crimes for their “ulterior” motives, must be further exposed and condemned as complicity.
We strongly condemn current manipulations aimed at watering findings of Swiss (PACE) Parliamentarian Dick Marty about human organ trafficking. We demand independent and efficient
International Inquiry, not one by EULEX and UNMIK, which have records of bias and drastic incompetency.

With the best wishes,

Živadin Jovanović
President of the Bel;grade Forum for a World of Equals

RT:
February 25, 2011

Once the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago, the members of the Warsaw Pact agreed to end their alliance. Originally formed at the height of the Cold War as a deterrent to NATO, it was no longer necessary.
¬But NATO carried on, and today the organization is having trouble justifying its existence.

Born of fear, the alliance “was originally supposed to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union,” Ivan Eland, director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute, said.

The fall of the Berlin Wall changed all that. Now, decades later, the military alliance formed against the Soviet threat, has been long deprived of its enemy.

Fumbling for a clear-cut mission, the North Atlantic Treaty organization has been fighting for justifiable reason to be.

That has not stopped NATO from continuing to pursue a global reach. It has been 20 years since the Warsaw Pact, formed in response to NATO, dissolved, but even without its main geopolitical rival and with the Cold War long over, NATO has aggressively expanded. Their current operations span several countries, with troops and resources in Sudan, Kosovo, the Horn of Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Mediterranean Sea.

In November, they redefined their goals going forward, at the summit in Lisbon, wanting to tackle everything from nuclear disarmament, to terrorism and cyber security.

The redefinition was adopted amidst protests on the streets.

“NATO is out of date and out of time. We need a world of peace and justice, not one preparing for yet more wars,” advocates British MP Jeremy Corbyn.

And the NATO members have already been divided over the near decade-long war in Afghanistan. NATO has not prevailed there, calling into question the alliance’s mission.

“There was every expectation that with the end of the cold war NATO would be disbanded. Instead what happened in fact and in violation of accords and agreements at that time was NATO aggressively expanded” Sara Flounders of International Action Center told RT.

Critics say US defense companies are benefiting most from this expansion, with the sales of weapons to every new NATO member and the building of every new base and that growth allows other tools to be used.

Lawyer and author Eva Golinger believes, “It has changed, altered militarily to become also this very powerful political entity that is used to pressure countries to bow down to NATO’s agenda – NATO’s agenda being primarily a US agenda.”

It is an agenda some countries see as a threat and critics of that agenda right in the US say its global expansion must be stopped.

Manager of the Stop NATO campaign Rick Rozoff shared, “I don’t believe there’s anything that justifies NATO’s existence, at least in terms of world security and peace.”

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Serbia Alexander Konuzin presented the Honorary Medal to Zivadin Jovanovic, the President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. The Medal established to mark 65th anniversary of the victory over Fascism and Nazism, and the Diploma signed by the President Dmitrij Medvedev, were presented at the solemn ceremony held on February 7th, 2011, at the Belgrade Russian Home. The ceremony initiated by the speeches of Ambassador Konuzin and laureate Jovanovic, followed by the feature film “The Star” and coctails, was attended by hundreds of guests from Belgrade and other cities of Serbia.

CONGRATULATION OF SOCORRO GOMES, (Brazil) PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD PECE COUNCIL (WPC)

Dear Comrade and Friend Zivadin Jovanovic,
On behalf of the World Peace Council  and in mine personally I am glad to greet you for the deserved homage you are being given in receiving the Honorary Medal.
I wish health and success in going on with our tasks and cause in common.
Best regards,

Socorro Gomes
President of the WPC

REPLY OF ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC TO SOCORO GOMESS, PRESIDENT OF THE WPC

Dear Friend Socorro Gomes, President of the World Peace Council,
Thank you very much for your friendly congratulation on my receiving of the Honorary Medal established on occasion of 65th anniversary of the defeat over fascism. It is indeed a great honor to be the bearer of such unique recognition from Russian Federation, the country and people which suffered dozens of millions of human lives and gave the greatest contribution for the victory over Fascism and Nazism.
Let us prevent appearances of any new forms of these the most dangerous ideologies.
I wish you personally and to the World Peace Council headed by Your Excellency further success in the continuous struggle for peace, justice and wellbeing of all nations and all human beings in the World.
Comradely yours,

Živadin Jovanović
President of  the Belgrade Forum For a World of Equals

(Kosovo,Komnen Becirovic,Kouchner,Dick Marty,Taci)Décidément, la fin de l’année dernière et le début de cette année auront marqué un tournant dans la difficile naissance de la vérité sur le Kossovo, occultée, étouffée, bâillonnée depuis tant de lustres. D’abord mi-octobre, l’un des fauteurs du mal antiserbe en Occident, que ce soit lors des événements de Croatie, de Bosnie et du Kossovo, Bernard Kouchner chuta, certes sans rapport avec le Kossovo, du haut de son postede chef de la diplomatie française qu’il occupait depuis plus de trois ans. Ceci malgré le fait qu’il s’était distingué en tant que fauteur de guerre, non seulement contre les Serbes, mais aussi contre les Irakiens et les Iraniens, obnubilé qu'il était par sa théorie d’ingérence dans les affaires des Etatssouverains sous prétexte d’imposer, par le feu et le fer, les droits de l’homme et la démocratie! Et il s’en est fallude peu pour qu’il appelât à la guerre contre la Russie lors du conflit quiopposa celle-ci à la Géorgie, en août 2008, puisqu'il en vintà réclamer à grands crisdessanctions internationales, avant que Sarkozy ne le calmât !

Cependant, pour revenir au Kossovo, rappelons-nous son délire au lendemain de la guerre de l’Otan contre la Serbie, en juin 1999, lorsque, à peine nommé administrateur onusien de la province, il s’exclamait : « L’Europe est née au Kossovo, celle des droits de l’homme, celle que nous aimons ! » Alors que la malheureuse y expirait du fait que la nation serbe qui, contrairement à la nation albanaise, avait combattu par deux fois en un siècle pour la liberté de l’Europe et du monde, se trouvait meurtrie ; qu’un quart de million de Serbes du Kossovo prenait le chemin de l’exode ; que leurs biens y étaient usurpés ou détruits, leurs sanctuaires et leurs cimetières profanés et vandalisés par les Albanais ; et que, comble d’horreur, certains parmi ces derniers, notamment les chefs de l’UCK, piétaille de l’Otan sur place, s’adonnaient à de sinistres pratiques sur les prisonniers serbes en leur faisant arracher les organes vitaux afin d’en tirer un sinistre profit.

Naturellement, l’humanitariste Kouchner fut promu héros national des Kossovars, en même temps que le pervers Clinton leur libérateur, la scandaleuse Albright leur tante et, bientôt, la harpie Carla Del Ponte, procureure de l’inquisition antiserbe de la Haye, l’incarnation de la justice universelle. C’est encore à l’initiative de Kouchner que Sarkozy lança, au début de janvier 2008, son appel aux Etats de l’Union européenne en vue de la reconnaissance unanimed'un Kossovo cruellement dévasté et ethniquement nettoyé par l’Otan et par les Albanais, en tant qu’Etat indépendant. Ce qui provoqua de la part de l’auteur de ces lignes, une lettre ouverte au Président de la République intitulée : Prôner la civilisation à Paris, cautionner la barbarie au Kossovo, qui fut diffusée par une douzaine de sites.

En vain, nous avions clamé pendant des années, avec un certain nombre d’hommes et de femmes de conscience qui, dans la démission générale des élites politico-médiatiques, subsistait en France et dans le monde, la vérité sur le Kossovo et sur le drame yougoslave en général. Encore que notre intérêt portait principalement sur le désastre humain et civilisationnel suite à l’apocalypse de l’Otan sur la Serbie tout au long du printemps 1999, sur l’aberration scélérate des dirigeants occidentaux dans l’affaire du Kossovo, sur leur obstination d’y persister et de promouvoir coûte que coûte un Etat fantoche reposant sur l’imposture et le crime, quitte à en faire un cas unique au vu du droit international. Tant il est vrai, pour paraphraser Chateaubriand qui disait : quand on ne peut pas effacer ses erreurs, on les divinise, que la gente politico-médiatique de l’Ouest, s’efforce de transformer sa défaite morale au Kossovo en victoire, voire en exploit.

Toujours est-ilque ce n’est que providentiellementque la vérité commença à venir d’où on l’attendait le moins : de la part de Carla Del Pontequi, durant huit ans de son magistère à la tête du tribunal de la Haye, n’avait cessé, tel un fléau, de sévir contre les Serbes, son tribunal refusant, à quelques exceptions près, d’inculper les criminels de guerre croates, bosniaques et albanais les plus notoires,ou lesacquittant. Cependant, davantage piquée dans sa vanité qu’animée par le souci de la justice, elle souleva dans son livre La chasse, paru en 2008, le rideau sur un autre cercle de l’enfer kossovien, à savoir les trafics d'organes humains effectués par les protégés de l’Ouest, les Albanais. De leur côté, les autorités serbes firent savoir que depuis longtemps elles menaient là-dessus une enquête avec des résultats tangibles. Ce fut un début de rachat de Carla Del Ponte aux yeux des Serbes et de leurs amis, mais en même temps le début de sa disgrâce auprès des Albanais qui ne tardèrent pas à s’attaquer à la statue de la justice qu’elle représentait pour eux jusqu’alors.

Bientôt, une courageuse journaliste italienne libre, Maria Lina Veca, qui s’était rendue en mission humanitaire au Kossovo une trentaine de fois depuis 2000, et qui avait publié deux livres de reportages sur le Kossovo occupé par les Albanais à l’ombre de l’Otan, Le Kossovo perdu ?, en 2003, et Le Kossovo et la Métochie – retour impossible, en 2007, fit paraître un troisième volume sous le titre Cœur de loup où elle rapportait, dansune forme à peine romancée, ce qu’elle avait entendu de la part des familles de disparus au sujet des trafics d’organes, lors de ses nombreux séjours au Kossovo. Dans le même temps,le Conseil de l’Europe chargeait d’une enquête sur cette question le sénateur suisse Dick Marty, personnalité au-dessus de tout soupçon, qui avait notamment fait preuve de son intégrité lors de l’enquête menée à bien sur les prisons secrètesde la CIA en Europe, en 2006, dont il avait été investi par ladite institution.

La présentation de son Rapport devant le Comité du Conseil de l’Europe, le 21 décembre dernier à Paris, allait provoquer un véritable séisme : l’immense tour de Babel du mensongeédifiée au Kossovo et qui projetait son ombre délétère sur le monde actuel, se mit à vaciller sur ses bases et à se lézarder. Le guignol auquel s’était livré l’un de ses architectes, Bernard Kouchner, le 3 mars 2010, dans l’enclave serbe de Gratchanitsa, éclatant d’un rire forcé accompagné d’insultes au journaliste qui l’interrogea sur les trafics d’organes perpétrés sous son règne au Kossovo, réapparut sur tous les écrans d’ordinateurs, sans que l’on puisseen dire autant des écrans de télévision – le conformisme et la pensée unique obligent. L’autre image qui envahit les écrans d’internautes, fut celle de ce guerrier de la paix, comme Kouchner se nomme lui-même, s’affichant, en juillet 1999, en compagnie du général américain Wesley Clark, commandant de l’Otan, du général britannique Michael Jackson, son adjoint, et desdeux chefs de l’Uçk, Hashim Thaci et Agim Ceku, tous les mains jointes, exultant en triomphateurs complices. Bien que l’on voit mal Kouchner touché par la grâce du repentir, le voici en train d’être rattrapé par son passé. Sartre a bien dit que nos actes nous engagent et nousaccompagnent à jamais. Et le jour n’est pas loin où le guerrier de la paix apparaîtra comme le guerrier de la paix mortuaire, tout au moins en ce qui concerne une multitude deSerbes et d'Irakiens,victimes de son délire interventionniste. Il faut se rappeler que, déjà en 1992, lors du voyage de Mitterrand à Sarajevo, l’humanitariste prônait le bombardement des Serbes de Bosnie afin de libérer les prétendus camps de viol serbes dans lesquels cent mille femmes musulmanes auraient été détenues.

Parmi ces photos et ces vidéos révélatrices de l’abîme du mal kossovien, qui surgirent, innombrables, à la suite du Rapport de Dick Marty, l’une des plus éloquentes est certainement celle de la grosse vieille Albright, fauteuse de la guerre auxSerbes, littéralementfondant dans les bras du jeune chef de l’Uçk, Hashim Thaci, surnommé le « Serpent », et qui s'avère le redoutable personnage du dit Rapport, comme on est le héros négatif ou positif d’un roman. Il y a lieu, devant ce spectacle, de s'interroger : les événements du Kossovo auraient-ils pris une autre tournure, si Mme Albright avait été plus vertueuse, un peu comme on se demande : le destin du monde eût-il été différent, si le nez de Cléopâtre avait été plus court ? En tout cas, ici on est bien loin,autant de la belle Cléopâtre que de la belle Hélène qui fut à l’origine de la guerre de Troie.

Outre qu’il provoqua et ne cesse de le faire, la propagationde ces images, ainsi qu’unvéritable raz-de-marée d’articles, le Rapport de Dick Marty, fit pénétrer quelques lumières jusqu’aux plus épaisses ténèbres des véritables antres du mal antiserbe, ainsi que le furent pendant de longues années, des journaux comme Le Monde, le New York Times ou le Washington Post. On put y lire, enfin, des articles mettant en doute les probes Albanais face aux méchants Serbes, le soi-disant Etat kossovar que l’on qualifie de plus jeune démocratie, the youngest democracy, apparaissant comme le trou noir de l’Europe, ce qui constituait dès le début pour les initiés une évidence. On vit aussi le Guardian qui, à la différence des quotidiensprécités, publiait parfois des textes véridiques sur le drame yougoslave, tout comme le faisait l’Independent, diffuser sur son site, le 14 janvier 2011, des extraits du Journal d’AlastairCampbell, conseillé de Tony Blair pour les médias, en fait son âme damnée, si toutefois Blair en avait besoin d’une.

Cette sorte d’aveux intitulés The shaping of a war leader fait entrevoir les sombres manigances de Blair et autres défenseurs de la civilisation durant la guerre du Kossovo : la recherche désespérée d’une stratégie de mensonge pour justifier devant une opinion de plus en plus dubitative, l’étendue des crimes de l’Otan contre les Serbes, le recours envisagé à l’emploi desnouvelles armes les plus meurtrières afin de venir à bout de la résistance serbe, la terreur des dirigeants de l’Ouest à la seule idée de perdre la face, comme s’ils en avaient eu une, en particulier l’obsession de Clinton de se racheter par la victoire sur les Serbes des pratiques sordides avec sa stagiaire, autrement dit de laver sa saleté morale en se vautrant dans le sang innocent serbe…

Bien davantage que la résurgence d’une inimitié multiséculaire entre Serbes et Albanais, la guerre du Kossovo aura été révélatrice de la nature humaine, du mal dans l’homme, des tristes limites de ce dernier, de la démission des élites, de l’inhumanité des humanistes. On est stupéfait de la promptitude avec laquelle de grandes nations de l’Occident, qui ont eu la malchance d’avoir des dirigeants aussi médiocres, ignorants, indignes, vaniteux, que sont Clinton, Blair, Schroeder, Chirac et leur entourage souvent animé par de basses motivations se soient faites les mercenaires d’une organisation terroriste, l’Uçk, qui était, un an avant l'éclatement du conflit auKossovo, inscrit comme telle sur toutes les listes des services secrets, en commençant parla CIA !

Ainsi, le ventriloque Chirac s'adressa à la nation rien moins que cinq fois en 78 jours et nuits que durèrent les bombardements de l'Otan sur la Serbie, afin de fustiger la prétendue barbarie serbe et de justifier l'assassinat d'un pays ami de la France depuis toujours; l'abominable Clinton, le cerveau toujours embué par la fumée du cigare plongé auparavant dans le sexe de la stagiaire, soudain mué enfoudre de la civilisation, menaçait en assénant que l'apocalypse de l'Otan allait se poursuivre sur la Serbie durant de longs mois, si nécessaire; le scélérat Blair au rictus de mort, grisé par les premières coupes de sang serbe, s'ouvrait à son conseiller médiatique en assurant qu'il méritait de gouverner un pays beaucoup plus vaste que ne l'est la Grande-Bretagne; son acolyte germain, le goguenard Schroeder, lui demandait si la désinformation battait son plein, assouvissant à l'évidence sa vengeance d'avoir perdu son père, en tant que soldat de la Wermacht, dans les Balkans. Et ainsi de suite, comme si l'on était en désespérance du mal à commettre et, dès que l'occasion se présenta, on s'y engouffra, la civilisation montrant soudain son envers barbare.

Certes, il n’a pas fallu attendre le Rapport de Dick Marty pour être conscient de tout cela, mais son grand mérite, c’est avoir eu le courage de rompre la conspiration du silence sur la réalité kossovienne, encore que la question des trafics d’organes humains ne soit qu’une partie effrayante, certes, de cette réalité. Puisque l'on s’est repu pendant des années des crimes serbes, voici l’occasion de se pencher sur l’ensemble des crimes albanais et surtout sur les crimes de l’Otan, dont cette partie de l’Europe va pâtir durant des millénaires du fait de la pollution de la nature et de l’environnement par l’emploi des armes à l’uranium appauvri et autres substances toxiques. Depuis la guerre aérienne dite humanitaire de l’Otan contre la Serbie, les maladies cancéreuses en Serbie, et en particulier dans la province du Kossovo, sont en progression galopante.

Alexandre Soljenitsyne, lors de la publication de L’Archipel du goulag, exprimait le vœu qu’elle provoquera les torrents de la justice, et son vœu d’être bientôt exaucé. On ne peut que souhaiter que le Rapport de Dick Marty soit suivi des torrents de la vérité surle Kossovo afin que cet espace du Christ par excellence, aussi bien par sa gloire que par son martyre, cesse d’être un espace de ténèbres et devienne celui dela katharsis d’un Occident fourvoyé.

En tout cas, la dynamique de vérité sur le Kossovo, que Dick Marty, selon sa propre expression, voulait lancer avec son Rapport, semble être bien enclenchée.

Komnen Becirovic
Membre Médias France Libre

You can download both movies here:

(Komnen Becirovic_ la vérité sur le Kossovo fait son chemin.mp4
M.Komnen Becirovic dénonce la manipulation Kouchner_Taci.mp4)

www.megaupload.com/?d=UTN86VQN

(Interview with Jelena Divkovic - journalist - newspaper Today "Данас" 5-6. 2. 2011.) 

English translation: Branislava  Mitrovic

Živadin Jovanović, formerly Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, gives interview to “Danas” Daily on the occasion of receiving a Russian honorary medal

Belgrade – The actual politicians lack awareness that the actual administration will, in time, become a former one. There is too much of party politics where we need state and national approaches.

“The government exercises excessive optimism, and the citizens demonstrate distrust. It is necessary to abolish feudalism within government and prevent feudalization of state territory” – this is how former Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Mr. Živadin Jovanović, sees the ongoing political situation in Serbia.

In an interview for the Belgrade “Danas” daily on the occasion of receiving a high recognition from the Russian Federation, Russian Honorary Medal, which will be awarded to him next Monday by Russian Ambassador in Belgrade, H. E. Aleksandar Konuzin, Mr. Jovanović underlines that Serbia’s legitimate aspirations to become a European Union member state “should not be exercised by renouncing vital state and national interests, especially not by conceding to requisition of Kosovo and Metohija, because nothing is comparable with the latter, not even the EU”.

How do you perceive the current relations between Serbia and Russia, and is there anything to be changed?

- Serbia needs a strategy of balanced relations with all important stakeholders. As a European country, Serbia should pay greatest attention to her relations with neighbors and the EU countries. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the pace of improving relations with Russia need to be quicker. We need greater openness for cooperation, as urges not only the tradition but also sheer interests. We have been sharing common market with Russia for the past 11 years, but it is debatable to which extent Serbia makes use of this opportunity. Further, Serbia is rather interested in establishing energy security jointly with Russia.

Still, Belgrade administration attributes the highest priority to EU integration.

- Serbia’s aspiration to become a EU member state is legitimate. However, this should not be exercised by renouncing vital state and national interests, especially not by conceding to requisition of Kosovo and Metohija, because nothing is comparable with Kosovo and Metohija, not even the EU.

What do you think of relations between Belgrade and Washington?

- Relations with the USA are important for the international standing of Serbia; however, Belgrade need have its own agenda rather than rubberstamping one coming from Washington. The entire American politics demonstrates that it favors all former Yugoslav Republics much more than Serbia. Besides, military relations between Serbia and the US should not outclass the political ones, especially bearing in mind that the US has led NATO aggression in 1999, and that it was the sponsor of the KLA, and is the key power seeking to dispossess Serbia of Kosovo and Metohija.

When should begin the dialogue with Priština? Should the talks include the question of Kosovo status?

- Dialogue with Priština is necessary, yet it has to be different than previous attempts of talks. It should begin with easier issues. However, the dialogue format should remain within United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, given that it retains permanent importance and none is questioning it. This means that the dialogue must include status of Kosovo, which may be resolved by means of a compromise solution within Resolution 1244.

Presently, the most topical issue concerning Kosovo is the Report of Dick Marty, Special Rapporteur of the Council of Europe. How do you appraise this document, and what could unfold as its follow-up?

- I deem that Marty’s Report and resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are most important for revealing the truth about events in Kosovo and Metohija throughout 1990s and also thereafter. Now is crucial to ensure full protection of witnesses, and conduct efficient investigation to which Serbia can contribute considerably. I believe that this investigation should be conducted by an independent international team of experts, not EULEX, because the latter has already failed in this same matter.

How do you evaluate the performance of Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić?

- What Vuk Jeremić does is related with higher levels of administration, the Government of Serbia and the President of the Republic. Jeremić is not on his own in foreign policy, he executes what is agreed at the highest state level. I think Jeremić is energetic and dynamic and, if there are any objections concerning the foreign policy, he is the last one to be blamed.

Do you have any objection against the situation in Serbian ‘internal’ politics?

- It does no good to anyone to keep finding excuses for the ongoing situation in Serbia only in past regimes and global crisis. There is lack of awareness that the actual administration will someday become a former one. There is too much of party politics where we need state and national approaches. The government exercises excessive optimism, and the citizens demonstrate significant distrust. It is necessary to abolish feudalism within government and prevent feudalization of state territory.

The Russian Honorary Medal will be awarded to Živadin Jovanović on Monday, 7th February, in a ceremony in Russian Home, in marking the 75th anniversary of the beginning of fighting against fascism, and 65 years since the Allies victory in World War II. Last year, this same medal was received by President of Serbia Boris Tadić. “I am deeply honored to receive this recognition from the country who suffered the biggest human sacrifices and gave the greatest contribution to combating fascism”, said Jovanović.

Hashim Thaci, Ramush Haradinaj, Bernard Kushner, Wesley Clark...

U.S. media have given more attention to hearsay allegations of Julian Assange’s sexual encounters with two talkative Swedish women than to an official report accusing Kosovo prime minister Hashim Thaci of running a criminal enterprise which, among almost every other crime in the book, has murdered prisoners in order to sell their vital organs on the world market.
The report by Swiss liberal Dick Marty was mandated two years ago by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Not to be confused with the European Union, the Council of Europe was founded in 1949 to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy and has 47 member states (compared to 27 in the EU).
While U.S. legal experts feverishly try to trump up charges they can use to demand extradition of Assange to the United States, to be duly punished for discomfiting the empire, U.S. State Department spokesman Phillip Crowley piously reacted to the Council of Europe allegations by declaring that the United States will continue to work with Thaci since “any individual anywhere in the world is innocent until proven otherwise”.
Everyone, that is, except, among others, Bradley Manning who is in solitary confinement although he has not been found guilty of anything.  All the Guantanamo prisoners have been considered guilty, period. The United States is applying the death penalty on a daily basis to men, women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are innocent until proven dead.
Embarrassed supporters of Thaci’s little self-proclaimed state dismiss the accusations by saying that the Marty Report does not prove Thaci’s guilt.
Of course it doesn’t.  It can’t.  It is a report, not a trial.  The report was mandated by the PACE precisely because judicial authorities were ignoring evidence of serious crimes.  In her 2008 memoir in Italian La caccia. Io e i criminali di guerra (The Hunt. Me and the War Criminals), the former prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, Carla del Ponte, complained that she had been prevented from carrying out a thorough investigation of reports of organ extraction from Serb and other prisoners carried out by the “Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)” in Albania.  Indeed, rumors and reports of those atrocities, carried out in the months following the occupation of Kosovo by NATO-led occupation forces, have been studiously ignored by all relevant judicial authorities.
The Marty report claims to have uncovered corroborating evidence, including testimony by witnesses whose lives would be in danger if their names were revealed.  The conclusion of the report is not and could not be a verdict, but a demand to competent authorities to undertake judicial proceedings capable of hearing all the evidence and issuing a verdict.

Skepticism about atrocities

It is always prudent to be skeptical about atrocity stories circulating in wartime.  History shows many examples of totally invented atrocity stories that serve to stir up hatred of the enemy during wartime, such as the widely circulated World War I reports of the Germans “cutting off the hands of Belgian babies”.  Western journalists and politicians abandoned all prudent skepticism regarding the wild tales that were spread of Serb atrocities used to justify the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia. Personally, my skepticism extends to all such stories, regardless of the identity of the alleged perpetrators, and I have refrained for years from writing about the Albanian organ transplant stories for that reason.  I never considered Carla del Ponte a reliable source, but rather a gullible and self-aggrandizing woman who had been selected by the U.S. sponsors of the ICTY because they thought they could manipulate her.  No doubt the sponsors of the Tribunal she was working for, which was set up by and for the United States and NATO allies in order to justify their choice of sides in the Yugoslav civil wars, would have called a halt before she could stray from her assigned path to stick her nose into crimes committed by America’s Albanian protégés.  But that does not prove that the alleged crimes actually were committed.
However, the Marty report goes beyond vague rumors to make specific allegations against the KLA’s “Drenica group” led by Hashim Thaci.  Despite refusal of Albanian authorities to cooperate, there is ample proof that the KLA  operated a chain of “safe houses” on Albanian territory during and after the 1999 NATO war against Serbia, using them to hold, interrogate, torture and sometimes murder prisoners.  One of these safe houses, belonging to a family identified by the initial “K”, was cited by Carla del Ponte and media reports as “the yellow house” (since painted white).  To quote the Marty Report (paragraph 147):

“There are substantial elements of proof that a small number of KLA captives, including some of the abducted ethnic Serbs, met their death in Rripe, at or in the vicinity of the K. house. We have learned about these deaths not only through the testimonies of former KLA soldiers who said they had participated in detaining and transporting the captives while they were alive, but also through the testimonies of persons who independently witnessed the burial, disinterment, movement and reburial of the captives’ corpses (…)” 

An undetermined but apparently small number of prisoners were transferred in vans and trucks to an operating site near Tirana international airport, from which fresh organs could be flown rapidly to recipients.

“The drivers of these vans and trucks – several of whom would become crucial witnesses to the patterns of abuse described – saw and heard captives suffering greatly during the transports, notably due to the lack of a proper air supply in their compartment of the vehicle, or due to the psychological torment of the fate that they supposed awaited them” (paragraph 155).
Captives described in the report as  “victims of organised crime” included “persons whom we found were taken into central Albania to be murdered immediately before having their kidneys removed in a makeshift operating clinic” (paragraph 156).
These captives “undoubtedly endured a most horrifying ordeal in the custody of their KLA captors. According to source testimonies, the captives ‘filtered’ into this final subset were initially kept alive, fed well and allowed to sleep, and treated with relative restraint by KLA guards and henchmen who would otherwise have beaten them up indiscriminately” (paragraph 157).
“The testimonies on which we based our findings spoke credibly and consistently of a methodology by which all of the captives were killed, usually by a gunshot to the head, before being operated on to remove one or more of their organs. We learned that this was principally a trade in ‘cadaver kidneys’, i.e. the kidneys were extracted posthumously; it was not a set of advanced surgical procedures requiring controlled clinical conditions and, for example, the extensive use of anaesthetic” (paragraph 162).

Skepticism about liberation”

The Marty report also recalls what is common knowledge in Europe, namely that Hashim Thaci and his “Drenica Group” are notorious criminals.  While “liberated” Kosovo sinks ever further into poverty, they have amassed fortunes in various aspects of illicit trade, notably enslaving women for prostitution and controlling illegal narcotics across Europe.

“Notably, in confidential reports spanning more than a decade, agencies dedicated to combating drug smuggling in at least five countries have named Hashim Thaci and other members of his “Drenica Group” as having exerted violent control over the trade in heroin and other narcotics” (paragraph 66).
“Similarly, intelligence analysts working for NATO, as well as those in the service of at least four independent foreign Governments, made compelling findings through their intelligence-gathering related to the immediate aftermath of the conflict in 1999. Thaci was commonly identified, and cited in secret intelligence reports, as the most dangerous of the KLA’s ‘criminal bosses’” (paragraph 67).

The leftists who fell hook, line and sinker for the “war to rescue the Kosovars from genocide” propaganda that justified NATO’s debut as aggressive bomber/invader in 1999 readily accepted the identification of the “Kosovo Liberation Army” as a national liberation movement deserving their support.  Isn’t it part of romantic legend for revolutionaries to rob banks for their cause?  Leftists assume such criminal activities are merely a means to the end of political independence.  But what if political independence is in reality the means to sanctuarize criminal activities?
Assassinating policemen, the KLA specialty prior to being given Kosovo by NATO, is an ambiguous activity. Is the target “political oppression”, as claimed, or simply law enforcement?
What have Thaci and company done with their “liberation”?  First of all, they allowed their American sponsors to build a huge military base, Camp Bondsteel, on Kosovo territory, without asking permission from anyone. Then, behind a smokescreen of talk of building democracy, they have terrorized ethnic minorities, eliminated their political rivals, fostered rampant crime and corruption, engaged in electoral fraud, and ostentatiously enriched themselves thanks to the criminal activities that constitute the real economy.

The Marty Report recalls what happened when Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, under NATO threat of wiping out his country, agreed to withdraw from Kosovo and allow a U.N. force called KFOR (quickly taken over by NATO) to occupy Kosovo.

“First, the withdrawal of the Serb security forces from Kosovo had ceded into the hands of various KLA splinter groups, including Thaci’s “Drenica Group”, effectively unfettered control of an expanded territorial area in which to carry out various forms of smuggling and trafficking” (paragraph 84).

“KFOR and UNMIK were incapable of administering Kosovo’s law enforcement, movement of peoples, or border control, in the aftermath of the NATO bombardment in 1999. KLA factions and splinter groups that had control of distinct areas of Kosovo (villages, stretches of road, sometimes even individual buildings) were able to run organised criminal enterprises almost at will, including in disposing of the trophies of their perceived victory over the Serbs” (paragraph 85).

“Second, Thaci’s acquisition of a greater degree of political authority (Thaci having appointed himself Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of Kosovo) had seemingly emboldened the “Drenica Group” to strike out all the more aggressively at perceived rivals, traitors, and persons suspected of being “collaborators” with the Serbs” (paragraph 86).

In short, NATO drove out the existing police, turning the province of Kosovo over to violent gangsters.  But this was not an accident.  Hashim Thaci was not just a gangster who took advantage of the situation.  He had been hand-picked by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her right-hand man, James Rubin, for the job.

