Archives du Réseau for Apr16-99

URGENT, URGENT, URGENT
CONTRE L'INVASION.
Toutes les informations qui nous arrivent coincident, les forces
impérialistes des USA-IV REICH-OTAN sont en train de préparer l'invasion
militaire de la République Fédérale de Yougoslavie.
Dénoncer et mobiliser!
Dénoncer et mobiliser!
Dénoncer et mobiliser!
Non a l'agression impérialiste contre la Yougoslavie!
C'est la répétition de anéantissiment du gettho de Varsovie pendant la II
Guerre Mondiale, maintenant à échelle d'une nation et à la vue de tout le
monde!
COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA
Barcelona, le 16 avril 1999.
****************************************************************
COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA fait sien et diffuse le documents suivant:
Por la formación de Brigadas Internacionales que defiendan Yugoslavia

EL PARTIDO DE LA LIBERACION (P.L.) DE ARGENTINA

CONDENA LA GUERRA DE AGRESION DE LA OTAN EN YUGOSLAVIA

Desde el 24 de marzo œltimo, la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte
(OTAN) está tirando una lluvia de misiles a Yugoslavia, un pa’s soberano y
cofundador de la ONU en 1945. Las bombas son disparadas por los 500 aviones
que la OTAN despliega desde sus bases norteamericanas, inglesas, italianas y
turcas; as’ como desde una treintena de barcos de guerra ubicados en el Mar
Adriático, encabezados por el portaaviones USS "Theodore Roosevelt". Como si
semejante maquinaria bélica fuera poca cosa, el Pentágono añadirá 300
aviones extras para intensificar los bombardeos.

Hasta el 15 de abril, los muertos han sido más de 400 y los heridos, miles.
Si bien el saldo de v’ctimas humanas es lo más tremendo, también es terrible
la destrucción material que los agresores imperialistas han provocado en
Yugoslavia, tanto en sus repœblicas de Serbia y Montenegro, como en sus
regiones de Kosovo y Vojvodina. Han devastado fábricas, puentes, caminos,
v’as férreas, refiner’as, centrales de calefacción, edificios
gubernamentales, estaciones de radio y televisión, escuelas, academias
militares, monasterios, etc.

El blanco principal de la agresión es la población civil. Los cabecillas de
la OTAN han tenido que reconocer por lo menos ocho masacres que calificaron
de "errores". El 5 de abril mataron a tres personas al destruir con misiles
el Puente de la Libertad, sobre el Danubio, en Novi Sad (Vojvodina). El 6 de
abril mataron a 12 personas con misiles que cayeron en un barrio de
Aleksinac (Serbia). El 7 de abril cayó un misil en una zona residencial de
Pristina (Kosovo), provocando 12 muertos. El 8 de abril otro misil pegó
contra el centro médico de Zlatibor (Serbia), segando la vida a tres
personas. El 9 de abril fueron heridos 128 obreros de la fábrica Zastava, en
Krasgujevac. El 11 de abril otro misil dio en viviendas de Podujevo
(Kosovo), asesinando a tres hombres. El 12 de abril fue bombardeado un tren
de pasajeros que pasaba por el puente de Grdelica (Serbia), con un saldo de
10 muertos. El 13 de abril fue impactado un centro ortopédico ubicado cerca
del hospital militar de Zlatibor (Serbia), provocando 20 heridos.

El 14 de abril se produjo la masacre más tremenda, y paradojalmente contra
los albano-kosovares que el imperialismo dice defender. Los aviones de la
OTAN dispararon contra una columna de refugiados albano-kosovares, causando
entre 75 y 100 muertos en Djakovica (Kosovo). En un principio, el general
Wesley Clark, jefe militar de la entidad, no quiso admitir la matanza,
argumentando que sus aparatos atacaron a una columna militar, pero la
realidad mostró que el blanco fueron los civiles. Fue, como m’nimo, el
noveno y más terror’fico "error" de la serie (léase masacre) y eso que se
vanaglorian de utilizar "armas inteligentes" con un margen de error de sólo
6 metros.

Cada d’a de bombardeos le cuesta al imperialismo 330 millones de dólares.
Quiere decir que sólo en la primera noche Washington despilfarró la misma
suma de dinero que dedicó a todos los damnificados por el huracán Mitch, la
mayor tormenta de dos siglos que provocó más de 10.000 muertos y 22.000
desaparecidos.

El banco estadounidense Lehman Brothers ha estimado que un mes de bombardeos
costará 3.000 millones de dólares. Si hay invasión por tierra, o si se
prolongan los bombardeos, el precio será otro. Por cierto, aunque esta
factura será cara a los contribuyentes yanquis y europeos, el complejo
militar-industrial de la superpotencia saldrá ganando sumas millonarias. Por
algo el presidente Bill Clinton reforzó con 12.000 millones de dólares el
actual presupuesto castrense de su pa’s, que asciende a 260.000 millones.

Los imperialistas yanquis y sus aliados europeos han alegado que actœan as’
para defender los "derechos humanos" de los albano-kosovares.

El argumento no puede ser más c’nico. La potencia que mató 3 millones de
vietnamitas a lo largo de la guerra de agresión entre 1964 y 1975 no puede
argumentar nada que se parezca a derechos humanos. Ni siquiera los garantiza
para su propia población hoy en d’a, ya que 40 millones de sus ciudadanos
viven en condiciones de pobreza. Los negros son el 12 por ciento de la
población americana pero suben hasta el 50 por ciento del total de quienes
purgan condenas carcelarias.

Esta guerra no es una casualidad o una excepción en la pol’tica
estadounidense, que desde 1962 impuso un bloqueo total contra Cuba
socialista. Más recientemente, en 1983 invadió Grenada. En 1986 bombardeó
ciudades libias. En 1989 invadió y bombardeó Panamá, asesinando a la
población civil. En 1991 armó una fuerza multinacional para agredir a Irak,
al que luego bombardeó en varias ocasiones -desde entonces hasta la
actualidad-, manteniendo un bloqueo que mata por hambre y enfermedades
curables a 5.000 niños iraqu’es por mes. En 1998 bombardeó un laboratorio
medicinal en Sudán y a zonas de Afganistán.

En fin, la larga cadena de agresiones militares y económicas del
imperialismo yanqui, se continœa hoy con un eslabón más, infame, en la
guerra de destrucción contra Yugoslavia. Incluso la capital y otros pueblos
de Kosovo han sido bombardeados, lo que cierra el c’rculo perverso de la
mentira de su supuesta "preocupación" por la comunidad albano-kosovar.

Otra forma de desenmascarar la "sensibilidad" de la Casa Blanca y sus
aliados es su pol’tica sobre asilo de refugiados. Las bombas de la OTAN y el
recrudecimiento del conflicto en Kosovo provocaron una huida en masa de los
pobladores de Kosovo. Algunos cálculos period’sticos hablan de más 300.000
refugiados. Sin embargo, hasta el momento la Unión Europea no dio cobijo a
nadie, segœn denuncia del gobierno pro-occidental de Macedonia. Y Estados
Unidos, que recibir’a 20.000 personas a condición de derivarlas a carpas en
Guantánamo, Cuba, posteriormente aclaró que eso será en el futuro. Por ahora
no abrirá sus puertas a ningœn refugiado: sus rostros llorosos son mostrados
ampulosamente por sus cadenas televisivas, pero no habrá asilo para ellos en
el Primer Mundo.

La verdad es que Estados Unidos quiere devastar Yugoslavia para completar un
arco de bases militares que le proporcionen hegemon’a en el flanco sudeste
de Europa. Ya cuenta con asentamientos en España, Italia, Bosnia, Grecia y
Turqu’a. Al calor de esta crisis logró meter 8.000 soldados propios y de
pa’ses aliados en Albania y otros 12.000 en Macedonia, a los que habr’a que
agregar la misma cantidad acantonada en Bosnia.

Si logra seccionar Kosovo, ese protectorado colonial servirá como base de
maniobra junto a los tres pa’ses ex socialistas que en marzo œltimo se
incorporaron a la OTAN: Hungr’a, Polonia y Repœblica Checa. Un gobierno
adicto en Yugoslavia, si consiguiera su propósito de derrocar al presidido
por Slobodan Milosevic, completar’a un dispositivo ideal para controlar las
rutas petroleras del mundo. Y especialmente, con los Balcanes en su puño,
Estados Unidos tendr’a casi todo listo para dar jaque mate a Rusia. La
crisis económica mundial del imperialismo provoca planes de una repartija de
Rusia entre las potencias occidentales, en especial sus vastos recursos
gas’feros, petroleros, minerales y de infraestructura industrial.

Ese objetivo hizo que el gobierno de Rusia se revolviera inquieto en el
Kremlin. Hasta el reaccionario Boris Yeltsin tuvo que decir: "he advertido a
la OTAN, a los norteamericanos y los alemanes, que no nos empujen a una
acción militar. En otro caso habrá con seguridad una guerra europea y puede
que mundial. Quieren llevar tropas terrestres, quieren convertir a
Yugoslavia en un protectorado. En esa zona, el mar Mediterráneo y Rusia está
cerca de ello. No lo permitiremos".

Por todo lo apuntado, la guerra en los Balcanes es una guerra imperialista
de agresión para dominar el mundo y apropiarse de zonas de su interés
económico, pol’tico y militar.

El Partido de la Liberación (PL) de Argentina defiende al pueblo yugoslavo y
a su gobierno, preferentemente al primero, en medio de la agresión.
Saludamos el sentimiento antiimperialista que ha aflorado una vez más en la
nación agredida en 1941 por las hordas hitlerianas y que alcanzó su
independencia y progreso gracias al socialismo a partir de 1945.

Conmueve ver a los obreros y empleados formar escudos humanos para defener
sus fábricas y puestos de trabajo. Lo mismo con los jóvenes en los puentes
de Belgrado, Pancevo, Novi Sad, Cacak y Sabac, que ponen el pecho para
evitar su demolición aérea. Muchos de ellos han muerto o han sido heridos
por la barbarie imperialista.

Saludamos también a las tropas yugoslavas que resisten la agresión, en
especial a las bater’as antiaéreas que protegen su suelo y población de los
misiles. Milosevic estuvo bien al no aceptar el ultimátum de la OTAN, que le
quer’a imponer la retirada de Kosovo y un contingente permanente de 30.000
soldados de una supuesta "fuerza internacional de paz".

Es obvio que el gobierno yugoslavo no es socialista. En todo caso, luego de
abandonar definitivamente esa caracter’stica en los œltimos diez o quince
años, tiene un aspecto nacional o patriótico rescatable, sobre todo en medio
de la agresión imperialista de que es objeto su pa’s. Nos parece lógico que
Yugoslavia no quiera desprenderse de Kosovo, parte importante de su
territorio desde el punto de vista histórico y cultural. Pero nos parece mal
que en 1989-1990 el gobierno de Belgrado redujera el estatuto de autonom’a
que gozaban los kosovares.

Y por eso mismo nos parece correcto que el 1 de abril œltimo Milosevic
reabriera las negociaciones pac’ficas con los representantes pol’ticos de
esa comunidad, como la Liga Democrática dirigida por Ibrahim Rugoba. El
conflicto entre Yugoslavia y su región de Kosovo debe solucionarse mediante
negociaciones pac’ficas y previo fin de la agresión de la OTAN.

Como afirmaron los compañeros del Partido del Trabajo de Bélgica-PTB, luego
de ser duramente reprimidos por la gendarmer’a cuando protestaban en
Bruselas contra el 50¡ aniversario de la OTAN: "en Belgrado con Milosevic
hay más democracia que en Bélgica".

Los derechos de autonom’a, autodeterminación nacional y hasta de separación
para formar estados propios, son en principio partes integrantes del
movimiento de liberación nacional. De todos modos, como siempre, hay que
hacer un análisis concreto para responder a interrogantes espec’ficos: tal
separatismo o autodeterminación, Àdebilita al imperialismo o lo fortalece?.

Ya lo advert’a Lenin en su tiempo: "Las distintas reivindicaciones de la
democracia, incluyendo la de la autodeterminación nacional, no son algo
absoluto sino part’culas de todo el movimiento democrático (hoy socialista)
mundial. Puede suceder que, en un caso dado, lo parcial se halle en
contradicción con lo general: en casos tales, hay que desecharlo" (tomo XIX,
páginas 257 y 258, citado por Stalin, en "El problema nacional", "Sobre los
fundamentos del leninismo", abril de 1924).

Los serbios pueden haber sido excesivamente nacionalistas con los kosovares,
aunque hay que destacar la convivencia exitosa de esas dos nacionalidades,
más croatas, eslovenos, macedonios, bosnios y montenegrinos, entre 1945 y
1985 dentro de la Repœbica Federativa Socialista de Yugoslavia. Pero también
hay que convenir que hoy el escisionismo kosovar del UCK-ELK, lo mismo que
ocurrió desde 1990 con el separatismo croata, esloveno y la guerra en
Bosnia, fueron alentados por el imperialismo yanqui y alemán, la OTAN, la
ONU y el Vaticano.

Los argentinos conocemos por experiencia propia un caso de
"autodeterminación" regresiva y proimperialista, como es el que patrocina el
Reino Unido con los 2.000 kelpers que habitan las Malvinas, un territorio
usurpado a nuestra Nación. Nos oponemos a esa "autodeterminación" y seguimos
exigiendo la recuperación de esas islas del Atlántico Sur, ocupadas por la
fuerza en enero de 1833 por el colonialismo británico.