“You ought to be in movies…”

Until February 1999, Hashim Thaci’s only claim to fame was in Serbian police records, where he was wanted for various violent crimes.  Then suddenly, at a French chateau called Rambouillet, he was thrust into the world spotlight by his American handlers.  It is one of the most bizarre twists to the whole tragi-comic Kosovo saga.
Ms Albright was eager to use the ethnic conflict in Kosovo to make a display of U.S. military might by bombing the Serbs, in order to reassert U.S. dominance of Europe via NATO.  But some European NATO country leaders thought it politically necessary to make at least a pretense of seeking a negotiated solution to the Kosovo problem before bombing.  And so a fake “negotiation” was staged at Rambouillet, designed by the United States to get the Serbs to say no to an impossible ultimatum, in order to claim that the humanitarian West had no choice but to bomb.
For that, they needed a Kosovo Albanian who would play their game.
Belgrade sent a large multi-ethnic delegation to Rambouillet, ready to propose a settlement giving Kosovo broad autonomy.  On the other side was a purely ethnic Albanian delegation from Kosovo including several leading local intellectuals experienced in such negotiations, including the internationally recognized leader of the Albanian separatist movement in Kosovo, Ibrahim Rugova who, it was assumed, would lead the “Kosovar” delgation.
But to the general surprise of observers, the seasoned intellectuals were shoved aside, and leadership of the delegation was taken over by a young man, Hashim Thaci, known in law-enforcement circles as “the Snake”.
The American stage-managers chose Thaci for obvious reasons.  While the older Kosovo Albanians risked actually negotiating with the Serbs, and thus reaching an agreement that would prevent war, Thaci owed everything to the United States, and would do as he was told.  Moreover, putting a “wanted” criminal at the top of the delegation was an affront to the Serbs that would help scuttle negotiations.  And finally, the Thaci image appealed to the Americans’ idea of what a “freedom fighter” should look like.
Albright’s closest aide, James Rubin, acted as talent scout, gushing over Thaci’s good looks, telling him he was so handsome he should be in Hollywood.  Indeed, Thaci did not look like a Hollywood gangster, Edward G. Robinson style, but a clean-cut hero with a vague resemblance to the actor Robert Stack. Joe Biden is said to have complained that Madeleine Albright was “in love” with Thaci.   Image is everything, after all, especially when the United States is casting its own Pentagon superproduction, “Saving the Kosovars”, in order to redesign the Balkans, with its own “independent” satellite states.
The pretext for the 1999 war was to “save the Kosovars” (the name assumed by the Albanian population of  that Serbian province, to give the impression that it was a country and that they were the rightful inhabitants) from an imaginary threat of “genocide”.  The official U.S. position was to respect the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.  But it was always quite obvious that behind the scenes, the United States had made a deal with Thaci to give him Kosovo as part of the destruction of Yugoslavia and the crippling of Serbia.  The chaos that followed the withdrawal of Yugoslav security forces enabled the KLA gangs to take over and the United States to build Camp Bondsteel.
Cheered on by a virulent Albanian lobby in the United States, Washington has defied international law, violated its own commitments (the agreement ending the 1999 war called for Serbia to police Kosovo’s borders, which was never allowed), and ignored muted objections from European allies to sponsor the transformation of the poor Serbian province into an ethnic Albanian “independent state”. Since unilaterally declaring independence in February 2008, the failed statelet has been recognized only by 72 out of 192 U.N. members, including 22 of the European Union’s 27 members.

EULEX versus Clan Loyalty

A few months later, the European Union set up a “European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo” (EULEX) intended to take over judicial authority in the province from the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) that had ostensibly exercised such functions after NATO drove out the Serbs.  The very establishment of EULEX was proof that the EU’s recognition of Kosovo’s independence was unjustified and dishonest.  It was an admission that Kosovo, after being delivered to KLA bands (some in war against each other), was unable to provide even a semblance of law and order, and thus in no way prepared to be “an independent state”.
Of course the West will never admit this, but it was the complaints of the Serb minority in the 1980s that they could not count on protection by police or law courts, then run by the majority ethnic Albanian communist party, that led to the Serbian government’s limitation of Kosovo’s autonomy, portrayed in the West as a gratuitous persecution motivated by racial hatred of Hitlerian proportions.
The difficulties of obtaining justice in Kosovo are basically the same now as they were then – with the difference that the Serbian police understood the Albanian language, whereas the UNMIK and EULEX internationals are almost entirely dependent on local Albanian interpreters, whose veracity they are unable to check.
The Marty Report describes the difficulties of crime investigation in Kosovo:
“The structure of Kosovar Albanian society, still very much clan orientated, and the absence of a true civil society have made it extremely difficult to set up contacts with local sources. This is compounded by fear, often to the point of genuine terror, which we have observed in some of our informants immediately upon broaching the subject of our inquiry.
“The entrenched sense of loyalty to one’s clansmen, and the concept of honour … rendered most ethnic Albanian witnesses unreachable for us. Having seen two prominent prosecutions undertaken by the ICTY leading to the deaths of so many witnesses, and ultimately a failure to deliver justice, a Parliamentary Assembly Rapporteur with only paltry resources in comparison was hardly likely to overturn the odds of such witnesses speaking to us directly.
“Numerous persons who have worked for many years in Kosovo, and who have become among the most respected commentators on justice in the region, counseled us that organized criminal networks of Albanians (‘the Albanian mafia’) in Albania itself, in neighbouring territories including Kosovo and ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, and in the Diaspora, were probably more difficult to penetrate than the Cosa Nostra; even low-level operatives would rather take a jail term of decades, or a conviction for contempt, than turn in their clansmen.”
A second report submitted this month to the Council of Europe by rapporteur Jean-Charles Gardetto on witness protection in war crimes trials for former Yugoslavia notes that there is no witness protection law in Kosovo and, more seriously, no way to protect witnesses that might testify against fellow ethnic Albanians.
“In the most serious cases, witnesses are able to testify anonymously. However, it was made clear to the rapporteur that these measures are useless as long as the witness is physically in Kosovo, where everybody knows everybody else. Most witnesses are immediately recognised by the defence when they deliver their testimony, despite all the anonymity measures.”
“There are many limitations to the protection arrangements currently available, not least because Kosovo has a population of less than two million with very tight-knit communities. Witnesses are often perceived as betraying their community when they give evidence, which inhibits possible witnesses from coming forward. Furthermore, many people do not believe that they have a moral or legal duty to testify as a witness in criminal cases.
“Moreover, when a witness does come forward, there is a real threat of retaliation. This may not necessarily put them in direct danger, losing their job for example, but there are also examples of key witnesses being murdered. The trial of Ramush Haradinaj, the former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, well illustrates this. Mr. Haradinaj was indicted by the ICTY for crimes committed during the war in Kosovo but was subsequently acquitted. In its judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the difficulties that it had had in obtaining evidence from the 100 prosecution witnesses. Thirty-four of them were granted protection measures and 18 had to be issued with summonses. A number of witnesses who were going to give evidence at the trial were murdered. These included Sadik and Vesel Muriqi, both of whom had been placed under a protection program by the ICTY.”

Europes Dilemma

Naturally, European accomplices in putting the Thaci gang in charge of Kosovo have been quick to dismiss the Marty report. Tony Blair apologist and former Labour minister Dennis MacShane wrote in The Independent (UK) that, “There is not one single name or a single witness to the allegations that Thaci was involved in the harvesting of human organs from murdered victims.”  To someone unfamiliar with the circumstances and with the report, that may sound like a valid objection.  But Marty has made it clear that he can supply names of witnesses to competent judicial authorities.  Thaci himself acknowledged that they exist when he stated that he would publish the names of Marty’s witnesses – a statement understood as a death threat by those familiar with the Pristina scene.
One of the most prominent Europeans to hope that the Marty report will disappear is the French media humanitarian Bernard Kouchner, until recently Sarkozy’s foreign minister, who officially ran Kosovo as the first head of UNMIK after the NATO occupation. Contrary to Kouchner’s protests of ignorance, the UNMIK police chief in 2000 and 2001, Canadian Captain Stu Kellock, has called it “impossible” that Kouchner was not aware of organized crime in Kosovo.   The first time a reporter queried Kouchner about the organ transplant accusations, a few months ago, Kouchner responded with a loud horse laugh, before telling the reporter to go have his head examined.  After the Marty report, Kouchner merely repeated his “skepticism”, and called for an investigation… by EULEX.
Other NATO defenders have taken the same line. One investigation calls for another, and so on. Investigating the charges against the KLA is beginning to look like the Middle East peace process.
The Marty Report itself concludes with a clear call on EULEX to “to persevere with its investigative work, without taking any account of the offices held by possible suspects or of the origin of the victims, doing everything to cast light on the criminal disappearances, the indications of organ trafficking, corruption and the collusion so often complained of between organized criminal groups and political circles” and “to take every measure necessary to ensure effective protection for witnesses and to gain their trust”.
This is a tall order, considering that EULEX is ultimately dependent on EU governments deeply involved in ignoring Kosovo Albanian crime for over a decade.  Still, some of the most implicated personalities, such as Kouchner, are nearing the end of their careers, and there are many Europeans who consider that things have gone much too far, and that the Kosovo cesspool must be cleaned up.
EULEX is already prosecuting an organ trafficking ring in Kosovo. In November 2008, a young Turkish man who had just had a kidney removed collapsed at Pristina airport, which led police to raid the nearby Medicus clinic where a 74-year-old Israeli was convalescing from implantation of the young man’s kidney.  The Israeli had allegedly paid 90,000 euros for the illegal implant, while the young Turk, like other desperately poor foreigners lured to Pristina by false promises, was cheated of the money promised.  The trial is currently underway in Pristina of seven defendants charged with involvement in the illegal Medicus organ trafficking racket, including top members of the Kosovo Albanian medical profession.  Still at large are Dr. Yusuf Sonmez, a notorious international organ trafficker, and Moshe Harel, an Israeli of Turkish origin accused of organizing the illicit international organ trade.  Israel is known to be a prime market for organs because of Jewish religious restrictions that severely limit the number of Israeli donors.
The Marty Report notes that the information it has obtained “appears to depict a broader, more complex organized criminal conspiracy to source human organs for illicit transplant, involving co-conspirators in at least three different foreign countries besides Kosovo, enduring over more than a decade. In particular, we found a number of credible, convergent indications that the organ-trafficking component of the post-conflict detentions described in our report is closely related to the contemporary case of the Medicus Clinic, not least through prominent Kosovar Albanian and international personalities who feature as co-conspirators in both.”
But EULEX prosecution of the Medicus case does not automatically mean that the European judicial authorities in Kosovo will pursue the even more criminal organ trafficking denounced in the Marty Report.  One obstacle is that the alleged crimes took place on the territory of Albania, and so far Albanian authorities have been uncooperative, to say the least.  A second inhibition is fear that the attempt to prosecute leading KLA figures would lead to unrest.  Indeed, on January 9, several hundred Albanians carrying Albanian flags (not the Western-imposed flag of Kosovo) demonstrated in Mitrovica against the Marty report shouting “UCK, UCK” (KLA in Albanian).  Still, EULEX has indicted two former KLA commanders for war crimes committed on Albanian territory in 1999 when they allegedly tortured prisoners, ethnic Albanians from Kosovo either suspected of “collaborating” with legal Serb authorities or because they were political opponents of the KLA.
A striking and significant political fact that emerges from the Marty report is that:
“The reality is that the most significant operational activities undertaken by members of the KLA – prior to, during, and in the immediate aftermath of the conflict – took place on the territory of Albania, where the Serb security forces were never deployed” (paragraph 36).
Thus, to a very large extent, the Serbian province of Kosovo was the object of a foreign invasion from across its border, by Albanian nationalists keen on creating “Greater Albania”, and aided in this endeavor by diaspora lobbies and, decisively, NATO bombing.  Far from being an “aggressor” in its own historic province, Serbia was the victim of a major two-pronged foreign invasion.

America’s disposable puppets

NATO could not have waged a ground war against Serbian forces without suffering casualties.  So it waged a 78-day air war, ravaging Serbia’s infrastructure.  To save his country from threatened annihilation, Milosevic gave in.  For its ground force, the United States chose the KLA.  The KLA was no match for Serbian forces on the ground, but it aided the United States/NATO war in peculiar ways.
The United States provided KLA fighters on the ground with GPS devices and satellite telephones to enable them to spot Serb targets for bombing (very inefficiently, as the NATO bombs missed almost all their military targets).  The KLA in some places ordered Kosovo Albanian civilians to flee across the border to Albania or to ethnic Albanian parts of Macedonia, where photographers were waiting to enrich the imagery of a population persecuted by Serb “ethnic cleansing” – an enormous propaganda success.  And crucially, before the NATO bombing, the KLA pursued a strategy of provocation, murdering policemen and civilians, including disobedient Albanians, designed to commit acts of repression that could be used as a pretext for NATO intervention.  Thaci even boasted subsequently of the success of this strategy.
Thaci has played the role assigned to him by the empire.  Still, considering the history of American disposal of collaborators who have outlived their usefulness (Ngo Dinh Diem, Noriega, Saddam Hussein…), he has reasons to be uneasy.
Thaci’s uneasiness could be sharpened by a recent trip to the region by William Walker, the U.S. agent who in 1999 created the main pretext for the NATO bombing campaign by inflating casualties from a battle between Serb police and KLA fighters in the village of Racak into a massacre of civilians, “a crime against humanity” perpetrated by “people with no value for human life”.  Walker, whose main professional experience was in Central America during the Reagan administration’s bloody fight against revolutionary movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador, had been imposed by the United States as head of a European mission ostensibly mandated to monitor a cease-fire between Serb forces and the KLA.  But in fact, he and his British deputy used the mission to establish close contacts with the KLA in preparation for joint war against the Serbs.  The grateful gangster regime has named a street in Pristina after him;
In between receiving a decoration in Kosovo and honorary citizenship in Albania, Walker took political positions that could make both Thaci and EULEX nervous.  Walker expressed support for Albin Kurti, the young leader of the radical nationalist “Self-Determination” movement (Vetëvendosje), which is gaining support with its advocacy of independence from EU governance as well as in favor of “natural Albania”, meaning a Greater Albania composed of Albania, Kosovo and parts of southern Serbia, much of Macedonia, a piece of Montenegro and even northern Greece.  Was Walker on a talent-scouting mission in view of replacing the increasingly disgraced Thaci?   If Kurti is the new favorite,  a U.S.-chosen replacement could cause even more trouble in the troubled Balkans.
The West, that is, the United States, the European Union and NATO may be able to agree on a “curse on both their houses” approach, concluding that the Serbs they persecuted and the Albanians they helped are all barbarians, unworthy of their benevolent intervention.  What they will never admit is that they chose, and to a large extent created, the wrong side in a war for which they bear criminal responsibility.  And whose devastating consequences continue to be borne by the unfortunate inhabitants of the region, whatever their linguistic and cultural identity.

***

Diana Johnstone is author of Fools’Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions.

Politika Daily
Monday, 10 January 2011 (page 1 and 7)

Is it possible that the prevailing current usage of the word genocide is “an insult to the memory of the Nazi regime victims”?

(This incisive thought of Noam Chomsky was taken from the preface he wrote to an astonishing book titled “The Politics of Genocide” by Edward Herman and David Peterson, published in Belgrade in 2010 by “Vesna info”.)

Edward Herman is a professor emeritus teaching finance at the University of Pennsylvania and David Peterson is a free-lance journalist. What an unusual match, you might think at first. However, if you check the exhaustive list of references you will find out that they have worked on at least two more published books, both dedicated to the former Yugoslavia nad its disintegration. David Peterson is author of another dozen of pubished books, either alone or in cooperation with other authors. 

According to Noam Chomsky, the end of the Cold War “opened an era of the Holocaust denial”, in which the humanitarian bombing of Yugoslavia (read: Serbia) is far from being the last piece of the puzzle. 

According to “Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda”, written by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in the period between 1945 and 2009 the USA organized “major” military interventions in as many as 29 countries. “Thanks to its dominant position and its global counter-revolutionary efforts, the US has been the key single instigator, organizer and provider of moral and material support for some of the heaviest bloodsheds that took place after the World War Two. 

The US officials, supported by the media and intellectuals close to the administration (“genocide intellectuals”), have mastered the skills of “crime management” used to draw attention of the public away from the violence instigated and endorsed by the leading global super-power and direct the public eye towards the violence perpetrated by the US enemies. In line with this the authors have come up with an unusual classification of the bloodbaths into four categories: constructive, benign, criminal and mythical.

“The largest genocidal act undertaken in the last thirty years was the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, both in respect of the number of victims and in respect of full awareness of the impact of this policy among its creators”, reads the introductory section of the book.
The New York Times revealed that “in the long run, Iraq has been pushed back into pre-industrial times, though it still suffers from post-industrial dependence on energy and technology”.  And Washington Post, quoting a reliable source, stated that “the bombs… were targeted at everything that was vital for survival of the country”. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Dennis Halliday, the leading UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, resigned issuing a statement that overall effects of the sanctions were comparable to that of a genocide. And Eleanor Robinson, lecturer at the Old Soul College in Oxford (England), added: ”You will have to go back in time as far as the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258 to find an example of pillage of comparable magnitude”. You can guess who was doing the pillage!

Edward Herman and David Peterson have exposed the ill doings of politicians, intellectuals and reporters who used the word genocide in their reports on the most deadly world crisis since the end of the World War Two (5.4 million dead between 1998 and 2007 in DR Congo) only 17 times, while killing of 4,000 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija was qualified as genocide as many as 323 times!

George Robertson, British Defense Minister, admitted during the hearing before the Parliament: “Before Račak this year (24 March 1999), the KLA was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the authorities of Yugoslavia”. The number of killings since 1998 was estimated at 2000, and 500 of these killings were attributed to Serbian forces. 

“During the civil wars in the wake of disintegration of the former SFR Yugoslavia in the nineties, the USA, Germany, NATO and EU supported national minorities which insisted on breaking away from the federal state and acted against the national group of Serbs who persisted in their efforts to save the former Yugoslavia. That is why the Western powers strongly supported first Croats and Slovenes, later Bosnian Muslims, and finally Kosovo Albanians,” explained Edward Herman and David Peterson, quoting a number of critically intoned works.

We are also informed that the NATO forces supported, “even coordinated war operations, and as there were numerous cases of ethnic cleansing and ethnically motivated killings, it was only natural that expressions such as ethnic cleansing, massacre and genocide were applied primarily to the war acts of the Serbs”. Regarding the “Srebrenica massacre”, they say that there is no proof that Serbian forces killed anyone but “the Muslim men capable of army service”, taking care to evacuate all children, women and the elderly by buses. 

“If Račak was a contrived crime, and we believe that it was, than the war sold to the world on the strength of this crime was based on a lie, and therefore any claims that the war was waged on humanitarian grounds must be disputed, if for no other reason then on account of this fact alone,” said Edward Herman and David Peterson, referring to their own article “CNN: Sale of a NATO War on a Global Scale” from 2009. 

“The massacre of Račak” perfectly suited the needs of Bill Clinton's administration and NATO and provided them with an excuse to launch the air attacks against Yugoslavia (Serbia), which had been prepared for a long time, soon after the failure of the negotiations in Rambouillet, “one of the greatest staged deceptions in recent history”.

When Madeleine Albright was first informed that the attacks had been launched, she commented with delight: “The spring has come early to Kosovo this year”.

This valuable book meticulously reveals the double standards applied to war acts in Darfur (Sudan), Rwanda, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Guatemala, Salvador, and so on.

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff"
Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:51 pm (PST)

The Nation (Pakistan)
January 4, 2011

While American scientists and scholars have played a key role in the intellectual evolution of mankind, its wealthy elite and agents - the rulers of the US - have committed the greatest crimes against humanity.

These horrific crimes continue unabated with silent intensity. With some exceptions, the US media has maintained complete silence on these crimes. The reason for this silence has to do with the vested interests of media owners - their interests lie in suppressing humanity.

Many conscientious and aware Americans do raise their voice against these crimes, but the torment and agony of these American citizens does not seem to have any effect on the pet journalists of media owners. This insensitivity is drowning the United States of America and with it the rest of the world.

One of the most diabolical advances in weaponry is the use of uranium that can no longer be used in reactors.

This is known as depleted uranium. It is radioactive. After a certain processing, it can be converted into the hardest material on earth. A steel bullet will not penetrate a steel tank. However, a bullet made of depleted uranium will penetrate through the steel body of the tank and explode inside the tank. Uranium has the property that when heated it burns intensely. In powder form, uranium automatically catches fire when heated.

Nuha al-Radi, an artist and author of Baghdad Diaries, shortly before her death due to leukaemia wrote in 2004: “Everyone seems to be dying of cancer. Every day one hears about another acquaintance or friend of a friend dying. How many more die in hospitals that one does not know? Apparently, over 30 percent of Iraqis have cancer, and there are lots of kids with leukaemia. The depleted uranium left by the US bombing campaign has turned Iraq into a cancer-infested country. For hundreds of years to come, the effects of the uranium will continue to wreak havoc on Iraq and its surrounding areas.”

The US has used depleted uranium in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wherever depleted uranium is used in warfare, it generates radioactivity. Burnt uranium will keep radiating for billions of years.

Radiation emitted from uranium does not travel far from the source. But if, perchance, these radioactive particles happen to enter your body either through inhalation or through contaminated water intake, then till your dying day they will keep on disrupting basic structures in your body such as DNA, etc.

Their effect is to produce deadly disorders such as cancer, which eventually leads the exposed individual to his grave. US authorities have spread this radioactive debris in various parts of the world and concealed this fact from its people.

Web page:

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/04-Jan-2011/US-use-of-DU-A-war-crime

---

Instructions for downloading:

1. You see this message:
Sorry, we are unable to scan this file for viruses.
The file exceeds the maximum size that we scan. Download anyway
2. Click: Download anyway

VICENZA 21-22_3_2009_ TARGET(360p_H.264-AAC).mp4

http://goo.gl/xFc1O

VICENZA 21-22_3_2009_ TARGET (2_3)(360p_H.264-AAC).mp4

http://goo.gl/UYpFO

VICENZA 21-22_3_2009_ TARGET (3_3)(360p_H.264-AAC).mp4

http://goo.gl/j57LV

***

Web page:

http://www.cnj.it/24MARZO99/2009/TARGET/index.htm

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
January 17, 2011

Dangerous paradise: journalist claims Adriatic polluted by NATO waste:

-“Following the war in 1999, the fish have practically disappeared from our waters. The chemicals have affected our health, too, causing skin rashes, blurred vision and so forth."
-"There should be an economic compensation for those affected. Europe, NATO and, above all, the United States must be held accountable."

Sandy beaches, gentle sea and charming tourist harbors: Italy's Adriatic coast can be described as a paradise for sea-lovers. However, few are aware that tons of toxic waste disposed by NATO are piled up below the luminous surface.

According to investigative journalist Gianni Lannes, waters splashing against the coast of the southern Italian region of Puglia hide real hazards.

"An enormous amount of weaponry and toxic waste is present in these waters: US bombs from the 40s, and NATO weapons used in the 1999 war against Serbia, including depleted uranium ammunition,” he said. “These weapons often contain toxic substances, such as sulfur, mustard gas and phosphorous.”

Local fishermen say the presence of NATO weapons is seriously affecting their lives, and posing a threat to the local ecosystem.

"There are areas where these bombs keep ending up in our nets,” said local fisherman Vitantonio Tedesco. “We try to avoid them.”

“Following the war in 1999, the fish have practically disappeared from our waters,” he added. “The chemicals have affected our health, too, causing skin rashes, blurred vision and so forth."

Fishermen have had to quit their jobs because of the scarcity of fish. The fishing cooperative in the seaside town of Molfetta was once comprised of almost 200 members, now there are just five.

Although NATO says there are six contaminated areas along the Adriatic coast, Lannes claims that is just the tip of the iceberg.

"NATO is lying, 24 areas are affected, not six,” he said. “The location of these areas have not even been made public. The population is being kept in the dark."

Lannes’ repeated attempts to raise the issue with Italy's Defense Minister have led to nothing. US military spokesman Colonel Greg Julian claims the US Army does its best to remove all dangerous weaponry after its military campaigns.

“We do everything we can, first of all, to comply with environmental law when we conduct operations and exercises,” he said. “Following the jettison operations during the Kosovo campaign we conducted those clearing operations and did everything we could to remove the hazards.”

However, Gianni Lannes believes NATO has not yet owned up to its responsibilities.

"There should be an economic compensation for those affected,” he said. “Europe, NATO and, above all, the United States must be held accountable."

Often, religious people cling to their religion because it provides them with solace and succor during times of despair or hardship. Many times religious people go to their priests, rabbis or imams for advice on matters related to morals and ethics. Given this background, anyone studying religion might conclude religion and its institutions are good things, and religion is a force for good in the world.

But, is that really so? Has religion in general been a force for good in the world? Has it made people more compassionate, more respectful of others, more tolerant of their beliefs? Has the advice given by the authorities of the various world religions been good and made people behave any better?

I would argue the opposite is true, and that any study of the effects of religion throughout human history would show for the most part a direct correlation between religiosity and intolerance, brutality, ignorance, discrimination, lack of compassion and immorality.

As one example out of many, we may look at the role religion played during what was likely the most horrific time in human history, the Second World War. At that time, we find man’s worst behavior toward man, at a level and scope unprecedented until that point. It will be interesting to see what role religion played during this cataclysmic event.

Unfortunately for religion, organized or otherwise, it doesn’t look very good. Clearly the Nazis went on their genocidal rampage motivated by secular reasons, but both the Germans and the vast numbers of helpers they easily recruited in the countries they occupied had all been brought up in the Christian tradition. What this meant is that when the Nazis began their anti-Jewish campaign they found that—like themselves—the population already felt deep antisemitism and already believed the Jews to be evil and enemies of everything that was good. Therefore the Nazis had very little to invent in their campaign against Jews and had no difficulty in persuading anyone to denounce, hunt down and murder their Jewish neighbors.

If the Nazis were not driven by religious zeal in the execution of the Holocaust, we must then ask the obvious question of what role religion played during that watershed event. Given that the perpetrators had been instructed by their Christian tradition to feel compassion and love for their neighbors, do we have any evidence the majority felt any moral qualms or refrained from murder when asked to kill Jews? Or did the perpetrators willingly and eagerly behave toward Jews in a way that was consistent with what they had been taught for almost two millennia, that is, with contempt and even hatred for them? The answer is also obvious.

For the sake of brevity, it will be interesting to focus on an aspect of the Holocaust that rarely gets the attention it deserves, and that is what happened in Croatia. In that country a puppet Nazi state was established in 1941, led by the terrorist group the Ustasha with its Poglavnik (leader) Ante Pavelić at its helm. From its inception until its demise in 1945 the Ustasha were responsible for the most barbaric acts of the war, making even the German SS pale in comparison. During the rule of the Ustasha regime, more than half a million innocent civilians were slaughtered, many of them using medieval methods: eyes were gouged out, limbs severed, intestines and other internal organs ripped from the bodies of the living. Some were slaughtered like beasts, their throats cut from ear to ear with special knives or saws. Others died from blows to their heads with sledgehammers. Many more were simply burned alive. Some Ustasha perpetrators wore necklaces made from the eyes or ears of their victims.

The actions of the Ustasha are important and relevant in this discussion because the Ustasha were ultra-Catholic and they killed in large part in an effort to rid Croatia of its non-Catholic elements, that is, the largely Orthodox Serbs, the Gypsies, and of course the Jews. Many of the perpetrators were actually Catholic priests. One of them was a Franciscan friar who continued to act as a member of his order as commandant of the notorious Croat concentration camp Jasenovac, where he committed the most heinous atrocities. Sometimes he even wore his Franciscan robes while perpetrating his crimes.

Did the perpetrators consult with their religious leaders before committing these crimes? Did their religious upbringing play any role in making them act the way they did? During the Croatian genocide the Vatican had compiled a list of Croatian priests who had participated in massacres of Orthodox Serbs and Jews with the intention of disciplining them after the war. They never did. Not only that, many perpetrators were protected and given passage to safe havens around the world by members of the Vatican who housed them in Vatican properties, clothed and fed them, and eventually helped them evade justice so they could regroup to fight Communism.

You’d think that during the war the Catholic Church would very publicly and loudly object to the genocide taking place in Croatia, given that the impetus behind the genocide was ultimately the propagation of Catholicism, but it didn’t. You’d think that the Catholic Church would attempt to stop the perpetrators, given that they were Catholics strongly loyal to the pope, but it didn’t. You’d think the Catholic Church would give advice and guidance to the Croatian Catholic faithful in an effort to rein them in, but it didn’t. You’d think the pope, Pius XII, would feel shame and embarrassment and distance himself from the Croat Catholics and their leader, but he didn’t.

Indeed, the leader of the Ustasha, Ante Pavelić was a mass murderer who revered Pope Pius XII, and was aware that Pius XII and his senior advisers thought highly of his militant Catholicism. In April 1941 Pavelić was received by the Pope, creating an uproar at the British Foreign Office who was dismayed that the Pope would even consider meeting with such a notorious mass murderer. They thus described the Pope as “the greatest moral coward of our age.” As the Foreign Office later told the British ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope’s reception of Pavelić “has done more to damage his reputation in this country than any other act since the war began.”

Maybe we should excuse the Pope and the Church for not acting during the war because of the fog of war, lack of communications, the desire to remain neutral, etcetera. But these are all hollow excuses. Moreover, even if we were willing to accept them, what could possibly explain the lack of acts of repudiation after the war for the genocide in Croatia?

In May 1945, after having learned of Hitler’s death, Cardinal Bertram of Breslau ordered that “a solemn requiem mass be held in commemoration of the Führer. . .” so that the Almighty’s son, Hitler, be admitted to paradise. A solemn requiem mass is celebrated only for a believing member of the Church and if it is in the public interest of the Church. Hitler was not a believing member of the Church and only a Church deeply steeped in their own anti-Jewish teachings and the grotesque twist to them that Hitler gave them could think that a solemn requiem for Hitler was a good, moral thing to do and that it was in the Church’s public interest. Did the Pope or the Catholic Church rebuke Cardinal Bertram, then or any time after that? No, it did not.

Given this background, we should not be too surprised to learn that just as the year 2010 was coming to a close a mass was celebrated in a Zagreb church honoring the 49th anniversary of the death of the Ustasha mass murderer Ante Pavelić. The mass was held by priests Vjekoslav Lasić and Stanislav Kos, who referred to Pavelić as a respectable man who made sacrifices for all of Croatia. You’d think the Catholic Church would take advantage of this opportunity to very loudly and publicly repudiate the actions of the Ustasha and its leader Pavelić, but you’d be wrong. What was the official reaction of the Catholic Church to this outrageous mass? So far their reaction is consistent with their reaction during the Holocaust: a deafening silence.

Gabriel Wilensky

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author
Six Million Crucifixions:
How Christian Teachings About Jews Paved the Road to the Holocaust
www.SixMillionCrucifixions.com
Follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/sixmillionbook
Become a Fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/SixMillionCrucifixions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A review of  Germinal Chivikov's book Srebrenica: The Star Witness (orig. Srebrenica: Der Kronzeuge, 2009, transl. by John Laughland) - "a devastating indictment of  the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)."

The book shows that the Tribunal “does not behave according to the traditions of the rule of law”--it is a political rather than judicial institution, and has played this political role well. It is not the first work to effectively assail the Tribunal—Laughland’s own book Travesty (Pluto: 2006), and Michael Mandel’s How America Gets Away With Murder (Pluto: 2004) are powerful critiques. But Civikov’s book is unique in its intensive and very effective focus on a single witness, Drazen Erdemovic, and the ICTY’s prosecutors and judges handling of that witness. Erdemovic was the prosecution’s “star witness,” the only one in the trials of various Serb military and political figures to have claimed actual participation in a massacre of Bosnian Muslim prisoners. It is therefore of  great interest and importance that Civikov is able to show very convincingly that this key witness was a charlatan, fraud, and mercenary, and that the ICTY’s prosecutors and judges effectively conspired to allow this witness’s extremely dubious and contradictory claims to be accepted without verification or  honest challenge. 

Erdemovic was a member of a Bosnian Serb military unit, the “10th Sabotage Unit,” an eight-man team of which he claimed shot to death 1,200 Bosnian Muslim prisoners at Branjevo Farm north of Srebrenica in Bosnia on July 16, 1995. Erdemovic confessed to  having personally killed 70-100 prisoners. He was initially arrested by Yugoslav authorities on March 3, 1996, and quickly indicted, but was turned over to the ICTY at pressing U.S. and ICTY official request on March 30, 1996, supposedly temporarily, but in fact, permanently. He was himself eventually tried, convicted, and served three and a half years in prison for his crimes. This was a rather short term for an acknowledged killer of 70-100 prisoners, but longer than he had anticipated when he agreed to testify for the ICTY—he had expected complete immunity, as he told Le Figaro reporter Renaud Girard (“Bosnia: Confession of a War Criminal, “ Le Figaro, March 8, 1996).  He claimed to have an agreement with the ICTY whereby “in return for his evidence he will be allowed to settle in a Western country with his family. He will enter the box as a witness, not as an accused, and will thus escape all punishment.” But his earlier arrest, indictment and publicity in Yugoslavia may have made some prison term necessary for the ICTY’s credibility. He ended up after his prison term in an unknown location as a “protected witness” of the ICTY. But even before his own sentencing he had begun his role as star witness in the ICTY’s (and U.S. and NATO’s) trials of accused Serbs. He appeared in five such trials, and from beginning to end was taken as a truth-teller by prosecutors, judges, and the mainstream media.

One of the most remarkable and revealing features of the Erdemovic case is that although he named seven individuals who did the killing with him, and two superiors in the chain of command who ordered or failed to stop the crime, not one of these was ever brought into an ICTY court either as an accused killer or to confirm any of Erdemovic’s claims. These co-killers have lived quietly, within easy reach of  ICTY jurisdiction, but untroubled by that institution and any demands seemingly imposed by a rule of  law.  The commander of his unit, Milorad Pelemis, who Erdemovic claimed had given the order to kill, made it clear in an interview published in a Belgrade newspaper in November 2005, that the Hague investigators have never questioned him. He had never gone into hiding, but has lived  undisturbed with his wife and children in Belgrade. Nor have ICTY investigators bothered with Brano Gojkovic, a private in the killer team who Erdemovic claimed was somehow in immediate command of  the unit (a point never explained by him or prosecutors or judges). Civikov points out that only once did the judges in any of the five trials in which the star witness testified ask the prosecutors whether they were investigating these other killers. The prosecutors assured the judges in 1996 that the others were being investigated, but 14 years later the Office of the Prosecutor had not questioned one of them. And from 1996 onward the judges never came back to the subject.

As these seven were killers of many hundreds in Erdemovic’s version, and the prosecutors and judges took Erdemovic’s version as true, why were these killers left untouched? One thing  immediately clear is that the ICTY was not in the business of serving impartial justice even to the point of  arresting and trying wholesale killers of Bosnian Muslims in a case the ICTY itself called “genocide.” But ignoring the co-perpetrators in this case strongly suggests that the prosecutors and judges were engaged in a political project—protecting a witness who would say what the ICTY wanted said, and refusing to allow any contesting evidence or cross-examination that would discredit the star witness. Civikov points out that the only time Erdemovic was subject to serious cross-examination was when he was questioned by Milosevic himself during the marathon Milosevic trial. And Civikov shows well that the ICTY presiding judge in that case, Richard May, went to great pains to stop Milosevic whenever his questions penetrated too deeply into the area of Erdemovic’s connections or credibility.

In April 2004, a Bosnian Croat, Marko Boskic, was arrested in Peabody, Massachusetts, for having caused a hit-and-run car crash while drunk. It was soon discovered that Boskic was one of the members of  Erdemovic’s killer team at Branjevo Farm But journalists at the ICTY soon discovered that the Tribunal did not intend to ask for the extradition of this accused and confessed murderer. A spokesman for the Office of the Prosecutor stated on August 2004 that the prosecutor was not applying  for the extradition  of Boskic because it was obligated to concentrate on “the big fish.”  So killing hundreds, and being part of a “joint criminal enterprise” murdering 1,200, does not yield big enough fish for the ICTY. In fact, this is a major lie as dozens of cases have been brought against Serbs for small-scale killings or even just beatings, and the ICTY has thrived on little fish for many years. In fact, the first case ever brought by the ICTY was against one Dusko Tadic in 1996, who was charged with a dozen killings, all dismissed for lack of evidence, leaving him guilty of no killings whatsoever, but only of  persecution and beatings, for which he was given a 20 year sentence. A number of other Serbs were given prison sentences, not for killing people, but for beatings or passivity in not exercising authority to constrain underlings (e.g., Dragolic Prcac, 5 years; Milojica Kos, 6 years, Mlado Radic, 20 years, among others). The dossier of  ICTY prosecution of little (Serb) fish is large.

Thus, the Boskic case does not fall into any little-fish-disinterest category. Rather, it is perfectly consistent with the failure to bring to court Pelermis or any of the seven known co-perpetrators of  the massacre. Civikov’s very plausible hypothesis is that this is another manifestation of  star witness protection—the ICTY does not want his convenient testimony to be challenged. Little fish like Boskic might gum up a political project. Civikov contrasts the extremely alert and aggressive actions of  the ICTY and U.S. authorities in getting Erdemovic transferred to the Hague in March 1996 with this remarkable reluctance to even question Erdemovic’s fellow killers. He was seen quickly as a man who might make proper connections to enemy targets, so no holds were barred then, or later..

Another remarkable feature of  the handling of Erdemovic is his use as a star witness immediately after he had been declared mentally impaired and before his own sentencing. Following his first confession of  guilt on May 31, 1996, on June 27, 1996 Erdemovic was declared by his trial judges to be unfit for questioning in his own sentencing hearing because psychiatrists found him to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the doctors urging a pre-hearing review of  his mental condition in six to nine months time. But on July 5th, little more than a week after this medical report, Erdemovic was put forward as the star witness in a pre-trial hearing to publicize the current allegations against Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

This was a remarkable spectacle. The two accused had not been apprehended, so they were not present to defend themselves, nor were their attorneys. It was only the prosecutors and ICTY judges in action. The same judges who had just declared him mentally unfit for questioning in his own hearing now pushed him forward without any further medical examination. The presiding judge Claude Jorda explained that Erdemovic’s own trial and sentencing were postponed “because we have asked for some further medical information,” which suppresses the fact that the judgment of  the doctors was that Erdemovic was “unfit to be questioned,” presumably not just in his own trial. But Jorda’s service to the political project runs deeper—he not only allows the Prosecutor to put on the stand a just-declared medically unfit person, and does this before this self-admitted murderer is sentenced, he even assures Erdemovic that his evidence as a witness for the prosecution “might be taken into consideration.”  It was mainly on the basis of  unverified and unchallenged (and unchallengeable) testimony of  this sick man and mass killer still facing his own trial and sentencing, that arrest warrants were issued for Karadzic and Mladic.

What Erdemovic was prepared to do in service to the ICTY program was to help build the case that there was a line of command between himself and his co-murderers  at Branjevo Farm and the Bosnian Serb high command, i.e., Karadzic and Mladic, and hopefully eventually Milosevic. He did this poorly, never showing those leaders’ involvement in or knowledge of  this killing expedition, but mainly just asserting that its local commanders were under the authority of  central Bosnian Serb headquarters. He claimed that immediate authority over the killing operation was held by Brano Gojkovic, a private in a team that also included a Lieutenant, and he mentions a mysterious and unnamed Lieutenant Colonel who took the unit to the killing site and then left. Erdemovic is not consistent on whether Pelermis ordered the killing or this unnamed Lieutenant Colonel. He also asserts that Colonel Petar Salpura, an intelligence officer of the Bosnian Serb army had direct command responsibility for the massacre.  He vacillates on Gojkovic’s power, sometimes making him “commander” with great authority, sometimes merely serving as an intermediary. Erdemovic himself was allegedly without authority and coerced into killing, but Civikov makes a very good case that  at that time Erdemovic was a sergeant, and that he had joined the team voluntarily. But he and a Lieutenant Franc Kos were supposedly bossed by private Gojkovic in this killing enterprise. This line of command is very messy!

Civikov shows that the prosecution and judges strove mightily and successfully to prevent any challenges to Erdemovic’s implausible and contradictory, and partly disprovable, claims about the line of command. This includes, importantly, their refusal to call before the court even one of those “little fish” co-murderers and higher commanders who might have clarified the facts. Instead of calling to the stand his boss, Lieutenant Pelermis, or Pelermis’s boss, Colonel Petar Salpura, the ICTY is happy to stop with “a psychologically disturbed and apparently demoted sergeant,” who makes the ties that this court is pursuing with undue diligence.

Erdemovic and a number of his colleagues in the .10th Sabotage Unit were clearly mercenaries, and after the ending of the Balkan wars served the French in Africa. Erdemovic himself had worked for a time with the Bosnian Muslim army, then with the Croatians, and then with the Bosnian Serbs. He was trained as a locksmith, but never managed to work that trade. He found military service, and eventually serving as a star (and protected) witness, more profitable, but he regularly claimed before the Tribunal that he was a good man, hated war, was coerced into participating in the Branjevo Farm mass murder, and confessed to his crimes there because he was a man of conscience. The ICTY judges believed him, never saw him as a mercenary despite his performing military service for all three parties in the Bosnian warfare, and the ICTY took pains to exclude any witnesses from testifying who would put him in a bad light. They could not avoid several awkward witnesses in other trials: Colonel Salpura, a defence witness in the Blagovic and Jokic trials, denied authority over  the 10th Sabotage Unit, and gave clear evidence that the killer team was on holiday leave on July 16, 1995; Dragan Todorovic, a witness for the prosecution in the Popovic case and officer of the Drina Corp of the Bosnian Serb army, also testified that the killer unit was on leave, that Lieutenant Kos, not private Gojkovic, signed out for the arms to be used by the unit, and that Erdemovic volunteered to be a member of that unit, and was not coerced into joining it.

Except for these awkward witnesses, the prosecutors and judges were able to keep out of the court record the fact that the Erdemovic unit that went to the Branjevo Farm did so during a ten-day vacation leave, not during regular service hours. Erdemovic himself never mentioned this fact. They also successfully buried the fact that, according to an early interview with Erdemovic, he claimed that his colleagues received a large sum of gold, perhaps 12 kilos, for some kind of service rendered. This payment, which suggests mercenary service, and not payment by the Bosnian Serb army, was never explored by prosecutors or judges in any of the trials in which Erdemovic participated, and was only raised by Milosevic, who, as noted, was harshly limited in his questioning by Judge Richard May. The facts that  members of the killing group were on leave on July 16, 1995, and later findings of  a French secret service connection of  Pelemis and several of his colleagues, and the subsequent recruitment of  soldiers from the 10th Sabotage Unit for mercenary service in Zaire to fight in the war there on the side of Mobutu, are suggestive. So is the fact that this mass murder of prisoners was extremely unhelpful to the Bosnian Serb cause, but worked out very well for the NATO powers. And it is clear why the ICTY, in service to NATO, would refuse to explore these questions and linkages.

The protection of  Erdemovic and the notable ICTY-NATO success in getting his problematic testimony accepted as truth in five separate trials of Serbs owes much to the media, which in the United States and Britain raised no questions and swallowed the party line intact (for a  case study, see Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, “Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service,”  ZNet, 2004). This applied not just to the mainstream media but to the supposedly left and dissident media, with only Z Magazine in the United States publishing reviews of  serious critical works dealing with the ICTY (notably, Mandel, Laughland and Johnstone).

Germinal Civikov points out that killing 1,200 people in five hours, ten at a batch, as claimed by Erdemovic, would allow under three minutes for each batch, including getting them out of the buses, taking them to the shooting zone, shooting them, making sure of  their being dead, and disposing of  the bodies. There were also claimed interludes of  drinking, arguing, and cavorting. Why did the prosecutors, judges and media never address this issue of timing? Why did the prosecutor sometimes speak of only “hundreds” killed at the Branjevo Farm? Could it be related to the fact that fewer than 200 bodies were recovered from the site, and no aerial photos were ever produced that showed body removal or reburial? Civikov says, “So something between 100 and 900? This lack of knowledge, incidentally, will not prevent the judges, several months later, from putting the figure of 1,200 in their judgment after all—mind you without any proof, then or now, apart from the accused’s own claim.” Once again, why did they not call any other perpetrator to discuss numbers?

One would love to know what the ICTY prosecutors and judges said behind the scenes in confronting Erdemovic’s numbers, lines of authority, role, lies and contradictions.  Perhaps the ICTY insiders did discuss them, but they and the media have played dumb. A Wikileaks was, and still is today, desperately needed to deal with the Erdemovic/ICTY travesty—and in fact, a Wikileaks on the ICTY would wreak havoc in the trial of Karadzic and pursuit of Mladic. So will Civikov’s Srebrenica: The Star Witness if it gets the exposure that it deserves.

See more at:
http://www.srebrenica-project.com/DOWNLOAD/books/Star_witness.pdf

Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali:

Discorso alla Conferenza internazionale [1]   -    Mosca, 17 Dicembre 2010

Zivadin Jovanovic, Presidente del Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali:

Il Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali, una organizzazione indipendente, apartitica e senza scopo di lucro, così come l'opinione pubblica in Serbia, sono profondamente preoccupati per gli incessanti tentativi di riscrittura della storia del XX secolo, per lo stravolgimento degli esiti della Seconda guerra mondiale e per la minimizzazione dell'importanza storica delle sentenze del processo di Norimberga. Manifestandosi sotto varie forme, campi e gradi d'intensità, a seconda delle concrete circostanze, questo fenomeno sembra coinvolgere l'intera Europa e oltre, diventando così un problema globale. E' necessario notare che esso avanza in parallelo con alcuni altri processi come la transizione dei paesi ex socialisti e la crisi economica mondiale, paragonata da molti studiosi con la crisi degli anni '30 del secolo scorso. Un altro processo contemporaneo degno di nota è il degrado del ruolo delle Nazioni Unite e dell'ordinamento del Diritto internazionale istituito dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale.

L'attuale crisi economica mondiale ha già portato all'ulteriore ampliamento del divario tra ricchi e poveri, a livello internazionale come all'interno dei singoli paesi, compresi quelli più ricchi. L'elevata disoccupazione, la miseria e il malcontento sono diventate realtà globali, causando profondi problemi sociali, politici e morali, incluse la xenofobia e il razzismo. Di volta in volta, viene affermato all'opinione pubblica che alcune nazioni possiedono il ruolo messianico di "aiutare" le altre nazioni a "democratizzarsi", per adottare il proprio sistema di valori anche con l'uso della forza se lo ritengono necessario. Allo stesso tempo, l'Europa e il mondo stanno subendo un processo di militarizzazione; l'espansione delle installazioni militari verso l'Europa orientale forma un reticolo comprendente più basi militari straniere oggi che durante la Guerra fredda nel momento di più alto dello scontro. Le spese mondiali per armamenti sono salite alla cifra senza precedenti di 1.500 miliardi di dollari l'anno, mentre il complesso militare-industriale è privilegiato nel processo decisionale e salvaguardato da ulteriori crolli economici.

I tentativi di revisionare gli esiti della Seconda guerra mondiale possono essere ricondotti, con misura e forme diverse, a vari ambiti ma, prima di tutto, nel campo dei mass-media, dell'istruzione e della scienza storica. Sono presenti anche nelle arti (cinema), serial televisivi, sport e musica popolare. Alcuni partiti politici nei vari paesi europei, così come alcune istituzioni nazionali e internazionali, in un modo o nell'altro, contribuiscono alla revisione della storia, alla riabilitazione dei collaborazionisti, dei governi fantoccio e dei loro leader. In alcuni casi, il sistema giudiziario nazionale ed internazionale è manipolato e abusato per gli stessi scopi.

Detto ciò, la rinascita delle ideologie nazista e fascista su così larga scala non può essere considerata spontanea. Pertanto, sarebbe utile analizzare e rispondere ad almeno due domande. In primo luogo, quali sono le fonti di finanziamento della rinascita delle ideologie nazista e fascista? E in secondo luogo, esiste una volontà politica di adottare una risposta globale al processo di rilancio di queste ideologie, o il modo di pervenire a tale risposta?

La riabilitazione del nazismo e dei diversi governi collaborazionisti è particolarmente preoccupante nei Balcani, dove i crimini degli occupanti fascisti e dei loro sodali furono estremamente crudeli, creando di campi di concentramento, incoraggiando la guerra civile, ridisegnando confini e formando stati satelliti ("Stato Indipendente di Croazia", "Grande Albania " nel 1941-1945). Particolarmente preoccupanti sono le false interpretazioni che i tentativi in corso per la riabilitazione dei governi collaborazionisti e la minimizzazione del ruolo dei movimenti antinazista e antifascista e della lotta di Liberazione sono presentati come parte integrante del processo di democratizzazione, riconciliazione e delle politiche moderne e orientate al futuro.

La crisi jugoslava degli anni '90 ha dato origine alla revisione della storia. Infatti, la distruzione della Jugoslavia è stata la revisione dei risultati, non solo della Seconda ma anche della Prima guerra mondiale e persino delle Guerre balcaniche.

In primo luogo, la Serbia, all'interno della Jugoslavia, fornì un grande contributo alla vittoria sul nazismo e il fascismo. Tuttavia, la lotta di liberazione popolare contro le forze di occupazione fasciste, in stretta collaborazione con le altre forze alleate, in particolare con l'Armata Rossa dell'Unione Sovietica, è spesso sottovalutata, trascurata o distorta dal sistema mediatico, educativo e politico.

In secondo luogo, la Serbia subì perdite umane enormi, la parte di gran lunga maggiore delle 1,7 milioni di vittime della Jugoslavia. In realtà, la Nazione serba è stata vittima di un genocidio. Nel solo campo di concentramento di Jasanovac, situato nell'hitleriano "Stato Indipendente di Croazia", furono uccisi circa 700.000 fra serbi, ebrei e zingari. C'è la tendenza a trascurare, minimizzare o falsare le reali proporzioni delle enormi perdite umane e di sminuire le responsabilità per i crimini senza precedenti contro l'umanità.

In terzo luogo, i tentativi di riscrivere la storia non si limitano solo ai risultati della Seconda guerra mondiale, ma anche a quelli della Prima guerra mondiale, in relazione agli accordi di Versailles (Trianon). Questi tentativi a volte vanno così in là che giungono al punto di accusare la Serbia anche per lo scoppio della Prima guerra mondiale!

E così, nel corso degli ultimi venti anni la Serbia sta vivendo "in vivo" la revisione della storia del XX secolo, gli esiti delle due Guerre mondiali e attualmente i risultati delle Guerre balcaniche: la seconda e la terza Jugoslavia sono state distrutte in modo coordinato dalle forze separatiste interne e dai loro protettori stranieri, attraverso le sanguinose guerre civili. In questo senso, il ruolo delle ideologie neonaziste e dei loro seguaci nei movimenti separatisti non deve essere trascurato ("Ustascia" e altri).

Il Kosovo e Metohija, simbolo della sovranità, della religione e della cultura serba, è stato occupato attraverso la brutale aggressione militare della NATO nel 1999. Mentre era sotto mandato delle Nazioni Unite e in contrasto con la risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU, questo territorio serbo è stato rubato alla Serbia e consegnato ai capi della criminalità organizzata internazionale, che sono responsabili, tra l'altro, del rapimento di massa di esseri umani e della vendita di organi umani [2].

La nazione serba, che aveva vissuto in Jugoslavia per oltre 70 anni è stata frammentata: una parte trasformata in rifugiati, una parte tramutata in nuove e palesemente discriminate minoranze nazionali e una parte in Kosovo e Metohija ancora privata dei diritti umani fondamentali. Alcuni serbi vivono nei ghetti di filo spinato del XXI secolo. I monumenti della cultura serba, 150 monasteri e chiese medievali, finanche i cimiteri secolari, sono stati distrutti mentre la provincia era sotto mandato delle Nazioni Unite. Circa 500.000 profughi e sfollati serbi sono ancora in Serbia senza il diritto al ritorno sicuro nelle loro case ancestrali in Croazia e in Kosovo e Metohija.

A dispetto di tutto ciò, nel corso degli ultimi 20 anni le grandi potenze occidentali e l'enorme macchina propagandistica hanno raffigurato la Serbia come la colpevole per lo scoppio delle guerre civili in Croazia e Bosnia, per l'aggressione del 1999 della NATO, per l'unilaterale e illegale secessione del Kosovo e Metohija del 2008; anche per la pulizia etnica dei serbi dalle loro case e per i crimini di genocidio commessi contro di loro. I mass-media dominati dal capitale societario hanno attribuito la responsabilità collettiva ai serbi e raffigurato il defunto presidente Slobodan Milosevic come un dittatore peggiore dello stesso Adolf Hitler. Il Tribunale dell'Aia, istituito senza un fondamento giuridico della Carta delle Nazioni Unite, si è in pratica trasformato in strumento politico di condanna della dirigenza civile e militare della Serbia, riscrivendo la storia dei Balcani, giustificano l'aggressione militare della NATO che ha portato alla secessione unilaterale del 15% del territorio dello Stato della Serbia.

Il sostegno alle forze secessioniste nelle ex repubbliche jugoslave, in Kosovo e Metohija, e la demonizzazione della Serbia e dei serbi, è percepita da gran parte dell'opinione pubblica serba, da molte altre nazioni amiche, da studiosi indipendenti in Europa, Stati Uniti e nel mondo come ingiusta, come una pratica imperiale in linea con il motto "divide et impera", come vendetta sia per resistere all'egemonia globalista, sia per il contributo storicamente accertato della Serbia alla vittoria degli alleati nelle due Guerre mondiali.

Oggi, la Serbia sta subendo il ricatto di accettare la perdita del Kosovo e Metohija, in cambio dell'adesione all'UE! Apparentemente, nell'interesse della pace e della stabilità! Va notato tuttavia che questo non è solo immorale e illegale, ma pericolosamente controproducente per la pace e la stabilità. Sembra che la lezione dei Sudeti del 1938 sia stata dimenticata.

Le nostre priorità devono essere:

- Una posizione attiva e creativa nella difesa dei risultati delle due Guerre mondiali, incoraggiando storici, scrittori, giornalisti e scuole a preservare la verità e resistere a tutti i tipi di distorsioni e falsificazioni della storia;

- Le agenzie governative dovrebbero fornire tutte le condizioni necessarie alle istituzioni scientifiche e alle organizzazioni civiche che vogliano impegnarsi nella realizzazione di progetti concreti per evidenziare le radici e gli obiettivi di falsificazione della storia;

- Il ruolo attivo in tutte le sedi governative e non governative, in particolare nel sistema delle Nazioni Unite (ECOSOC, UNESCO), attraverso l'Unione interparlamentare (IPU) e altre assemblee parlamentari;

- Il rafforzamento della consapevolezza nei giovani e negli studenti dell'importanza fondamentale di salvaguardare la verità del passato e le conseguenze tragiche del fascismo e del nazismo;

- Esaminare il ruolo dell'istruzione e la possibilità di canalizzare alcune iniziative attraverso l'UNESCO;

- Rafforzare i principi di base del Diritto internazionale istituito dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale, in particolare, rafforzando il ruolo primario del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU, nonostante le necessità di un ulteriore sviluppo e adeguamento delle istituzioni internazionali.

Note
[1] Discorso alla Conferenza internazionale "Mondo senza nazismo: Obiettivo globale di tutta l'umanità", tenutasi a Mosca il 17 dicembre 2010, sotto gli auspici del Consiglio della Federazione dell'Assemblea Federale della Federazione Russa
[2] Relazione dell'On. Dick Marty, relatore della Commissione per le questioni giuridiche dell'Assemblea parlamentare del Consiglio d'Europa, presentato all'Assemblea nel dicembre 2010 per l'esame e approvazione nella seduta convocata per il 25 gennaio 2011.

Traduzione a cura del Forum Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali - Italia

Moscow, December 17th, 2010.

Mr. Chairman,
Dear Friends,

First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this extremely important Conference for the kind invitation and worm hospitality. It is indeed great honor to participate in the final events dedicated to the 65^th anniversary of the Victory over Fascism and Nazism, under auspices of Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Heroic City of Moscow, symbolizes the greatest contribution of the former Soviet Union to the victory over Fascism and Nazism.

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, an independent, non-party and non-profit organization, as well as the general public in Serbia, are profoundly worried by continued attempts of rewriting the history of the 20^th century, distortion of the outcome of the Second World War and undervaluation of historic importance of the verdicts of the Nuremberg Trial., While appearing in various forms, fields and degrees, depending on the concrete circumstances, this process seems to be encompassing the whole of Europe and beyond, thus becoming global phenomena. It is necessary to note that it is progressing in parallel with some other processes such as transition of the former socialist countries and global economic crises compared by many scholars with the crises of the 30-ties of the last century. Another simultaneous process, worth mentioning is degradation of the role of United and the international Law Order established after the Second World War. 
At the same time Europe and the world are undergoing the process of militarization, expansion of military installations towards East Europe is cross-netted by more foreign military basis today than at the time of the highest Cold War confrontation. World arms’ expenditure has risen to unprecedented 1.5 trillion USD per year, while military-industrial complex is privileged in decision making process and regarded as savor from further economic downfall.
Current world economic crises has already led to further widening of the gap between rich and poor, internationally and within individual countries, including reachest ones. High unemployment, misery and discontent have become worldwide reality causing deep social, political and moral problems, xenophobia and racism, including. From time to time, the public is told that certain nations have missionary role to “help” other nations to “democratize”, to adopt their system and values even by use of force if they deem it necessary.
These developments and practices represent very fertile soil for revival of ideologies of Nazism and Fascism, falsification of history, rehabilitation of those responsible for atrocities and war crimes during the Second World War undervaluation of the liberation struggle against Fascist occupiers.  
Attempts to revise the outcome of the Second World War can be traced, with different extent and forms, in various fields, but first of all, in mass-media, education and history-science. They are also present in arts (films), TV series, sports, popular music. Some political parties in various European countries, as well as some national and international institutions, one way or the other, do contribute to revision of history, rehabilitation of collaborators, quislings’ formations and their leaders. In some instances, national and international judiciary is manipulated and abused for the same purposes.

Having regard aforesaid, revival of the Nazi and Fascist ideologies on such large scale can hardly be considered spontaneous. Therefore, it would be useful to explore and answer some questions, such as – what are the sources of financing of the revival of Nazi and Fascist ideologies? Then, is there a political will to adopt global response to the process of revival of these ideologies, or how to come to such a response?   
Rehabilitation of Nazism and various quislings’ formations is particularly disturbing in the Balkans where the crimes of Fascist occupiers and their helpers were horribly cruel setting up death camps, encouraging civil war, redrawing state borders to install satellite states (“Independent State of Croatia”, “Greater Albania” from 1941-1945). Particularly worrying are false interpretations that the current attempts to rehabilitate quisling formations and downplay the role of anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist movements and Liberation struggle are part and parcel of democratization, reconciliation and modern, future oriented policies.
Yugoslav crisis of the 90-es gave a rise to revision of history. In fact, destruction of Yugoslavia was revision of the results not only of the Second, but also of the First World War, even of the Balkan wars.
Serbia has particular reasons to be worried about rewriting the history.
First, Serbia, within Yugoslavia, gave great contribution to the victory over Nazism and Fascism. However, people’s liberation struggle against occupying Fascist forces, close cooperation with other allied forces, particularly with Red Army of USSR, is often undervalued, neglected or distorted in mass media, education and political practice.
Second, Serbia suffered enormous human losses, far the most of 1.7 million of human losses of Yugoslavia. In fact, Serbs were the victim of genocide. Only in the concentration camp of Jasanovac, located in the Hitler’s puppet state “Independent State of Croatia” about 700.000 of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies were killed. There is a tendency to neglect, downplay, or distort real proportions of enormous human losses, in one hand and to downplay responsibility for unprecedented crimes against humanity, opn the other hand.
Third, attempts to rewrite the history concerns the results of the First World War, the set of Versailles agreements (Trianon). These attempts sometimes go thus far as to even accuse Serbia for the outbreak of the First World War as Richard Holbrook did in his book on Dayton!
And forth, during the last twenty years Serbia has been experiencing “in vivo” the revision of history of the 20-th century, the results of the two World Wars and even, results of the Balkan Wars: the second and third Yugoslavia has been destroyed in coordination of internal separatist forces and their foreign protectors, through the bloody civil wars. The role of neo-Nazi ideologies and its followers in separatists movements in this regard should not be neglected (“Ustashi” and others).

Kosovo and Metohija, the symbol of Serbia’s statehood, religion and culture, has been occupied through brutal 1999 NATO military aggression. While

under UN mandate and contrary to the UN SC resolution 1244 this Serbian territory has been stolen from Serbia and handed over to the leaders of international organized crimes, who are responsible, inter alia, for massive abduction of human beings and sale of human organs .
Serbian nation which had lived in Yugoslavia for over 70 years has been fragmented – part turned into refugees, part into new, openly discriminated national minorities, and part still remains deprived of the basic human rights in Kosovo and Metohija. Some Serbs are living in 21-rst century barbed-wired ghettos. Monuments of Serbian culture, 150 medieval monasteries and churches, even centuries old graveyards, have been destroyed while the Province has been under UN mandate. About 500.000 Serbian refugees and displaced persons are still in Serbia without the right to safe return to their ancestral homes in Croatia and Kosovo and Metohija.
In spite of all this, in the course of the last 20 years major western powers and huge propaganda machinery have been portraying Serbia as the culprits of the outbreak of civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia, for 1999 NATO aggression, for unilateral, illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija 2008 - even for ethnic cleansing of Serbs from their homes and for genocidal crimes committed against them. The corporate capital dominated mass media attributed collective responsibility to Serbs and portrayed the late president Slobodan Milosevic as a dictator worse then Adolf Hitler himself. Hague tribunal established without legal basis in the UN Charter, in practice, turned into a political instrument of condemning Serbia’s civil and military leadership, rewriting the history of the Balkan, justifying NATO military aggression which led to unilateral secession of 15 per cent of Serbia’s state territory.
Support to the secessionist forces in former Yugoslav republics, in Kosovo and Metohija and satanization of Serbia and Serbs, is perceived by major part of Serbian public, by many other friendly nations, by independent-minded scholars in Europe, USA and the world, unjust, imperial practice in line with the slogan “divide et impera”, as revenge, be it for resisting to globalist hegemony, be it for Serbia’s historically verified contribution to the victory of Allies in both World Wars.
Nowadays, Serbia is undergoing blackmail to accept loosing Kosovo and Metohija in exchange for membership to EU! Apparently, in the interest of p

eace and stability! It should be noted however, that this is not immoral and illegal only, but dangerously counterproductive in relation to the peace and stability. It seems as if the 1938 Sudetes lesson has been forgotten.   

Our priorities should be:

• Creative and active position in defending results of the two World Wars through encouraging historians, writers, journalists, schools in preserving  the truth and resisting all kind of distortions and falsifications of the history;
• Government agencies should provide all necessary conditions for scientific institutions and civic organizations willing to engage in realization of concrete projects for uncovering the roots and objectives of falsification of history;
• Active role in all governmental and non-governmental forums, especially within the system of United Nations (ECOSOC, UNRESCO), through IPU and other parliamentary assembles;
• Upgrading awareness of the youth and students on the crucial importance of safeguarding the truth of the past and tragic consequences of Fascism and Nazism;
• Examining the role of education and viability of channeling certain initiatives through UNESCO;
• Strengthening the basic principles of the International World and Law Order established after the Second World Order, especially, reinforcing the prime role of UN Security Council, notwithstanding necessity for further development and adjustments of international institutions

Dear Friends,

Let me conclude, that Serbia and Russia have shared, more or less, the same ideals of freedom, independence and dignity, same destiny throughout the history, always being allies and never enemies one to the other. I am sure that this  historic experience will be guiding our peoples in the future in  common endeavors for Europe and the World without Nazism and Fascism.
Thank you.

Gift for Mr. Chairman:
The book The Twilight of the West - NATO aggression - Never to forget

²Report of Hon. Dick Marty, Reporter of the Board for legal issues of the Parliamentary Assemble of the Council of Europe submitted to the Assembly in December 2010 for consideration and adoption at the session convened for January 25^th, 2011.

It is usually considered polite to avoid sharp criticism of someone who has just died. But Richard Holbrooke himself set a striking example of the breach of such etiquette. On learning of the death in prison of Slobodan Milosevic, Holbrooke did not hesitate to describe him as a "monster" comparable to Hitler and Stalin.

This was rank ingratitude, considering that Holbrooke owed his greatest career success – the 1995 Dayton Accords that ended the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina – almost entirely to Milosevic. This was made quite clear in his memoir To End a War (Random House, 1998).

But Holbrooke’s greatest skill, made possible by media complicity, was to dress up reality in the costume favorable to himself.

The Dayton Peace Accords were presented as a heroic victory for peace extracted by the brilliant Holbrooke from a reluctant Milosevic, who had to be "bombed to the negotiating table" by the United States. In reality, the U.S. government was fully aware that Milosevic was eager for peace in Bosnia to free Serbia from crippling economic sanctions. It was the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic who wanted to keep the war going, with U.S. military help. In reality, the U.S. bombed the Serbs in order to get Izetbegovic to the negotiating table. And the agreement reached in the autumn of 1995 was not very different from the agreement reached in March 1992 by the three ethnic groups under European Community auspices, which could have prevented the entire civil war, if it had not been sabotaged by Izetbegovic, who withdrew his agreement with the encouragement of the then U.S. ambassador Warren Zimmermann. In short, far from being the great peacemaker in the Balkans, the United States first encouraged the Muslim side to fight for its goal of a centralized Bosnia, and then sponsored a weakened federated Bosnia – after nearly four years of bloodshed which left the populations bereft and embittered.

The real purpose of all this, as Holbrooke made quite clear in To End a War, was to demonstrate that Europeans could not manage their own vital affairs and that the United States remained the "indispensable nation". His book also made it clear that the Muslim leaders were irritatingly reluctant to end war short of total victory, and that only the readiness of Milosevic to make concessions saved the Dayton talks from failure -- allowing Holbrooke to be proclaimed a hero.

The functional role of the Holbrooke’s diplomacy was to prove that diplomacy, as carried out by Europeans, was bound to fail. His victory was a defeat for diplomacy. The spectacle of bombing plus Dayton was designed to show that only the threat or application of U.S. military might could end conflicts.