Como dice el historiador alemán André Gunder Frank, "cualquier análisis
objetivo de la situación demostrar’a que no son 400 años de conflicto étnico
en Yugoslavia, sino 20, 10 y dos años de acción e inacción criminalmente
peligrosos por parte de las potencias occidentales, los responsables por el
desastre pasado, presente y futuro. Para empezar, fue la pol’tica económica,
monetaria y militar de Estados Unidos la principal causante de que se
agravara la crisis mundial y de que su mayor peso cayera sobre las espaldas
menos preparadas para soportarlo" (Página/12, 4/4).

El UCK ("Ejército de Liberación de Kosovo"-ELK) es una caricatura siniestra
de guerrilla. Es un grupo terrorista armado por yanquis y alemanes,
prohijado por la OTAN. Cómo será de reaccionario, que el ex asesor de
Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos en tiempos de Ronald Reagan, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, salió a defenderlo en una columna titulada "A la caza del
serbio". Además de alentar bombardeos tácticos y una invasión terrestre,
propuso "una decisión deliberada por parte de Occidente de armar al ELK. Una
decisión de este tipo ser’a justificada tanto desde el punto de vista
pol’tico como moral. El ELK en estos momentos lamentablemente no cuenta
tampoco con las armas necesarias, en especial en materia de armamento
antitanques. Este armamento antitanques podr’a ser lanzada desede el aire a
algunas unidades del ELK" (The Washington Post y Clar’n, 4/4).

ÀDónde y cuándo se vio que el imperialismo yanqui apoye, financie, arme y
elogie a una guerrilla que lucha por la liberación nacional y social?.
Nunca. El UCK-ELK es la punta de lanza anticomunista de la OTAN para tratar
de desmembrar a un pa’s soberano con la excusa de que en Kosovo hay
resistencia civil y militar al gobierno de Belgrado.

Llama la atención, además, el doble rasero de los imperialistas. Los estados
español y francés se niegan a reconocer la independencia del pueblo vasco,
existente de uno y otro lado de los Pirineos. Ellos reprimen a la ETA y
sectores abertzales (independientistas) como Herri Batasuna, la organización
juvenil Jarrai, etc. En cambio, son capaces de imponer una guerra sangrienta
en los Balcanes con el falaz argumento de la independencia de los kosovares.

La organización no gubernamental estadounidense IAC, presidida por el ex
fiscal Ramsey Clark, ha denunciado que los bombas despachadas por la
administración Clinton tienen uranio empobrecido, por lo que provocan
grandes incendios y están contaminando con radioactividad al territorio
agredido.

La OTAN ha festejado sus 50 años el pasado 4 de abril lanzando más y más
misiles en los Balcanes. A los 19 estados que la componen se sumaron como
una comparsa mercenaria otros gobiernos del mundo, como el de Carlos Menem,
de Argentina. Su representante en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU,
Fernando Petrella, votó el 26 de marzo por la continuidad de los bombardeos.
Menem, al presentar el "libro Blanco" de la Defensa, el 7 de abril, avaló la
lluvia de misiles al pedir "que se lleve a cabo todo lo que sea necesario
para que vuelva la paz".

Por eso mismo el pueblo argentino, sus fuerzas revolucionarias, los sectores
democráticos y populares, la izquierda, etc, no podemos permanecer
impasibles ante la guerra en Yugoslavia. Tampoco podemos limitarnos a emitir
algunos comunicados de repudio. Hay que organizar movilizaciones de masas
que exijan el fin de los bombardeos de la OTAN en Yugoslavia y la retirada
de los efectivos militares de esa Organización en Bosnia, Albania y
Macedonia. Que el fin de la guerra permita arribar a una negociación
pol’tica entre Belgrado y los dirigentes kosovares que no se prestaron a la
instrumentación de la OTAN. Que fruto de ese arreglo, los miles de
refugiados puedan regresar a sus hogares. Que el imperialismo pague por todo
lo que destruyó, en vidas y bienes, en los Balcanes. Que el secretario
general de la OTAN, Javier Solana; los generales Wesley Clark y Klaus
Naumann, y el comodoro David Milby, entre otros, sean enjuiciados y
castigados como genocidas.

El próximo 1¡ de Mayo es una fecha que se presta a manifestaciones y actos
obreros e internacionalistas en Argentina y otros pa’ses, teniendo en cuenta
que se trata del d’a internacional de los trabajadores.

Los luchadores antiimperialistas más concientes también tenemos otra
posibilidad de expresar la solidaridad activa con el pueblo de Yugoslavia.
Teniendo en cuenta la criminalidad de la guerra que están librando los
imperialistas y la posibilidad de que se extienda a otras partes de Europa e
incluso a nivel mundial, hay que hacer todo lo posible para que los hermanos
yugoslavos resistan la agresión.

Por eso el Partido de la Liberación (PL) de Argentina propone a las fuerzas
populares y revolucionarias de nuestro pa’s y del movimiento comunista
internacional, la formación de Brigadas Internacionales. Estas pueden ir a
Yugoslavia en primera instancia para ayudar en la reconstrucción material
del pa’s. Y si es necesario, para luchar junto a ese pueblo contra los
ejércitos imperialistas, ya que no puede descartarse una invasión por tierra
por parte de las fuerzas de la OTAN.

No se puede confiar en una mediación de la ONU, cuyo secretario general Kofi
Annan aceptó los bombardeos pese a ser llevados adelante sin autorización de
la entidad mundial. Tampoco se puede depender de una ayuda militar rusa, que
fue pedida por Yugoslavia casi desde el mismo 24 de marzo y hasta el momento
no se ha producido.

La resistencia yugoslava depende ante todo de su heroico pueblo, que es y
seguirá siendo el principal protagonista de la lucha, de su gobierno y de
sus Fuerzas Armadas. Hay que sostener al pueblo yugoslavo de mil formas,
entre ellas con la formación de las Brigadas Internacionales, que rescaten
la experiencia positiva del internacionalismo durante la Guerra Civil
Española y la lleven a una nueva altura.

Comité Central del Partido de la Liberación (PL) de Argentina, 15 de abril
de 1999.

Dirección postal: Belgrano 1024 (CP 5000) Córdoba, Argentina

Email pl_tupac@hotmail.com y sortiz@arnet.com.ar

Internet: www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1872/index.htm

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 07:36:01 -0400
From: holenweg@vtx.ch (Pascal Holenweg)
Subject: 16.4 Bulletin de la CSSI

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

BULLETIN D'INFORMATION DE LA
COMMISSION SOCIALISTE DE SOLIDARITƒ INTERNATIONALE
Genève, le 27 germinal 207 / 16 avril 1999

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

CHANGER DE MILLƒNAIRE ? RIEN Ì FOUTRE.
C'EST DE MONDE QU'IL FAUT CHANGER :

1er Vendémiaire 208 :
POUR UN RƒVEILLON RƒPUBLICAIN
ANTIRACISTE, ANTIFASCISTE, ANTI-INTƒGRISTE,
MULTICULTUREL, UNIVERSALISTE

www.decadi.com/an2000.htm

an2000@decadi.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

1. 17 AVRIL : MANIFESTATION DE SOUTIEN Ì MUMIA ABU JAMAL Ì PARIS

2. APPEL CONTRE LA CONFƒRENCE DE SEATTLE DE L'O.M.C

3. CONGO : APPEL URGENT

4. BURKINA-FASO : APPEL URGENT

5. SERBIE : JOURNALISTE ASSASSINƒ

6. KOSOVE : ADRESSES UTILES DE SITES D'INFORMATION ET DE SOLIDARITƒ

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

1. 17 AVRIL : MANIFESTATION DE SOUTIEN Ì MUMIA ABU JAMAL Ì PARIS

From: acratik@club-internet.fr
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 01:57:13 +0200
Subject: Communiqué: COMITƒ DE SOUTIEN INTERNATIONAL A MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ET
AUX PRISONNIERS POLITIQUES AUX ETATS-UNIS

COMITƒ DE SOUTIEN INTERNATIONAL A MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ET AUX PRISONNIERS
POLITIQUES AUX ETATS-UNIS

- - COSIMAPP -

Antenne française de International Concerned Family and Friends for
Mumia Abu-Jamal C/o Librairie le Point du Jour, 58, rue Gay Lussac,
75005 Paris - France Tel. & Fax : 01 45 79 88 44

En solidarité avec la "Millions For Mumia March" qui aura lieu à
Philadelphie le samedi 24 avril, la France donnera le coup d'envoi d'une
série de marches et de grèves à l'échelon international avec :

Une manifestation à Paris le samedi 17 avril 1999
Départ de la Gare Saint Lazare / Rue de Rome à 15 heures

A Philadelphie, le 24 avril, les organisations qui appellent à la
"Millions For Mumia March" représentent une coalition entre les
nombreuses organisations américaines contre la peine de mort (au premier
rang desquelles Amnesty-USA), le mouvement grandissant contre les
brutalités policières, les groupes appelant à la reconnaissance du
statut, de "prisonnier politique" pour environ 200 détenus américains et
enfin les collectifs américains appelant à la révision du procès de
Mumia Abu-Jamal. D'ores et déjà, des initiatives solidaires auront lieu
en Asie (Malaisie, Inde, Pakistan etc.), dans toute l'Europe (o le
Ministre des Affaires ƒtrangères allemand vient au nom du Conseil de
l'Europe, dont il est président, d'ouvrir la session de la Commission
des Droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies à Genève avec un discours qui
constitue une condamnation cinglante de la peine de mort aux ƒtats-Unis)
et en Amérique du Sud o le plus important syndicat d'enseignants de
l'ƒtat de Rio de Janeiro au Brésil en appelle à ses 150 000 membres pour
une grève d'une heure le 23 avril afin d'évoquer avec leurs élèves le
cas de Mumia Abu-Jamal.

A Paris, les porte-paroles d'une délégation de 57 militants des droits
de l'Homme devant quitter Paris pour participer à la grande marche de
Philadelphie donneront

Une Conférence de Presse le Jeudi 15 Avril à 10 h 15 au Café littéraire
"La Maroquinerie"
23 rue Boyer 75020 Paris - Métro Gambetta
sortie Martin Nadaud. Prendre la rue de la Bidassoa

- - en présence de l'avocat africain -américain Me Michael Warren qui fut
le Procureur du contre-procès de Mumia Abu-Jamal (Déc. 1997) et est
aujourd'hui l'un des avocats de la famille d'Amadou Diallo, jeune
Guinéen abattu de 41 balles le 4 février par la police du Bronx.
Parmi ceux qui s'exprimeront le 15 avril devant la presse sur les
raisons de leur soutien à Mumia et de leur voyage à Philadelphie :

* Danielle Mitterrand, Présidente de la Fondation France Libertés.
Madame Mitterrand se rend fin avril en Pennsylvanie pour rendre visite à
Mumia dans le couloir de la mort et au Kansas pour rendre visite au
prisonnier politique amérindien Leonard Peltier.

* Aline Pailler de la Gauche Unitaire Européenne au Parlement Européen,
qui visitera Mumia avant la marche aux U.S.A.

* Mireille El Malan de le GUE au Parlement Européen (sous réserve).

* Serge Guichard du P.C.

* J.J. Kirkyacharian pour le MRAP

* Sylvain Alessandrini-Duez pour le Leonard Peltier Support Group -
France

* Noreddine Azouz pour le MIB

* Monseigneur Gaillot

* Marie-Claire Mendes France (sous réserve)
- - et des portes paroles des VERTS, des J.C., du Comité Rosenberg, des
Sans-Papiers, de la CGT etc.