Milosevic had hoped that his concessions would lead to peace and reconciliation with the United States. As it happened, his only reward for handing Holbrooke the victory of his career was to have his country bombed by NATO in 1999 in order to wrest from Serbia the province of Kosovo and prepare Milosevic’s own fall from office. Holbrooke played a prominent role in this scenario, suddently posing shoeless in a tent in the summer of 1998 for a photo op seated among armed Albanian secessionists which up to then had been characterized by the State Department as "terrorists", and shortly thereafter announcing to Milosevic that Serbia would be bombed unless he withdrew security forces from the province, in effect giving it to the ex-terrorists transformed by the Holbrooke blessing into freedom fighters.

In his long career from Vietnam to Afghanistan, Holbrooke was active on many fronts. In 1977, after Indonesia invaded East Timor and set about massacring the people of that former Portuguese colony, Holbrooke was dispatched by the United States supposedly to promote "human rights" but in reality to help arm the Suharto dictatorship against the East Timorese. Sometimes the government is armed against rebels, sometimes rebels are armed against the government, but despite appearances of contradiction, what is consistent throughout is the cynical exploitation and exacerbation of tragic local conflicts to extend U.S. imperial power throughout the world.

Holbrooke and Milosevic were born in the same year, 1941. When Milosevic died in 2006, Holbrooke gave a long statement to the BBC without a single syllable of human kindness. "This man wrecked the Balkans," said Holbrooke.

"He was a war criminal who caused four wars, over 300,000 deaths, 2.5million homeless. Sometimes monsters make the biggest impacts on history - Hitler and Stalin - and such is the case with this gentleman."

Holbrooke presented himself as goodness dealing with evil for a worthy cause. When negotiating with Milosevic, "you're conscious of the fact that you're sitting across the table from a monster whose role in history will be terrible and who has caused so many deaths."

Who was the monster? Nobody, including at the Hague tribunal where he died for lack of medical treatment, has ever actually proved that Milosevic was responsible for the tragic deaths in the wars of Yugoslav disintegration. But Holbrooke was never put on trial for all the deaths in Vietnam, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq and, yes, former Yugoslavia, which resulted at least in part from the U.S. policies he carried out.

From his self-proclaimed moral heights, Holbrooke judged the Serbian leader as an opportunist without political convictions, neither communist nor nationalist, but simply "an opportunist who sought power and wealth for himself."

In reality, there has never been any proof that Milosevic sought or obtained wealth for himself, whereas Holbrooke was, among many other things, a vice chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston, managing director of Lehman Brothers, vice chairman of the private equity firm Perseus LLC, and a member of the board of directors of AIG, the American International Group, at a time when, according to Wikipedia, "the firm engaged in wildly speculative credit default insurance schemes that may cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions to prevent AIG from bringing down the entire financial system."

Milosevic was on trial for years without ever being to present his defense before he died under troubling circumstances. Holbrooke found that outcome perfectly satisfying: "I knew as soon as he reached The Hague that he'd never see daylight again and I think that justice was served in a weird way because he died in his cell, and that was the right thing to do."

There are many other instances of lies and deceptions in Holbrooke’s manipulation of Balkan woes, as well as his totally cynical exploitation of the tragedies of Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. But still, his importance should not be overstated. Moral monsters do not always make a great impact on history, when they are merely the vain instruments of a bureaucratic military machine running amok.

"World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldous Huxley)

Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government.

Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)

In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid)

Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.

The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.

But there is more than meets the eye.

Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.

There are also reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks had, at the outset of the project in January 2007, contacted and sought the advice of Freedom House including an invitation to Freedom House to participate in Wikileaks' advisory board. Freedom House is a Washington based "watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world".

"We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption
2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH
3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members
4. general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and decentralised operations and political framing" (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

Wikileaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations with a view to securing funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007):

The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."

Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us...." (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)

At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledged that the project had been "founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.... [Its advisory board]  includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: "[Wikileaks will be] an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).

This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview in The New Yorker:

"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. (quoted in  WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)

Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration." (Ibid)

From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to America's elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations (and supported by Freedom House) geared towards triggering "regime change" and fostering "color revolutions" in different parts of the World.

The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role.

While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)

This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.

The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?

What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?

Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?

If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation?

Wikileaks has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.

America's corporate media and more specifically The New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to "Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.

Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the "professional media", to use Julian Assange's words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the outset.

Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents.

In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner The New York Times, which has consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:

“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.” (WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department - NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)

This "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:

"[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest." (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).

Yet Sanger also says later in the interview:

"It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government." (ibid)

"Do it independently of the government" while at the same time "asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest"?

David  E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, the president of the World Bank, Robert. B. Zoellick and Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, among other prominent establishment figures. (See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job,  Global Research, December 10, 2010).

It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine's Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker's Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship. The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Membership Roster - Council on Foreign Relations)

In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media.

The Embassy and State Department Cables

It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their attention on a highly "selective" dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which would support US foreign policy interests: Iran's nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support of Al Qaeda, China's relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.

The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered. They were used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.

From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well as Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism.

Iran's Nuclear Program

The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.

The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.

With regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled "Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims".

The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included  "a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle" which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon:

"In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting.

The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East."(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005, emphasis added)

These "secret documents" were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council.

While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010).

The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the "Wrong Missile Warhead":

In July 2005, ... Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency's leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or "schematics" showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or "warhead" of Iran's medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. ... The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. ... (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added)

David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks under the banner of truth and transparency was also instrumental in the New York Times "leak" of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence. (Ibid)

While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright Washington's assertions regarding Iran's alleged nuclear weapons. It also questions the legitimacy of the UN Security Council Sancions regime directed against Iran.

Moreover, in a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the Wikileaks embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the central issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce, through media disinformation, Washington's claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source:

"Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year.... (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea - NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010).

These missiles are said to have the "capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles." (Ibid, emphasis added).

Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World

The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other:

"After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community." Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010)

The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world.

"The Global War on Terrorism"

The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organizations, a fact which is known and amply documented.

What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the "Global War on Terrorism", is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, Montreal, 2005). These are US sponsored covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.

In this regard, the use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tends to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are "providing the lion's share of funding" to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison and consultation with their US intelligence counterparts:

"The information came to light in the latest round of documents released Sunday by Wikileaks. In their communiques to the State Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly, lavishly support the same groups against whom Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting." ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of Terror Groups - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News)

Similarly, with regard to Pakistan:

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan's support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,..." (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010)

Reports of this nature serve to provide legitimacy to US drone attacks against alleged terrorist targets inside Pakistan.

The corporate media's use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths:

1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security.

2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking the US and its NATO allies.

The CIA and the Corporate Media

The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to entertain a close relationship not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more recently with the Department of Homeland Security.

"Operation Mocking Bird" was an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as the foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA.

The inner workings of the CIA's relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein's 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media:

"[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. ... Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners,... Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work....;

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. (The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein)

Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that "the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress" (Ibid).

In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with a mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government.

Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1970s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels: "A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002).

Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics: "The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.'" (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also Michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, Global Research, January 3, 2003).

Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question:  why would the NYT all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in "spreading the word"; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship.

On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks is a CIA covert operation. However, given the corporate media's cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed.

Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage

Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award.

The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has, on balance, supported Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.

The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain's foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?

Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.

It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law firm, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks' social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.

Manufacturing Dissent

Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation:

"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition...  To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel Chossudovsky,  "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010)

What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated.

It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense "disposable". They can be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control the political apparatus from behind the scenes.

In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration. With regard to financial information, the release of data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via Wikileaks by a rival financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or bankrutpcy of the targeted financial institution.

All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.

While the numerous pieces of information contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks data bank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.

A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a "reliable source", when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth.

Limited forms of critical debate and "transparency" are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its "Global War on Terrorism". With regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: "We are against war but we support the 'war on terrorism'".

What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, --i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the economic elites as well America's global military design.

In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet. In this regard, we should also stand firm in preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US.

***

Original web page:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

On 17. Congress of German Peace Council:

Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,

Allow me, first of all, to thank you for your kind invitation and for the warm hospitality accorded to me by your leaders and activists. I am honored indeed by the opportunity to speak to this friendly audience on the issues of common interest. As this is my first opportunity to address delegates of German Peace Council from the whole of Germany, I would like also to thank you for your enormous efforts in spreading the truth about real causes and consequences of the Yugoslav crisis and real objectives of 1999 NATO aggression.

Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals is an independent, nonpartisan and non-profit association founded eleven years ago. We share similar values and objectives: we are devoted to peace, justice and truth. We want Europe of peace and stability, Europe of equal nations, equal human beings, and equal opportunities, Europe without nuclear armament and foreign military bases, Continent of justice and prosperity for all. We strive against militarization and any kind of hegemony. So called new concept of the NATO strategy adopted at the recent Lisbon Summit new one. It is only codification of precedent of NATO aggression on Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999, Afghanistan of 2001, Iraq of 2003. So called new strategy is new attempt military complex to justify  expansion of a war machinery. NATO is imposing itself as a global aggressive Alliance ready to engage its war machinery any time, in any corner of the globe, contrary to the basic principles of the international law and the role of the UN Security Council. Instead of removing military arsenal, especially nuclear, NATO has adopted plans to develop and deploy the new ones in Europe and elsewhere. Implementation of such plans would undoubtedly provoke a new arms race depriving peoples of decent life and jeopardizing peace and stability. We are disturbed by the fact that there are more military bases in Europe today, than at the peak of the Cold War era.

Dear Friends,

Stable and prosperous Balkan is of the paramount interest of the Balkan peoples as well as of Europe. The situation in the region, however, remains complex with political, security and socio-economic problems which, least in carry potential for new problems and even conflicts.
It should be noted that in the period of the last twenty years the Balkan has been testing ground for new doctrines, the region of the most dramatic changes and precedents in international relations:
- Second Yugoslavia (SFRY) was destroyed in 1992, the third Yugoslavia in 2006, both in conjunction of internal an external factors;
- NATO aggression against Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999 was the first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War, presented as “humanitarian intervention”, contrary to basic principles of International Law, without approval of UN SC,
- Unilateral proclamation of Independence of Kosovo and Methija in 2008, while the Provence was under UN mandate, again, without UN SC approval, and contrary to the Constitution of Serbia;

Seven new hardly sustainable states have been created, some even through severe civil wars consequences of which will be felt over decades to come ¹. In spite of some progress in the process of normalization of relations, mistrust is still there limiting the efforts to revive economic, social, cultural and other links. After over 70 years of common life, these links were abruptly cut during the secessions and conflicts. There is great need to remove all politically motivated obstacles and encourage widest possible cooperation based on recognition of mutual interests. Free flow of goods, people, ideas, culture and capital would certainly push ahead overall development, diminish dependence on foreign assistance and help dealing with consequences of the global economic and financial crisis.
New international borders while not general problem, in a number of instances are still to be defined, including parts of Serbia-Croatian border on Danube and Serbia-Bosnian border on the Drina River. The best way in resolving these issues is to apply international standards.
New national minorities have appeared in addition to old ones. Balkan renown through history as mixture of nations, cultures and religions and conflicts, of course, after further territorial fragmentation during the last two decades, has “enriched” itself by producing even more national minorities, more languages, and even more religions. For good? It is doubtful. Standards of their human, political and national rights in a number of instances are not respected. 
Serbia is still hosting about 220.000 displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija, mainly Serbs, and about 300.000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the highest figure of refugees and displaced persons in one European country. This causes not only serious socio-economic but political problems, too. Members of neither of the two groups are permitted to return to places of their origin freely and safely. Serbs in Croatia although promised territorial autonomy, are deprived even of some basic individual rights such as right to private ownership of their houses, apartments and farms.
One of the potential sources of destabilization is Bosnia and Herzegovina which is occasionally termed “failed state”. Constitutional set up of Bosnia and Herzegovina is defined by the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement (1995) guaranteeing sovereign equality of the three constituent peoples (Moslems, Serbs and Croats) and equality of the two entities – Bosnia and Herzegovina federation (Moslems and Croats) and Republika Srpska. Attempts, channeled through High Representative, to change the con-federal and impose unitary system contrary to what was established by Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement, to annul consensus in decision making and introduce majorization are counter productive, to say, at least. They tend to return the stabilization process back to the beginning of 90-ies and, therefore, are very dangerous for the very existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. In closing this chapter of my speech, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that after the recent elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina Croat Community came to openly ask for creation of own, third entity. This reveals that both, Serbs and Croats have same fear – of being discriminated Moslems dominated Bosnia.
In my opinion, Serbia does not and cannot recognize illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, this remains an open issue yet to be resolved. Solution should be sought respecting basic principles of the international law, UN decisions and Constitution of Serbia as a sovereign state. Such a position is supported by major part of International community, including some of the permanent members of UN SC (Russia and China) as well as some members of EU (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovak Republic and Cyprus). New negotiations on the status seem to be unavoidable. Any expectation on further softening the official Serbia Government’s position could turn to be counterproductive. Perhaps not so much because of the Government’s firmness in defending territorial integrity and sovereignty, but first of all because compromise is the only away to to guarantee Serbia’s internal stability which, in turn, is important for the lasting peace and stability of the Balkan. 
It has been repeatedly noted that the future of the Balkan lies in the hands of the Balkan countries. This is true, but mainly theoretically. In real life one of the general problems in the region is excessive involvement of out-of-the-region power centers. Considering that Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Province of Kosovo and Metohija continue to be international protectorates, that the governments in the most of the countries in the region owe their loyalty to the West which helped them various ways to come to power (“colored revolutions”), it is rather unclear what the regional factors can do themselves, what are real margins for them to work out needed compromises.
International community, essentially being limited to NATO and EU, lacks capacity and political will for compromised solutions and continue to impose own solutions which, sooner or later, appear not to be sustainable. This, perhaps explains, why NATO and EU maintain substantial military, police and civil presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia and particularly in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija where about 10.000 NATO troops are deployed including one of the biggest military base in the world (Bondstil).
No doubt that the key source of destabilization of the Balkan today remains Kosovo and Metohija. Aparent massive violation of human rights of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija was just excuse for NATO aggression against Serbia. In my opinion, NATO aggression in 1999, was a historic mistake of the West, especially of Western Europe and Germany. It was a precedent, first ring in a chain of aggressions and occupations which ensued after. Ever since Europe has been obliged to take part in other military interventions away of its zone of defense. With recent Lisbon documents such a practice has been codified and formalized. The aggression was a blunder towards the United Nations particularly towards Security Council and its role in maintaining peace in the world. It gave a push to separatist tendencies in the region, Europe and the World. New military bases mushroomed from Kosovo to Bulgaria, Rumania, Baltic states. Economic destructions, including some of the strategic European corridors, have been valued over 100 billions of US dollars.
Unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija in February this year was also a dangerous precedent. As to whether it encouraged independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia may be disputable, but the general effect of Kosovo’s “unique case” should not be disputable.
Last month, representatives of Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, FYROM, Greece, Montenegro and three southern districts of Serbia (Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja) gathered in Tirana to announce their devotion to the “natural Albania”. This gathering was preceded by repeated declarations of highest Albanian officials that Albanians have the right to live together and followed by the declaration of former chief of OSDE Kosovo Verification Mission, American ambassador William Walker that Albanians have the right to unite.
“Side” effects of Prishtina’s unilateral secession may be summed up in one word - divisions – divisions within EU, UN, OSCE, between EU/NATO – Russia, divisions in the Balkan and divisions within Serbia itself.
Appart from the fact that the Province is faced with dramatic socio-economic problems, unemployement at the same time, it is a safe heaven and a jumping board for extremists and clans of organized crimes whose real aim is to operate in the EU area. It is assesed that over 60 percent of the total marketing of heroin in Europe is controlled by Albanian mafia. Trafiking of human beings, their vital organs and smugling of armaments is also under their control.

Putting an end to the protectorate status of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be important step in good direction. After 15 years of peace and international governance, local institutions and politicians must be given a chance of working together, compromising and running the country without almighty so called High Representative. Reopening negotiations on the status of Kosovo and Metohija after the opinion of the International Court of Justice is announced later this year is quite reasonable expectation. Compromise based on the respect of International Law, particularly. The UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) must be considered a lasting legal document, starting point and coroner stone of any future solution for Kosovo and Metohija problem. This is the most important precondition to peace and stability in the Balkan. Foreigners come and go, their interests vary but the Balkan nations will stay here for ever. For this reason they should relay on compromises of their long term interests.
EU appears to be key partner of the Balkan states. How long will last the current financial, economic and institutional crisis in EU? What conclusions Brussels drew from up to now enlargements of the EU membership? Answering these questions would certainly help to asses realistically prospects for EU membership of a number of Balkan countries. To continue submitting to endless demands of Brussels bureaucracy in exchange for repeated promises of “European perspectives”, may turn to be loss of time and vital interests.
Democratization and transition has left, among others, profound social divisions and tensions, extremely high rate of unemployment, corruption, and organized crime. These tendencies are not assets for peace and stability. To alleviate the roots of these tendencies require political will, strategies, recourses, including financial, and – time. 
Western benevolence towards obvious rise of separatism and territorial fragmentation, especially affecting Serbia and Serbian nation, in one hand, and clear support for centralization, unitarization of certain other countries, notably Bosnia and Herzegovina, are examples of double standards policy. Putting aside motives and interests of the West, it must be noted that such a policy would definitely hinder prospects of peace and stability today, up to 2020 and beyond.
Proliferation of puppet sates with unsustainable economies, national minorities with uneven level of their rights, political parties based on ethnic and religious criteria and refugees and displaced persons with the lack of political will to scure conditions for free and safe return to their homes;
Expansion of Islamism not as a religion or culture, but as overall social and governmental system. Some Islamite leaders do consider Balkan as a spring board for further expansion. (Vehabist groups, Islamic extremist organizations have been uncovered recently in a number of Balkan countries);
In my opinion, Serbia with its geostrategic position and resources is capacitated and willing to play its role in achieving sustainable stability, peace and development in the Balkans. But Serbia is faced with serious problems. First of all, stagnation of the socio-economic development, about one million of unemployed, 700.000 people billow the bottom line of poverty, disregard of her legitimate national interest.
Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is not jeopardized by illegal unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija only, but such tendencies are present in some other parts (Vojvodina, Raska, Southern districts).
Recently “The Group of Friends of Sandzak” (Raska) was established in Belgrade composed of the ambassadors of USA, Germany, Britain and Italy! What would be real political objective of such a move? These ambassadors surely have been welcomed to Belgrade as friends of Serbia and they are expected to behave as such. Forming “Group of friends” of same states is known practice at the UN Headquarters in New York, usually, to show strong support to a country with certain problems usually pending consideration within UN. But, forming a “Group of Friends” of any particular part (region) of a sovereign country by diplomats accredited to such a country is neither diplomatic nor respecting partnership nor hospitality of particular country and nation.
Serbian public and civic society should like to see everybody investing into mutual understanding and respect so that the Balkan becomes region of integration, peace and stability leaving behind divisions, distrust and confrontation.

Dear friends,
I am aware that aforesaid is more a list of open problems, with some suggestions, than a list of solutions. Our answers should be close cooperation and coordination, , to find ways to mass media – conventional and new ones, ability to foresee developments.

In closing, let me congratulate you for great success of your Congress.
Thank you.

Zivadin Jovanovic
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals,
Former Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR of Yugoslavia

¹ Kosovo and Metohija’s self-proclaimed secession from Serbia has not been recognized in the region by Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Cyprus

Photo Gallery

John Cherian

The big arms companies based in the U.S. are likely to create a record in arms sales worldwide this year.

The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is the most expensive fighter plane developed so far. Israel will get 20 of these between 2015 and 2017.

The extradition of the notorious Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout to the United States by the government of Thailand has once again put the spotlight on the global arms trade. Bout is described in the Western media as an individual arms dealer with few scruples who sold his lethal supplies to the highest bidder. According to the U.S., who had put Bout on its most wanted list, the former Russian naval officer had supplied arms to groups on Washington's so-called terror list, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Taliban and insurgent groups in Somalia. The U.S. has given the Colombian armed forces $5 billion in military aid since the late 1990s. Many more billions have been spent in Afghanistan in the continuing efforts to defeat the Taliban.

The real “merchants of death” are the big arms companies, based mainly in the U.S. and Europe, that sell weapons worth billions to countries in the developing world. Companies in the U.S. lead the pack. The latest arms deals signed by the U.S. with Saudi Arabia and other states in the West Asian region will see the profits of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman soar in the next fiscal. The global arms trade is worth $60 billion dollars annually. The U.S. has consistently topped the list of arms exporters. The other nations on the list are Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Israel, China, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy.

In 2009, the U.S. share of the global defence market was 39 per cent, followed by Russia with around 20 per cent. China was the third biggest exporter. India has been among the top purchasers of military equipment. In 2008, India, along with Pakistan, Algeria and Malaysia, was among the top five buyers of weapons. In 2009, Brazil emerged as the biggest recipient of arms, with $7.2 billion in purchases, followed by Venezuela, which spent $6.4 billion in arms deals. Between 2002 and 2009, Saudi Arabia led the pack of recipient nations, having inked arms deals worth more than $39.9 billion, followed by India, which had entered into arms deals worth $32.4 billion.

This year, the U.S. is likely to break a record in arms sales worldwide. Financial Times has reported that the Gulf Arab states have ordered U.S. weapons systems worth $123 billion “to counter Iran's military power”. The biggest deal, worth $60 billion, is with Saudi Arabia and was formally announced in October this year. Among other things, the U.S. will be supplying the Saudis 84 new F-15 jet fighters and will be upgrading another 70 fighter planes. The U.S. expects to reap an additional $30 billion when the Saudi navy is upgraded in the near future. American commentators have said that the Saudi deal is a “huge bailout” for American military contractors.

Bob Strong / Reuters

The U.S.' biggest arms deal this year, worth $60 billion, is with Saudi Arabia. Among other things, the U.S. will be supplying the Saudis F-15 fighter jets, shown in the picture.

Many West Asia watchers are of the opinion that the region is already overflowing with arms. Saudi Arabia, many military experts have opined, is already over-armed and has military capabilities in excess of its legitimate needs. President Barack Obama's administration, however, seems determined to militarise the tense region further, regardless of the consequences. The U.S. is also sending a strong signal to its enemies that despite its declining superpower status it proposes to remain the major power in the region. “This proposed sale has tremendous significance from a strategic regional perspective,” said Andrew Shapiro, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, while announcing the arms deal with Saudi Arabia. “It will send a strong message to the countries in the region that we are committed to support the security of our key partners and allies in the Arabian Gulf and the broader Middle East [West Asia],” said Shapiro.

U.S. Defence officials have said that Tel Aviv did not object to the sale of sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia as “it will not affect Israel's upper hand in the region”. But just to make sure, the Obama administration announced that Israel would be given the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive fighter plane developed so far, which costs $184 million apiece. Israel will get 20 of these planes between 2015 and 2017. There are also reports that the Obama administration's offer of the F-35 jet fighters was made on the basis of the Israeli government's decision to once again “freeze” the building of settlements on the West Bank and go back to the dialogue table.

The UAE recently signed with the U.S. military contracts worth $35.6 billion. The purchases include that of a missile defence system called Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD), which is still in the development stage, and Patriot anti-missile batteries. The UAE also purchased 80 American-made F-16 jet fighters.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report accessed by the media in September faults the Obama administration for concluding multi-billion-dollar arms deals with Gulf countries without establishing whether they were in the national interest of the U.S. The GAO, which reports to the U.S. Congress, had looked into U.S. defence deals conducted with the Gulf states from 2005 to 2009. The Obama administration has disagreed with the GAO's contention that U.S. national interests were not prioritised. Administration officials told the GAO that arms sales to the Gulf “support the U.S. defence industrial base” and represented “a key component of the U.S. security relationship in the region”.

The U.S. has for a long time been seeking to make the Gulf a front line against Iran. The huge volume of military sales to Saudi Arabia is also meant to make the biggest Gulf country a strategic buffer between Israel and Iran. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have shared a close strategic relationship for the past seven decades, which is based on oil and security. Though relations between Riyadh and Teheran have improved a lot, the Saudi monarchy seems to be in Washington's corner as far as the nuclear dispute is concerned.

K. Murali Kumar

Vice Admiral Jeffrey A. Wieringa, Director of the Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency. He has made eight visits to India so far.

Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieringa, the Director of the Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency, has predicted that U.S. weapons sales will cross the $50-billion mark this year. Oman and Kuwait are likely to place orders with the U.S. to upgrade their air forces. Oman has reportedly earmarked $12.3 billion for arms purchases from the U.S. and Kuwait $7.1 billion. In September, the U.S. signed a deal with Iraq to sell it weapons worth $4.2 billion, including 18 F-16 fighter aircraft, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, laser-guided bombs and reconnaissance equipment.

The other recent notable arms sales concluded by the U.S. include a $3.2-billion sale of F-16s to Egypt, $7-billion worth of Boeing F-18 bombers to Brazil and $134-million worth of Chinook helicopters to Morocco. The arms deal the U.S. signed with Taiwan in January this year triggered a diplomatic row between Washington and Beijing. Under the deal, the U.S. will sell advanced weaponry worth more than $6.3 billion to the island, which China considers its province. In retaliation, China suspended military exchanges with the U.S. and warned that the deal would have an adverse impact on bilateral relations. In 2008, the U.S. sold Taiwan aircraft and missiles worth $6.4 billion.

India is now emerging as a key market for the U.S. Wieringa has made eight visits to India so far. He boasted in a recent blog post about the huge strides the U.S. had made in weapons exports. The Indian defence market was so far virtually monopolised by Russia and Israel. A major thrust of the Obama visit to India was to sell American weaponry. The Obama administration is reportedly “investigating” ways to make the selling of defence weaponry to countries such as India easier.

While signing this year's military budget, Obama said that the document took “necessary steps towards reshaping priorities of America's defence establishment and changing the way the Pentagon does business”.

India has set aside $50 billion for the next five years to modernise its armed forces. A sum of $10 billion has been earmarked for the purchase of 126 multi-role combat fighters. If an American company clinches this deal, the U.S. could then emerge as India's biggest defence partner and military ally. This year alone, India has already gone in for some big-ticket purchases, including cargo transport aircraft, long-distance reconnaissance planes and 145 U.S.-made howitzers. The deals are worth more than $5 billion.

India, unlike Pakistan, pays for these weapons from its budget. Countries such as Pakistan and Israel pay for U.S. weaponry from the defence aid they receive from Washington. The U.S. counter-insurgency fund for Pakistan for the fiscal year of 2011 is to increase to $1.2 billion.

NATO’s much heralded “New Strategic Concept,” adopted at the summit in Lisbon on November 20, provides a few additional reasons why those Balkan countries that are still outside the Alliance should stay out of it.

NATO and the uses to which Washington puts it constitute a messy tangle of contradictions. Outwardly, it appears to be what it always was: a defensive organization dedicated to collective security. Inwardly it is something else entirely. NATO’s mission was to contain the USSR—universally perceived as a threat—through collective security: an attack against one would be an attack against all. Although NATO had a war fighting doctrine, it sought mainly to deter attack. In this it succeeded splendidly; but since the demise of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, NATO has morphed from a defensive alliance to fend off a commonly acknowledged threat into a vehicle for the attainment of U.S. global hegemony.

The “Strategic Concept” does nothing to resolve this fundamental contradiction. The document’s “Core Tasks and Principles” do not offer a coherent strategic vision but rely on propagandistic rhetoric: “The Alliance remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world;” its member states “form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

The authors assert with breathtaking audacity, in view of the aggression against Serbia 11 years ago, that “the Alliance is firmly committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the Washington Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

The Concept illustrates the extent to which NATO has lost any sense of strategic purpose. Terrorism is singled out as “a direct threat,” as well as “trans-national illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people,” piracy, and cyber attacks by “foreign militaries and intelligence services, organised criminals, terrorist and/or extremist groups.” (The notion that NATO should combat human trafficking etc. is ridiculous not only in itself, but also because NATO protectorate Kosovo is one of the world’s great centers of human trafficking.)

The Alliance brief now includes “assessing the impact of emerging security technologies,” as well as a host of environmental issues: “health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to affect significantly NATO planning and operations.” Disruption of energy supplies is listed in the same league. A truly extraordinary novelty is that each of those “risks” is from now on a potential cause of war!

The “Concept” commits NATO to “further develop doctrine and military capabilities for expeditionary operations,” which hints at the possibility of new out-of-area deployments. The fact that Concept was initially drafted by a group of experts chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is an alarming indicator of the hidden agenda.

At a time of extreme political, economic, military and moral weakness, Serbia in particular would be ill advised to join an organization committed to new “expeditionary operations,” but the same applies to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. Serbia needs to pursue its key national interest—that of maintaining friendly relations with Russia. This cannot and will not happen if Serbia resorts to provocative acts such as joining a NATO bent on Russia’s encirclement. In defining its security arrangement Belgrade should adopt certain criteria based on the conventional understanding of Serbia’s national interest. They should include:

Attention to cost. The cost of force modernization required to meet NATO standards would overburden and overwhelm the already weak Serbian economy;

Refusal to commit Serbian forces and use them as American cannon-fodder in “expeditionary” missions not directly connected to the country’s national interests;

Resistance to being pulled into geo-strategic alignments that are not in the national interest, that are overwhelmingly rejected by Serbia’s popular opinion, and would only exacerbate regional tensions.

Serbia should seek its place within a European security architecture that embraces (and balances) the diverse security arrangements maintained by European states. They include NATO members, from Portugal to Estonia and Iceland to Greece; West European states that are not in NATO, such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland; ex-Communist countries with scant interest in or prospect of joining NATO (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia); and Russia, which occupies a category of its own. Whether viewing U.S. foreign policy through the prism of geo-strategy or ideology, Russia remains in NATO’s crosshairs. It has become an important means of changing the world in America’s image. If Serbia were to join, Belgrade would be enlisting in a crusade to encircle Moscow for the benefit of those who bombed Belgrade for 78 days eleven years ago. Such policy would be not only geopolitically self-defeating, but also morally criminal.

What is NATO For? 

The Strategic Concept concedes that “the Euro-Atlantic area is at peace and the threat of a conventional attack against NATO territory is low.” In other words, NATO’s Cold War area of hostility has all but disappeared, but its self-awarded areas of activity and authority are still proliferating. The Concept effectively codifies a shift from NATO’s defense of specific territories to its open-ended readiness to respond to redefined “threats” anywhere in the world.

It is not contentious that terrorism, cyber attacks, arms, drugs and people trafficking, etc. are security threats which need to be addressed. The right tools for doing so are a conceptual approach freed from the shackles of Jihad-friendly political correctitude, an enhanced Interpol, an efficient intelligence network, and a dozen global SWAT teams. A military alliance of NATO’s structure and magnitude is absurdly ill-suited to the task, however. Including such threats in NATO’s brief – not to mention the environment, health, climate change, water, etc. – is nonsensical in grand-strategic terms. It means either that the Alliance is to become a global social worker on steroids, or else that it can be dragged into countless new interventions, theoretically justifiable by its new mandate.

NATO and Russia

The key issue of grand strategy, NATO’s attitude to Russia, remains unresolved. The Concept asserts that “NATO poses no threat to Russia,” with which it seeks a true strategic partnership. We’ve heard similar statements before: in 1997 Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which was soon followed – and rendered obsolete – by the Kosovo war in 1999 and the Alliance’s eastward expansion. Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin sarcastically articulated Moscow’s misgivings: “The NATO gamekeepers invite the Russian bear to go hunting rabbits together. The bear doesn’t understand: why do they have bear-hunting rifles?”

NATO and Europe

An encouraging aspect of the European financial crisis – with Ireland as its latest episode – is that it makes further reduction of European military budgets inevitable. Since 2001, the Pentagon’s annual budget has increased by more than two-thirds in real terms from $400 billion to $700 billion, while inflation-adjusted defence spending across Europe fell by two per cent each year to just under $300 billion. Whatever new NATO “missions” are conjured in Washington, the lack of Europe’s political will to come on board will be coupled by the material inability to do so in a meaninful way.

A necessary and successful European structure during the Cold War, NATO is obsolete and harmful today. It no longer provides collective security – an attack against one is an attack against all – of limited geographic scope (Europe) against a predatory totalitarian power. Instead, NATO has morphed into a vehicle for the attainment of misguided American strategic objectives on a global scale. The Lisbon Strategic Concept merely cements and perpetuates its new, U.S.-invented “mission” as a self-appointed promoter of democracy, protector of human rights, and guardian against instability outside its original area. It was on those grounds, rather than in response to any supposed threat, that the Clinton administration pushed for the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 1996, and President Bush brought in the Baltic republics, Bulgaria, and Rumania in 2004.