FIN

***Comité de soutien à Mumia Abu-Jamal
C/o Viretto & Dieudonné
18, place Jean Jaurès
13001 Marseille
Tel. / Fax : 04 91 42 98 47
Veronique Viretto

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

2. APPEL CONTRE LA CONFƒRENCE DE SEATTLE DE L'O.M.C

SIGNEZ PAR ORGANISATION ET RETOURNER Ë : Ronnie Hall

>(Please check against English original. Two last amendments will not be
>included, Ronnie Hall)
>
>DƒCLARATION DES MEMBRES DE LA SOCIƒTƒ CIVILE INTERNATIONALE
> S'OPPOSANT AUX
> NƒGOCIATIONS DE COMMERCE DU CYCLE DU MILLƒNAIRE
>
> En novembre 1999, les gouvernements du monde vont se réunie à
> Seattle pour
> la troisième conférence ministérielle de l'Organisation
> Mondiale du
> Commerce (OMC). Les membres dela société civile internationale,
> signataires
> de cet appel, nous opposons aux efforts déployés pour étendre
> les pouvoir
> de l'OMC au moyen d'un nouveau cycle de négociations
> commerciales
> "englobantes" . Nous considérons au contraire que les
> gouvernements doivent
> revoir et rectifier les déficiences du système et le
> fonctionnement de
> l'OMC lui-mme.
>
> Le cycle de l'Uruguay et l'établissement de l'OMC ont été
> annoncé comme un
> moyen de développer la création d'une prospérité et d'une
> richesse
> mondiales et de promouvoir le bien-tre de toutes les personnes
> de tous les
> ƒtats. En réalité cependant, dans les cinq dernières années,
> l'OMC a
> contribué à la concentration de la richesse entre les mains
> d'une minorité
> de riches, développant la pauvreté pour la majorité de la
> population
> mondiale et des modèles non-durables de production et de
> consommation.
>
> Les accords issus du cycle de l'Uruguay ont été principalement
> orientés
> vers l'ouverture des marchés au bénéfice des entreprises
> transnationales au
> dépens des économies nationales, des travailleurs, des
> agriculteurs et des
> autres, ainsi que de l'environnement. De plus, le
> fonctionnement, les
> règles et les procédures de l'OMC sont anti-démocratiques,
> non-transparents, ne sont pas tenus de rendre des comptes et
> ont agi de
> manière à marginaliser la majorité des tres humains.
>
> Tout cela a pris place dans un contexte d'instabilité
> économique mondiale
> grandissante, d'effondrement des économies nationales,
> d'accroissement des
> inégalités à la fois dans et entre les nations, et
> d'accentuation des
> dégradations environnementale et sociale, résultats de
> l'accélération du
> processus de mondialisation.
>
> Les gouvernements qui dominent l'OMC et les entreprises
> transnationales qui
> ont bénéficié du système de l'OMC ont refusé de reconnaître et
> de régler
> ces problèmes. Au contraire, ils poussent à une libéralisation
> accrue au
> travers l'introduction de sujets nouveaux à adopter à l'OMC.
> Cela mènera à
> l'exacerbation de la crise liée aux processus de mondialisation
> et à l'OMC.
>
> Nous nous opposons à toutes négociations allant dans le sens
> d'une plus
> grande libéralisation, spécialement celles qui visent à
> introduire de
> nouveaux secteurs sous la tutelle de l'OMC, tels que
> l'investissement, la
> concurrence et les marchés publics. Nous nous engageons à mener
> campagne
> pour rejeter toute proposition telle. En particulier nous nous
> opposons aux
> accords de droits de propriété intellectuelle relatifs au
> commerce (TRIPs).
>
> Nous appelons à un moratoire sur toutes négociations qui
> étendent la portée
> et le pouvoir de l'OMC.
>
> Au cours de ce moratoire, une révision et une évaluation
> complètes et
> approfondies des accords existants doivent tre menées.
> D'importantes
> avancées doivent tre effectuées pour réformer les accords. Une
> telle
> réforme devrait permettre d'évaluer l'impact de l'OMC sur les
> communautés
> marginalisées, le développement, la démocratie,
> l'environnement, la santé,
> les droits humains, les règles du travail et les droits des
> femmes et des
> enfants. Cette réforme doit tre conduite avec la pleine
> participation de
> la société civile.
>
> L'échec de l'Accord Multilatéral sur l'Investissement (AMI) à
> l'Organisation pour la Coopération et le Développement
> ƒconomique (OCDE)
> démontre l'opposition d'un large public à la déréglementation
> de l'économie
> mondiale, à la domination croissante des entreprises
> transnationales et à
> l'aggravation de la dégradation de l'environnement et de
> l'utilisation des
> ressources qui en découle.
>
> Une réforme du système donnera l'opportunité à la société de
> changer son
> cours, de développer un système international d'investissement
> lié au
> commerce alternatif, humain et durable.
>
>A SEED, Europe
>AITEC (Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et
>Chercheurs), France
>AK Weltwirtschaft Nuernberg, Germany
>The Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC), South Africa
>American Lands Alliance, United States
>AMRASH, Morrocan Association of Research Action for Sustainable
>Development
>Anarchist Now! (United States)
>Anti-Atom-Gruppe der Projektwerkstatt Nuernberg, Germany
>Anti-Atom-Netzwerk Mittelfranken, Germany
>Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Thailand)
>Association of African Women for Research and Development (AAWORD)
>Australian STOP MAI Coalition
>Bank Information Center (USA)
>Berne Declaration, Switzerland
>BLUE 21, Berlin Working Group on Environment and Development
>BUKO Agro Coordination, Germany
>Bund Deutscher PfadfinderInnen KV Nuernberg, Germany
>BUND, Friends of the Earth Germany
>The California Fair Trade Campaign
>Canadian Environmental Law Association
>Campaign for Food Safety, USA
>Cebu Environmental Initiatives for Development Center, Inc, Philippines
>CEDETIM (Centre d'Etudes et d'Initiatives de Solidarité Internationale),
>
>France
>Center for Encounter and Active Non-Violence Bad Ischl
>Center for Environmental Public Advocacy - Slovak Republic
>Centro de Informacao e Documentacao Amilcar Cabral (CIDAC)
>Chiche! Jeunes Ecoles Alternatifs Solidaires
>Church of Sweden Aid / Lutherhjaelpen, Sweden
>Citizens' Reaction Against Pollution
>Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras
>Comboni Missionaries J & P Resource Center
>Congregation of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
>Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS), India
>The Corner House, UK
>Corporate Agribusiness Research Project, USA
>Corporate Europe Observatory
>Dana Association (A.C.), Mexico
>DECA Equipo Pueblo, Mexico
>Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era
>Dire Mai al MAI, national Italian campaign
>Down to Earth - the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in
>Indonesia, UK
>Droits devant!! (France)
>The East Timor Action Network, Los Angeles, USA
>EcoLogic, Troy New York, USA
>Ecologistas en Accion (Spain)
>Economic Justice Now, US
>Economic Reform Australia
>ECOTERRA International, Nairobi Node
>The Edmonds Institute (USA)
>Education Foundation (Pakistan)
>Education and Training Employees Association (Vancouver, Canada)
>EPICENTER, US
>FAIR NZ - New Zealand
>Federer at Liberer - France
>Feministische Partie DIE FRAUEN / Bayern, Fuerth, Germany
>The Free Burma Coalition, USA
>Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
>Friends of the Earth - Czech Republic, Hnuti Duha Praha
>Friends of the Earth Finland
>Friends of the Earth Netherlands - Milieudefensie
>Friends of the Earth New Zealand
>Friends of the Earth Norway / Norges Naturvernforund
>Friends of the Earth - Slovakia
>Friends of the Earth United States
>Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)
>Global 2000 - Friends of the Earth Austria
>Global Exchange, USA
>Global Labour Institute
>Globalisation Challenge Initiative
>Good Shepherd Social Justice Network, Australia and New Zealand
>Greater Sacramento Chapter of the Alliance for Democracy
>Green Korea United
>The Green Library, Latvia
>Hawai'i Pesticide Project, Honolulu, Hawai'i
>The Institute for Cultural Ecology
>Institute of Interdisciplinary Study and Research (Germany)
>Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR), Australia
>Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD) - Philippines
>Interface Trading, Senegal
>International Campaign for Responsible Technology
>International Labour Rights Fund
>International Human Rights Association, Germany
>JustAct, Youth ACTion for Global JUSTice
>KAIROS EUROPA, Heidelberg, Germany
>Kalmiopsis Audubon Society
>Komitee Widerstandgegen das MAI, Germany
>London Human Rights Forum
>Lookat/Watchdog
>MAI niet gezien! anti-MAI campaign, the Netherlands
>MAID, the Netherlands
>Menorah Jewish Network, Albury Australia
>Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (Mexico)
>Minnesota Fair Trade Campaign, Resource Center of the Americas, USA
>MoKan Alliance for Democracy, Kansas City, USA
>Movimiento Contra la Europa da Maastricht y la Globalizacion Economica,
>Spain
>NCOS (National Centre for Development Corporation), Belgium
>Netherlands Committee for IUCN
>Network for Environment and Economic Responsibility of the United Church
>
>of Christ (USA)
>New Economics Foundation, UK
>New Raza Left - Los Angeles, USA
>NEWS! the Network of European World Shops
>The Northwest Environmental Defense Center of Portland, USA
>Odhikar: A Coalition for Human Rights, Bangladesh
>Oikos. Journal for Politics, Environment and Culture (Belgium)
>Oxfam-Solidarity, Belgium
>Oxfam-Wereldwinkels (Belgium)
>Pax Romana ICMICA (Thailand)
>Peace and Justice Centre of Southern California
>People and Planet network, UK
>People's Forum 2001, Japan
>People's Movement, Australia
>Pesticide Action Network, North America
>Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network
>Play Fair Europe!, European Union
>Polaris Institute (Canada)
>The Positive Futures Network, USA
>Preamble Center, United States
>PRESS, Save the Children youth, Norway
>Pryority One Carpentry - Australia
>Public Citizen, USA
>Public Interest Research Group, India
>Rainforest Action Network
>RAPAM Coordinator Mexico
>Reclaim Australia
>Red de Permacultura Mexico
>Red Green Alliance, Denmark
>Rhode Island Chapter of the Alliance for Democracy, USA
>RMALC (Mexican Network for Action on Free Trade)
>Salzburg Forum Against the MAI
>San Mateo County Peace Action - USA
>Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
>Sisters of Benedict, Oklahoma, USA
>Sisters of the Holy Names CA Justice and Peace Committee
>Socialist Party of Labor, Philippines
>South Australian Genetic Food Information Network
>Sustainable Alternatives to the Global Economy (SAGE)
>Swedish Consumer Coalition
>Tartu Student Nature Protection Group, Estonia
>Third World Network
>Towards a Different Europe
>The Umvelt-und Projektwerkstatt Freiburg, Germany
>TRANET, US
>United for a Fair Economy, USA
>Visaya Management Consultancy Inc, Cebu City, Philippines
>V.P. Cross Border Network for Justice and Solidarity, Kansas City, USA
>WALHI / Friends of the Earth Indonesia
>Waterview Publishing
>Weltladen-Dachverband, Germany
>Windsor and Area Coalition for Social Justice, Canada
>Windsor Area MAI-day Coalition for Human Rights
>Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua
>Women's Intercultural Network (WIN), San Fransisco
>Working Group Against the MAI and Globalisation - Turkey
>WorkSafe! South - Los Angeles, USA
>World Economy, Ecology and Development (WEED), Germany
>
>last updated 7 April 1999

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

3. CONGO : APPEL URGENT

From: "OMCT"
Organization: OMCT
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:26:19 +0200
Subject: RDC 002 / 9903 / OBS 014.01 - Nouvelles informations

APPEL URGENT - L’OBSERVATOIRE
Nouvelles informations
RDC 002 / 9903 / OBS 014.01
Libérations - Arrestation arbitraire
République Démocratique du Congo
Le 9 avril 1999

L’Observatoire pour la Protection des Défenseurs des Droits de
l’Homme vous prie d’intervenir de toute urgence à propos de la
situation suivante en République Démocratique du Congo.

Rappel des faits:

L’Observatoire pour la Protection des Défenseurs des Droits de
l’Homme avait été informé par l’ASADHO, membre de la FIDH
et de l’OMCT, de la détention au Conseil National de Sécurité
(CNS) de Marie-Ange Lukiana, Présidente de l’Union Nationale
de Femmes du Congo (UNAF), André Ipakal, éditeur de La
référence plus et Président de la Fondation Ipakal, et Monsieur
Mutinga, Président de Media Pour Tous.

Ces trois personnes avaient été arrtées le dimanche 14 mars, à
l’aéroport de Kinshasa, alors qu’elles revenaient d’une “
Conférence sur la situation en RDC î organisée en Afrique du
Sud par l’association Accord. Cette conférence s’était prononcée
en faveur d’une solution pacifique et négociée pour la paix en
RDC.

En outre, l’Observatoire avait été informé de l’arrestation
arbitraire de Georges Thionza, coordinateur de SERACOB (ONG
de développement et d’appui démocratique, basée à Bukavu et qui
a des bureaux à Kinshasa et Kigali) le dimanche 7 mars 1999, à
l’aéroport de Kinshasa; il arrivait de Bukavu via Nairobi. M.
Thionza était détenu au Conseil National de Sécurité (CNS) et
accusé d’tre un agent des forces rebelles.

Nouvelles informations:

L’Observatoire a appris que Mme Lukiana a été libérée le 20
mars et que Messieurs André Ipakal et Mutinga, ont été libérés le
29 mars dernier. Tout au long de leur détention, ces derniers
n’ont jamais été informés des charges qui pesaient contre eux.
Depuis leur libération, ils doivent se présenter chaque semaine à la
Cour d’Ordre militaire.

En outre, l’Observatoire a également été informé de la libération
de Monsieur Thionza.
L’Observatoire se félicite de ces libérations et remercie tous ceux
qui sont intervenus en la faveur de ces personnes.

Cependant, l’Observatoire a reçu des informations de la Voix des
sans Voix, selon lesquelles Monsieur Baudouin Hamuli
Kabarhuza, secrétaire exécutif du Conseil National des
Organisations non - gouvernementales de Développement
(CNONGD) et membre du secrétariat technique de la société
civile congolaise, est détenu, depuis le 6 avril, à la Direction
extérieure de l’Agence Nartionale de Renseignements
(ANR/DE), à Kinshasa / Ngaliema.

Au mme titre que les personnes précitées, M. Hamuli Kabarhuza
avait été invité par l’association Accord, afin de participer à la
conférence sur la situation des droits de l’Homme en RDC; il
avait ensuite poursuivi son voyage au Cameroun, puis en
Belgique. A son arrivée à l’aéroport, le 5 avril, M. Hamuli
Kabarhuza a été séquestré pendant une heure, et c’est le
lendemain qu’il a été sommé de se présenter à l’ANR/DE o il
est détenu depuis lors. Son interrogatoire du 7 avril a notamment
porté sur son séjour et ses activités en Afrique du Sud.

Il est reproché à Monsieur Hamuli Kabarhuza d’avoir quitté le
territoire sans autorisation des autorités et d’avoir été en contact
notamment avec les “ Mobutistes en exil î, les membres de la
rébellion du Rassemblement des Congolais pour la Démocratie et
des représentants du Rwanda, du Burundi et d’Ouganda.

Selon les informations reçues, M. Hamuli Kabarhuza serait détenu
dans des conditions très précaires, il dormirait dehors dans la cour
intérieure de l’ANR/DE à mme le sol et souffrirait de douleurs
aigu‘s.

L’Observatoire considère que l’arrestation de M. Hamuli
Kabarhuza est arbitraire et qu’elle illustre une nouvelle fois la
politique de harcèlement systématique dont sont l’objet les
défenseurs des droits de l’Homme en République Démocratique
du Congo.

Actions demandées:

Merci de bien vouloir écrire aux autorités de la République
Démocratique du Congo pour leur demander de:

i garantir l’intégrité physique et psychologique de M. Baudouin
Hamuli Kabarhuza

ii procéder à sa libération immédiate si aucune charge valable
n’est retenue contre lui;

iii se conformer aux dispositions de la Déclaration sur la
Protection des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme adoptée par
L’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies le 9 Décembre 1998 (“
Déclaration sur le droit et la responsabilité des individus, groupes
et organes de la société de promouvoir et de protéger les Droits
de l’Homme et les Libertés Fondamentales universellement
reconnus î), et plus particulièrement à son article premier.

iv plus généralement, se conformer aux dispositions de la
Déclaration Universelle des droits de l’Homme et aux instruments
régionaux et internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’Homme qui
lient la République Démocratique du Congo.

Adresses:

Monsieur le Président Laurent-Désiré Kabila. Présidence de la
République, Kinshasa-Ngaliema, République Démocratique du
Congo. Fax (+ 243) 880 02 120

- - Monsieur Mwenze Kongolo, Ministre de la Justice, Ministère de
la Justice, BP 3137, Kinshasa Gombé, République Démocratique
du Congo.

- - Monsieur Gaetan Kakudji, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministère de
l’Intérieur, Hôtel du Conseil exécutif, Kinshasa - Gombé,
République Démocratique du Congo.

- - L’ambassade de la République Démocratique du Congo dans
vos pays respectifs.

Genève - Paris, le 9 avril 1999

Merci de bien vouloir informer l’Observatoire de toutes actions
entreprises en indiquant le code de cet appel.
----------------------------------------
L’Observatoire, programme de la FIDH et de l’OMCT, a
vocation à protéger les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme
victimes de violations et à leur apporter une aide quotidienne aussi
concrète que possible.

Pour contacter l’Observatoire, appeler La Ligne d’Urgence:
Fax: 33 (0) 1 40 39 22 42

Tel.: FIDH 33 (0) 1 48 05 82 46 /OMCT: + 41 22 733 31 40
E-mail: observatoire@iprolink.ch

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

4. BURKINA-FASO : APPEL URGENT

From: "OMCT"
Organization: OMCT
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:26:20 +0200
X-Distribution: Moderate
Subject: L'Observatoire - BFA 002 / 9904 / OBS 022

APPEL URGENT - L'OBSERVATOIRE
BFA 002 / 9904 / OBS 022
Représailles
BURKINA FASO
le 8 avril 1998

L’Observatoire pour la Protection des Défenseurs des Droits de
l’Homme, programme conjoint de la FIDH et de l’OMCT, vous prie
d’intervenir d’urgence à propos de la situation suivante au Burkina Faso.

Brève description des faits:

L’Observatoire a reçu des informations de l’Union Interafricaine des
Droits de l’Homme (UIDH), selon lesquelles, le 31 mars dernier, le Conseil
des ministres du Burkina Faso a dénoncé l’accord de siège conclu entre
ce pays et cette organisation. L’UIDH, qui regroupe plus de 40
organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme en Afrique, est membre
observateur auprès de la Commission africaine des droits de l’Homme et
des peuples et détient le statut consultatif auprès du conseil économique
et social des Nations Unies. L’accord de siège avec les autorités
burkinabé avait été signé et était entré en vigueur le 21 septembre 1995.

Selon les termes de la décision, cette dénonciation serait fondée sur le
motif que “Monsieur Halidou Ouédraogo, Président de l’UIDH a, à
plusieurs reprises, posé des actes incompatibles avec le statut que
confère à l’UIDH cet accord de siègeî.

L’Observatoire rappelle que M. Ouédraogo est également président du
Mouvement Burkinabè des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples (MBDHP),
membre de la FIDH, de l’OMCT et de l’UIDH, et président du collectif de
45 organisations, créé à la suite de l’assassinat présumé du journaliste
Norbert Zongo, le 13 décembre 1998.

L’Observatoire a toutes les raisons de penser que cette décision est liée
aux activités en faveur du respect des droits de l’Homme et des libertés
fondamentales que M. Ouédraogo mène au Burkina Faso et qu’elle
participe du harcèlement dont il est l’objet (voir appel BFA 001 / 9901 /
OBS 001).

L’Observatoire considère que cette décision vise à entraver la libre
activité d’une organisation de défense des droits de l’Homme.

Actions demandées:

Merci d’écrire aux autorités du Burkina Faso et de leur demander de:

i. reconsidérer, dans les plus brefs délais, la décision de dénoncer
l’accord de siège conclu avec l’UIDH et garantir, en toutes
circonstances, les conditions nécessaires au libre exercice des
activités des organisations de promotion et de défense des
droits de l’Homme;

ii. prendre les mesures nécessaires, afin que M. Ouédraogo ne soit
l’objet d’aucune sorte de discrimination et de représailles en
raison de son activité en faveur des droits de l’Homme,
conformément à l’article 12 de la Déclaration sur les défenseurs
des droits de l’Homme, adoptée le 9 décembre 1998 lors de
l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies;

iii.se conformer, plus généralement, aux dispositions de la
Déclaration sur les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme et de la
Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme, ainsi qu’aux
dispositions des conventions internationales et régionales
ratifiées par le Burkina Faso.

Adresses

S.E. Blaise Compaoré, Président de la République, Présidence du Faso, 01
BP 24 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso. Fax: (+ 226) 31 05 78

Ministère des Affaires Etrangères du Burkina Faso, 03 BP 7038
Ouagadougou 03, Burkina Faso. Fax: (+ 226) 30 87 92

Ambassade du Burkina Faso dans vos pays respectifs.

Paris - Genève, le 8 avril 1999

Merci de bien vouloir informer l’Observatoire de toutes actions
entreprises en indiquant le code de cet appel.

L’Observatoire, programme de la FIDH et de l’OMCT, a vocation à
protéger les défenseurs des droits de l’Homme victimes de violations et à
leur apporter une aide aussi concrète que possible. L’Observatoire est
lauréat 1998 du prix des Droits de l’Homme de la République Française.

Pour contacter l’Observatoire, appeler La Ligne d’Urgence: Fax: 33 (0)
1 40 39 22 42
Tel FIDH 33 (0) 1 48 05 82 46 OMCT + 41 22 733 31 40
E-Mail : observatoire@iprolink.ch

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

5. SERBIE : JOURNALISTE ASSASSINƒ

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:06:03 +0200
To: balkans@orwell.bok.net
From: Le Courrier des Balkans

ANEM (Association des médias électroniques indépendants)
12 avril 1999 - Belgrade
(traduit par Emmanuelle Rivière)

L'ANEM dénonce le "lynchage public" de journalistes, et demande une enqute
sur la mort de l'un d'entre eux.

LE CELEBRE JOURNALISTE INDEPENDANT SLAVKO CURUVIJA ASSASSINE

L'Association des médias électroniques indépendants de Yougoslavie (ANEM)
exprime aujourd'hui son profond regret quant à l'assassinat, dans
l'après-midi du 11 avril, de M. Slavko Curujiva, propriétaire et rédacteur
en chef du célèbre journal yougoslave Dveni Telegraph et du magazine
bihebdomadaire Evropljanin, et condamne fermement cet acte.

Alors que le meurtre de M. Curujiva a servi à développer la peur au sein de
la communauté des journalistes de la République fédérale de Yougoslavie
(RFY), les circonstances qui entourent la mort de M. Curujiva ont également
fait naître un fort sentiment de panique parmi les citoyens de Yougoslavie.
De plus, la satanisation des
médias indépendants, et les accusations grotesques lancées contre ceux qui
travaillent pour ces médias indépendants reviennent à demander un lynchage
public des journalistes.

Il est remarquable que les publications de M. Curujiva ainsi que sa propre
personne forment depuis longtemps une des principales cibles de la campagne
de persécution lancée par l'Etat serbe derrière sa loi draconienne sur
l'information votée en octobre 1998.

Le 24 octobre 1998, seulement trois jours après l'entrée en vigueur de cette
loi, M. Curujiva et Evropljanin furent condamnés, par un tribunal de
Belgrade, à payer une amende atteignant 2.400.000 dinars, suivant les
réglementations concernant les délits votées par la loi sur l'information.

Le 9 novembre et le 9 décembre 1998, Dveni Telegraph fut condamné à une
amende d'un total de 1.650.000 dinars. Et comme si la faillite financière de
M. Curuvija ne suffisait pas, il fut condamné, avec deux de ses collègues, à
des peines de prison de cinq mois avec sursis le 8 mars 1999.

Quelques jours avant son assassinat, M. Curuvija avait été cité dans une
déclaration attaquant les "traîtres nationaux" faite par le quotidien
contrôlé par l'Etat Politika Expres. L'article faisait remarquer que M.
Curuvija avait "disparu de la circulation" depuis le début des frappes de
l'OTAN et que ses services en faveur de l'"agresseur [l'OTAN] ne seraient
jamais oubliés.

D'après l'ANEM, M. Curuvija s'était constamment opposé à l'intervention
militaire de l'OTAN en Yougoslavie, lors de toutes ses interventions
publiques, et avait plusieurs fois prévenu des conséquences fatales et de
long terme qu'engendrerait une telle action de l'OTAN. Son attitude était
restée inchangée après le début des bombardements de l'OTAN.
L'ANEM souhaite souligner que la mort de Slavko Curuvija a privé la Serbie
et la Yougoslavie d'un bon et loyal citoyen qui offrait ses capacités de
journalisme pour élargir les horizons de son pays et de son peuple.

L'ANEM exige que les agences responsables assignent les assassins de M.
Curuvija en justice dès que possible et qu'elles fassent tout ce qui est en
leur pouvoir pour éviter toute confrontation ou division parmi les gens de
leur pays.

Pour plus d'informations, contacter Veran Matic à l'ANEM,
Makedonska
22/V, 11000
Belgrade, République fédérale de Yougoslavie, tél: +381 11 322 91
09 /
324 85 77
/ 322 99 22, fax: +381 11 322 43 78 / 324 80 75

e-mail: matic@b92.opennet.org ; marija@opennet.org

www: http://www.b92.net
http://www.anem.opennet.org.

© Tous droits réservés Le Courrier des Balkans.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------
Le Courrier des Balkans
Banque de données sur la situation économique, politique et culturelle des
Balkans
Soutien aux médias démocratiques et aide à la formation des journalistes des
Balkans
Informez-vous :
http://bok.net/balkans/
balkans@bok.net
Tél/fax : 01-47-97-55-23

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

6. KOSOVE : ADRESSES UTILES DE SITES ET D'INITIATIVES D'INFORMATION ET DE
SOLIDARITƒ

BALKAN-LIST , lettre et liste d'information et de diffusion sur les Balkans :
http://www.ressources.org/Kosovo
http://pdef.citeweb.net/Kosovo
abonnements et désabonnements :
http://www.ressources.org/Kosovo/Edito.htm

Recueil de témoignages sur les réfugiés, par les équipes de Médecins du Monde :
http://www.medecinsdumonde.org/francais/htm/urgences/french/mdm500_1.htm

Roland POVINELLI, Maire d'Allauch (Bouches-du-Rhone), a créé une
coordination nationale des Maires "Solidarité Kosovo" destinée a encourager
tous les Maires de France à mettre en oeuvre et a coordonner ddes actions de
solidarité en faveur des réfugiés kosovars.
Contact : * Mairie d'Allauch
Téléphone : 04.91.10.48. 01
Télécopie : 04.91.05.08.78
E-Mail : info@allauch.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Pascal Holenweg, Genève (holenweg@vtx.ch)
"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards, ni
patience"
(René Char)

COMMISSION SOCIALISTE DE SOLIDARITƒ INTERNATIONALE
CP 343 CH-1211 Genève 4 Tel./Fax (22) 735.88.27
www.multimania.com/troubles/ www.home.ch/~spaw1265/
www.le-village.com/kiosque/Troubles/
Liste de débat et d'information :
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Forum-socialiste

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 09:30:32 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd: 16.4 Informations sur l'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

BULLETIN D'INFORMATIONS SUR L'ALGERIE
Commission Socialiste de Solidarité
Internationale
Genève, le 16 avril 1999

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Une liste de débat, d'informations
diverses,
d'expression
libre sur l'Algérie est ouverte à vos
messages

Pour y souscrire, rendez-vous sur :

http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/CSSI-Al
gerie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

POLITIQUE

(Corr, AFP, AP, ATS, Le Matin 15.4, 16.4). Selon les résultats officiels de
l'élection présidentielle, Abdelaziz Bouteflika a obtenu 73,79 % des
suffrages, Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi 13 %, Hocine A•t Ahmed 3,17 %, Mouloud
Hamrouche 3 %, alors que seul le premier était encore candidat et que les
partisans des autres ont déserté les urnes après l'annonce de leur retrait.