Bill Clinton’s air war against the Serbs, which started in March 1999, marked a decisive shift in NATO’s mutation from a defensive alliance into a supranational security force based on the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.” The trusty keeper of the gate of 1949 had morphed into a roaming vigilante five decades later.

America and NATO

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been trying to articulate her goals and define her policies in terms of “traditional” national interests. By contrast, the early 1990’s witnessed the beginning of America’s futile attempt to assert her status as the only global “hyperpower.” The justification for their project was as ideological, and the implications were as revolutionary as anything concocted by Bolshevik revolutionaries Zinoviev or Trotsky in their heyday. When Mikhail Gorbachev’s agreement was needed for German reunification, President George H.W. Bush gave a firm and public promise that NATO wound not move eastward. Within years, however, Bill Clinton expanded NATO to include all the former Warsaw Pact countries of Central Europe. Instead of declaring victory and abolishing the alliance in the early 1990’s, the Clinton administration redesigned it as a mechanism for open-ended out-of-area interventions at a time when every rationale for its existence had disappeared. Following the air war against Serbia over a decade ago, NATO’s area of operations became unlimited, and its “mandate” entirely self-generated.

Another round of NATO expansion came under George W. Bush, when three former Soviet Baltic republics were admitted. In 2007 Bush extended U.S. military assistance to aspiring NATO members, specifically Georgia and Ukraine. Further expansion, according to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, was “historically mandatory, geopolitically desirable.” He openly admitted that NATO’s enlargement was not about U.S. security in any conventional sense, but “about America’s role in Europe – whether America will remain a European power and whether a larger democratic Europe will remain organically linked to America.” Such attitude is the source of endless problems for America and Europe alike.

As the Lisbon Summit indicates, President Obama and his foreign policy team fail to grasp that a problem exists. There’s been a change of officials at the White House, but the Washington regime is still the same, and both NATO and America are still in need of a new strategy. That strategy should be based on the fact that the threat to Europe’s security does not come from Russia, or from a fresh bout of instability in the Balkans. The real threat to Europe’s security and to her survival comes from Islam, from the deluge of inassimilable Third World immigrants, and from collapsing birthrates. All three are due to the moral and cultural degeneracy, not to any shortage of soldiers and weaponry. The continued presence of a U.S. contingent of any size in Germany can do nothing to alleviate these problems, because they are cultural, moral and spiritual.

Dangerous NATO Doctrine

NATO is detrimental to global security. It forces America to assume nominal responsibility for open-ended maintenance of a host of disputed East European frontiers that were drawn, often arbitrarily, by Communist dictators and by long-dead Versailles diplomats, and which bear little relation to ethnicity, geography, or history. With NATO still in place, eventual adjustments – which are inevitable – will be more potentially violent for the countries concerned and more risky for the U.S. The West does not have any interest in preserving an indefinite status quo in the region.

Clinton’s 1999 war against Serbia was based on the his own doctrine of “humanitarian intervention,” which claimed the right of the United States to use military force to prevent or stop alleged human rights abuses as defined by Washington. This doctrine explicitly denied the validity of long-established norms – harking back to 1648 Westphalia – in favor of a supposedly higher “moral” objective. It paved the way for the pernicious Bush Doctrine of preventive war and “regime change” codified in the 2002 National Security Strategy.

The Clinton-Bush Doctrine represented the global extension of the Soviet model of relations with Moscow’s satellites applied in the occupation of Czechoslovakia in August 1968. More than three decades after Prague 1968 the USSR was gone and the Warsaw Pact dismantled, but the principles of the Brezhnev Doctrine are not defunct. They survive in the neoliberal guise at the headquarters of NATO in Brussels. But the key difference between Brezhnev and Clinton was in the limited scope of the Soviet leader’s self-awarded outreach. His doctrine applied only to the “socialist community,” as opposed to the unlimited, potentially world-wide scope of “defending the values that give NATO meaning.” The “socialist community” led by Moscow stopped on the Elbe, after all. It was replaced by the “International Community” led by Washington, which stops nowhere.

Inevitable Failure of the Lisbon “Concept”

The latest codification of the NATO doctrine, as presented in Lisbon, is the ideological pillar and self-referential framework for the policy of permanent global interventionism. It precludes any meaningful debate about the correlation between ends and means of American power, at a time when – after a brief period of American mono-polar dominance (1991-2008) – the global distribution of power is characterized by asymmetric multipolarity.

Any attempt by a single power to keep its military strength beyond challenge is inherently destabilizing. Neither Napoleon nor Hitler knew any “natural” limits, but their ambition was confined to Europe. With the NATO doctrine today, the novelty is that this ambition is extended literally to the whole world. The globe itself is now effectively claimed as America’s sphere of influence, and NATO is the enforcement mechanism of choice. That neurotic dynamism is bound to be resisted ever more effectively and decisively by the emerging coalition of weaker powers (Russia, China, India, Brazil), acting on behalf of the essentially “conservative” principles of state sovereignty, national interest, and reaffirmation of the right to their own spheres of geopolitical dominance.

The sooner they get their act together, the better for all, NATO powers included.

www.balkanstudies.org/blog/natos-new-strategy-warning-balkans

Ultime notizie (Agosto-Novembre 2010)

DAL Kosovo:

• Conseguenze dei bombardamenti: il numero di malati di cancro in Kosovo è aumentato del 200 per   cento - Denuncia di una ONG serba di Mitrovica
• Kosovo, gruppo sconosciuto serbo proclama un processo di indipendenza
• Associazione delle Municipalità serbe del Kosovo Metohija: EULEX è una forza di occupazione
• La pulizia etnica dei Rom del Kosovo

SUL Kosovo:

• Condanna dell'attacco terroristico in Kosovo Metohija - Z. Jovanovic,Presidente del Forum Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali
• I clan dell'attuale e dell'ex premier coinvolti in omicidi. Il traffico di organi e di droga. L'Onu sapeva e ha insabbiato. Lo dimostrano alcuni documenti ritrovati
• Politici ed esperti militari tedeschi, chiedono la chiusura della base militare di Bondsteel
• NAZIONI UNITE: Il Kosovo è uno "Stato" narco-terrorista

• La Solidarietà concreta di SOS Kosovo Metohija- SOS Yugoslavia
• La voce dei bambini del Kosmet
• Kosovo Metohija di IERI

Editoriale:

Kosovo dei giorni nostri

Coscienti della sempre più ristretta area di interesse mediatico che ha oggi la situazione in quell'area balcanica, perseveriamo nel fornire informazioni e documentazioni.
Perché, molti si possono chiedere? Pensiamo che ci sono almeno quattro motivi concreti per continuare questo impegno:

1) E' un area geograficamente a noi contigua come paese, e ciò che vi accade o vi può accadere, non può non riguardare i paesi intorno, perché qualsiasi evoluzione o involuzione della situazione lì, ha conseguenze dirette o indirette, in tutti gli aspetti: politici, economici, militari, sociali, nel nostro paese e nella nostra società. E, come si può comprendere dalla lettura degli avvenimenti e della situazione, è un area potenzialmente esplosiva e foriera di nuove violenze e conflittualità, che possono destabilizzare politiche ed equilibri internazionali, in cui l'Italia e tutti noi, saremo obbligatoriamente coinvolti.

2) E' un area di scontro geopolitico e geostrategico nel confronto tra logiche politiche imperialiste e potenze che non accettano la subordinazione a queste. In concreto, nel Kosovo vi è anche un confronto sottile ma frontale tra gli interessi strategici della potenza Russia e quelli di USA/NATO/ Occidente…che non coincidono. Quali che saranno gli sviluppi l'Italia ne sarà parte, anche perché interni all'apparato militare NATO, con tutto ciò che ne conseguirà.

3) Perché lavorare per la verità, significa lavorare per la giustizia, e senza verità non vi può essere giustizia. E senza giustizia non vi può essere pace per i popoli. Quindi un lavoro per la pace e l'amicizia tra i popoli, è una prospettiva concreta di impegno per un mondo e un futuro migliore per i nostri figli.

4) Per un lavoro di Memoria Storica, perché non bisogna mai dimenticare che l'Italia è direttamente responsabile per la situazione e le sofferenze della gente di quell'area, in quanto paese aggressore nel 1999, e con le sue 1381 missioni militari di bombardamenti, ha contribuito alla devastazione e immiserimento di quelle genti. E in questo paese chiamato Italia, è una forma culturale e storica, NON fare i conti con la propria storia e le proprie responsabilità storiche, come è stato sempre uso nella storia, per ogni popolo e paese.

Enrico Vigna - Forum Belgrado Italia

Manifestação da campanha «Paz Sim, NATO Não»

Grande manifestação popular, promovida pela campanha «Paz Sim, NATO, Não», plataforma que integra mais de 100 organizações, juntou mais de 30 mil pessoas, hoje, em Lisboa, em luta contra a guerra, contra a NATO, pela Paz.

www.pcp.pt/grande-jornada-de-luta-povo-portugu%C3%AAs-contra-nato

November 18, 2010

(Encircling Russia, Targeting China)

On November 19 and 20, NATO leaders meet in Lisbon for what is billed as a summit on “NATO’s Strategic Concept”.  Among topics of discussion will be an array of scary “threats”, from cyberwar to climate change, as well as nice protective things like nuclear weapons and a high tech Maginot Line boondoggle supposed to stop enemy missiles in mid-air. The NATO leaders will be unable to avoid talking about the war in Afghanistan, that endless crusade that unites the civilized world against the elusive Old Man of the Mountain, Hassan i Sabah, eleventh century chief of the Assassins in his latest reincarnation as Osama bin Laden.  There will no doubt be much talk of “our shared values”.

Most of what they will discuss is fiction with a price tag.

The one thing missing from the Strategic Concept summit agenda is a serious discussion of strategy.

This is partly because NATO as such has no strategy, and cannot have its own strategy.  NATO is in reality an instrument of United States strategy.  Its only operative Strategic Concept is the one put into practice by the United States. But even that is an elusive phantom.  American leaders seem to prefer striking postures, “showing resolve”, to defining strategies.

One who does presume to define strategy is Zbigniew Brzezinski, godfather of the Afghan Mujahidin back when they could be used to destroy the Soviet Union.  Brzezinski was not shy about bluntly stating the strategic objective of U.S. policy in his 1993 book The Grand Chessboard: “American primacy”.  As for NATO, he described it as one of the institutions serving to perpetuate American hegemony, “making the United States a key participant even in intra-European affairs.” In its “global web of specialized institutions”, which of course includes NATO, the United States exercises power through “continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus, even though that power originates ultimately from a single source, namely, Washington, D.C.”

The description perfectly fits the Lisbon “Strategic Concept” conference.  Last week, NATO’s Danish secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, announced that “we are pretty close to a consensus”.  And this consensus, according to the New York Times, “will probably follow President Barack Obama’s own formulation: to work toward a non-nuclear world while maintaining a nuclear deterrent”.

Wait a minute, does that make sense?  No, but it is the stuff of NATO consensus. Peace through war, nuclear disarmament through nuclear armament, and above all, defense of member states by sending expeditionary forces to infuriate the natives of distant lands.

A strategy is not a consensus written by committees.

The American method of “continuous bargaining, dialogue, diffusion, and quest for formal consensus” wears down whatever resistance may occasionally appear.  Thus Germany and France initially resisted Georgian membership in NATO, as well as the notorious “missile shield”, both seen as blatant provocations apt to set off a new arms race with Russia and damage fruitful German and French relations with Moscow, for no useful purpose.  But the United States does not take no for an answer, and keeps repeating its imperatives until resistance fades.  The one recent exception was the French refusal to join the invasion of Iraq, but the angry U.S. reaction scared the conservative French political class into supporting the pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy.

In search of “threats” and “challenges”

The very heart of what passes for a “strategic concept” was first declared and put into operation in the spring of 1999, when NATO defied international law, the United Nations and its own original charter by waging an aggressive war outside its defensive perimeter against Yugoslavia. That transformed NATO from a defensive to an offensive alliance. Ten years later, the godmother of that war, Madeleine Albright, was picked to chair the “group of experts” that spent several months holding seminars, consultations and meetings preparing the Lisbon agenda. Prominent in these gatherings were Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd’s of London, the insurance giant, and the former chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, Jeroen van der Veer.  These ruling class figures are not exactly military strategists, but their participation should reassure the international business community that their worldwide interests are being taken into consideration.

Indeed, a catalogue of threats enumerated by Rasmussen in a speech last year seemed to suggest that NATO was working for the insurance industry.  NATO, he said, was needed to deal with piracy, cyber security, climate change, extreme weather events such as catastrophic storms and flooding, rising sea levels, large-scale population movement into inhabited areas, sometimes across borders, water shortages, droughts, decreasing food production, global warming, CO2 emissions, the retreat of Arctic ice uncovering hitherto inaccessible resources, fuel efficiency and dependence on foreign sources, etc.

Most of the enumerated threats cannot even remotely be construed as calling for military solutions. Surely no "rogue states" or "outposts of tyranny" or "international terrorists" are responsible for climate change, yet Rasmussen presents them as challenges to NATO.

On the other hand, some of the results of these scenarios, such as population movements caused by rising sea levels or drought, can indeed be seen as potentially causing crises.  The ominous aspect of the enumeration is precisely that all such problems are eagerly snatched up by NATO as requiring military solutions.

The main threat to NATO is its own obsolescence.  And the search for a “strategic concept” is the search for pretexts to keep it going.

NATO’s Threat to the World

While it searches for threats, NATO itself is a growing threat to the world.  The basic threat is its contribution to strengthening the U.S.-led tendency to abandon diplomacy and negotiations in favor of military force.  This is seen clearly in Rasmussen’s inclusion of weather phenomena in his list of threats to NATO, when they should, instead, be problems for international diplomacy and negotiations.  The growing danger is that Western diplomacy is dying.  The United States has set the tone: we are virtuous, we have the power, the rest of the world must obey or else.  Diplomacy is despised as weakness. The State Department has long since ceased to be at the core of U.S. foreign policy.  With its vast network of military bases the world over, as well as military attachés in embassies and countless missions to client countries, the Pentagon is incomparably more powerful and influential in the world than the State Department. Recent Secretaries of State, far from seeking diplomatic alternatives to war, have actually played a leading role in advocating war instead of diplomacy, whether Madeleine Albright in the Balkans or Colin Powell waving fake test tubes in the United Nations Security Council.  Policy is defined by the National Security Advisor, various privately-funded think tanks and the Pentagon, with interference from a Congress which itself is composed of politicians eager to obtain military contracts for their constituencies.

NATO is dragging Washington’s European allies down the same path.  Just as the Pentagon has replaced the State Department, NATO itself is being used by the United States as a potential substitute for the United Nations.  The 1999 “Kosovo war” was a first major step in that direction.  Sarkozy’s France, after rejoining the NATO joint command, is gutting the traditionally skilled French foreign service, cutting back on civilian representation throughout the world.  The European Union foreign service now being created by Lady Ashton will have no policy and no authority of its own.

Bureaucratic Inertia

Behind its appeals to “common values”, NATO is driven above all by bureaucratic inertia.  The alliance itself is an excrescence of the U.S. military-industrial complex. For sixty years, military procurements and Pentagon contracts have been an essential source of industrial research, profits, jobs, Congressional careers, even university funding. The interplay of these varied interests converge to determine an implicit U.S. strategy of world conquest.

An ever-expanding global network of somewhere between 800 and a thousand military bases on foreign soil.

Bilateral military accords with client states which offer training while obliging them to purchase U.S.-made weapons and redesign their armed forces away from national defense toward internal security (i.e. repression) and possible integration into U.S.-led wars of aggression.

Use of these close relationships with local armed forces to influence the domestic politics of weaker states.

Perpetual military exercises with client states, which provide the Pentagon with perfect knowledge of the military potential of client states, integrate them into the U.S. military machine, and sustain a “ready for war” mentality.

Deployment of its network of bases, “allies” and military exercises so as to surround, isolate, intimidate and eventually provoke major nations perceived as potential rivals, notably Russia and China.

The implicit strategy of the United States, as perceived by its actions, is a gradual military conquest to ensure world domination.  One original feature of this world conquest project is that, although extremely active, day after day, it is virtually ignored by the vast majority of the population of the conquering nation, as well as by its most closely dominated allies, i.e., the NATO states.  The endless propaganda about “terrorist threats” (the fleas on the elephant) and other diversions keep most Americans totally unaware of what is going on, all the more easily in that Americans are almost uniquely ignorant of the rest of the world and thus totally uninterested.  The U.S. may bomb a country off the map before more than a small fraction of Americans know where to find it.

The main task of U.S. strategists, whose careers take them between think tanks, boards of directors, consultancy firms and the government, is to justify this giant mechanism much more than to steer it. To a large extent, it steers itself.   Since the collapse of the “Soviet threat”, policy-makers have settled for invisible or potential threats.  U.S. military doctrine has as its aim to move preventively against any potential rival to U.S. world hegemony.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia retains the largest arsenal outside the United States, and China is a rapidly rising economic power.  Neither one threatens the United States or Western Europe.  On the contrary, both are ready and willing to concentrate on peaceful business.

However, they are increasingly alarmed by the military encirclement and provocative military exercises carried on by the United States on their very doorsteps. The implicit aggressive strategy may be obscure to most Americans, but leaders in the targeted countries are quite certain they understand what it is going on.

The Russia-Iran-Israel Triangle

Currently, the main explicit “enemy” is Iran.  Washington claims that the “missile shield” which it is forcing on its European allies is designed to defend the West from Iran. But the Russians see quite clearly that the missile shield is aimed at themselves. First of all, they understand quite clearly that Iran has no such missiles nor any possible motive for using them against the West.  It is perfectly obvious to all informed analysts that even if Iran developed nuclear weapons and missiles, they would be conceived as a deterrent against Israel, the regional nuclear superpower which enjoys a free hand attacking neighboring countries.  Israel does not want to lose that freedom to attack, and thus naturally opposes the Iranian deterrent.  Israeli propagandists scream loudly about the threat from Iran, and have worked incessantly to infect NATO with their paranoia.

Israel has even been described as “Global NATO’s 29th member”. Israeli officials have assiduously worked on a receptive Madeleine Albright to make sure that Israeli interests are included in the “Strategic Concept”.  During the past five years, Israel and NATO have been taking part in joint naval exercises in the Red Sea and in the Mediterranean, as well as joint ground exercises from Brussels to Ukraine. On October 16, 2006, Israel became the first non-European country to reach a so-called “Individual Cooperation Program” agreement with NATO for cooperation in 27 different areas.  It is worth noting that Israel is the only country outside Europe which the U.S. includes in the area of responsibility of its European Command (rather than the Central Command that covers the rest of the Middle East).

At a NATO-Israel Relations seminar in Herzliya on October 24, 2006, the Israeli foreign minister at the time, Tzipi Livni, declared that "The alliance between NATO and Israel is only natural....Israel and NATO share a common strategic vision.  In many ways, Israel is the front line defending our common way of life."

Not everybody in European countries would consider that Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine reflect “our common way of life”.  This is no doubt one reason why the deepening union between NATO and Israel has not taken the open form of NATO membership.  Especially after the savage attack on Gaza, such a move would arouse objections in European countries.  Nevertheless, Israel continues to invite itself into NATO, ardently supported, of course, by its faithful followers in the U.S. Congress.

The principal cause of this growing Israel-NATO symbiosis has been identified by Mearsheimer and Walt: the vigorous and powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States.  Israeli lobbies are also strong in France, Britain and the UK.  They have zealously developed the theme of Israel as the “front line” in the defense of “Western values” against militant Islam.  The fact that militant Islam is largely a product of that “front line” creates a perfect vicious circle.

Israel’s aggressive stance toward its regional neighbors would be a serious liability for NATO, apt to be dragged into wars of Israel’s choosing which are by no means in the interest of Europe.

However, there is one subtle strategic advantage in the Israeli connection which the United States seems to be using… against Russia.  By subscribing to the hysterical “Iranian threat” theory, the United States can continue to claim with a straight face that the planned missile shield is directed against Iran, not Russia.  This cannot be expected to convince the Russians.  But it can be used to make their protests sound “paranoid” – at least to the ears of the Western faithful.  Dear me, what can they be complaining about when we “reset” our relations with Moscow and invite the Russian president to our “Strategic Concept” happy gathering?

However, the Russians know quite well that:

The missile shield is to be constructed surrounding Russia, which does have missiles, which it keeps for deterrence.

By neutralizing Russian missiles, the United States would free its own hand to attack Russia, knowing that the Russia could not retaliate.

Therefore, whatever is said, the missile shield, if it worked, would serve to facilitate eventual aggression against Russia.

Encircling Russia

The encirclement of Russia continues in the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Arctic circle.

United States officials continue to claim that Ukraine must join NATO.  Just this week, in a New York Times column, Zbigniew’s son Ian J. Brzezinski advised Obama against abandoning the “vision” of a “whole, free and secure” Europe including “eventual Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO and the European Union.” The fact that the vast majority of the people of Ukraine are against NATO membership is of no account.  For the current scion of the noble Brzezinski dynasty it is the minority that counts. Abandoning the vision “undercuts those in Georgia and Ukraine who see their future in Europe.  It reinforces Kremlin aspirations for a sphere of influence…”  The notion that “the Kremlin” aspires to a “sphere of influence” in Ukraine is absurd considering the extremely close historic links between Russia and Ukraine, whose capital Kiev was the cradle of the Russian state.  But the Brzezinski family hailed from Galicia, the part of Western Ukraine which once belonged to Poland, and which is the center of the anti-Russian minority.  U.S. foreign policy is all too frequently influenced by such foreign rivalries of which the vast majority of Americans are totally ignorant.

Relentless U.S. insistence on absorbing Ukraine continues despite the fact that it would imply expelling the Russian Black Sea fleet from its base in the Crimean peninsula, where the local population is overwhelmingly Russian speaking and pro-Russian.  This is a recipe for war with Russia if ever there was one.

And meanwhile, U.S. officials continue to declare their support for Georgia, whose American-trained president openly hopes to bring NATO support into his next war against Russia.  Aside from provocative naval maneuvers in the Black Sea, the United States, NATO and (as yet) non-NATO members Sweden and Finland regularly carry out major military exercises in the Baltic Sea, virtually in sight of the Russia cities Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad.  These exercises involve thousands of ground troops, hundreds of  aircraft including F-15 jet fighters, AWACS, as well as naval forces including the U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12, landing craft and warships from a dozen countries.

Perhaps most ominous of all, in the Arctic region, the United States has been persistently engaging Canada and the Scandinavian states (including Denmark via Greenland) in a military deployment openly directed against Russia. The point of these Arctic deployment was stated by Fogh Rasmussen when he mentioned, among “threats” to be met by NATO, the fact that “Arctic ice is retreating, for resources that had, until now, been covered under ice.”  Now, one might consider that this uncovering of resources would be an opportunity for cooperation in exploiting them.  But that is not the official U.S. mind set.

Last October, US Admiral James G Stavridis, supreme Nato commander for Europe, said global warming and a race for resources could lead to a conflict in the Arctic. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin, in charge of Alaska’s coastline, said Russian shipping activity in the Arctic Ocean was “of particular concern” for the US and called for more military facilities in the region. The US Geological Service believes that the Arctic contains up to a quarter of the world’s unexplored deposits of oil and gas. Under the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, a coastal state is entitled to a 200-nautical mile EEZ and can claim a further 150 miles if it proves that the seabed is a continuation of its continental shelf.  Russia is applying to make this claim.  After pushing for the rest of the world to adopt the Convention, the United States Senate has still not ratified the Treaty.  In January 2009, NATO declared the “High North” to be “of strategic interest to the Alliance,” and since then, NATO has held several major war games clearly preparing for eventual conflict with Russia over Arctic resources.

Russia largely dismantled its defenses in the Arctic after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has called for negotiating compromises over resource control.  Last September, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for joint efforts to protect the fragile ecosystem, attract foreign investment, promote environmentally friendly technologies and work to resolve disputes through international law.   But the United States, as usual, prefers to settle the issue by throwing its weight around.  This could lead to a new arms race in the Arctic, and even to armed clashes.

Despite all these provocative moves, it is most unlikely that the United States actually seeks war with Russia, although skirmishes and incidents here and there cannot be ruled out.  The U.S. policy appears to be to encircle and intimidate Russia to such an extent that it accepts a semi-satellite status that neutralizes it in the anticipated future conflict with China.

Target China

The only reason to target China is like the proverbial reason to climb the mountain: it is there.  It is big.  And the US must be on top of everything.

The strategy for dominating China is the same as for Russia.  It is classic warfare: encirclement, siege, more or less clandestine support for internal disorder.  As examples of this strategy:

The United States is provocatively strengthening its military presence along the Pacific shores of China, offering “protection against China” to East Asian countries.

During the Cold War, when India got its armaments from the Soviet Union and struck a non-aligned posture, the United States armed Pakistan as its main regional ally.  Now the U.S. is shifting its favors to India, in order to keep India out of the orbit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to build it as a counterweight to China.

The United States and its allies support any internal dissidence that might weaken China, whether it is the Dalai Lama, the Uighurs, or Liu Xiaobo, the jailed dissident.

The Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on Liu Xiaobo by a committee of Norwegian legislators headed by Thorbjorn Jagland, Norway’s echo of Tony Blair, who has served as Norway’s prime minister and foreign minister, and has been one of his country’s main cheerleaders for NATO.        At a NATO-sponsored conference of European parliamentarians last year, Jagland declared: “When we are not able to stop tyranny, war starts. This is why NATO is indispensable. NATO is the only multilateral military organization rooted in international law. It is an organization that the U.N. can use when necessary — to stop tyranny, like we did in the Balkans.” This is an astoundingly bold misstatement of fact, considering that NATO openly defied international law and the United Nations to make war in the Balkans – where in reality there was ethnic conflict, but no “tyranny”.

In announcing the choice of Liu, the Norwegian Nobel committee, headed by Jagland, declared that it “has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace." The “close connection”, to follow the logic of Jagland’s own statements, is that if a foreign state fails to respect human rights according to Western interpretations, it may be bombed, as NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Indeed, the very powers that make the most noise about “human rights”, notably the United States and Britain, are the ones making the most wars all over the world.  The Norwegian’s statements make it clear that granting the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu (who in his youth spent time in Norway) amounted in reality to an endorsement of NATO.

“Democracies” to replace the United Nations

The European members of NATO add relatively little to the military power of the United States. Their contribution is above all political.  Their presence maintains the illusion of an “International Community”.   The world conquest being pursued by the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon can be presented as the crusade by the world’s “democracies” to spread their enlightened political order to the rest of a recalcitrant world.

The Euro-Atlantic governments proclaim their “democracy” as proof of their absolute right to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world.  On the basis of the fallacy that “human rights are necessary for peace”, they proclaim their right to make war.

A crucial question is whether “Western democracy” still has the strength to dismantle this war machine before it is too late.

Note: Grateful thanks to Rick Rozoff for his constant flow of important information.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions.She can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

www.counterpunch.com/johnstone11182010.html

Article by Živadin Jovanović in The Peace Messenger 5, published by World peace council WPC.

download Peace Messenger no.5 (pdf)

Peace Messenger web page

Interview exclusive de Zivadin Jovanovic, Président du Forum de Belgrade pour un Monde d’Egaux pour www.lepcf.fr

Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is essentially political. It is in line with the position of the western governments supporting the terrorist KLA/UCK from at least 1998. In fact, the view that the international law does not touch upon the declarations of independence, was in circulation by diplomatic representatives of a number of western countries, particularly USA and Great Britain, long before ICJ advisory opinion was made public.
During the NATO aggression in 1999. KLA/UCK acted as a ground force of NATO. When the Albanians proclaimed unilateral secession in March 2008, NATO member countries were among the first to recognize this illegal act. Today, those countries are establishing Kosovo's army composed of the KLA/UCK elements. At the same time they are blackmailing Serbia to enter a deal - to recognize Kosovo in exchange for membership in the EU.
From legal point of view, ICJ did not even touch the essential question - whether unilateral secession of the national minority from a sovereign state is in accordance with the international law, or not?
It should be noted that Albanian nation has its own state - Albania. Therefore, Albanians in Serbia, i.e. in Kosovo and Metohija, are national minority within Serbia. According to the international law, the right to self-determination, including own state, belongs only to nations, not to the national minorities. On the same line, Serbia as a sovereign state has internationally recognized borders, which includes Kosovo and Metohija, and according to the Helsinki Final act those borders must not be changed unilaterally, without consent of Serbia.
Finally, unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija represents a blatant violation of not only principals of UN Charter, but very concrete provisions of UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)guaranteeing sovergnity and territorial integrity of Serbia.

As for the implications of unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija they are visible and felt, in several directions.

Undermining the role of UN system and particularly the role of the UN Security Council is the first one. Unilateral secession was conducted in collision with the UN SC decision, while the Province was under UN SC mandate and without consent of that organ.
Unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija, which was preceded by 1999 NATO aggression against Serbia made the whole region unstable for unforeseeable period hindering development of many countries. "soft stomach" of Europe continues to be unstable. Kosovo hot potato produced primarely by USA, with significant contribution of Great Britain and Germany (!) will be burning the hands of EU for years if not decades to come. For many reasons EU would certainly be better off without rather then with „independent Kosovo“. Appart from the fact that the Province is „hole without botom“ as far as financial requirements are concerned, it is a safe heaven and a jumping board for islamic extremists and variety of bossess of organized crimes whose real aim is to cover EU member countries.
Unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija has further weakened Serbia and will remain an extremely heavy burden from security, economy and moral point of view. In fact, Serbia will be internally even more unstable from now on then before unilateral seccession was announced in Pristina. Other separatist tendencies in Serbia have grown since then, government rating is falling down, social and political tensions growing. Having regard Serbia’s potentials and geostrategic position, its instability would certainly affect situation in the region. Serbia has also weakened its international reputation after abondoning its own draft resolution at the UN General Assembley on the advisory oppinion of International Court of Justice and last minute accepting EU/USA dictated text which does not refer to unacceptability of unilateral secession neither to the UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteering sovernty and territorial integriti of Serbia. These negative effects to Serbia’s state interests, stability and reputation could hardly be compensated by „carrots“ from any side.  

Recently, Albanian representatives from Kosovo and Metohija, from southern districts in Serbia (Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja), Macedonia, Albania, Greece and Montenegro gathered in Tirana from where they publicaly demanded establishment of "natural Albania", meaning "Greater Albania". This was repetadly preceded by declarations of the high government representatives of Albania, including Albanian Prime minister, that all Albanians have the right to unite. This is nothing less than asking for further redrawing of the international borders, i.e. for further violations of the Helsinki Final Act and UN Charter.
William Worker former USA ambassador and former Head of OSCE mission in Kosovo and Metohija (september 1998 to March 1999), who in fact was responsible for preparing the ground for the start of NATO aggression, declared after Tirana gathering that Albanians outside of Albania have the right to unite with Albania.
Implications include also, that 11 years after, about 220.000 of Serbs and other non Albanians displaced from the Province still are not permited to return to their homes. They live in miserable conditions various places in Serbia which has a burden of another 300.000 refugees who are not allowed to return to Croatia after being in refuge for 15 years.

Whether the case of Kosovo and Metohija had encouraged proclamations of independence of Abhazia and South Osetnia, may be disputable. But there is no doubt that illegal, unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and its subsequent recognition by major western countries, has been and will serve as a precedent. Like it, or not. "unicality of the case of Kosovo" as claimed by USA, Britain and some other countries, has been a baseless pretention which had some temporary tactical role in preparing the public before and immediately after declaration of unilateral secession. Now, nobody mentions it.  
There are and there will be many "Kosovo cases" in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America. The devil got out of the bottle.

GERMAN - DEUTSCH

15.11.2010
Gastkommentar. Neue alte NATO-Strategie
Von Zivadin Jovanovic

Die neue Strategie der ­NATO ist elf Jahre alt. Mit Blick auf den Gipfel des Militärpakts in Lissabon in dieser Woche ist es notwendig, daran zu erinnern, daß Serbien bzw. die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien 1999 zum Versuchsfeld und ersten Opfer des sogenannten neuen NATO-Konzepts wurde. Die Staats- und Regierungschefs der NATO-Mitgliedsländer wollen sich nun ermächtigen, Militäraktionen faktisch überall in der Welt, zu unternehmen. Die NATO wird keinesfalls um eine Autorisierung durch den UN-Sicherheitsrat nachsuchen. Sie stellt sich über die UNO, die OSZE und andere internationale Zusammenschlüsse.