Le taux officiel de participation s'est élevé à plus de 60 % (65,25 % en
Algérie mme). Selon Mouloud Hamrouche, le taux réel devrait tout au plus
atteindre le tiers du taux officiel. Selon un membre du comité de soutien
du
FFS, à Alger, le taux de participation à s'élevait, à 17h00 heures à 28 % à
Tlemcen, fief d'Abdelaziz Bouteflika, et de 2 à 3 % à Tizi Ouzou, en
Kabylie, fief de Hocine A•t Ahmed (et du RCD). A la mme heure, lorsque le
taux officiel de participation atteignait 50,84 % en moyenne nationale,
Mouloud Hamrouche l'évaluait à moins de 20 % (et à un peu plus de 5 % dans
les deux wilayas de Kabylie). A Alger et Tamanrasset, les bureaux de vote
sont restée ouverts une heure de plus que prévu. Les journalistes étrangers
ont partout constaté une participation très basse.

La participation a été également très faible en France, l'abstention
atteignant probablement 70 %, mme si le taux de participation officieux
indiqué par les autorités algériennes se situait à 31,28 % deux heures
avant
la clôture du vote. A Genève, o votaient les Algériens de Suisse romande,
le taux de participation était de 26 % à la mi-journée et devait atteindre
officiellement 40 % à la fermeture du local de vote.

Djamel Zenati, directeur de campagne de A•t Ahmed, a déclaré : "Nous avons
contesté toutes les élections depuis 95. Cette fois-çi nous avions exigé
des
garanties du gouvernement qui ne se sont pas traduites sur le terrain. Or
nous n'avons pas l'intention de cautionner cette mascarade. Pendant la
campagne l'espoir était là, ce rendez-vous historique pouvait désarmorcer
la
dynamique de crise mais la dictature, la mafia au coeur
du système, a fait barrage à la volonté du peuple. Tout était en place pour
que Bouteflika, le candidat de la Mafia, passe, avec la collaboration des
médias et de la TV (...). Cette mascarade va faire basculer le pays dans le
chaos mais il est encore temps d'arrter tout ça et de faire l'économie de
nouvelles nuisances et de nouveaux massacres". Le FFS avait appelé à une
"marche pacifique" contre "la dictature" le 16 avril à 14h30 Place du1er
Mai. L'appel en faveur d'une "Algérie libre et démocratique" se conclut par
un "Non à la dictature". La marche a été interdite par les autorités. Des
rassemblements pourraient avoir lieu également à 14h30 à l'heure de la
sortie des fidèles des mosquées de la grande prière du vendredi.

Mouloud Hamrouche a récusé la "légitimité" de l'élection d'Abdelaziz
Bouteflika, qu'il a invité à "se retirer". Pour Mouloud Hamrouche, le
retrait des six candidats "marque un renforcement du mouvement démocratique
(...) une victoire morale et un échec d'une tentative de fraude". "Il
s'agit
d'un acte majeur dans la vie publique de notre pays. La démocratie est en
marche", estime l'ancien Premier ministre dans un entretien au "Figaro" du
16 avril.

Les six candidats d'opposition ont appelé le 15 avril leurs sympathisants à
"continuer le travail commun dans le calme". Dans un communiqué commun,
Hocine A•t Ahmed, Abdallah Djaballah, Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi, Mouloud
Hamrouche, Youssef El Khatib et Mokdad Sifi déclarent "se réserver le droit
de prendre toute initiative" en vue d'instaurer en Algérie une démocratie
véritable".

Les partisans d'Abdelaziz Bouteflika ont salué avec une certaine discretion
la victoire de leur candidat. Dans un entretien à la chaîne de télévision
française France-2, Abdelaziz Bouteflika a jugé "inexplicable" le retrait
de
ses six adversaires, et les accusé d'"absence totale de maturité" par
rapport "aux enjeux de la République". Le candidat élu a comparé l'élection
à "un combat de boxe qui se termine par le jet de l'éponge", et a affirmé
que s'il n'obtenait pas "un soutien franc et massif du peuple algérien",
c'est que celui-ci "doit tre heureux dans sa médiocrité" et que lui-mme
n'était "pas chargé de faire son bonheur malgré lui".

Le président de la Commission nationale indépendante de surveillance des
élections (CNISEP), M. Bedjaoui, a précisé que le président de la
République
ne pouvait pas annuler le scrutin avant que celui-ci se soit terminé, dès
lors que les six candidats qui se sont retirés l'ont fait après que les
opérations de vote aient commencé.

FRANCE-ALGƒRIE

(AP 13.4) Le procès de onze islamistes présumés, poursuivis sous
l'accusation d'avoir constitué un réseau de soutien aux GIA algériens,
démantelé en mars 1995 à Barcelone et Paris, a repris le 13 avril à Paris.
Il avait été suspendu en raison de l'absence de trois prévenus incarcérés à
l'étranger, et qui ont été transférés en France depuis l'Espagne (Mohammed
Ghebrit) et la Belgique (Abdelafel el Majda, Brahim ben Boudriah), o ils
étaient détenus sous la condamnation ou l'accusation de détention d'armes.
Les onze accusés du procès français le sont d'"association de malfaiteurs
en
relation avec une entreprise terroristes", et risquent jusqu'à dix ans de
prison.

ECONOMIE

(AFP 14.4) Le Secrétaire général de l'Association des Banques et
Etablissements financiers algériens, Abderrahmane Benkhalfa, a exprimé à
l'AFP son attente après l'élection présidentielle, de la venue
d'investisseurs étrangers "sous forme d'investissements directs ou de
partenariat" avec des Algériens. Il qualifie l'Algérie de "Brésil de l'an
2000" et considère que "le paysage politique s'est éclairci et (que) quel
que soit le candidat élu, (l'Algérie va) vers plus de stabilité, vers une
économie ouverte qui ne sera pas une économie de bazar, mais basée sur la
production". Le président de la Confédération algérienne du patronat (CAP),
qui soutient Abdelaziz Bouteflika "en raison de son audience
internationale", attend également beaucoup de l'élection présidentielle qui
amènera au pouvoir "un homme capable de gérer la situation et donner
confiance à l'étranger".

DROITS DE L'HOMME

(La Liberté, 13.4) Interrogé par le quotidien suisse "La Liberté", l'avocat
algérien Me Khelili déclare que la structure qu'il anime au sein de la
Ligue
algérienne des droits de l'Homme, "SOS disparus", a constitué 4000 dossiers
de disparitions transmis à la commission des droits de l'Homme de l'ONU,
qu'"il ne fait pas l'ombre d'un doute qu'il s'agit de personnes kidnappées
par les services de sécurité" et que "SOS-disparus" dispose des "preuves"
que "ce sont bien les services de sécurité qui les ont kidnappées, et
personne d'autre". Pour Me Khelili, la plupart des disparus sont vivants,
et
sont encore séquestrés. Il évalue à "au moins 28'000" le nombre des
"victimes de séquestration après rapt".

MEDIA

(Le Monde 15.4) "Le Monde" indique dans son édition datée du 15 avril que
la
demande de visa déposée par lui et celle déposée par le "Financial Times"
britannique sont restées sans réponse, malgré l'engagement réitéré des
autorités algériennes de ne plus s'opposer à l'entrée de journalistes
étrangers en Algérie.

(Corr 14.4) La chaîne de télévision internationale francophone TV5, qui
devait rediffuser mardi 13 et mercredi 14 un reportage de la télévision
suisse romande sur le massacre de Bentalha, l'a déprogrammé au dernier
moment. Ce reportage, qui mettait en cause les forces de sécurité
algériennes, devait tre diffusé la veille de l'élection présidentielle et
alors que se tient à Genève la 55ème session de la Commission des droits de
l'Homme de l'ONU.

(AP 14.4) L'hebdomadaire français "La Vie" accueille cette semaine les
journalistes de l'hebdomadaire algérien "La Nation", empché de paraître
depuis décembre 1996.

(El Watan 12.4) Un nouvel hebdomadaire est apparu dans les kiosques
algériens, "Algérie Hebdo", paraissant chaque mardi sous format tablo•d et
sur 24 pages.

SITES INTERNET

"Libération" : *L'ALGERIE REVIENT A L'ERE DU CANDIDAT UNIQUE
http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/semaine/990415jeua.html

ALGERIENS DE FRANCE: UN VOTE ECLATƒ
http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/semaine/990410sami.html

MOUVEMENT DE SOLIDARITƒ

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

AGENDA

voir aussi :

http://www.multimania.com/troubles/algerie.htm (informations générales)
http://www.multimania.com/troubles/violence.htm (archives de la violence)
http://www.multimania.com/troubles/droits.htm (archives des droits de
l'Homme)
http://www.multimania.com/troubles/ecosoc.htm (archives économiques et
sociales)
http://www.multimania.com/troubles/politiqu.htm (archives politiques)
http://www.multimania.com/troubles/ffs.htm (textes, documents et prises de
positions du Front des Forces Socialistes)

En cas de défaillance du serveur sur le site Multimania, nos pages sont
également atteignables sur les sites
http://www.home.ch/~spaw1265/
http://www.le-village.com/kiosque/Troubles

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Pascal Holenweg, Genève (holenweg@vtx.ch)
"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards, ni
patience"
(René Char)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 09:32:17 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd:_Réunion_École libre_(uni

La prochaine réunion de l'ecole libre/université populaire
vendredi 23 avril à 19h30, au 2305 ontario est (metro frontenac, chez
moi. Tous et toutes sont les bienvenues. Si vous ne le savez pas, nous
travaillont actuelement pour organiser une Université Populaire
autonome à Montreal.
a cause de la fin de session, c'est un peu compliquer d'avoir une
date qui est bonne pour tous et toutes. désolé pour ceux qui vont à
Philadelphie.
Si vous povez confirmé votre présense par E-mail ou tel. j'apprécirais
beaucoup.
themes de la réunion:
- -lieux possible pour les activités
- -première conférences
- -assemblée générale
et tout autre themes proposé

à bientot.
solidarité

Benoit 527-3664(strikenow@hotmail.com)

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
- ----------
Pour vous desabonner de la reception de ce message envoyez un courrier a
l'adresse macjordomo@alternatives-action.org
et contenant la ligne:
UNSUB liste-salami
dans le corps du message.
Pour vous abonner de nouveau ecrivez SUB au lieu de UNSUB.

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message to
macjordomo@alternatives-action.org
with the following line in the message body:
UNSUB liste-salami
If you change your mind, you can subscribe again by using SUB instead of
UNSUB.

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 09:33:47 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd: [enlacecivil-l] PRIISTAS

PRIISTAS AMENAZAN CON VIOLAR A MUJERES EN 20 DE NOVIEMBRE

POSIBLE NUEVA FARSA DE ENTREGA DE PASAMONTANHAS Y ARMAS

15 de Abril de 1999

A la sociedad civil nacional e internacional:

El dia 12 de abril, el senhor Francisco Mendez Jimenez de la comunidad 20
de
Noviembre fue secuestrado en Altamirano por los priistas Arturo Jimenez
Perez,
Armando Luna Alvarez, Enrique Perez Alvarez, Luis Lopez Vazquez, quienes lo
tienen ilegalmente encarcelado en la comunidad 20 de Noviembre.

El 24 de marzo pasado, estos cuatro priistas detuvieron ilegalmente a cinco
campesinos por ordenes del subsecretario de gobierno de Atencion Regional,
Romeo Suarez Culebro, y del Coordinador Politico Municipal, Raul Suarez.

Los campesinos detenidos, miembros del Partido del Trabajo, fueron
encarcelados
durante 6 dias y solo pudieron salir libres tras pagar en un plazo de una
semana 2 mil pesos cada uno, ademas de firmar que pasaban a ser miembros
del
partido oficial PRI.

Ahora han vuelto a secuestrar a uno de los mismos secuestrados del 24 de
marzo,
Francisco Mendez Jimenez, y han amenazado de muerte a otro de ellos,
Armando
Lopez Lopez, por lo que los hombres permanecen refugiados fuera de la
comunidad
por temor a otras agresiones.

Los priistas amenazan con violar a las mujeres que permanecen en 20 de
Noviembre, por lo que ellas hacen un llamado urgente a la sociedad civil
para
que denuncie estos hechos y acudan a acompanharlas y no tener que abandonar
sus
casas y desplazarse con sus hijos.

El municipio autonomo Miguel Hidalgo denuncia que el dia 10 de abril de
1999, a
las 13.00 horas, llegaron a la comunidad 20 de Noviembre 16 camionetas con
hombres vestidos de civil pero de apariencia militar y un helicoptero con
representantes del Gobierno del Estado, quienes se reunieron con los
priistas
citados y les prometieron que les van a las tierras que soliciten.

Los priistas han solicitado las tierras de La Mendoza y del Rancho El
Amular,
que es donde estan viviendo familias simpatizantes del EZLN, por lo que se
teme
que vaya a generarse muchos problemas.

El subsecretario de Gobierno de Atencion Regional, Suez Culebro,
acompanhado
por el presidente municipal de Las Margaritas, Martin Suarez, les dan
despensas
y apoyos a los priistas para que pidan las tierras que ahora ocupan las
familias zapatistas.

El municipio autonomo Miguel Hidalgo denuncia ademas que manhana dia 16 de
abril de 1999 el gobernador del Estado va a ir a la comunidad 20 de
Noviembre
para una falsa ceremonia de entrega de armas y pasamontanhas. No son
zapatistas
los que van a entregar armas sino miembros del PRI de la comunidad 20 de
Noviembre, encabezados por los priistas citados, quienes integran ya un
grupo
paramilitar.

El gobierno del estado busca el enfrentamiento y la violencia en las
comunidades indigenas.