Das alles und vieles mehr wurde 1999 offenkundig in Serbien bzw. Jugoslawien erprobt. Die 72 Tage andauernde militärische Aggression der NATO hinterließ Tausende Tote und Verletzte, zwei Drittel davon Zivilisten, eine völlig zerstörte Wirtschaft, eine verseuchte Umwelt durch Geschosse mit abgereichertem Uran sowie Hunderttausende Vertriebene. Noch heute sind Gebäude im Herzen von Belgrad Ruinen, und mehr als 200000 Serben aus Kosovo und Metochien können nicht in ihre Heimat zurückkehren.

Die NATO-Staaten unterstützten die illegale einseitige Abtrennung Kosovo-Metochiens von Serbien im Februar 2008, und sie führten dann den Prozeß der illegalen Anerkennung ihres Geschöpfes an. In den 90er Jahren hatten viele NATO-Länder die UCK-Terroristen finanziert, ausgebildet und bewaffnet. Folgerichtig war die kosovo-albanische UCK die Bodentruppe während der Aggression. Gegenwärtig finanziert, bewaffnet und trainiert die NATO die illegale Armee des illegalen Kosovo, die aus den früheren UCK-Terroristen besteht. Die USA, Großbritannien, Deutschland und die Türkei sind die führenden Akteure dieses Prozesses.

Es ist nicht verwunderlich, daß Kosovo von einigen als NATO-Staat, von anderen als Narco-Staat bezeichnet wird. Auf jeden Fall bleibt »Camp Bondsteel« im Kosovo die größte Militärbasis in Europa, manche sagen, in der Welt. Die Provinz mit nahezu 9000 NATO-geführten KFOR-Soldaten bleibt ein Rekrutierungsfeld für die Drogenmafia und ein Transitweg für Heroin aus Afghanistan nach Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Ende Oktober trafen sich in Tirana »Vertreter« von Albanern aus Serbien, Mazedonien, Griechenland und Montenegro. Sie proklamierten als gemeinsames Ziel die Schaffung eines Großalbaniens, die Vereinigung aller Albaner in einem Staat.

Somit haben die NATO-Aggression gegen Serbien 1999 und die NATO-Strategie generell zum Anstieg der Sezessionen, der Legitimierung von Interventionen sowie zur Untergrabung der UNO und des Völkerrechts geführt. Die NATO hat den Balkan zu einer Region dauerhafter Instabilität gemacht. Ist das die Rolle der NATO, die Europa und die Welt künftig sehen wollen?

Der Autor war von 1998 bis 2000 Außenminister der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien und ist heute Präsident des »Belgrader Forums für eine Welt der Gleichen«

Den Artikel finden Sie unter: http://www.jungewelt.de/2010/11-15/044.php

September 15, 2010

On September 10, at the UN General Assembly, Serbia abruptly surrendered its claim to the breakaway province of Kosovo to the European Union.  Serbian leaders described this surrender as a “compromise”. But for Serbia, it was all give and no take.
In its dealings with the Western powers, recent Serbian diplomacy has displayed all the perspicacity of a rabbit cornered by a rattlesnake.  After some helpless spasms of movement, the poor creature lets itself be eaten.
The surrender has been implicit all along in President Boris Tadic’s two proclaimed foreign policy goals: deny Kosovo’s independence and join the European Union.  These two were always mutually incompatible. Recognition of Kosovo’s independence is clearly one of the many conditions – and the most crucial – set by the Euroclub for Serbia to be considered for membership.  Sacrificing Kosovo for “Europe” has always been the obvious outcome of this contradictory policy.
However, his government, and notably his foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, have tried to conceal this reality from the Serbian public by gestures meant to make it seem that they were doing everything possible to retain Kosovo.
Thus in October 2008, six months after U.S.-backed Kosovo leaders unilaterally declared that the province was an independent State, Serbia persuaded the UN General Assembly to submit the following question to the International Court of Justice for an (unbinding) advisory opinion: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’”
This was risky at best, because Serbia had more to lose by an unfavorable opinion than it had to gain by a favorable one.  After all, most of the UN member states were already refusing to recognize Kosovo’s independence, for perfectly solid reasons of legality and self-interest.  At best, a favorable ICJ opinion would merely confirm this, but would not in itself lead to any positive action.  Serbia could only hope to use such a favorable opinion to ask to open genuine negotiations on the status of the province, but the Kosovo Albanian separatists and their United States backers could not be forced to do so.
One must stop here to point out that there are two major issues involved in all this: one is the status and future of Kosovo, and the other is the larger issue of national sovereignty and self-determination within the context of international law.  If so many UN member states supported Serbia, it was certainly not because of Kosovo itself but because of the larger implications. Nobody objected to the splitting of Czechoslovakia, because the Czechs and the Slovaks negotiated the terms of separation. The issue is the method.  There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of potential ethnic secessionist movements within existing countries around the world.  Kosovo sets an ominous precedent.  An armed separatist movement, with heavy support from the United States, where an ethnic Albanian lobby had secured important political backing, notably from former Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole, carried out a campaign of assassinations in 1998 in order to trigger a repression which it could then describe as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” as a pretext for NATO intervention.
This worked, because US leaders saw “saving the Kosovars” as the easy way to save NATO from obsolescence by transforming it into a “humanitarian” global intervention force.  Bombing Serbia for two and a half months to “stop genocide” was a spectacle for public opinion.  The only people killed were Yugoslav citizens out of sight on the ground.  It was the lovely little war designed to rehabilitate military aggression as the proper way to settle conflicts.
The reality of this cynical manipulation has been assiduously hidden from Americans and most Europeans, but elsewhere, and in certain European countries such as Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia, the point has not been missed.  Separatist movements are dangerous, and whenever the United States wants to subvert an unfriendly government, it has only to incite mass media to portray the internal problems of the targeted government as potential “genocide” and all hell may break loose.
So Serbia did not really have to work very hard to convince other countries to support its position on Kosovo. They had their own motivations – which were perhaps stronger than those of the Serbian government  itself.

wait until the movie is loaded, and then select the subtitles

Focal points of the new NATO strategy
to be considered and adopted at the NATO summit in Lisbon, 19-21 November 2010.

1. NATO insists on nuclear weapons as absolute necessity for the politics of deterrence. Nuclear weapons are to be continuously deployed and modernized, the British Trident Fleet Ballistic Missiles as well as the American strategic nuclear weapons. All plans concerning the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe and the abandonment of nuclear sharing are cancelled.

2. The essence of the new NATO doctrine is the takeover of US plans concerning an American missile defense as a central NATO project. Europe is to be protected by an antiballistic missile defense shield. This is said to be the only way to realize the concept of deterrence and security in the 21st century.

3. The war in Afghanistan is seen as the topical challenge of NATO and shall be continued with reinforced efforts of civil-military cross-linkages until the war is won.

4. All member states are asked to intensify their defense mechanisms and to render them more effective.

5. Although NATO does not perceive itself to police the world, it does understand itself as an interventional force if its member states’ “interests” (worldwide, but particularly within the European-Asian area) are endangered. These interests explicitly include the protection of the member states’ “natural resources” and trade routes.

6. Another aim is the Eastern expansion of NATO – yet not as distinctly phrased as in previous official documents. The Eastern expansion shall include new partnership alliances with the former Southern Soviet republics as well as Indonesia and Malaysia, and also Australia and New Zealand. Japan is to be integrated in an innovative partnership.

7. According to the new strategy paper, EU-Europe is seen as partner and second pillar of NATO with a military alliance of its own, with which a “burden sharing”, a division of tasks and duties, is envisaged. This involves a significant revaluation of the EU military and defense policy as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty.

8. The need to reinforce electronical warfare is emphasized, regarding both NATO’s own action and recruitment realm and the scope of response to attacks directed at computers, communications- and power networks. The so-called “cyber war” usually includes the depletion of democratic civil rights and a further militarization of research (as regards security related topics).

9. Furthermore, the strategy paper highlights the “new” role of NATO, which shall manifest itself inter alia in the fight against global warming and other global challenges. The “security” against the consequences of climate change (migration flows) is to be ensured militarily.

10. All these challenges are classified as part of the “war against terrorism”. This war is among other things exploited for the feigned legitimation of global interventional operations of NATO.

Lisabon Summit, Oct.2010:

The leaders of 28 NATO states will meet in Lisbon Portugal November 19/20th 2010, to adopt the Concept of the new NATO strategy for the period up to 2020.

The elite gathering will be a focal point of mass protest organized by the World Peace Council (WPC) and its Portuguese affiliate the Portuguese Council for Peace and Cooperation (CPPC). It has been announced recently at the WPC (Europe) meeting in Brussels, that 107 peace, trade union, students, human rights and other associations are preparing massive anti-NATO demonstrations in Lisbon on 20th of November. They expect that their partners associations from abroad will also take part. The demonstrations will expose the so-called new NATO Strategic Concept, a euphemism for plans to expand NATO’s mandate to launch interventionist wars at will and in all corners of the globe.

Aggression against Serbia (Yugoslavia) 1999, carried out without consent of the UN Security Council and contrary to the Alliance’s Founding Act, was in fact the beginning of offensive, global interventionist’s strategy of NATO, in practice. NATO aggression left over 3.500 dead, about 10.000 wounded, over 100 billion of economic damage, polluted soil, water and air. It led to unilateral secession of the Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija which remains  long term sources of instability in this part of Europe.

October 2010.

Apeal of Portugese Council for Peace and Cooperation and the World Peace Council...

General Pierre-Marie Gallois, RIP

by Srdja Trifkovic

[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].

General Pierre-Marie Gallois, who died on August 23 in Paris at the age of 99, will be remembered primarily as the architect of France’s nuclear deterrence doctrine in the 1950s. He was the last in a long line of European geopolitical thinkers—from Clausewitz and Jomini to Liddell Hart and Guderian—who have combined superbly honed analytical skills with hands-on soldiering.

Gallois was one of the most impressive men I have met. Back in 1993 I enjoyed his hospitality at his sprawling flat at No. 8, rue Rembrandt, just south of the Parc de Monceau. He was in his early eighties then, a dynamo of physical and mental energy dividing his time between an insane writing and speaking schedule and the painting of a five-story mural on the courtyard side of the building. It was an old love: before joining the French air force in 1935 he had studied arts and worked for a company that created lighted ads that hung on the Eiffel Tower. Speaking in a staccato English, accented but fluent, he insisted that a true soldier has to be an artist at heart: “You need a vision, an image of what lies beyond, a sense of the greater reality.”

His vision was shaped by the trauma of France’s debacle of May 1940. Two years later Gallois fled from Algeria, where he was serving as an air force officer on the staff of the Fifth air region, to London. He placed himself at General Charles de Gaulle’s disposal and joined the RAF.

A decade after completing thirty bombing raids over Germany, Colonel Gallois joined the cabinet of the French minister of defense. From there he was seconded to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), studying the effect of nuclear weapons on modern strategy. He came to the conclusion that the atomic bomb was the only opportunity for his country to regain that great power status that he knew was no longer rightfully hers on the basis of economy, demography, or spirit. The alternative, he realized then and reiterated half a century later, was to accept France’s fatal dependence on a hegemonistic yet unreliable America—a “totalitarian democracy” devoid of any sense of its normal limits.

A geopolitical realist who believed in “peace through fear,” he was attacked in the English-speaking world as an advocate of nuclear proliferation. He responded by arguing that the possession of a nuclear arsenal was the key prerequisite to ensuring deterrence, and added, provocatively, that the spread of nuclear weapons could increase international stability. He claimed that nuclear weapons raise the stakes and forces all actors to show greater restraint in crises involving more participants with nuclear weapons. As the number of nuclear actors involved increases, Gallois claimed, the likelihood of war would continue to fall.

Gallois’ tenure at SHAPE convinced him that France could not afford to entrust its strategic defense to the American nuclear umbrella in perpetuity. As he recalled many years later, he shared his concerns with his boss, General Lauris Norstad:

My idea was to explain to him that the American risk was increasing with time, with the advent of new weapons, such as long-range ballistic missiles . . . Before 1960, when the Americans were out of reach, we had no doubt in our minds that they would use atomic weapons from the onset of any serious attack against any country of Europe, because they were out of reach themselves. The risks were small, after all. But it was easy to foresee that ten years later, the situation would change: Americans being in the first line, in the same position vis-à-vis the enemy as Europe, they would change their strategy and try to reduce the atomic commitment. Hence, we had to find a substitute, and General Norstad agreed. He said to me that was probably what was going to take place, and he said you should inform your government.

In 1956 Gallois started his lobbying campaign focused on his conviction that France needed its own force de frappe, independent of America. The venture was professionally risky for him, and potentially embarrassing for his boss at SHAPE. His long talk with the Socialist prime minister, Guy Mollet, was a success. His reasoning was based on the discussions with Norstad:

Back then the ballistic missiles could not reach America, but it was obvious that, after some years, these weapons could hit American soil . . . As soon as Americans were on the frontline as we were already, they would change their strategy. Then, my country, and possibly other countries of Europe, had to find a substitute for a North American commitment. The defense of Europe was nonconditional before, but it would be conditional later.

He was right, of course, but the conditionality in question—and its implications for Western Europe—only became apparent after the Cuban missile crisis, six years later.

Three days after speaking to Mollet, Gallois met de Gaulle—then out of politics and largely out of the public eye—and talked to him at some length:

I went to see General de Gaulle at Hotel La Perousse, where every Wednesday evening he was receiving friends . . . I stayed with him until three in the morning, showing him some 40 charts . . . He said that it is not necessary to have the same number of weapons as the other side; what is mandatory is to be capable to arrachet—to ‘tear off’ one arm of the foe. . . . He said to me, ‘Look, Gallois, you should take some rest now; in the future, I shall take care of your career.’ So I went back home, and I told my wife that I had just met Louis XIV, and that my name was written down on his list.

In 1958 General de Gaulle came to power and transformed the budding force de frappe into “the weapon of the French nation,” as Gallois put it,

having in mind that the effects of these weapons are so terrible, that you cannot share their use, and that only a nation may decide to use them. Using such a weapon as a last spasm; accepting to die standing straight, instead of dying laying down. It was really a last resort weapon. You cannot share such a weapon with another state.

In the final decade of the Cold War Gallois was strongly opposed to the strategic thinking then prevalent in Washington. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union Gallois agreed with Senator Pierre Biarnès that America was becoming “unbearable” in the imposition of its brand of quasi-moral, mercantile hegemony on the rest of the world. He came to regard the U.S. policy as fundamentally detrimental to European interests, and claimed that the U.S. sought to désouverainise European nation-states. Germany goes along with this “monstrosity,” he told me, although it is not at all in Germany’s interest, because “the flawed idea of ‘one Europe’ is an old obsession for the Germans.” To push that dream, old nation-states have to be destroyed, which explains why the United States was so hell bent on undermining Russia and Serbia. France should have responded by rebuilding links with “our traditional allies,” Gallois believed.

His views on the Balkans could have come straight from the pages of Chronicles. In his 1995 book Le soleil d’Allah aveugle l’Occident (The Sun of Allah Blinding the West) he took note of the “obstinacy with which the U.S. is wishing to impose an Islamic Bosnian state in Europe” and warned that “it is not in the interest of the U.S. to support through diplomacy and weapons a Sarajevo regime that will be . . . sooner or later swept by the fundamentalist current.” Through its intervention in the Balkans, Gallois wrote, America was vainly hoping to change the fact that the majority of Muslims saw the U.S. as the Great Satan.

Disgusted by the American overt support of Croats and Muslims, Gallois wondered, in an article published by Le Figaro on September 30, 1993, “Should we return to the kind of political stability and territorial arrangements imposed by the Austro-Hungarians on one half of the Balkans and the Turks on the other half, with Germany, tomorrow, in place of the Dual Monarchy of yesterday, and the new Turkey as the latter-day Ottoman Empire?” His rhetoric was prescient: 17 years later, Croatia and Slovenia are firmly in the German orbit within an ugly caricature of “Europe,” while neo-Ottomanism thrives east of the old Military Border.

Pierre-Marie Gallois was among the last European public figures of prominence to grasp that certaine idée de l’Europe, and to live by it. He was a patriotic Frenchman contemptuous of what France has become, a proud European who therefore loathed the European Union, a royalist loyal to the Republic, a practicing Catholic who loved the Orthodox Serbs. A good man.

>>SEE COMENTS<<

M. Philippe GALLOIS
Paris


Cher M.  Gallois,

La mort de votre père, le  Général Pierre-Marie Gallois, a été reçu avec grande émotion et une profonde tristesse par le peuple serbe.

Confronté au calvaire et l'injustice de tout genre  pendant la dernière décennie du vingtième siècle, le peuple serbe s'est senti réconforté, encouragé, rasséréné par le soutien que le général Gallois lui accordait immanquablement et résolument par sa présence, par ses paroles et par ses livres.

Après l'éclatement de ce qu'on appelle  ''la crise yougoslave'' au début des années quatre-vingt dix,  le Général Gallois  s'est immédiatement solidarité avec le peuple serbe, s'opposant énergiquement à toute sorte de calomnie et d'injustice, dont il était l'objet.

Depuis ce moment, le général Gallois a développé à travers ses livres, ses articles, de nombreuses interventions publiques et même des voyages en Serbie et en République Serbe de Bosnie, une activité formidable, en consacrant toute son énergie, tout son talent d'écrivain, tout son temps au soutien et à la défense  du peuple serbe, de la vérité et de la justice.

En ce moment de  profonde tristesse, nous sommes  fiers  du fait que le général Gallois est le premier lauréat de la plus grande distinction du Forum de Belgrade pour le Monde des Egaux - de la Charte d'amitié, qui lui a été décerné lors de la Conférence Internationale, tenue à Belgrade du 23 au 24 mars  2009, à l'occasion du dixième anniversaire de l'agression de la Serbie (Yougoslavie), par l'OTAN.

Grâce à cet engagement exemplaire, le nom du général Gallois restera à jamais gravé dans la mémoire collective du peuple serbe.

En ce moment de grande tristesse pour nous tous, nous exprimons à vous, M.
Gallois, ainsi qu'à toute la famille du Général,  nos condoléances les plus sincères.



Zivadin Jovanovic,

Président du Forum de Belgrade
pour le Monde des Egaux,
Ancien Ministre des A.E. de la
R.F.. de  Yougoslavie

Please take note that as of July 19th, 2010, the Belgrade Forum moved to the new address which reads as follows:

THE BELGRADE FORUM FOR A WORLD OF EQUALS
Sremska Street No. 6, IV Floor
11000  B e l g r a d e
Serbia

New telephones +(381 11) 32 83 778 and 32 83 763

By Srdja Trifkovic <http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/srdja-trifkovic/>
On July 11, the constituent nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- no longer warring, but far from reconciled -- will mark the 15th anniversary of “Srebrenica.” The name of the eastern Bosnian town will evoke different responses from different communities, however. The difference goes beyond semantics. The complexities of the issue remain reduced to a simple morality play devoid of nuance and context.

That is exactly how the sponsors of the “Srebrenica Remembrance Day” <http://www.bosniak.org/parliament-of-canadas-bill-c%E2%80%93533-in-honor-of-srebrenica-genocide-remembrance> -- currently before the Canadian House of Commons -- want it to be:

Whereas the Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the killing in July of 1995 of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Bosnian Serb forces;

Whereas the Srebrenica Massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and the largest massacre carried out by Serb forces during the Bosnian war;

Whereas the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague, unanimously decided in the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić that the Srebrenica Massacre was genocide…

The trouble is that the event known to the bill’s sponsors as the “Srebernica genocide” was no such thing. The contention that as many as 8,000 Muslims were killed has no basis in available evidence; it is not an “estimate” but a political construct. The magnitude of casualties at Srebrenica and the context of events have been routinely misrepresented in official reports by the pro-Muslim governments, quasi-non-governmental institutions, and the media. 

As for The Hague Tribunal, an Orwellian institution with which I am well acquainted <http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2008/09/23/witnessing-at-the-hague> , its “unanimous decisions” are as drearily predictable as those in Moscow in 1936. It is not known to the public, however, that those “decisions” are now disputed by a host of senior Western military and civilian officials, NATO intelligence officers and independent intelligence analysts who dispute the official portrayal of the capture of Srebrenica as a unique atrocity in the Bosnian conflict.

Le Forum de Belgrade Pour un Monde Egalitaire condamne fermement l’attaque terroriste dans le secteur nord de Kosovska Mitrovica qui s’est soldé par la mort du pédiatre le Docteur Mesud Djekovic  et onze blessés.  Cet acte criminel se situe dans la continuité des activités terroristes et du nettoyage ethnique de la population serbe au Kosovo et en Méthohie, conséquence du non respect de la résolution du Conseil de Sécurité 1244 (1999) et de la politique  pro-albanaise des grands pays occidentaux  et des représentant de la communauté internationale.  

Il était clair dès le début qu’EULEX, dont le mandat est de construire les institutions d’un état illégal, n’était pas et ne saurait être neutre.  Si d’aucuns, dans l’égarement, pouvaient croire et allaient jusqu’à défendre « la neutralité statutaire » d’EULEX et de Peter Feit, à présent cela n’est plus possible. L’état Serbe  doit abandonner sa position platonique consistant à proclamer qu’il ne reconnaitra jamais l’indépendance illégale du Kosovo et de la Méthohie pour entreprendre des mesures politiques et diplomatiques concrètes dans le but de défendre la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale du pays.  On veut croire qu’il n’y a  pas de dilemme sur la question de savoir si quelqu’un peut et dispose des pouvoirs pour, au nom de la Serbie et du peuple serbe, reconnaître  le rapt d’une partie de son territoire.

Le Forum de Belgrade exprime toute sa solidarité au peuple Serbe du Kosovo et de la Méthochie. Il soutient sa volonté indéfectible  de continuer à faire partie intégrante de l’état Serbe, il soutient ses efforts, accomplis jour après jour au prix de discriminations et souffrances innombrables, pour ne pas permettre qu’on lui impose par la force des découpages territoriaux illégaux. Le Forum de Belgrade Pour un Moine Egalitaire appelle le Gouvernement de la Serbie à  demander au Conseil de Sécurité de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour la pleine application de sa résolution 1244 – dont la validité est durable et son caractère irremplacable - faisant obligation à tous les membres de l’organisation.  Ceci se rapporte en particulier aux dispositions de la résolution concernant les garanties de souveraineté et intégrité territoriale de la Serbie ainsi que l’égalité et la sécurité de tous les citoyens serbes  du Kosovo et la Méthohie.

The book which helps understanding better the so called Concept of the New NATO strategy adopted at the recent NATO Summit in Lisbon.

What was behind the first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War?

The Belgrade Forum has published the book under the title:
"NATO AGGRESSION – THE TWILIGHT OF THE WEST".
The book contains presentations of the participants at the International Conference, held in Belgrade on 23 and 24 March 2009, marking tenth anniversary of the NATO aggression (1999). Its rarity and distinction comes from the fact that authors are the leaders of the defence of the aggression and some of the most prominent international scientist and intellectuals.

In 527 pages, hard cover, illustrated by over 60 unforgettable photos from the time of NATO bombing, the book offers the richest ever documentation of the methods applied by prophets of the “new world order”, globalism and doctrine of “humanitarian interventions”. Actually, the book is unique document on the first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War. This war had several objectives: to justify the continued existence of the NATO after the end of cold war and dissolution of Warsaw Pact, to expand towards East, to lay foundations for global role and interventionism, and to reaffirm USA unchallenged position of the Europe’s power number one. By this war NATO  changed its nature from defensive into offensive Alliance.

Global, expeditionary missions outside its original area of defence continued by interventions and occupations of Afghanistan and Irak. USA/NATO undertook self-authorized missions of changing the governments of other countries, exporting democracy.

The book explains hw Yugoslavia became the first victim of the Global NATO doctrine of interventions contrary to the International Law and the UN role and why the Balkans continue being unstable ten years after.

The book comes as a result of contributions of about 60 authors, prominent scientists and intellectuals from over 40 countries from all continents. While it cannot be classified as memoires it includes contributions of such personalities from Serbia as the War Prime Minister dr Momir Bulatovic, the two ex-Foreign Ministers of FR of Yugoslavia – Vladislav Jovnovic and Zivadin Jovanovic, Head of Serbo-Yugoslav Delegation at the Rambouillet talks Prof. Ratko Markovic, ex-Air Defence Chief General-Lieutenant Spasoje Smiljanic and others.

Foreign authors include, among others, ewknown Swiss ecologist Franz Webber, Canadian scientist Michel Chossudovsky,  Russion scientists Elena Guskova, Alex Mezyaev and General Igor Ivashov, German intellectuals Wolfgang Richter and Elmar Schmaheling as well as german politician Willy Wimmer,  USA intellectuals Ramsey Clark and Diana Johnston, Britis politician Alice Machon and writer Niel Clark, Greek politicians  Vera Nicolaidou, Aleka Papariga and Thanasis Pafilis   and many others. A tribute for their remarkable contribution to the book goes to renowned intellectuals from Serbian Diaspora, particularly to historian from USA Srdja Trifkovic and writer from France, Komnen Becirovic.

The English edition, hard cover, Forum sells 10 Euro per copy, while Serbian version, paperback, is 6 euro per copy.  Shipping and post expenses are not included.

For additional information, please contact Secretariat :

Contact

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals strongly reviles the terrorist attack in the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica that took life of pediatrician Dr. Mesud Džeković and injured 11 more people. This criminal act is the last in a long line of
continued terrorism and ethnical cleansing committed against the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija. It is a dire consequence of both non-compliance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the pro-Albanian policies of most influential western countries and representatives of the international community.
From the very onset, it was clear that Eulex, mandated to help building institutions of an illegal sham-state, was not and could not be status-neutral. Even those who have misguidedly believed or touted any “status neutrality” of Peter Feith and/or Eulex are no longer entitled to such delusion. The institutions of Serbia should transcend from the level of saying they would never recognize illegal independence of Kosovo onto the level of concrete political and diplomatic steps and initiatives aimed at defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State. One should hope that
there has never really been any dilemma as to whether anyone, on behalf of Serbia and the Serbian people, may or dare acknowledge such stealing of a part of their state territory.
The Belgrade Forum expresses its full solidarity with the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija in their firm attachment and loyalty to Serbian state; we feel for their efforts to prevent expansion and forcible imposition of illegal separatist structure, for which they pay dearly by suffering discrimination and anguish.

The Belgrade Forum urges the relevant institutions in Serbia to address the Security Council and request a decision on concrete measures for the full implementation of latter’s Resolution 1244, which is of unfalteringly permanent character and obligatory for all the Member States to this ultimate global organization. We in particular refer to the provisions of this binding decision of the world organization that guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia (the FRY) and the equality of all citizens of Serbia living in Kosovo and Metohija.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CANADIAN PUBLIC:

Earlier this month, the honourable Robert Oliphant, Member of the Liberal Party of Canada and M.P. for Don Valley West, introduced Bill C-533 into the House of Commons, “calling for the establishment of a national day of remembrance in Canada called Srebrenica Remembrance Day”. In what is clearly a blatant attempt to turn the complex and multisided human tragedy of the Yugoslav Civil Wars into a one-dimensional political talking point, the honourable Robert Oliphant ignores completely the full context of the Srebrenica Massacre and the countless brutal war crimes committed by Bosnian Muslim forces and their Al-Qaeda-linked Mujahedeen allies against Serbian civilians and other ethnic minorities throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In order to put pressure on the ruling Conservative Party of Canada, and in the name of cheap political points and partisan politics, the honorable Robert Oliphant and all those supporting Bill C-533 are attempting to simplify a multisided, multiethnic civil war in order to portray one side in the conflict as victims and the other as aggressors, while at the same time completely ignoring and thereby shamelessly insulting the tens of thousands of innocent Serbian civilians who were brutally murdered during the Yugoslav Civil War. In fact, many of those killed met their end at the hands of Bosnian Muslim soldiers and paramilitaries.

The Serbian community of Canada and all Canadians who value truth and justice over partisan politics wish to turn the honorable Robert Oliphant’s attention to some key issues that he has regrettably chosen to ignore and brush aside:

The Serbian people were the victims of not one but three genocides during the 20th century:
o Hundreds of thousands of Serbian civilians were brutally massacred by Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Bulgarian forces during the First World War. Many of these crimes were committed by Bosnian Muslim forces fighting on the side of Austria-Hungary against the Serbs, a fact well documented by such war crime investigation pioneers as Dr. Archibald Rudolph Reiss.
o During the Second World War, many Bosnian Muslims joined the Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia and contributed to the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma peoples in concentration camps such as Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska. In fact, the SS Handschar, one of the thirty-eight divisions of the Nazi Waffen-SS, was formed largely from Bosnian Muslim recruits bent on exterminating and ethnically cleansing the Serbs, Jews and other minorities on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
o Throughout the Yugoslav Civil Wars of the 1990s, the Serbs were the victims of multiple campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing on the territories of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina orchestrated in large part by the direct descendents of the SS Handschar, who attempted to realize Alija Izetbegovic’s dream of an ethnically and religiously pure Islamic Bosnia as outlined in his supremacist manifesto, The Islamic Declaration, which was first published as early as 1970.

The simple fact is that the Yugoslav Civil Wars were a multisided, multiethnic civil conflict whose complex nature cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional “good guys versus bad guys” scenario. Any attempt to do so is a blatant insult to the intelligence of the Canadian public and to the memory of all the innocent civilians who perished in that war.

Regrettably, the honourable Robert Oliphant makes no attempt to properly analyze the full context of the Srebrenica Massacre. I wish to inform him that prior to the Serbian forces taking the Srebrenica enclave in July of 1995, the enclave itself was being used as a staging area for military operations by Bosnian Muslim paramilitaries led by Bosnian warlord Naser Oric. These paramilitaries, aided by Mujahedeen terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, committed countless unspeakable war crimes in and around the towns of Srebrenica and Bratunac from 1992 all the way up to July of 1995. In fact, entire Serbian villages were raised to the ground, Christian churches destroyed, graveyards desecrated, and over three and a half thousand Serbian civilians were mercilessly butchered during those three years. Due to the fact that most Serb men of the region were conscripted into the Serbian army, Naser Oric and his paramilitaries almost exclusively targeted innocent civilians, including women, children, and elderly Serbs who had no ability or opportunity to flee the carnage.

Once the Serbian forces entered the Srebrenica enclave in July of 1995, war crimes were undoubtedly committed and the Geneva Convention was violated. This is inexcusable and reprehensible, regardless of the circumstances. Nonetheless, many of the Serbian soldiers who entered Srebrenica had their families slaughtered by Bosnian Muslim paramilitaries, and to portray the Srebrenica Massacre as an isolated incident without a proper context is a direct affront to truth and justice. Furthermore, many questions about the Srebrenica Massacre remain unanswered to this day, including how many of the Bosnian Muslim men of fighting age who were allegedly executed by Serbian forces were in fact executed as prisoners and how many died in battle while trying to mount a retreat towards the Bosnian Muslim wartime stronghold of Tuzla along with Naser Oric and his paramilitaries. What is known and well documented, however, is the fact that the Bosnian Muslim civilians of Srebrenica, including women, children and the elderly, were assured safe passage to Serbia by the Serbian forces, which is more than the Bosnian Muslim paramilitaries ever offered the Serbian civilians of Srebrenica and Bratunac.

Beyond the issue of Srebrenica itself, tens of thousands of Serbian civilians lost their lives throughout the Yugoslav Civil War of the 1990s, and hundreds of thousands were ethnically cleansed from their homes in modern-day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The vast majority of these people were never offered the opportunity to recoup their losses, and to this day Serbia remains the country with the largest number of refugees and displaced persons in all of Europe. Furthermore, Serbia, unlike Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, remains the most multiethnic and diverse of all the Former Yugoslav Republics.

With all of this in mind, the Serbian Community of Canada and all Canadians who value truth and justice demand a clear answer from the honorable Robert Oliphant as to why he believes that the lives of Serbian civilian victims who were murdered by Bosnian Muslim forces are worth less than the lives of Bosnian Muslims? Furthermore, we demand that he justify to the Canadian public why he does not feel that all the innocent victims of the Yugoslav Civil War deserve to be properly remembered, and why he is insisting that only Bosnian Muslims deserve a remembrance day? If there is to be a remembrance day, it ought to honour the memory of all innocent people, including the tens of thousands of Serbian civilians who died during the Yugoslav Civil War, and it should not serve a partisan political purpose. Moreover, if there is to be a remembrance day for the victims of genocide, then the Serbian people who suffered three genocides in the 20th century alone and lost millions of innocent lives in the process deserve to be remembered as much as anyone.

Serbian lives are not less important! Serbian victims must not be ignored! The truth cannot be brushed aside!

In the name of the Serbian Community of Canada, I invite the honourable Robert Oliphant to answer publicly for his actions, and I challenge him to defend his stance in a public forum. I am personally more than willing to engage him in debate on this important issue on any and all Canadian media outlets.