Municipio Autonomo Miguel Hidalgo

Enlace Civil A.C.
C/ Ignacio Allende 4,
29200 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
tel y fax: 52- 967- 82104

http://www.enlacecivil.org.mx

Para borrarse de la lista:
Escribe un mensaje a majordomo@laneta.apc.org
Sin nada en el subject
Y en la primera linea del cuerpo del mensaje escribe:
unsuscribe enlacecivil-l

Para suscribirte, haz lo mismo, pero escribe:
suscribe enlacecivil-l

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 09:34:15 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd: [enlacecivil-l] FUERA EL

DENUNCIA DE TANIPERLA, MUNICIPIO AUTONOMO RICARDO FLORES MAGON

A LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL
A LOS REPRESENTANTES DE LA PRENSA LOCAL, NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL
A LAS ORGANIZACIONES SOCIALES

DR ERNESTO ZEDILLO PONCE DE LEON
PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

LIC. ROBERTO ALBORES GUILLEN
GOBERNADOR DEL ESTADO DE CHIAPAS

HERMANOS Y HERMANAS:

Siendo las 17:20 horas de la tarde del dia 8 de abril de 1999 nos reunimos
en una asamblea General ordinaria, todos los habitantes de Taniperla,
municipio de Ocosingo, estado de Chiapas, Mexico; ejidatarios de la primera
dotacion, senhoras y senhores, jovenes y senhoritas mayores de edad, en el
lugar acostumbrado.

En el lugar antes mencionado, nos reunimos en una asamblea con el
proposito de analizar y discutir todos los problemas que enfrenta la
comunidad despues de un anho aproximadamente el operativo militar-policiaco
llevado a cabo el 11 de abril de 1998; hemos tenido muchas inconformidades
de los problemas, que por su parte los priistas del grupo paramilitar
“MIRAî nos siguen oprimiendo con mas problemas, es entonces que se toma las
siguientes inconformidades:

1.-No estamos de acuerdo que los priistas
hacen la reparticion del campo de aviacion para dejar como mercado, ya que
como fundadores o ejidatarios de la primera dotacion y a la misma gente de
la comunidad, se dejo este campo por lo que vieron la necesidad muy
importante en el caso de trasladar alguna enfermedad y tener mas facilidad
o con mayor rapidez, ademas no la tenemos en nuestro conocimiento ni hemos
recibido alguna informacion, si no unicamente el grupo priista hacen esta
reparticion de igual manera recomendamos a los pilotos de las avionetas que
sigan aterrizando en el campo.

2.- No estamos de acuerdo que los senhores Alejandro Lopez Gomez,
Comisariado Ejidal, C. Geronimo Perez Mendez, Consejo de Vigilancia, Jose
Maldonado Hernandez, Agente Auxiliar Municipal, Carlos Maldonado y Manuel
Maldonado sin cargo alguno, Ejercito Mexicano, policia de Seguridad Publica
del Estado, juntamente con el grupo paramilitares MIRA quienes mismos
participaron el 11 de abril de 1998 y con 30 personas mas de la misma
comunidad de Taniperla; que el dia 27 del mes de marzo cercaron con alambre
el camino donde estan destacamentados los soldados, diciendo que ya no
permiten el paso de personas en esa zona para ir de sus trabajos como
agricultores del campo, pero la gente ya esta acostumbrada en caminar en el
dicho camino, pero el mismo dia los mismos mencionados hacen el corte de
tres hileras de alambre propiedad del senhor Martin Sanchez Gomez, ya que
sin la autorizacion de el no esta de acuerdo a que se abre este camino en
su parcela, por si los priistas quieren que se establezca el cuartel de
los ejercitos mejor que lo lleven a sus derechos menos en la propiedad
privada de los ejidatarios como dotacion, porque los de ampliacion la
tienen aparte el plano de sus derechos; ademas a los militares y la
Seguridad Publica a ellos organizan a la gente del PRI dandole malas ideas.

3.- El dia 28 de marzo de 1999, los priistas se reunieron en una asamblea
general hombres y mujeres para tratar asunto, donde trataron de destruir 10
habitaciones (casas) respaldandose con Seguridad Publica, pero como
Asamblea de la Primera Dotacion pensamos tambien de que ya no queremos mas
problemas con este grupo priista. Ademas estas 10 casas son de bases
zapatistas.

4.- No estamos de acuerdo que se establezca el cuartel del Ejercito
Nacional Mexicano en esta comunidad mucho mas en la parcela de un
ejidatario, ya que desde el dia 9 del mes de febrero de 1999, ocuparon
dicho terreno propiedad del senhor Miguel Sanchez Hernandez, donde
actualmente dicen los ejercitos ya lo tienen donado el terreno, que el
Gobierno Federal ha comprado el terreno y que tienen los papeles
correspondientes, ya que el no ha hecho la autorizacion ni ha recibido pago
alguno, ya que desde la ocupacion del terreno el senhor Sanchez Hernandez
anda rentando terrenos para sus animales y para su cultivo de maiz, frijol
y otros productos que lo necesita para el consumo de su familia. Razon por
la cual el duenho de la parcela y juntamente con los habitantes de
Taniperla tenemos la inconformidad sobre la construccion del Cuartel
Militar y a los priistas que ellos hacen lo que quieren hacer cometiendo
con mas problemas injustos.

5.-El dia 5 del mes de octubre de 1998, los priistas juntamente con los
elementos de la Seguridad Publica, llegaron a cortar 52 matas de cafe
pertenecientes al senhor Martin Sanchez Gomez y seis matas del senhor
Cristobal Gomez Gutierrez, sumandose un total de 58 matas todos cargados de
aromaticos causando danhos a este cultivo.

6.-En el anho de 1982, los mismo priistas dieron origen al problema
interno, desde hace ya 17 anhos aproximadamente, quienes actualmente
continuan con sus mismas ideologias, ya que nosotros no queremos mas
enfrentamientos entre indigenas, yo creo que es el momento de decir Basta
en la vida politica del PRI.

Despues de analizar todos estos problemas, la asamblea decidieron que ya no
volvamos a la misma situacion que hoy vivimos, a un si los priistas siguen
persiguiendo con mas problemas mejor que lo conozcan sus propios derechos,
finalmente acordamos exigir al gobierno federal el retiro de los soldados.

No habiendo otro asunto mas que tratar se dio por terminada de levantar la
presente acta de Inconformidad, a las 18.45 horas del mismo fecha y anho de
su inicio, firman quienes participaron en esta asamblea. Anexamos firmas.

Comisariado Ejidal
Consejo de Vigilancia
Agente Auxiliar Municipal
Municipio Autonomo Ricardo Flores Magon

(448 firmas y huellas dactilares de hombres y mujeres asistentes a la
Asamblea)

*************************
Enlace Civil A.C.
C/ Ignacio Allende 4,
29200 San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
tel y fax: 52- 967- 82104

http://www.enlacecivil.org.mx

Para borrarse de la lista:
Escribe un mensaje a majordomo@laneta.apc.org
Sin nada en el subject
Y en la primera linea del cuerpo del mensaje escribe:
unsuscribe enlacecivil-l

Para suscribirte, haz lo mismo, pero escribe:
suscribe enlacecivil-l

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 09:35:44 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd: (act-mtl-d) Michael Moor

Mike's Message Archive
http://www.michaelmoore.com
Dog Eat Dog Productions
http://www.dogeatdogfilms.com/

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:52:54 EDT
Send reply to: TVNatFans@aol.com
From: TVNatFans@aol.com
Subject: Mike's Message of the Day
To: MICHAELMOORE@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

The Bombing of Kosovo

4/15/99

Dear friends,

As we file our taxes today (procrastinators, all of
us), and we sign our names on the bottom line of
our 1040 tax forms, perhaps we should ask
ourselves if what we are doing is signing a death
warrant for people we don't even know. Because
each night, for the past three weeks, millions of
dollars of bombs and missiles -- that you and I
paid for -- are being used to kill people in the
former Yugoslavia. That makes you and I
culpable in their execution.

Did you personally know any of the people who
were killed in the village of Pristina (capitol of
Kosovo) last week? Had they ever done anything
to harm you? How about the children who were
blown to bits in the building in Prizren? Had they
ever threatened you in any way to cause you to
have to kill them in self-defense? Perhaps you
had met the people who were incinerated by us
on the train to Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Can you
tell me why you would want to take their
lives?

I'm sorry to personalize it in this way, but this
slaughter is being conducted in your name and
mine, and I'll tell you, this is blood I don't want on
my hands. We will all have to answer for this
some day, and Iwould like to be able to say that
I did not sit by silently while this wasbeing done,
and that I did whatever I could to stop it as soon
as possible.

Right about now, some of you, with all good
intentions, are saying, "But, Mike, this Milosevic
guy is a madman. He's committing genocide.
We should not ignore this as we did the
Holocaust in the early days of World War II.
He must be stopped by any means necessary."

Yes, he must be stopped. But bombing the
people of his country is exactly the wrong way to
stop him. In fact, it has only strengthened him.
There was a growing dissident movement in
Yugoslavia before the war, and every letter I
get from these brave souls tells me that the
bombing has set back their struggle so incredibly
far that they worry they will now be stuck with
Milosevic for a long time. They are pleading
with us to stop it. The bombing has made him a
hero at a time when nearly half of the country
was very unhappy with his leadership. We did
not consult the anti-Milosevic movement in
advance to see if they would like our help in
the form of 10,000 bombing sorties. We just
went off half-cocked on our own, and started
killing the very people we were claiming to save.
Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows that
sordid logic and insanity. We have strengthened
Milosevic and destroyed his opposition. Happy
now?

Friends, Milosevic must be stopped, BUT
BOMBING DOES NOT WORK. It has never
worked. It didn't work in Iraq -- Sadaam is still in
charge no matter how many bombs we have
dropped. It didn't work in Vietnam. During the
Christmas week of 1972, the amount of bombs
we dropped on North Vietnam was equal to half
the tonnage of bombs dropped on England during
World War II.That didn't work, so one month later,
we gave in and announced our complete pull-out.

What a sad, pathetic man Bill Clinton is. Though
many have criticized him for dodging the draft, I
actually admired the fact that he refused to go and
kill Vietnamese. Not all of us from the working
class had that luxury, and tens of thousands of
our brothers died for absolutely no damn reason.
For this "anti-war" President to order such a
misguided, ruthless -- and, yes, cowardly --
attack from the air is a disappointment of massive
proportions.

Bombing didn't work for either side in World War II.
Hitler bombed Britain mercilessly for years, but it
didn't work. Our bombing did nothing to save the
lives of 6 million Jews, 4 million Catholics, Gypsies
and other "undesirables," and 20 million Russians.
Our bombs couldn't even take out one German
machine-gun on top of the cliffs overlooking the
beaches of Normandy. World War II was won
because my father and uncles and your fathers
and grandfathers risked their lives pouring out of
amphibious carriers like sitting ducks on a beach,
crawling through the dead bodies of their friends
and fellow soldiers, and climbing up those cliffs
in France and Italy and the South Pacific. Over a
quarter of a million of them, including my uncle,
died doing this.

And that, my friends, as some are known to say,
is the awful truth. If genocide is really taking place,
the only way to stop it militarily is to send our
children in there and accept the fact that thousands
upon thousands of them will be killed. Are you
willing to do that? Or better yet, this is the question
I always ask myself when confronted with whether
or not Ishould ever support a war: Do I believe
strongly enough in this cause that I MYSELF
would be willing to risk my life to go over there
and square it with my conscience to kill
Yugoslavians.

I have a feeling I know the answer most of you
would give. We know Clinton is lying to us. We
know there is no "Holocaust" taking place. What
IS happening is that two groups of people are
carrying on their centuries-old mission to
annihilate each other. The Kosovo Liberation
Army announced their intentions to rid Kosovo
of all Serbs (the Albanians are the majority in
Kosovo, the Serbs, a minority). That's all a
nutcase like Milosevic needed to justify his
campaign to rid Kosovo of all Albanians. This
is true madness and a lot of innocent people
are losing their lives in the process.

So here's my solution:

1) Stop the bombing immediately.

2) Get the Russians, whom the Serbs trust, in there
to be the peacekeepers and help resolved the situation.
No American or NATO forces on Kosovo soil.
Russia can do this in spite of the wanker in charge,
Mr. Yeltsin. The Serbs will let them in. Let's get them
on board instead of alienating the Russians even
further.
3) Let the Orthodox Church play a major role in
bringing about the peace. The Serbs are mostly
Orthodox and a strong move by its Patriarch could
do a lot to ending all the bloodshed.

Look, I'm not an expert on any of this. I'm mostly
busy getting my show on the air each week. But
as I sign my 1040 today, I must admit that I am
partly responsible, as an American citizen who
pays his taxes, for this war and I must encourage
whoever I can to join me in demanding an
end to this now.

Last fall, many of us participated in an incredible
act of protest by throwing a bunch of right-wingers
out of Congress. We believed that they were
trying to overturn an election on the basis of
someone's private sexual life and his lies about
it. We won, and the Republicans are now
chopped liver. Good riddance.

Now, it is time for all of us to stop Clinton and
his disgusting, hypocritical fellow democrats
who support him in this war. It is amazing to
watch all these "liberal" congress members
line up behind the President. In a way, I'm glad
it's happening, if only to show the American
people there is little difference between the
Democrats and the usually war-loving
Republicans. Aren't you getting a kick watching
the Pat Buchanans and the Henry Hydes sounding
like pacifists! These politicians can change stripes
at the drop of a hat (or bomb) because, ultimately,
they are the same animal, participants in a one-party
system that tries to fool the people by going by
two names ("Democrat" and "Republican").

Please call or write your member of Congress,
send a letter to the editor, let the Democrats know
we have had it with the whole lot of them. This
is OUR country, not theirs and the corporate
interests they really represent. It's time to start
taking it back.

Each cruise missile that is launched could have
built a dozen schools or hired another hundred
teachers or provided health care to a thousand
people. Those millions of dollars could have
been spent saving lives and educating children.
Every night, Clinton isn't just bombing Yugoslavia,
he's bombing you.

Yours,

Michael Moore

MMFlint@aol.com

http://www.michaelmoore.com HREF="http://www.theawfultruth.com">http://www.theawfultruth.com

THIS JUST IN - BREAKING NEWS forwarded from
http://www.transnational.org
E-mail: tff@transnational.org

White House - "President Clinton announced
today an all out bombing offensive against
England will begin in two weeks, unless a peace
accord is ratifiedby England and its break-away
province of Northern Ireland.

"Using the fine logic we crafted in the Kosovo
intervention, we have decided to add, incrementally,
to the list of peace initiatives around the world,"
he said in a prepared statement. A background
briefing indicated that on a weekly schedule, the
Clinton administration would intervene in the following
areas:

Week 1 - Bombing of England to free Northern Ireland
Week 2 - Bombing of Ankara, Baghdad and
Teheran to free Kurds.
Week 3 - Bombing of Africa to stop Hutus from
killing Tutsis.
Week 4 - Bombing of Istanbul and Athens to fix
the Cyprus problem
Week 5 - Bombing of Madrid to free the Basque
Country.
Week 6 - Bombing of Ottawa to free the
Quebecois.
Week 7 - Bombing of Jakarta to free the
Timor Islands
Week 8 - Bombing of New Delhi to free the
Tamils of Sri Lanka
Week 9 - Bombing of Paris to free Corsica
Week 10 Bombing of Washington, D.C. to free
he Confederate of Southern States, held captive
for 139 years.

"This schedule will do until we can come up with
others and NATO peacekeepers will be deployed
everywhere," said Madeleine Albright, Secretary of
State. She did not respond when asked when the
bombing of Beijing in order to free Tibet would occur.

- --http://www.transnational.org

Mike's Message Archive

>:-) Message Ends; Signature Begins; George(s) Lessard (-:
Community Media Arts, Management & Mentoring
A brief Survey, contact info, subscriptions,
public keyword searchable archives and
CAUTIONS, Disclaimers, NOTES TO EDITORS & (c) information may
be found @ http://members.tripod.com/~media002/disclaimer.htm
- 30 -
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
research education action
Q u e b e c P u b l i c I n t e r e s t R e s e a r c h G r o u p
at Concordia University
- --------------------- http://concordia.pirg.ca/ ----------------------

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 11:58:16 -0400
From: m205526@er.uqam.ca
Subject: réfugieEs : manif 13h00

MANIFESTATION DE SOLIDARITƒ AVEC LES RƒFUGIƒ-E-S EXPULSƒS
DE L'ƒGLISE ADVENT PAR LE PRæTRE

VENDREDI 16 AVRIL
13H00

RASSEMBLEMENT POUR LA MARCHE: EN FACE DE L'ƒGLISE ADVENT, 4119 MAISONNEUVE
OUEST, MƒTRO ATWATER (SORTIE WESTMOUNT SQUARE).

Jeudi le 15 avril, le prtre de l'église Advent, Robert Warren, a demandé et
obtenu l'intervention de la police pour qu'elle expulse les réfugié-e-s
chiliens (trois adultes et trois enfants) de son église, sachant que cela
pouvait entraîner leur déportation vers le Chili, o leur vie est en danger.
Les réfugié-e-s ont été forcés de retourner à la clandestinité après avoir
lancé un appel aux prtres et églises progressistes pour que le sanctuaire
leur soit accordé à un autre endroit. C'est la première fois en quinze ans
au Canada qu'un prtre viole la tradition du sanctuaire et fait appel à la
police pour une expulsion.
_____________________

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 15:17:21 -0400
From: Association des locataires de Villeray
Subject: action au bureau de Robillard pour réfugiés

Communiqué de presse. Pour publication immédiate

En soutien aux réfugié-e-s expulsé-e-s de l'église Advent
Action menée au bureau de comté de Lucienne Robillard
Montréal, le 16 avril 1999. Depuis cet après-midi, une cinquantaine de
personnes mènent une action au bureau de comté de Lucienne Robillard,
Ministre fédérale de l'Immigration. Ce bureau est situé à Montréal au 2360
Notre-Dame ouest (suite 300). Ces personnes sont solidaires des six
réfugié-e-s politiques qui ont été expulsé-e-s hier matin de l'église
Advent et appuient leurs revendications. Ces revendications sont:
- - que Lucienne Robillard donne immédiatement suite aux demandes des
réfugié-e-s qui étaient en sanctuaire dans l'église Advent et leur délivre
un Çpermis ministérielÈ pour cinq ans;
- - qu'elle institue une enqute indépendante sur le traitement réservé aux
demandeurs et demandeuses du statut de réfugié par la CISR dans les plus
brefs délais ;
- - que toutes les déportations de personnes à qui la CISR a refusé le statut
de réfugié soient suspendues.
Les réfugié-e-s expulsé-e-s de l'église Advent qui sont retourné-e-s dans
la clandestinité et leurs supporteurs pousuivent leur lutte afin que
Francisco Muñoz, Jorge Mondaca, Jessica Chappa, ƒlisabeth Mondaca-Chappa,
Camila Mondaca-Chappa et Constanza Mondaca-Chappa obtiennent justice et que
le fonctionnement du Ministère de l'immigration s'améliore.
- -30-
Source: 201-3058 (pagette)

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 17:19:15 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd: (act-mtl-d) US advocates

Sorry, I don't have the URL but it should be locatable.
I got it via MAI-NOT@FLORA.ORG and will not editorialize.
- --Judyth

========================
USIS Washington File: TEXT: U.S. MISSION TO U.N. 4/12 PRESS RELEASE

*EUR116 04/12/99
TEXT: U.S. MISSION TO U.N. 4/12 PRESS RELEASE
(U.S. Proposes Resolution on the Right to Democracy) (470)

Geneva -- The United States urges the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to
adopt a new resolution on the right to democracy, the U.S. Mission to the
United Nations announced April 12.

The U.S. Mission said in a news release that the resolution "affirms the
right of everyone to democratic governance."

Following is the text of the news release:

(Begin text)

U.S. Mission to the United Nations
April 12, 1999

The United States is urging the 55th United Nations Commission on Human
Rights to affirm the entitlement of all people to democratic government by
adopting a new resolution on the right to democracy.

"What we have learned is that governments that are truly democratic offer
their citizens the best assurance of respect for basic human rights and
the best opportunities to improve their lives," said Frank Loy, U.S. under
secretary of state for global affairs, in an April 12 address to the
commission.

He noted that the Commission on Human Rights has "not spoken directly to
the issue of promoting the right to democracy for many years."

"Let this commission, then, be the one which is remembered for the bold
and vigorous manner with which we embraced the universal human right to
democratic governance."

The resolution on the "Promotion of the Right to Democracy" prepared by
the United States underscores the well-established link between genuine
democracy and the protection and promotion of all human rights. A draft
text of the resolution is currently being circulated among participants in
the commission.

The resolution recalls the "indissoluble links between the principles
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the foundation
of any democratic society."

It states that "democracy, development and respect for all human rights
and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and
that democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to
determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and
their full participation in all aspects of their lives."

It affirms the "right of everyone to democratic governance," including
freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of the press, the right to
transparent and accountable government institutions, the right to
application of the rule of law, universal and equal suffrage, genuine
political participation, equal access to public service, and the right of
citizens to change their government system through constitutional or other
democratic means.

The resolution asks the United Nations to expand its activities in the
promotion and consolidation of democracy and requests the Office of the
High Commissioner to "give priority to assistance for programs and
projects promoting democracy."

The United States hopes that the commission will adopt the resolution by
consensus on April 23.

==========

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. ***
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
research education action
Q u e b e c P u b l i c I n t e r e s t R e s e a r c h G r o u p
at Concordia University
- --------------------- http://concordia.pirg.ca/ ----------------------

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 17:24:44 -0400
From: "Jean-Guy_Aubé"
Subject: Fwd: (act-mtl-d) info on the

FYI

A Q/A initiated by Mother Jones Magazine
also available on their web site but made available here in a
simpler format and without adsŠ

QUESTION ONE--- 1. Tactics aside, was it right for NATO to
intervene in the Kosovo conflict? In other words, is this mission
a moral imperative? Did NATO have any options left aside from the
use of force?

DIANA JOHNSTONE

The question is strangely put. Of course NATO had no option but
force. It is a military organization. The only language it knows
or understands is force. The assumption underlying the question is
that Kosovo was NATO's problem, that NATO had to do SOMETHING
about Kosovo. This assumption is totally false and far-fetched.
NATO's moral imperative was to stay the hell out. Bringing in
NATO has escalated the Kosovo conflict into a full-scale human,
moral and world political catastrophe. As for various foreign
political leaders, notably the Clinton administration, they indeed
had plenty of options left. They could have tried negotiations.
Yes, negotiations. Because that option was not tried.

The "Rambouillet talks" were a charade built on months and years
of lies. For years, various Serbs in and out of government have
suggested compromise solutions for the very difficult Kosovo
problem. Nobody in the U.S. or the E.U. has shown any interest.
For months, Belgrade was ready to negotiate but ethnic Albanian
leaders refused on one pretext or another. The main reason for
ethnic Albanian intransigence was the assurances they had, or at
least THOUGHT they had (and with good reason), that the United
States and NATO would get them what they wanted: independent
Kosovo. All they had to do was mount armed attacks on Serbian
police and Kosovo civilians (including ethnic Albanians) as
provocations. When the Serbian police reacted, or overreacted,
presto, the U.S. would send NATO to be their air force. Victory
and huge Western investments would follow. So there were no
negotiations. At Rambouillet, Serbian president Milan Milutinovic
and his (multi-ethnic) delegation were presented with an
ultimatum: accept Chris Hill's "peace agreement" allowing NATO to
take over Kosovo on terms that could only be totally unacceptable
to any sovereign government OR ELSE. Kosovo's "self-government"
was to be run by a NATO imperial proconsul, with the title of
CHief of theh OSCE/EU Implementation Mission, or CIM. The CIM
would have authority over virtually everything and everybody.
Kosovo would be occupied by a NATO force called "KFOR" headed by a
Commander, COMKFOR, who could do whatever he wanted to counter any
"potential threat", whose forces could be augmented indefinitelly
(no ceiling), who would have full control of airspace over Kosovo
and beyond, who would be above local law, and would have free
access to the rest of Yugoslavia -- a license to invade the rest
of the country. Serbia, a small country that has braved mighty
empires more than once, that rejected a rather milder Habsburg
ultimatum in 1914, that defied Hitler in 1941, could not possibly
be expected to turn itself over to the likes of CIM and COMKFOR.
The ethnic Albanians did much like the Hill document either. They
probably wanted NATO to get Kosovo for ethnic Albanians, not for
itself. They had to be openly coaxed into signing by the promise
that only if they signed, NATO would be able to start bombing
Serbia. And this is called a "peace agreement"? It was a war
agreement between NATO and the armed Albanians in the KLA.

Incidentally, according to Article 52 of the Vienna Treaties
Convention, treaties are not binding if obtained by threat or use
of force. The whole Clinton administration "sign or we'll bomb
you" performance has been in violation of international law. The
Yugoslavs were ready to make huge political sacrifices, but not to
welcome NATO. NATO was the sticking point. A United Nations
peacekeeping force might well have been acceptable. However, the
Clinton administration insisted on NATO or nothing. In short, the
interests of Kosovo, the interests of world peace, were sacrificed
to U.S. ambitions for NATO. Yugoslavs, and not only Yugoslavs but
probably a majority of people east of NATO, were convinced that
the Clinton administration was exploiting the very old and complex
conflict between Serbs and Albanians on behalf of NATO. For NATO
had its own problem: to display its capacity for a "new mission"
after the collapse of the "Soviet threat". It needed a raison
d'etre. The new NATO is to be a global intervention force, to be
used to defend the interests of its rich member states anywhere in
the world. Of course, these interests will not be explained to the
public, oh no. For public consumption, NATO intervention will
always be motivated by compelling "humanitarian" reasons. NATO
will rush in with cruise missiles and stealth bombers to avert
"humanitarian crisis". Meanwhile, Kosovo provides a proving
ground, supposed to produce marvelous results just in time for
NATO's 50th anniversary celebrations. The results so far don't
look so marvelous, but that's NATO's new problem. I am ready to
expand considerably on any of the statements made above. Next
question

______________________________________________

__________________________________
Back to ZNet Kosovo/NATO Contents
Back to ZNet Top Page

The Kosovo/NATO Conflict:
Questions and Answers

By Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom

1. What are the roots of the Kosovo conflict?

Ethnic Serbs and Albanians give extended historical
arguments going back as far as 1389 or 1912 or World War
II. The basic issue is that the Kosovo province of
Serbia (called Kosova in Albanian) has a large majority
-- as much as 90 percent -- of ethnic Albanians with a
roughly 10 percent Serbian minority. The Kosovo
Albanians, however, are only about 16 percent of
Serbia's total population. The Kosovo Albanians claim to
be an oppressed minority within Serbia and want
self-determination. The Kosovo Serbs claim to be an
oppressed minority within Kosovo, and want protection
from the Albanians. For Serbs, Kosovo, particularly in
the north, is the site of many historical events and
locales, their Jerusalem and Alamo rolled into one.