Sincerely,

Bojan Ratkovic
Founder and President of the Serbian Youth League of Canada

We all here are devoted to peace, stability and progress for all countries in the Balkan. In trying to project the future, however, we should consider, as objectively as possible, inheritance of the past, to assess realistically existing problems, to identify trends and key political players.
My starting remark and primary cause of concern for the future of the Balkan stems from the fact that the present set up of relations and solutions, current trends are not based on the compromise of genuine, legitimate interest of the countries and societies of the region but predominantly on the pressures, will and interest of out-of -Balkan centers of political, economic and military might.
Inheritance of the past, especially of the civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of separatism and terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija and of NATO aggression on Serbia (FRY) 1999 remain causes of great concern and, naturally, do occupy our attention and energy.
Economic, cultural, informative, social and other links among the former Yugoslav republic cut during the crisis function on a rather modest level today. In any case, far below potentials and needs of the region. Cooperation and free flow of goods, people, ideas, culture, capital should definitely be encouraged, obstacles removed, reciprocity of interest duly respected. Unilateral concessions, especially expected from Serbia, are not justified.
New international borders while not general problem, in a number of instances are still to be defined, including parts of Serbia-Croatian border on Danube. International standards should be respected in accepting border line.
With the distraction of Yugoslavia, in addition to old ones, new national minorities have been created. Standards of their human, political and national rights in a number of instances are disregarded. Serbs in Slovenia, Croatia and Montenegro continue to be discriminated. Appropriate reactions and guidelines from OSCE, CE or EU institutions would be quite appropriate and necessary.
Serbia is still hosting over 200.000 displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija, mainly Serbs, and close to 300.000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This accounts to about 7-8 percent of the total population of Serbia provoking not only socio-economic but political problems, too. Members of neither of the two groups are permitted to exercise their basic right to free and safe return to places of their origin. Serbs in Croatia although promised territorial autonomy, are deprived of same basic individual right such as right to private ownership of their houses and apartments. There is need for greater involvement of appropriate international institutions, including donors in securing conditions for free, safe and return in dignity.
It has been noted today that tension prevails in Northern Kosovo and Kosovska Mitrovica. While this is true, it should not be ommited that there is tension also all over the Province provoked by continuous daily attacks on Serbs, telephone and electricity services cuts and various other forms of intimidation.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there is resentment all over Serbia because of illegal unilateral proclamation of separation of Kosovo and Metohija and particularly because of the recognition of that illegal act by major western countries (USA, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada).
Serbia does not and cannot recognize illegal secession of the part of its sovereign territory and considers the status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija a serious open issue yet to be resolved respecting basic principles of the international law, UN decisions and Constitution of Serbia as a sovereign state. Such a position is supported by major part of International community, including some members of EU (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovak Republic and Cyprus). New negotiations on the status seem to be unavoidable. Any calculation on softening the official Serbia Government position could turn to be counterproductive. Perhaps not so much because of the Government’s firmness, but first of all because compromise is better investment in Serbia’s internal stability, thus in the lasting peace and stability of the Balkan, than any imposed solution. 
Constitutional set up of Bosnia and Herzegovina is part and parcel of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. Attempts to change this system unilaterally, or by blackmailing the leadership of Republica Srpska, are jeopardizing stability and development.
Applying outside pressures to impose centralization of power in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in one hand, and to oblige more countries of the world to recognize illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija, in the other, is another example of double standards policy.
I am convinced that there is no substitute to either Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement nor to UN SC resolution 1244. These should be considered as chief prerequisites of the Balkan as a zone of peace and prosperity 2020, and beyond.
Flattering Serbia as a regional leader and “Serbian Government the most democratic and the most proeuropean”, on one side, and at the same time imposing endless concessions on account of the legitimate national interest of Serbia (Kosovo and Metohija, Republica Srpska) could hardly be a way to lasting peace and stability.     
Peace and stability in Europe are indivisible. Developments in Europe and developments in the Balkan have been and remain inter-conected.
It has been noted that the future of the Balkan lies in the hands of the Balkan countries. But one of the basic problems in the region remains to be excessive involvement of out-of-the-region centers. Considering that Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Province of Kosovo and Metohija continue to be international (UN) protectorates, that the governments in the most of the countries in the region owe their loyalty to the West which helped them various means to come to power, it is rather questionable what the regional factors can do themselves, what are real margins for them to find compromises of the genuine regional interests.
Putting an end to the protectorate status of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be important step in good direction. After 15 years of peace and international governance, local institutions and politicians must be capable of working, compromising and running the country themselves.  
EU appears to be key partner of the Balkan states. How long will last the current financial, economic and institutional crisis in EU? What conclusions Brussels may  draw from up to now enlargements of the EU membership? Answering these questions is a precondition to asses realistically prospects for EU membership of a number of Balkan countries.
Some current trends in the Balkan, especially in its western part, should be noted as relevant to the subject.
Democratization and transition has left, among others, profound social divisions and tensions, extremely high rate of unemployment, corruption, and organized crime. These tendencies are not assets for peace and stability. To alleviate the roots of these tendencies require political will, relevant strategies, recourses, including financial, and – time. 
Rise of separatism and territorial fragmentation, especially affecting Serbia and Serbian nation, in one hand, and centralization, unitarization of certain other countries, notably Bosnia and Herzegovina, are examples of double standards policy. Putting aside such a policy would definitely enhance prospects of peace and stability.
Proliferation of puppet sates with unsustainable economies, national minorities with uneven level of their rights, political parties based on ethnic and religious criteria and refugees and displaced persons with the lack of political will to provide conditions for free and safe return to their homes;
Expansion of Islamism not as a religion or culture, but as overall social and governmental system. Some Islamite leaders do consider Balkan as a spring board for further expansion. (Vehabist groups, Islamic extremist organizations have been uncovered recently in a number of Balkan countries);
It should be noted that in the period of the last twenty years the Balkan has been experimental ground for new doctrines and precedents in international relations:
- NATO aggression of Yugoslavia in 1999, contrary to basic principles of International Law, without approval of UN SC;
- Unilateral proclamation of Independence of Kosovo and Methija in 2008, while the Provence was under UN mandate, without UN permission or approval, and contrary to the Constitution and will of Serbia;
These precedents have left negative consequences not only in the Balkan but in Europe and worldwide.
In my opinion, Serbia with its geostrategic position and resources is capacitated and willing to play its role in achieving sustainable stability, peace and development in the Balkans. But Serbia is faced with serious problems. First of all, stagnation of the socio-economic development, about one million of unemployed, 700.000 people billow the bottom line of poverty, disregard of her legitimate national interest.
Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is not jeopardized by illegal unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija, only, but such tendencies are noticeable in some other parts (Vojvodina, Raska, Southern districts).
Recently The Group of Friends of Sandzak (Raska) was established in Belgrade composed of the ambassadors of USA, Germany, Britain and Italy! What would be real political objective of such a move? These ambassadors surely have been welcomed to Belgrade as friends of Serbia and they are expected to behave as such. Preferring, or undermining any part of Serbia is not undiplomatic only, but disregarding friendship and hospitality.
Of course, I am aware that aforesaid is more a list of open problems as I see them, than a list of prescriptions how to resolve them. But any serious job starts from inventory. Thank you.

Zivadin Jovanovic
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Voices of Concern for Treatment of International Political Prisoners

The vicious May 7 attack on General Radislav Krstic in Wakefield Prison is a dramatic illustration of the failure to ensure the safety of the prisoners of international tribunals.

A Serb native of Bosnia, General Krstic was sentenced to 35 years in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for complicity in 1995 Srebrenica massacres, although it is acknowledged that he was not directly involved in criminal executions. General Krstic repeatedly denied any knowledge of the massacres at the time, and his sentence is regarded as excessive and politically motivated by many informed observers who believe the case should be reopened.

On May 7, he was physically assaulted by three inmates identified as "Muslims". A 22-year-old ethnic Albanian named Indrit Krasniqi is reported to have slit the throat of General Krstic, narrowly missing the jugular.

Krasniqi, 22, was serving a life sentence for the gang torture and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Wakefield prison, in the north of England, is reserved especially for criminals serving long sentences for grave sex offenses.

We find it highly irresponsible of British authorities to incarcerate General Krstic, essentially a prisoner of war, in such an environment. General Krstic, 62, is slightly handicapped, having lost a leg in the Bosnian war. There is an obvious risk in imprisoning a Bosnian Serb accused of grave crimes against Muslims in a region of England with a particularly large Muslim population.  The claim that the attack was motivated by "Muslim revenge" serves as a smokescreen to cover the responsibility of British authorities.

The near-fatal attack on General Krstic comes in the wake of an extraordinary series of deaths of prisoners of the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

We the undersigned demand:

* An official inquiry into the May 7 incident.
* The immediate transfer of General Krstic to a country able to ensure his personal safety, for example Norway.
* An end to the indifference of governments, human rights organizations and the media to the fate of prisoners of ad hoc criminal tribunals, often exaggeratedly stigmatized by the media and without the benefits of the protection afforded by judicial process in normal national courts.

Dear friends,

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals addresses you on behalf of Ms Tamara Krstić from Belgrade, daughter of General Radislav Krstić who, pursuant to verdict of the Hague Tribunal, serves his sentence in the United Kingdom.

Last week, General Krstić became the victim of a brutal physical assault mounted by a group of inmates in the British Wakefield prison. The immediate consequences include serious injuries (lacerations) on his neck and torso, substantial loss of blood, and coma.

All the so far gathered circumstances indicate that this attack is a long prepared and premeditated. It demonstrates the failure to ensure safety to General rstic in either this, or any other prison facilities in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we beseech you to facilitate a transfer of General Krstić to another country, one that is willing and capable of guaranteeing General Kristi’s safety, preferably to Serbia. We are sending pertinent petitions to the President of the Hague Tribunal Mr. Patrick Robinson, The Hague, to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, to the President of European Union and to mass media.

We would appreciate your earnest engagement and contribution in demanding transfer, safety, and adequate medical treatment of General Radislav Krstic.


Živadin Jovanović, President
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Recently Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals celebrated 10 years since its foundation.
Solemn Academy was held on March 26th in the Students Cultural Center in the heart of Belgrade.
It was attended by about 300 guests from Serbia and abroad, including Serbian Diaspora representatives from many countries.
Tanasis Pafilis, Secretary General of the WPC (Athens), greeted the audience on behalf of the World Peace Council,
admiral Elmar Schmaehling on behalf of European Peace Forum (Berlin), Prof. Jelena Guskova (Moscow).

24. МАРТ 2010.

Various civic associations In Belgrade (Club of Generals and admirals of Serbia, Belgrade Forum, Veterans organizations and many others) started marking 11th anniversary of NATO aggression against Serbia (FRY).
On March 23rd the Generals and Admirals Club promoted three volumes study titled “Armed Forces of FR of Yugoslavia in defense from NATO Aggression in 1999” (700 pages). March 24rth many Civic organizations participated in the ceremonies of laying
flowers on the monuments and graveyards to over 3.500 direct victims of the 78 days of aggression. On March 26th, Belgrade Forum is promoting international study titled “NATO aggression – the Twilight of the West” (530 pages) written by
about 70 Serbian and authors from all over the world. Similar activities are continuing in Serbia until 10th of June this year, 11th anniversary of ending the NATO aggression.

PHOTO GALLERY

March 24th marks 11th anniversary of the start of NATO aggression against Serbia (Yugoslavia).
During continuous bombardments lasting 78 days between 3500 and 4000 people have been killed and about 10.000 wounded two thirds of whom were civilians. How many have died in the meantime as a consequence of heavy wounds, use of depleted uranium missiles, unexploded cluster bombs and other means of indiscriminate killings and destruction - is hard to establish. The economic damage  had been evaluated at the time at over 100 billion US dollars.
Following the aggression Kosovo and Metohija has been occupied by about 40.000 NATO troops, called KFOR, under the flag of UN.
About 250.000 of Serbs and other no Albanians have been ethnically cleansed from the Serbian Autonomous Province.
Eleven years after they still have not been permitted to return to their ancestors homes. While the Provence has been run by UN mission (UNMIK) over 150 Serbian medieval monasteries and churches have been destroyed by Albanian terrorists, tens of thousands of Serbian homes have been set a fire, dozens of graveyards flattered and ploughed not to leave traces
of Serbs and Christianity. ).

Review of Alexander Dorin's book

“In the West, the popular mythology about 7,000-8,000 Muslim men being executed in Srebrenica in 1995 is still alive and well, but independent research shows some 2,000 Bosnian Muslim fighters were killed in battle for Srebrenica and that is the number of bodies Hague investigators were able to find”, said Swiss researcher Alexander Dorin, who has been investigating Srebrenica events for the past 14 years.

In his latest book titled “Srebrenica — The History of Salon Racism” (Srebrenica — die Geschichte eines salonfahigen Rassismus) published this month in Berlin, Dorin focuses on manipulations with the number of Muslims who lost their lives in Srebrenica.

On the proposed Srebrenica resolution:

January 25, 2010

I learn with utter astonishment that leading Serbian politicians are undertaking to officially endorse the criminal status of their own country by adopting a parliamentary resolution expressing "regret" for the Srebrenica "genocide". This would amount not only to a betrayal of their own country, but also to a betrayal of Serbia’s defenders abroad.

Expressions of "regret" may appear to be harmless exercises in hypocrisy. It costs nothing to "regret" all the regrettable things that have happened in history. Such virtuous posturing can have no effect on past events.

But this proposed statement could have seriously harmful future effects, because it proposes to define what it claims to regret as "genocide".


I am one of a minority in the West who are continuing to stand up against insults and slander to argue that the Srebrenica massacre cannot correctly be described as "genocide". Certainly, any execution of prisoners is a war crime – and such crimes were surely committed by all sides in Bosnia’s civil war. But even if, as alleged, as many as seven or eight thousand Muslims died after the 1995 capture of Srebrenica, a single massacre of military-age men while sparing women and children cannot be described as "genocide" – unless the term "genocide" is redefined to fit the single case of Srebrenica. And this is precisely what was done by the International Criminal Tribunal on former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. In order to convict General Krstic (who was not even present at the scene) of "genocide", the ICTY judges ruled that killing a large number of Muslim men from Srebrenica was "genocide"

because of the "patriarchal" nature of their society. Women and children survivors were too insignificant in such a patriarchal society to matter! This preposterous verdict simply confirmed the obvious fact that ICTY is working for those who set it up, choose its judges and pay its

expenses: that is, essentially, NATO. It is there to justify the NATO interpretation of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, by putting the entire burden of blame on the Serbs. Unless an Orwellian future bans free historical enquiry, I am confident that my critical appraisal of ICTY will be justified by history.



This peculiar resolution appears to be the work of "democratic"

politicians whose foreign policy for the last ten years or more has consisted in bleating, "Milosevic was bad, but /we/ are good – love us, love us, /we/ are the /good/ Serbs". This manichean posturing has prevented any serious examination or analysis of the causes and conduct of the civil wars of the 1990s. Moreover, it has been a crashing failure. In Western eyes, this policy looks like what it is: a shameless attempt to curry favor with the victors. The sponsors of this resolution no doubt hope it will bring advantages in the future, such as an approving pat on the head from the masters of NATO and the European Union. At most, it may elicit a shrug: "Yes, we know you are guilty, and it’s about time you admitted it."


Such a resolution can serve only:

* -- to justify the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, which was carried out precisely on the pretext that Serbia had proved its "genocidal" tendencies in Srebrenica, and therefore had to be prevented militarily from committing another genocide in Kosovo. If the victims of NATO bombing endorse the pretext for that bombing, this will be used as a justification for further so-called "humanitarian" military interventions by NATO.

* -- to provide grounds for Bosnian Muslims to demand revision of the Dayton accords in order to wipe out Republika Srpska as a "product of genocide" and to centralize Bosnia-Herzegovina under Muslim rule. It would also expose Serbia to demands for reparation payments that could not only jeopardize the economic future of the Serbian people, but would perpetuate the unhealthy tendency of certain Bosnian Muslim leaders to try to live forever off their "victim" status. It would also tend to encourage other secessionist movements within Serbia against an admittedly "genocidal" state.

These are the real reasons that certain Western politicians may be putting pressure on gullible Serb leaders to adopt such a resolution, on the pretext that it would help Serbia "be part of Europe".


By saying collectively, "yes, we are a pariah nation, but it was that other guy who did it", Serbs will implicitly endorse their own collective guilt. After all, whatever his faults, Slobodan Milosevic was not really a "dictator" but a politician who was repeatedly elected. If he was guilty of "genocide", then the Serbian people who elected him share responsibility.


Do some members of the Serbian political class suffer from delusions of grandeur? Do they imagine that by elevating little Serbia to Hitlerian levels of political evil, they will suddenly be honored like Willy Brandt kneeling in the Polish ghetto? They overlook the fact that even in defeat, Germany was the industrial powerhouse of Europe, courted by (and divided between) East and West, whose leaders had overwhelming economic and political reasons to welcome penitant Germany back into the family of nations. By aspiring to such heights of wickedness, little Serbia appears at once foolishly humble and foolishly pretentious.


Do the sponsors of this resolution hope it will help them take Serbia into the European Union? The European Union will admit Serbia if and when EU leaders consider that doing so is in their interest. Not a minute before, whatever obsequious gestures are made by Serbian politicians


Do they hope it will help them take Serbia into NATO? But without submitting the question of NATO membership to a popular referendum, this would be another betrayal of the Serbian people.


Do they hope that it will help them get back Kosovo? This is most unlikely, and however painful, the loss of Kosovo is not as grave as the loss of the nation’s honor. Kosovo was seized by overwhelming military force.


This resolution would give away the national honor without a fight. It would simply announce to cynical Western leaders that they can do what they like with Serbia, a nation which once stood up to the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire and the Third Reich, but which now comes crawling on its knees to join its aggressors.


Worse still, it can only encourage them to give other small countries the same treatment. The message received would be, "We can bomb them, destroy their infrastructure, kill their civilians, detach pieces of their territory – and they will officially blame themselves! Let’s keep it up!" Serbia would thereby be not only the victim and dupe of NATO, but its accomplice in further crimes.

George Pumphrey
February 2010

Introductory statement:

Under pressure from the ICTY tribunal in The Hague and the European Union, Serbia's President Boris Tadic is preparing to submit a resolution to the parliament in Belgrade, asking that the Serbian parliament acknowledge "guilt" for the Bosnian Civil War's "Srebrenica massacre" and declare that this "massacre" constitutes "genocide."
Subsequently, in an appeal (http://inicijativagis.wordpress.com/?s=appel) addressed to the Serbian president and parliament, intellectuals from EU nations, the USA and Canada called on President Tadic and the Serbian parliament not to pass this resolution. But the intellectual's appeal regettably overlooks two basic facts:

1) It is not for Serbs of Serbia to take on guilt for actions that they themselves have not committed or to declare Bosnian Serbs "guilty".
2) Evidence, that a mass-execution of up to 8,000 Muslims following the takeover by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica had ever taken place, has never materialized.

Civic Association
SOLDIERS AGAINST WAR
Czech Republic
e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

*An International Symposium had been held in Lisbon (Portugal) on 30th and 31st March 2010, titled: ‘’Against war – 60 years of struggle for peace’’, co-organised by the Portuguese Council for Peace and Cooperation (CPPC) and World Peace Council (WPC). In the name of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Mr. Dragomir Vucicevic attended the Symposium and here is his Speech:

Diana Johnston :
“BETER LIFE WITH NATO– CYNICAL FRAUDE”

Dear Zivadin,
The issue of NATO is very important for the future of Serbia. The claim that joining NATO would somehow improve the standard of living of the Serbian people is of course a cynical fraud. There is no logic to such a claim. In reality, NATO membership is clearly designed to accomplish the following aims:

•    destroy Serbia’s capacity for self-defense both by taking control of its armed forces and by redesigning them to take part in so-called "peace missions" (foreign wars), not to defend the nation;
•    employ Serbia’s traditionally able soldiers on distant battlefields such as Afghanistan in order to support the United States’ effort to control and conquer the world;
•    prevent the sort of neutrality that characterized Yugoslavia as member of the non-aligned movement, thus solidifying the Western European alliance against most of the world;
•    prevent any possible alliance with Russia or China;
•    require Serbia to spend its scarce foreign currency (perhaps through loans that would have to be repaid with interest) in order to "modernize" and "standarize" its armed forces by buying US military equipment.
Clearly, all of these aims are contrary to Serbian interests.
No doubt the majority of Serbian people are smart enough to figure this out for themselves. What is needed is a strong campaign to force politicians to defend Serbian interests without betrayal.
Current Serbian leaders’ desire to join NATO can be described as the rats trying to get aboard the sinking ship.
The future lies not with NATO but with the world of equals you advocate.
Best wishes,
Diana Johnstone
Paris, France

Reply :

Živadin Jovanović :

Dear Diana,
Thank you very much for reacting to the text Serbia – NATO.
Your comments and views I share fully.
I have published a number of articles elaborating reasons why Serbia should not become a member of NATO.
I am convinced that having regard to strong present public opposition to full membership status, both NATO (USA) and
Serbian Government have come to mutual understanding not tackle formal membership issue but in practice to
have Serbia even more involved in NATO actions then majority of member states are.
Would you agre to post your comment on the Belgrade Forum’s web page?

With the best wishes,
Živadin Jovanović

1. Serbia as a small peace loving country should remain militarily neutral. Serbia should not be a member of any military alliance. Serbia differs from the rest of the countries in the region firstly, that it has never been a member of Warsaw nor of NATO pact and, secondly, no country in the region has ever been the victim of NATO attack, except Serbia. Serbian neutrality has been defined by the National Assembly Resolution binding the Government and all State institutions.
This has been steady principal position of Belgrade Forum.
2. As Serbia has already joined Partnership of Peace, this also is part of political reality. Austria, Sweden, Finland are constitutionally neutral countries but members of PFP.
3. Since its aggression on Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999, NATO has demonstrated that it was meant to be precedent for launching similar attacks and military interventions in other regions out of its jurisdiction defined by the NATO Founding Act. Its offensive character was later confirmed in Iraq and elsewhere. In addition, NATO has demonstrated its ignorance of the basic International principles, Laws and the role of UN Security Council.
4. Having played a leading role in supporting unilateral, illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia in 2007, USA government and NATO, proved that their prime interest in 1999, was to establish NATO state on the 15 percent of Serbian State territory. USA first established Bondsteel military base in Kosovo and Metohija in 1999, the biggest American military camp outside USA soil. USA Government had no Serbia’s or UN authorization to establish such a base. It was an impetus to spreading military bases further towards East (for example, four in Bulgaria, another four in Romania and so on). USA and other NATO countries have established “independent Kosovo’s Army” by “transforming” the terrorist KLA/UCK.
5. Public opinion polls show that about 75 percent of Serbia’s population is against Serbia’s membership to NATO.
6. As the part of the present Government is clearly pro-NATO, they may be tempted to ignore the will of the majority, and force their short-cut way towards membership to NATO. That’s why many civil society associations, including the Belgrade Forum, as well as many political parties keep publically cautioning that final decision on the NATO membership is exclusively in the hands of the people who will have a say at a referendum.
7. Formally the Government agrees with inevitability of referendum. But in practice nobody dears to organize it as the result is quite clear in advance. So Serbia is faced with NATO advocates tactics - step by step getting deeper involved in NATO structures and operations directing the process to the point of no return. At the same time NATO and the Government spend huge amounts of money propagating NATO as the guardian of paradise. The masters of this operation count with effects of promises of “better life” to the nation suffering of poverty, unemployment and confusion.

Živadin Jovanović
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Živadin Jovanović,                                    
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals


NATO AGGRESSION – TEN YEARS ON[1]

WAR OF GLOBAL GOALS                        


On behalf of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, I wish to greet and express my great pleasure for seeing you, friends from abroad, and also to greet all participants and guests of this International Conference, convened to mark the 10th anniversary of the launching of NATO aggression against Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I wish to specially address all family members of military and civilian victims of NATO aggression and express our deepest sympathy for the irreplaceable loss of their family members. I wish to welcome high-ranking state officials, representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church, representatives of war veterans and war invalids, representatives of the Serbian Diaspora, representatives of youth and students’ organizations, representatives of the World Peace Council, and representatives of peer organizations from Europe, North and South Americas, Asia and Africa.

This International Conference is the single largest gathering in Belgrade of the last two decades. As such, we dedicate it to the memory of more than 3,500 killed and more than 10,000 injured during NATO aggression, and to thousands of abducted, killed and missing persons who fell victims to terrorist attacks and pogroms of the terrorist KLA after the aggression ended. Further, it evokes anguish and despair of millions of Serbian citizens; finally, it is dedicated to recall huge material devastation and incalculable damage inflicted on the environment by means of using the banned weapons. This is why this International Conference and the related activities is held under the joint slogan: NEVER FORGET. Also, never and nowhere repeat.

The Assembly of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals has ended successfully today (December 26th, 2009.) adopting the Report for the year 2009, Report of Controlling Board, Framework Plan for 2010 and certain changes in the Statute required
by the new Law on Civic Associations. The Decree on the Forum’s recognitions to the supporters and donors was also adopted.
The Assembly took place in the heart of the City of Belgrade, in the Art Gallery of the “Progress” A.D. Company, located in Knez Mihajlova Street.
There were present about 150 delegates and friends of the Forum from within of Serbia as well as from Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina (Republica Srpska) and Serbian Diaspora. Academicians, university professors, foreign and domestic diplomats, military experts and private company representatives were present.
The newest Forum’s publications and CD with the video message to the Serbian People of the French General Marie Pierre Galois, were presented.
Traditional New Years cocktail followed.
Details of the Assembly proceedings, documents (though in Serbian language), photos and audio recording, can bee viewed at the web page of the Forum (www.beoforum.rs).

We thank to all who extended their good wishes to the Belgrade forum’s Assembly.

Hearthfully,

Živadin Jovanović
President of Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Živadin Jovanović, President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Interview for the “Objektiv” Magazine ...

Press release - On Strategy of Serbian Foreign Policy
THE PILLARS ARE WITHIN, NOT OUT OF SERBIA

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals organized Roundtable on foreign policy and the international position of Serbia on 8 December 2009, in the Ethnographic Museum in Belgrade. The speakers were experts in diplomacy and scholars in the areas of international economic, political and security developments, publicists, and journalists.
The participants shared common opinion that Serbia needs strategy of a balanced foreign policy. Special emphasis was put on the significance of economic and energy dimensions of the foreign policy and the economic diplomacy. The speakers supported the position of military neutrality of Serbia, and underlined the need for harmonizing political and military diplomacies.
Among the ideas and suggestions offered by the participants of this Roundtable, special attention was given to the position that the pillars of foreign policy should be seen within Serbia. The first of such pillars comprises internal cohesion, and political and social stability. The second is development and economical-technological power. The third pillar consists of defense and deterring armed forces. The final one comprises resources in science and culture.
Among the most interesting presentations was the intervention of Aleksandar Konuzin, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Serbia. He spoke about the proposal of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for a new treaty on Eurasian-Atlantic security.
The speakers were as follows: Živadin Jovanović, former Yugoslav Foreign Affairs minister presented outlook of developments in the world, in Europe and in the Balkans. University professor Oskar Kovač elaborated economic dimension of foreign policy. Vladislav Jovanović, former Serbian and Yugoslav Foreign affairs minister, spoke about foreign policy and about national and state priorities. Dr Dragan Petrović addressed relations with Russia; Scientists Dr Dragan Miljanić and Dr Jordan Dinić discussed relations with China. University professor Dr. Čedomir Štrbac gave an overview of relations with the non-aligned countries. The issues related with military relationships, military neutrality and relations with NATO were presented by several speakers, Dr. Radovan Radinović, former general of VJ, Miroslav Lazanski,  military commentator of daily “Politika”,  Milen Simić, and Dr. Branko Krga, VJ Chief of staff until 2004, Dr. Dušan Vasić, diplomat, addressed the comparative treatment of foreign policy in the constitutions of the former Yugoslav republics.
The conclusion was accepted to place the material from this Roundtable at the disposal of the relevant state institutions.
The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals as the organizer of this expert gathering will undertake to print the Report comprising all papers presented. In the meantime, individual presentation will be successively presented in word, audio and video formats on the Forum’s site at: www.beoforum.rs

Il existe 761 bases américaines avouées dans le monde dont celle, gigantesque de Bondsteel au Kosovo qui a été arraché par la guerre et illégitimement à la Serbie, avec l'aide décisive des impérialistes euro- atlantistes.

CB Base états-unienne de Bondsteel au Kosovo.

Il y a vingt ans, la fin de la Guerre Froide devait introduire une ère de paix. Pourtant, depuis dix ans, l'Otan fait la guerre – d'abord au Kosovo, aujourd'hui en Afghanistan. C'est la guerre et non la paix qui est de retour. Pourquoi ?

Je veux présenter plusieurs propositions qui à mon avis sont des évidences, mais des évidences qui ne font pas partie du discours officiel relayé par les médias.

1. Première proposition. Le but principal de la guerre menée en 1999 par l'Otan contre la Yougoslavie – dite « guerre du Kosovo » – était de sauver l'Otan en la dotant d'une nouvelle mission de mener des guerres aux endroits et pour des motifs décidés par elle. (Un but secondaire était de débarrasser la Serbie d'un chef considéré comme trop peu empressé de suivre le modèle économique néo-libéral, mais je laisse de côté cet aspect des choses, qui aurait pu être traité autrement que par la guerre, bien que les bombardements aient hâté la privatisation des industries ainsi frappées de façon expéditive.)

2. Ce but a éte atteint, avec l'acceptation par les alliés européens de la nouvelle stratégie de l'Otan, qui préconise la possibilité des interventions militaires n'importe où dans le monde sous n'importe quel prétexte – voir la liste des « menaces » auxquelles ils faut faire face.

3. Ce changement de politique stratégique, avec des implications graves, a été réalisé sans le moindre débat démocratique dans les parlements européens ou ailleurs. Il a été réalisé de façon bureaucratique derrière un épais écran de fumée émotionnel – on dirait des gaz lacrymogènes – sur le besoin de sauver des populations de menaces qui n'existaient pas et qui étaient inventées précisément pour justifier une intervention qui servait les intérêts à la fois des Etats-Unis et des sécessionnistes albanais du Kosovo. En autres mots, la nouvelle politique de guerre sans limites a été décidée presque en huis clos, et vendue au public comme une grande entreprise humanitaire d'une généreuse abnégation, sans précedent dans l'histoire de l'humanité.

C'est ainsi que la « guerre du Kosovo » continue à être célébrée, surtout aux Etats-Unis, servant de preuve que la guerre n'est plus le pire des maux à éviter, mais le meilleur des véhicules du Bien.

4. Suite aux attaques criminelles contre les Tours du World Trade Center le 11 septembre 2001, les alliés européens des Etats-Unis ont suivi sans broncher l'interprétation plus que douteuse donnée par l'administration américaine Bush-Cheney selon laquelle ces attaques constituaient un « acte de guerre ». Encore pris dans un tourbillon sentimental – « nous sommes tous des Américains » – les hommes et les femmes politiques européens ne se sont pas mobilisés pour faire remarquer qu'il s'agissait plutôt d'attaques criminelles – internationales, peut-être, mais qui étaient le fait des individus ou des groupes, non pas d'un Etat, et qui exigeaient logiquement une riposte policière et non pas de guerre. Au lieu de secourir les Américains en leur apportant une dose de bon sens qui visiblement manquait à leurs dirigeants, les dirigeants européens ont invoqué l'Article 5 de l'Otan pour la première fois pour suivre les Etats-Unis agressés dans leur guerre contre les fantômes en Afghanistan. Il y sont toujours…

5. Cinquième proposition. Tout cela fait la démonstration d'une absence quasi totale de débat politique, ou même de pensée, en Europe sur les questions fondamentales de sécurité et de guerre et de paix, et encore moins sur le droit international.

6. Sixième proposition, la plus essentielle et la plus controversée sans doute. Cette lamentable inexistence morale et intellectuelle de l'Europe dans ce chemin vers le désastre est due surtout à une cause : la soi-disante « construction européenne ».

Maintenant je veux revenir sur cette suite d'événements qui nous mène de l'élan « humanitaire » du Kosovo jusqu'au bourbier sanglant d'Afghanistan.

L'Europe et la Yougoslavie

Il est courant de blâmer l'Europe pour son inaction dans l'affaire yougoslave. Mais ce reproche prend le plus souvent la forme d'une lamentation selon laquelle l'Europe aurait dû intervenir militairement pour sauver les victimes, bosniaques, il s'entend. Ce n'est pas une analyse mais une exploitation moralisante par un des partis – les Musulmans de Bosnie – d'une tragédie dans laquelle ils comptent le plus grand nombre de victimes, mais pour laquelle leurs dirigeants politiques (surtout Monsieur Izetbegovic) avaient leur part de responsabilité. Dans cette lamentation sans vraie analyse, l'inaction de l'Europe est attribuée le plus souvent à sa « lâcheté » collective, et même, par certains, à son supposé racisme anti-musulman. Un tel racisme existe en effet ici et là, mais les causes de la faillite européenne dans le cas yougoslave sont ailleurs.

Je voudrais offrir ici une autre interprétation de cette faillite. Elle est plus compliquée, et moins moralisante.

Déjà dans les années 1980, la Yougoslavie sombrait dans une crise à la fois économique et politique. L'endettement du gouvernement central, qui résultait surtout des crises pétrolières et des manipulations du dollar, favorisait la poussée séparatiste des républiques les plus riches, la Slovénie et la Croatie. L'auto-gestion socialiste, paradoxalement, contribuait aussi au mouvement centrifuge. Pourtant le sentiment unitaire restait encore probablement majoritaire. C'est l'époque où précisément une politique attentive européenne d'élargissement aurait pu empêcher le désastre. Après tout, la Yougoslavie, située entre la Grèce et l'Italie, dont le système socialiste était plus libre et plus prospère que le bloc soviétique et qui évoluait déjà vers plus de démocratie de style occidental, était logiquement le candidat prochain pour l'adhésion à la Communauté européenne.

Certaines voix isolées signalaient cette évidence, sans être entendues. Au début des années 1990, c'était le drame. Je ne peux pas raconter toute cette histoire ici, cela se trouve dans mon livre, « La Croisade des fous ». Mais en bref, en 1991, il y avait deux mondes parallèles qui se sont touchés de façon malheureuse. Il y avait le monde yougoslave, où les républiques – c'est ainsi qu'on nommait les composants de la fédération yougoslave – slovène et croate optaient pour la sécession, soutenues par l'Allemagne. Et dans le monde de la construction européenne, le gouvernement français en particulier était totalement absorbé par l'effort de convaincre le gouvernement allemand de fondre son précieux deutschemark dans une nouvelle monnaie européenne, qui servirait de colle dans la transformation de la Communauté européenne en Union européenne. Le résultat est connu. Quoiqu'au départ, aucun autre membre de la Communauté ne voulait suivre l'Allemagne dans la reconnaissance des sécessions sans négociation de la Slovénie et de la Croatie, lorsque la France, en pleines négociations sur la monnaie européenne avec l'Allemagne, a cédé sur les sécessions yougoslaves, toute la Communauté a suivi dans cette décision qui violait le principe de l'inviolabilité des frontières et menait inévitablement à la guerre civile.

Je sais que tout cela devient un peu compliqué, mais je veux souligner un aspect qui est relativement subtil mais essentiel. À cause de la sacrosainte « construction européenne », la Communauté européenne s'est alignée sur la position allemande qui au départ n'était partagée par aucun autre Etat membre. Ils n'ont examiné sérieusement ni les vrais motifs de cette position, ni sa justification, ni ses conséquences programmées. Au lieu de cela, ils ont adopté une version moralisante et unilatérale d'un conflit complexe qui servait surtout à excuser leur violation des pratiques normales – non-reconnaissance des sécessions non-négociées. Mais cela avait pour résultat de les ouvrir aux accusations moralisantes de ne pas avoir fait assez pour « sauver les victimes ». Car une fois admise une vision manichéenne, une solution manichéenne s'impose. S'étant coincée elle-même, l'Europe a essayé de combiner son discours manichéen, qui attribuait toute la culpabilité au seul « nationalisme serbe », avec des efforts de trouver une solution négociée, ce qui était contradictoire et voué à l'échec.

Imaginons par contre que les Etats membres aient agi en Etats indépendants, sans se sentir contraints par la « construction européenne ». L'Allemagne aurait sans doute soutenu ses clients historiques, les séparatistes slovènes et croates, mais elle aurait dû écouter d'autres points de vue. Car la France et la Grande Bretagne, sans doute suivies par d'autres, auraient pensé aux intérêts de leurs alliés historiques, les Serbes. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'on aurait refait la Première Guerre Mondiale – personne n'est aussi fou. Mais on aurait pu reconnaître, de part et d'autre, qu'il y avait d'authentiques conflits non seulement d'intérêts mais aussi d'interprétations juridiques en ce qui concernait le statut des frontières entre républiques, des minorités et ainsi de suite. En regardant le problème yougoslave de cette façon, au lieu de le considérer comme un conflit entre le Bien et le Mal, les puissances européennes auraient pu encourager une médiation et une négociation pour éviter le pire.

L'argument que je veux souligner est le suivant. Un des dogmes de la Construction Européenne est que l'accord entre les Etats Membres est un bien si grand que le contenu de cet accord devient secondaire. On se félicite d'être d'accord, quel que soit la qualité ou les conséquences de cet accord. On cesse de réfléchir. Et l'accord se fait, ou se justifie le plus facilement autour de quelque poncif moralisant – les « droits de l'homme » surtout.

La « construction européenne » ressemble au « processus de paix » au Moyen Orient en ce sens que le mirage d'un avenir hors d'atteinte paralyse le présent, et sert d'excuse pour n'importe quoi.

Je voudrais signaler que, dans le cas yougoslave, les Etats-Unis ne soutenaient pas non plus les sécessions sans négociation de la Slovénie et de la Croatie. L'administration de Bush père était encline à laisser ce problème aux Européens. Donc il est trop facile de blâmer les Etats-Unis. Mais devant l'incurie européenne, et très susceptibles eux-mêmes aux interprétations manichéennes, les Américains de l'administration Clinton ont profité de la situation pour exploiter le désastre yougoslave à leurs propres fins, c'est-à-dire, l'affirmation du rôle dirigeant des Etats-Unis en Europe, la renaissance de l'Otan et quelques miettes sentimentales jetées aux Musulmans pour compenser le soutien sans faille à Israël.

L'Otan et les Menaces

L'évolution des deux dernières décennies pose la question de la poule et de l'oeuf. Autrement dit, est-ce que l'idéologie cause les actions, ou l'inverse ? Je serais tentée, vu ce que je viens de décrire à propos de la Yougoslavie, de dire que c'est l'inverse – au moins, parfois. Ou plutôt, en l'absence de pensée rigoureuse et franche, on est facilement entraîné dans des aventures néfastes par une dialectique entre idéologie et bureaucratie.

Mon deuxième exemple est le rôle de l'Otan dans le monde, et de l'Europe dans l'Otan.

A travers l'Otan, la plupart des pays de l'Union Européenne ont déjà participé à deux guerres d'agression, ou au moins à l'une d'entre elles, et d'autres se préparent. Et tout cela sans véritable débat, sans décision stratégique visible. En attendant la réalisation de la Construction Européenne, l'Union Européenne réellement existante poursuit en somnambule le chemin de guerre tracé pour elle par les Etats-Unis.

Cet état d'inconscience est maintenu par un mythe qui devient plus enfantin avec l'âge, comme une sénilité : le mythe de l'Amérique protectrice, puissante et généreuse, qui est le dernier recours pour sauver l'Europe de tout et surtout d'elle-même. On objectera qu'on n'y croit plus. Mais on fait toujours comme si on y croyait. Qu'ils y croient ou non – et je ne peux pas le savoir – la plupart des dirigeants européens n'hésitent pas à raconter des balivernes à leurs populations, telles que :

Les Etats-Unis veulent mettre leur bouclier anti-missile enn Europe pour défendre les Européens des attaques iraniennes ;

La guerre en Afghanistan est nécessaire pour éviter lesn attentats terroristes en Europe ;

La France est rentrée dans le commandement de l'Otan pourn influencer les Etats-Unis ;

Nous sommes la Communauté Internationale, le monde civilisé, etn nous agissons pour défendre les droits de l'homme. Et ainsi de suite.

Les Européens acceptent le vocabulaire « newspeak » de l'Otan. Ainsi pour désigner les multiples prétextes de guerre, on utilise le mot « menaces ». Un pays ou une région qu'on entend attaquer est forcément « stratégique ». Et toute action agressive est naturellement un acte de « défense ».

Ici encore c'est idéologie qui suit la bureaucratie, mais qui devient une force extrêmement dangereuse.

Je m'explique.

L'Otan est surtout une bureaucratie lourde, soutenue par des intérêts économiques et des carrières multiples. A la base de l'Otan se trouve le complexe militaro-industriel américain (ainsi nommé par Eisenhower en 1961, mais qui devait inclure le Congrès dans sa dénomination, car l'industrie militaire est soutenue politiquement par les intérêts économiques localisés dans presque chaque circonscription électorale du pays, défendus avec acharnement par son représentant au Congrès au moment de voter le budget). Depuis cinquante ans, ce complexe forme la base de l'économie des Etats-Unis – un keynésianisme militaire qui évite un keynésianisme social qui bénéficierait à la population mais qui est interdit par un anti-socialisme dogmatique.

Lors de la « Chute du mur » il y a 20 ans, c'est-à-dire de l'écroulement du bloc soviétique, il y avait comme un vent de panique chez son adversaire. Qu'allait-on faire sans la « menace » qui faisait vivre l'économie ? Réponse facile : trouver d'autres menaces. Pour les cibler, il y a les « think tanks », ces boîtes aux idées richement financées par le secteur privé pour donner au secteur public – c'est-à-dire le Pentagone et ses émules au Congrès et à l'exécutif – les raisons d'être et d'agir dont il a besoin.

On connait la suite. On a trouvé le terrorisme sous Reagan et Saddam Hussein sous Bush premier, puis le nationalisme serbe et les violations des droits de l'homme, puis encore le terrorisme, et maintenant il y a une véritable explosion de « menaces » auxquelles « la Communauté internationale », autrement dit l'Otan, doit répondre.

UNE LISTE non exhaustive :

le sabotage cybernétiquen

les changements du climatn

le terrorismen

les violations des droits de l'hommen

le génociden

le trafic de droguen

les états manqués (failed states)n

la piraterien

la montée des niveaux de la mern

la pénurie d'eaun

la sécheressen

le mouvement des populationsn

le déclin probable de la production agricolen

la diversification des sources d'énergien

(Sources : l'Otan ; Conférence tenue le premier octobre 2009 organisée conjointement par l'Otan Lloyd's of London - "the world's leading insurance market" le soi-disant numéro un marché d'assurances du monde.)

Ce qui est à signaler est que la réponse supposée à toutes ces menaces, parmi d'autres, est forcément militaire, et non pas diplomatique. On peut parfois jouer à la diplomatie, mais puisqu'on est le plus fort militairement, à Washington celle-ci est vite amenée à préférer le traitement militaire de tout problème.

Toutes ces menaces sont nécessaires pour justifier l'expansion bureaucratique du complexe militaro-industriel et de sa branche armée, l'Otan. La seule idéologie qui peut les unifier n'est plus un système de pensée mais une émotion : la peur. La peur de l'autre, la peur de l'inconnu, la peur de n'importe quoi. Et à cette peur la seule réponse est militaire.

Cette peur tue la diplomatie. Elle tue l'analyse et le débat. Elle tue la pensée.

L'incarnation de cette peur agressive est l'Etat d'Israël. Et l'Occident, au lieu de calmer la peur israélienne, l'adopte et l'intériorise.

La Menace par habitude : la Russie

Mais il y a une menace qui ne se trouve pas sur la longue liste officielle, mais qui pourrait être la plus dangereuse de toutes, pour l'Europe en particulier. On en parle peu, elle prend une place de choix dans les activités frénétiques de l'alliance atlantique : c'est la Russie. La Russie, ou plutôt l'Union Soviétique était l'ennemi contre lequel tout était organisé, eh bien, cela continue. C'est la menace par habitude, ou par inertie bureaucratique.

De plus en plus, l'Otan se trouve engagée dans un encerclement stratégique de la Russie, à l'ouest de la Russie, au Sud de la Russie et au Nord de la Russie.

À l'ouest, notamment, tous les anciens membres du défunt Pacte de Varsovie sont devenus membres de l'Otan, ainsi que les Etats Baltes anciennement membres de l'Union Soviétique même. Certains de ces nouveaux membres appellent à cor et à cri le stationnement de plus de forces américaines en vue d'un éventuel conflit avec la Russie. A Washington il y a quelque jours, le ministre des affaires étrangères de la Pologne, Radek Sikorski, a réclamé le stationnement de troupes américaines dans son pays “pour servir de bouclier contre l'agression russe”. L'occasion était une conférence organisée par le think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) sur “les Etats-Unis et l'Europe centrale” pour célébrer la chute du mur de Berlin. Il est caractéristique de ce que l'ancien ministre de la guerre américain Donald Rumsfeld a appelé “la Nouvelle Europe”, que Sikorski a eu la citoyenneté britannique depuis 1984 (il avait alors 21 ans), a fait ses études à Oxford et a épousé une journaliste américaine, ayant lui-même travaillé comme correspondant pour plusieurs journaux et télévisions américains. Avant de devenir ministre des affaires étrangères de la Pologne, Sikorski a passé plusieurs années (de 2002 à 2005) à Washington dans les think tanks American Enterprise Institute, pépinière des néo-conservateurs, et la New Atlantic Initiative en tant que directeur exécutif. Ce Polonais appartient donc à cette couche très particulière de stratèges originaires de l'Europe centrale qui, depuis le début de la Guerre Froide en 1948, ont considérablement influencé la politique étrangère américaine. Un des plus importants de ceux-ci, Polonais lui aussi, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a parlé à la même conférence des “aspirations impériales” de la Russie, de ces menaces envers la Géorgie et l'Ukraine et de l'intention de la Russie de devenir “une puissance mondiale impériale”.

Il est largement oublié que la Russie avait volontairement et pacifiquement laissé filer ces Etats qui aujourd'hui se prétendent « menacés ». Il est encore plus oublié que les Etats-Unis avaient, le 9 février 1990, à l'occasion de négociations sur l'avenir des deux états allemands, rassuré Gorbachev en lui promettant que si l'Allemagne unifiée intégrait l'Otan, « il n'y aurait aucune extension des forces de l'Otan d'un centimètre de plus à l'est ». Et lorsque Gorbachev revenait à ce sujet, en précisant : « Toute extension de la zone de l'Otan est inacceptable », le secrétaire d'Etat américain James Baker a répondu, « Je suis d'accord ».

Ainsi rassuré, Gorbachev a accepté l'appartenance de l'Allemagne réunifiée à l'Otan en croyant – naïvement – que les choses s'arrêteraient là et que l'Otan empêcherait efficacement tout « revanchisme » allemand. Mais, déjà l'année suivante, le gouvernement de l'Allemagne réunifiée a mis le feu aux poudres balkaniques en soutenant les sécessions slovènes et croates…

Mais revenons au présent. La mobilisation contre la prétendue « menace » russe ne se limite pas aux discours. Pendant que Sikorski épatait ses anciens collègues des think tanks washingtoniens, les militaires étaient à l'oeuvre.

En octobre, des vaisseaux de guerre américains sont arrivées directement de manoeuvres au larges des côtes écossaises pour participer à des exercices militaires avec les marines polonaises et baltes. Cela fait partie de ce que le porte parole de la Marine américaine décrit comme sa « présence continue » dans la Mer Baltique, tout près de Saint Petersbourg. À cette occasion, les responsables des pays baltes parlaient de « nouvelles menaces depuis l'invasion russe de la Géorgie » et des exercices navals de grandes envergure à venir l'été prochain. Tout cela en projetant l'augmentation des budgets militaires – 60 milliards d'euros par la Pologne pour améliorer ses forces armées.

Il est important de noter que cette activité dans la Mer Baltique sert aussi à faire entrer officieusement les pays scandinaves historiquement neutres, la Suède et la Finlande, dans les exercices et les plans stratégiques de l'Otan. Les pays scandinaves, avec le Canada, auront un rôle à jouer dans la course pour s'accaparer des ressources minérales qui deviendront accessibles avec le retrait de la calotte glacière. Des manoeuvres se font déjà en préparation de cette éventualité. Ainsi l'encerclement de la Russie par le nord se poursuit.

Aujourd'hui, non contents d'avoir absorbé les Etats baltes, la Pologne, la Tchéquie, la Slovaquie, la Hongrie, la Bulgarie et j'en passe, les dirigeants américains, vigoureusement soutenus par « la Nouvelle Europe », insistent sur la nécessité de faire entrer dans le giron de l'Alliance dite « Atlantique » deux voisins proches de la Russie, la Géorgie et l'Ukraine.

Dans ces deux cas, on s'approche dangereusement à la possibilité d'une vraie guerre avec la Russie… surtout en Ukraine.

L'Ukraine est une très grande « Krajina » yougoslave… les deux mots signifient « frontières » en slave … divisée toutes les deux entre Orthodoxes et Catholiques (Uniates dans le cas de l'Ukraine), avec en prime la grande base navale russe à Sébastopol, dans une Crimée à la population majoritairement russe… réclamée par les dirigeants actuels ukrainiens qui la transféreraient volontiers aux Etats-Unis. Voilà l'endroit rêvé pour déclencher la Troisième Guerre Mondiale – qui serait sans doute la vraie « der des ders ».

Les dirigeants baltes sont là pour interpréter l'inquiétude russe devant cette expansion de l'Otan comme la preuve de la « menace russe ». Ainsi, dans une « lettre ouverte à l'administration Obama de l'Europe centrale et orientale » du juillet dernier, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Alexander Kwasniewski, Valdas Adamkus et Vaira Vike-Freiberga ont déclaré que “la Russie est de retour en tant que puissance révisionniste en train de poursuivre un programme du 19ème siècle avec les tactiques et les méthodes du 21ème siècle”. Le danger, selon eux, est que ce qu'ils appellent “l'intimidation larvée” et “l'influence colportée” (influence peddling) de la Russie pourrait à la longue mener à une “de facto neutralisation de la région”.

On peut se demander où serait le mal ? Mais le mal est dans le passé et le passé est dans le présent. Ces Américanophiles continuent : “Notre région”, disent-ils, “a souffert quand les Etats-Unis ont succombé au ‘réalisme' à Yalta. … Si un point de vue ‘réaliste' avait prévalu au début des années 1990, nous ne serions pas dans l'Otan aujourd'hui…” Mais ils y sont, et ils réclament “une renaissance de l'Otan”, qui doit “reconfirmer sa fonction centrale de défense collective en même temps que nous nous adaptons aux nouvelles menaces du 21ème siècle.” Et ils ajoutent, avec un brin de chantage, que leur “capacité de participation dans les expéditions lointaines est lié à leur sécurité chez eux.”

La Géorgie est là pour montrer le danger représenté par ces petits pays prêts à entraîner l'Alliance Atlantique dans leurs querelles de frontières avec la Russie. Mais ce qui est très curieux est le fait que ces dirigeants particulièrement belliqueux de petits pays de l'Est ont souvent passé des années aux Etats-Unis dans les institutions proches du pouvoir ou ont même la double nationalité. Ils sont patriotes de leur petit pays tout en se sentant protégés par la seule superpuissance du monde, ce qui peut mener à une agressivité particulièrement irresponsable. Ce président géorgien, Mikeil Saakachvili, qui en août 2008 n'a pas hésité à provoquer une guerre avec la Russie, a été boursier du Département d'Etat des Etats-Unis dans les années '90, recevant les diplômes des universités de Columbia et de George Washington, dans la capitale.

Parmi les signataires de la lettre citée, il faut noter que Valdas Adamkus est essentiellement un Américain, immigré de Lithanie dans les années 40, qui a servi dans le renseignement militaire américain et dans l'administration Reagan, qui l'a décoré, et qui a pris sa retraite en Lithuanie en 1997… pour être tout de suite élu comme Président de cet Etat de 1998 jusqu'au mois de juillet dernier. Le parcours de Vaira Vike-Freiberga est semblable : d'une famille qui a fuit la Lettonie pour l'Allemagne en 1945, elle a fait carrière au Canada avant de rentrer en Lettonie juste à temps pour être élue présidente de la République entre 1999 et 2007.

La Construction européenne contre le monde

En épousant ces peurs, qui à l'origine sont des constructions pour justifier une militarisation, les Etats membres de l'Union Européenne se mettent en opposition avec le reste du monde. Le reste du monde étant une source inépuisable de « menaces ». La reddition inconditionnelle de l'Europe devant la bureaucratie militaro-industrielle et son idéologie de la peur était confirmé récemment par le retour de la France dans le commandement de l'Otan. Une des raisons de cette capitulation est la psychologie du président Sarkozy lui-même, dont l'adoration pour les aspects les plus superficiels des Etats-Unis s'est exprimée dans son discours embarrassant devant le Congrès des Etats-Unis en novembre 2007.

L'autre cause, moins flagrante mais plus fondamentale, est la récente expansion de l'Union Européenne. L'absorption rapide de tous les anciens satellites d'Europe de l'Est, ainsi que des anciennes républiques soviétiques d'Estonie, de Lettonie et de Lituanie, a radicalement changé l'équilibre du pouvoir au sein de l'UE elle-même. Les nations fondatrices, la France, l'Allemagne, l'Italie et les pays du Bénélux, ne peuvent plus guider l'Union vers une politique étrangère et de sécurité unifiée. Après le refus de la France et de l'Allemagne d'accepter l'invasion de l'Irak, Donald Rumsfeld a discrédité ces deux pays comme faisant partie de la « vieille Europe » et il s'est gargarisé de la volonté de la « nouvelle Europe » de suivre l'exemple des Etats-Unis. La Grande-Bretagne à l'Ouest et les « nouveaux » satellites européens à l'Est sont plus attachés aux Etats-Unis, politiquement et émotionnellement, qu'ils ne le sont à l'Union Européenne qui les a accueillis et leur a apportés une considérable aide économique au développement et un droit de veto sur les questions politiques majeures.

Il est vrai que, même hors du commandement intégré de l'OTAN, l'indépendance de la France n'était que relative. La France a suivi les Etats-Unis dans la première guerre du Golfe – le Président François Mitterrand espéra vainement gagner ainsi de l'influence à Washington, le mirage habituel qui attire les alliés dans les opérations étasuniennes douteuses. La France s'est jointe à l'OTAN en 1999 dans la guerre contre la Yougoslavie, malgré les doutes aux plus hauts niveaux. Mais en 2003, le Président Jacques Chirac et son ministre des affaires étrangères Dominique de Villepin ont réellement usé de leur indépendance en rejetant l'invasion de l'Irak. Il est généralement reconnu que la position française a permis à l'Allemagne de faire de même. La Belgique a suivi.

Le discours de Villepin, le 14 février 2003, au Conseil de Sécurité des Nations-Unies, donnant la priorité au désarmement et à la paix sur la guerre, reçut une rare « standing ovation ». Le discours de Villepin fut immensément populaire dans le monde entier et a accru énormément le prestige de la France, en particulier dans le monde arabe. Mais, de retour à Paris, la haine personnelle entre Sarkozy et Villepin a atteint des sommets passionnels et la persécution judiciaire de Villepin dans l'affaire obscure de Clearstream représente l'ensevelissement de la dernière velléité d'indépendance politique de la France sous une avalanche de boue vengeresse.

Qui parle aujourd'hui pour la France ? Officiellement, Bernard Kouchner, prophète de l'ingérence humanitaire qui, lui, approuvait l'invasion de l'Irak. Officieusement, les soi-disant « néo-conservateurs » qu'on ferait mieux d'appeler les « impérialistes sionistes », tant leur véritable projet est un nouvel impérialisme agressif occidental au sein duquel Israël trouverait une place de choix.

Le 22 septembre 2009, le Guardian de Londres a publié une lettre demandant que l'Europe prenne fait et cause pour la Géorgie dans le conflit de l'Ossétie du Sud. Signée par Vaclav Havel, Valdas Adamkus, Mart Laar, Vytautas Landsbergis, Otto de Habsbourg, Daniel Cohn Bendit, Timothy Garton Ash, André Glucksmann, Mark Leonard, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Adam Michnik et Josep Ramoneda, la lettre proférait les habituelles platitudes prétentieuses sur les « leçons de l'histoire » , toutes justifiant l'utilisation de la puissance militaire occidentales, bien sûr : Munich, le pacte Ribbentrop-Molotov, le mur de Berlin. Les signataires exhortent les 27 dirigeants démocratiques de l'Europe à « définir une stratégie pro-active pour aider la Géorgie à reprendre pacifiquement son intégrité territoriale et obtenir le retrait des forces russes stationnées illégalement sur le sol géorgien… »

Pendant ce temps, les alliés de l'Otan continuent à tuer et à se faire tuer en Afghanistan. On peut se demander quel est le vrai but de cette guerre, qui, au début, était de capturer et punir Osama bin Laden.

Un autre objectif, plus confidentiel, est valable quelle que soit l'issue de ce conflit : l'Afghanistan sert à forger une armée internationale pour policer la « globalisation » à l'américaine. L'Europe est surtout une « boîte à outils » dans laquelle les Etats-Unis peuvent puiser pour poursuivre ce qui est essentiellement un projet de conquête de la planète. Ou, comme on dit officiellement, la « bonne gouvernance » d'un monde « globalisé ».

Les « impérialistes sionistes » sont sûrement conscients de ce but et le soutiennent. Mais les autres ? A par ces illuminés, on a l'impression d'une Europe somnambule, qui suit la voix de son maître américain, en espérant qu'Obama sauvera tout le monde, mais sans pensée et sans volonté propres. Plus triste que les tropiques.

Pour conclure, je reviens à la fameuse « construction européenne ». Je suis consciente qu'il y avait une époque où il était permis, et presque raisonnable, d'espérer que les vieilles nations européennes se mettraient ensemble paisiblement dans ce que Gorbatchev, ce grand cocu de l'histoire, appelait « notre maison commune ». Mais depuis il y a eu Maastricht, le néo-libéralisme, le Traité constitutionnel rejeté puis adopté contre toute procédure démocratique, et surtout, les élargissements irréfléchis vers les pays dont les dirigeants pensent à poursuivre la Guerre froide jusqu'à l'humiliation totale de la Russie.

Aujourd'hui, cette construction a ceci de paradoxal : elle sert d'Utopie qui distrait du présent en attendant un avenir qui domine l'horizon. Et pourtant, elle est vide de contenu. Elle est dictée beaucoup moins par un espoir d'avenir que par une peur et une honte du passé. L'Europe des nations a perdu sa fierté et même sa raison d'être dans les deux grandes guerres du vingtième siècle, dans le "totalitarisme" mais surtout – et cela est relativement récent, depuis 1967 pour être précis – à cause de l'Holocauste. L'Europe doit se rendre incapable de commettre une nouvelle Shoah en abolissant l'Etat nation, jugé intrinsèquement coupable, en devenant "multiculturelle" et en se joignant à la Croisade menée par son sauveur historique, les Etats-Unis, pour apporter la bonne gouvernance et les Droits de l'Homme au monde entier. L'Union Européenne n'a pas de contenu, elle est vouée à se fondre dans "la Communauté Internationale" à côté des Etats-Unis. La Construction européenne est donc tout d'abord une "déconstruction", pour emprunter un mot de philosophe.

Ce mirage cache un avenir totalement imprévu et, aujourd'hui, imprévisible.

Diana Johnstone est une universitaire et journaliste américaine. Diplomée d'études slaves, elle obtenu son doctorat à l'Université du Minnesota. Elle a séjourné en France, en Allemagne et en Italie, avant de s'installer définitivement à Paris en 1990.

Très active dans le mouvement contre la guerre du Vietnam, elle organise les premières rencontres internationales entre des citoyens américains et des représentants vietnamiens. Elle a été éditorialiste pour l'Europe à l'hebdomadaire américain In These Times de 1979 à 1990, continuant par la suite à travailler comme correspondante pour cette revue. Elle a été attachée de presse pour le groupe parlementaire européen des Verts de 1990 à 1996. Elle publie également régulièrement des articles d'analyse de l'actualité internationale dans le magazine en ligne Counterpunch.

En 1985, elle publie un premier livre The Politics of Euromissiles : Europe's Role in America's World. Dans son deuxième livre La Croisade des fous : Yougoslavie, première guerre de la mondialisation paru en 2005, elle porte un regard critique sur la guerre en Yougoslavie, remettant en cause la version médiatique dominante présentant le nationalisme serbe comme le principal responsable du conflit. On peut rapprocher son analyse des événements de celle d'auteurs comme Paul-Marie de La Gorce, Michel Collon et Jürgen Elsässer.

A la suite d'une interview de Noam Chomsky dans The Guardian, elle a fait l'objet d'une polémique, étant accusée de nier le massacre de Srebrenica[1], accusation qu'elle a rejetée, arguant qu'elle ne remettait pas en cause le massacre mais en dénonçait la présentation à partir de certains faits « fabriqués » et médiatisés[2].

In my opinion, European Security system hardly exists at present. It is true that Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is in place, there exist various EU – NATO military arrangements, and there are some other specific and partial arrangements of NATO and Russia, and of the U.S.A. and Russia. Clearly, none of these is truly European or offering equal guaranties of security to all European countries. Beginning from 1999, Europe, especially its Eastern and South Eastern parts, has been covered by a network of foreign military bases with unprecedented pace. Europe of today has more foreign military bases then at the height of the Cold War Era! Is this in proportion with the nature and rise of security risks? It has only provoked more distrust and tensions.

Video (direct link)

Comments (direct link)

To my opinion European Security system does not exist at present. There may be various EU – NATO military arrangements, there may be some other specific and partial arrangements but non of these is truly European nor offering equal security for all European countries.  
OSCE, put aside the name (Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe), has proved to be futile if not counterproductive in its activities. Even more, in many instances it has been subject to various manipulations favoring positions and partial interest of certain countries. It has played negative role during Yugoslav crises abandoning Final Helsinki Document principles on sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the internationally recognized state boarders. It has also violated the principle of consensus introducing new “principle” – “consensus minus one”. It’s Mission in Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, at the end of 1998. and beginning of 1999, known as Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), acted rather as an extension and preparatory for 1999 NATO military aggression then as civil diplomatic mission as defined by Yugoslavia – OSCE October 1998 Agreement.
European Security system should be a matter of right and duty of all and each European country and not a monopoly of any regional organization, be it NATO or any other. All European countries should have equal guaranties for their own security. European Security System should be worked out through diplomatic consultations which will take time and efforts and finalized at the European Summit Conference adopting European Security Treaty.

May 30th, 2009.

Ten civilians were killed and dozens wounded ten years ago when NATO bombers bombed the bridge over the Great Morava river close to the town of Varvarin, central Serbia. Among them were Sanja Milenkovic, 15 years old student of Mathematics Gymnazium in Belgrad and the priest of the local Serbian Ortodox Church, father  Milivoje.

Today’s ceremony to mark this event was attended by thousands of family members and friends of the victims, as well as by church leaders and general public. Hundreds of young people and school students also attended the ceremony. Artists from Varvarina and the City of Krusevac have performed special programme.

Dear Friends,

The Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals congratulates you the Jubilee 30th Peace Marathon devoted to the Day of Victory against fascism and Nazism. Please convey our cordial greetings, solidarity and the best wishes to all the participants of this unique manifestation. Peoples and especially young generations should never forget millions of fighters who lost their lives in the struggle against fascism and Nazism defending freedom and dignity of mankind. We take a bow to millions of civilians who died in Nazi concentration camps in Europe, including in the Balkans. Approaching the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War obliges us to most strongly condemn all attempts of rewriting the history of the Second World War and tendencies of militarization posing the threat to peace and stability in Europe.

Long live to freedom and equality of all peoples

Živadin Jovanović

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, in cooperation with the other independent associations in Serbia and in coordination with the World Peace Council (WPC), held in Belgrade on March 23rd - 24th, 2009, an International Conference titled „Objectives and consequences of NATO Aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) – 10 Years After“.
The Conference gathered some 700 scientists and experts in the area of international relations from Serbia and 45 countries from all continents, except Australia. About 60 participants submitted their papers on various aspects of the aggression and ensuing developments.
Opening ceremony was attended by Prof. Slavica Đukić Dejanović, the Speaker in the National Assembly of Serbia, Mr. Petar Škundrić, the Energy Minister, as well as by the representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church, veterans’, youth and other organizations.
Mr. Ivica Dačić, Deputy Prime Minister of the Government and the Minister of Home Affairs addressed the Conference and welcomed foreign guests on behalf of the Government.
The special participants of the Conference were Ms Socorro Gomes, the President, and Mr. Thanasis Pafilis, the Secretary-General, of the World Peace Council.
The Conference was also attended by a number of ambassadors and senior diplomatic representatives accredited in Serbia.
The participants paid their respect to the victims of the 78-day bombardment and placed wreaths at the monuments dedicated to the victims of the aggression.
The debate with over 60 papers presented was held in the spirit of friendship, openness and solidarity of all organizations and individuals struggling for peace, development and prosperity.