Yugoslavia consisted of 6 republics (Serbia, Slovenia,
Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina)
and in 1974 Tito gave autonomous status to two provinces
of Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodina. Kosovo autonomy allowed
its ethnic Albanians to develop their own institutions,
but angered Serbian nationalists. The Yugoslav League of
Communists (LCY) under Tito and after his death in 1980,
suppressed nationalist ideology and political dissent.

In 1987, however, Slobodan Milosevic used anger over
Kosovo to take control of the Serbian branch of the LCY.
The previous leaders, Milosevic charged, had appeased
the Albanians and failed to defend Serb interests. In
1989, Milosevic revoked Kosovo's autonomy, encouraging
forcible Serb repression of the Albanian majority ever
since. Most Albanian Kosovars now want complete
independence.

2. What is the KLA?

The Albanian Kosovars fought Serb control in 1989 by
non-violent resistance: they elected their own leaders,
refused to cooperate with the Serb authorities, and
established their own counter-institutions. Their
"president" was Ibrahim Rugova, a follower of Gandhi,
who urged his people to reject violence while working
toward independence. Serbian repression in Kosovo since
1989 didn't attract much concern from Washington. In
1995, when the United States sponsored talks in Dayton,
Ohio to end the fighting in Bosnia, Milosevic was feted
as the key to peace and Rugova was excluded from the
conference. Thereafter repression increased in Kosovo
and Rugova had little to show for his non-violent
approach.

In 1996, an obscure organization appeared on the scene,
the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA, or UCK in Albanian),
committed to armed struggle. They undertook some
ineffectual attacks on police stations and sometimes
Serb civilians, including Serbian refugees from the
Yugoslav wars whom many Albanians viewed as colonizers
intended to shift the demographic balance. In early
1998, Serbian special police assaulted three villages,
killing more than eighty people, at least seventeen
after they had been detained or surrendered. This attack
drove thousands of Albanians into the KLA, and though
still called terrorists by the Serbian authorities, they
became a serious guerrilla army, with mass support. Over
the next months the KLA took control of roughly 40
percent of Kosovo's territory. By late summer, however,
Serbian forces retook most of the territory, their major
tactic being to crush civilian support for the rebels by
systematically destroyed towns and villages and forcing
thousands of people to flee.

It is difficult to tell the KLA attitude toward Serb
civilians. Human rights groups have accused them of
serious human rights violations, including compelling
Serb villagers to leave their homes, with some killings,
though not approaching the scale of atrocities committed
by Serbian forces. The KLA claims not to target
civilians, while acknowledging that abuses are committed
by fighters in the field.

3. Why does everyone talk about the conflict spreading?

Massive refugee flows have the potential to destabilize
many surrounding countries where there is a delicate
ethnic balance. In Macedonia, for example, commentators
fear that Albanian immigration would provoke the
Albanian minority to secede or would even make it a
majority, which the Macedonian majority is determined to
prevent. And having hundreds of thousands of Albanians
living in refugee camps brings visions of the
Palestinians, with all the instability their plight has
caused the Middle East. In addition, Albania has warned
that it will not sit idly by if its compatriots across
the border are slaughtered, and Serbia has made
incursions into Albania to prevent the flow of weapons
and recruits to the KLA. Finally, Turkey and Greece,
long-time enemies, and Bulgaria as well might get
involved. (Of course, it is a little odd for NATO to
launch a war in order to prevent two NATO members
--Turkey and Greece -- from going at each other.)

4. Is the U.S. motivated by humanitarianism in the Balkans?

No. But how do we prove such a claim? Suppose the U.S.
is motivated to wage war and drop bombs in this instance
by humanitarian concerns. If so, that would mean that
concern for the plight of oppressed minorities and
populations ranked very high in U.S. policy-making
calculations. We would then expect, it follows, that in
any case where large populations are suffering horrible
repression Washington would try to intervene to stop the
repression.

Now consider the reverse claim that U.S. foreign policy
is never motivated by concern for the well being of
local constituencies but will only opportunistically use
related rhetoric for rationalization purposes when
possible. If this were true, in contrast, we would
expect that the U.S. would intervene in the affairs of
other countries only to serve domestic elites in the
U.S. or to aid local elites in other countries on behalf
of U.S. elites, or perhaps to influence or enhance
policies undertaken by other countries thought to
benefit U.S. government and elite interests -- but with
the human costs to victims playing virtually no role in
the calculations.

Now look at the evidence.

* Before World War II, for example, the United States
could have admitted many Jews fleeing from Hitler's
Europe; it did not.
* During World War II, the United States could have
bombed the death camp at Auschwitz, slowing down
the Nazi killing machine; it did not.
* When hundreds of thousands of people were
slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965; the killers were
cheered on by the U.S. government who even provided
lists of communists to exterminate.
* When the Pakistani army began slaughtering and
raping hundreds of thousands of Bengalis in 1971,
sending millions into exile, U.S. policy was to (in
Kissinger's words) "tilt in favor of Pakistan."
* When Indonesia invaded East Timor, leading to the
deaths of one third of the population, it received
weapons and diplomatic support from Washington.
Just this past week, White House press secretary
Joe Lockhart was asked whether the United States
supported independence for East Timor. "Not that I
am aware of," he replied.
* When the Khmer Rouge was responsible for monstrous
killings in Cambodia, the United States encouraged
China to aid the Khmer Rouge and provided covert
aid of its own.
* When the government of Guatemala killed 200,000
people in the 1980s, it was with United States aid
and encouragement.
* When upwards of half a million people, mostly
members of the Tutsi ethnic minority, were
exterminated in Rwanda in 1994, the Clinton
administration demanded that a UN force already on
the scene be reduced and obstructed efforts to save
lives, even failing to apply diplomatic pressure
against the killers.

Investigation of all these cases and many more -- the
Turkish treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example --
reveals a consistent pattern which has nothing to do
with concerns for repressed populations and everything
to do with calculations of U.S. elite and geo-political
interests. In every case policy would have been roughly
opposite to what took place, if there had been
humanitarian concerns. There weren't, and there aren't.

5. So why is NATO now bombing in the Balkans?

Just as killings by the (U.S.-trained) junta in Haiti
did not concern U.S. policymakers until large numbers of
refugees started fleeing to the United States, so too
human rights abuses in Kosovo did not concern U.S.
policymakers as long as they didn't threaten regional
stability. But as the fighting in Kosovo escalated, with
large numbers of displaced Albanian refugees, U.S.
officials decided they needed to curb the problem--not
to aid locally affected people, but to prevent losses to
U.S. interests due to the conflict spreading into other
parts of Europe.

In February and March at Rambouillet in France, the
United States and its European allies invited the
Albanian Kosovars and the Milosevic government to sign
an agreement that provided for the withdrawal of Serbian
security forces from Kosovo, the disarming of the KLA,
autonomy for Kosovo, a NATO peacekeeping force, and
follow-up final-status negotiations after three years.
Milosevic said he was unwilling to accept foreign troops
on his territory. NATO said it would bomb him if the
Albanians signed and he didn't. (Compare this with U.S.
mediation efforts in Northern Ireland where threatening
to bomb a recalcitrant party was not part of the
equation.) The Albanians reluctantly accepted the
Rambouillet agreement and Milosevic refused.

Now the primary NATO goal became maintaining its
credibility. The Clinton administration had invested
heavily in expanding NATO, to make it a primary
instrument of U.S. policy not only in Europe, but
beyond. There is an elementary point of big power
politics that no one denies: threats made need to be
carried out if the credibility of future threats are to
be maintained. And, likewise, threats carried out but
not yielding total victory need to be escalated until
the adversary is crushed.

So why make the initial threat to bomb? There is a
predisposition in Washington to favor military
solutions. A diplomatic approach would have strengthened
the UN and international law and made Russia a player,
all of which would interfere with U.S. freedom of
action. Bombing, on the other hand, leads with the U.S.
strong suit. It provides a rationale for U.S. domestic
military spending, and an international arms bazaar. It
tells the world that the U.S. response to problems with
other nations is to bomb them. "What good is this
marvelous military force," Albright asked Gen. Colin
Powell a few years back, "if we can never use it?"

6. What effects do the bombings have?

In preparation for the bombing, relief workers (who
might have continued to mitigate the suffering) and
international observers (who might have continued to
discourage the most blatant atrocities) were pulled out
of Kosovo. The NATO bombing then provoked a horrific
outburst of ethnic cleansing by Serbian forces as
hundreds of thousands of Albanian Kosovars were driven
from their homes. Because all reporters and
international observers had left Kosovo, we do not know
the human toll of Serb actions, but it surely
considerably exceeds the toll for the previous year,
during which some 2,000 ethnic Albanian civilians had
been killed and about 250,000 ethnic Albanians had
become refugees, most of them within Kosovo.

Even without the bombing, a Serbian offensive was likely
imminent, but it is hard to believe it would have been
as ferocious as what has occurred. The bombing incensed
many even in Serbia's democratic movement, so one can
only imagine how it must have affected Serb security
forces in Kosovo. Unable to retaliate against NATO
missiles and warplanes, they could be expected to lash
out at those most vulnerable, ethnic Albanian civilians.
Of course, none of this mitigates the responsibility for
the atrocities on the part of those who carried them
out. But if someone is holding a person hostage and you
recklessly charge forward, leading to the death of the
hostage, you also bear some responsibility -- all the
more so if you rush in not out of true concern for the
hostage, but for other reasons entirely. Many U.S.
officials have acknowledged that they thought the
bombing might well lead to a paroxysm of violence from
Milosevic and that air power, the NATO tool of choice,
could do nothing to stop that violence in the short run.

Bombing, of course, has had other implications as well.
Within Yugoslavia the population has rallied to its
leader, Milosevic. The democratic opposition, previously
challenging Milosevic, now appears to be either
dismantled, jailed, or, most chillingly, supporting him.
As Zorin Djindjic, the leader of Serbia's Democratic
Party and an organizer of pro-democracy demonstrations
in 1996-97 put it, the "bombs have marginalized any
dissenters here." Washington, he said bitterly, has
spent more on one day's bombs than it ever spent helping
the democracy movement in Yugoslavia. Montenegro, the
smaller of the two Yugoslav republics, had previously
passed a resolution questioning Milosevic's Kosovo
policy, but the bombing has quieted its opposition as
well. These results were predictable. And the level of
hostility and tension in the whole region has climbed
dramatically, making negotiations and a lasting peace,
eventually obviously required, that much more difficult.

And then there is the horrible loss of life and means of
sustaining life that mounts with each new raid of
Belgrade and Yugoslavia as a whole. Bombing has a deadly
logic of its own. What begins as "surgical" attacks
inevitably expands. "We have to drop the bridges and
turn out the lights -- there should be no more outdoor
rock concerts in downtown Belgrade," Sen. John McCain
told Newsweek. "Twelve days of surgical bombing was
never going to turn Serbia around," wrote New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman. "Let's see what 12 weeks of
less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance."

7. But even if badly motivated, and even if they have some bad
effects, won't the bombings at least restrain Milosevic?

Restrain him from what? The idea that doing something
necessarily improves a situation is, of course, quite
false. Some things may be beneficial. Others not. Yes,
even an ill-motivated action can sometimes have a
desirable effect and therefore deserve support, but in
this case the bombing is not only ill-motivated, its
effects are horribly detrimental as well. It has
worsened the plight of the Albanian Kosovars, vastly
increasing the flow of refugees and, due to the scale,
created a catastrophe of the first order. It has
diminished the internal opposition to Milosevic, and if
reports are accurate perhaps destroyed it. It has
undermined the UN, turned NATO into an offensive,
interventionary institution, played havoc with
international law, and further projected the U.S. as a
country eager and willing to punish any deviations it
discerns from its will with bombs, thus acting as a
threat against countries throughout the world. All these
effects are horribly negative and then there is the
devastation of Yugoslavia itself, the immediate
expansion of deaths and casualties, and the future
expansion due to the wrecking of a country's
infrastructure.

The remarkable thing is that there is little dispute
about the above. Yes, our formulation has a moral tone
that many others lack when recounting these facts, but
the facts are not in doubt.

8. But can the U.S. really be that vile? Isn't this just left
cynicism and a knee-jerk rejection of all U.S. actions?

Sometimes when a person or group holds roughly the same
position repeatedly in different contexts it indicates
that the person or group is gravitating to it
reflexively or has lost touch with reason and is bending
reality to fit his or her prejudices. And yes, there are
likely critics of the bombing who have adopted a stance
based not on evidence and sound reasoning, but on a
pre-determined mindset, with facts bent to fit.

But, the facts of U.S. international relations, and of
the limited options available in this case are really
not in dispute. And the judgment drawn by critics of
U.S.. policy are not leaps from those facts or
distortions of those facts or subjective impositions on
those facts, but rather very simple deductions from the
facts, which, were the culprit any other nation, would
be obvious to all.

9. How come there are conflicting viewpoints among leftists and
progressives, some favoring bombing, some opposing it?

There has been an avalanche of media commentary
emphasizing the immense and grotesque crimes in the
Balkans for nearly a decade. It is natural that some
folks, including many on the left, have become very
impassioned about wishing to see those crimes curbed.
This desire, perfectly reasonable on the face of it
(though at times ignoring other and often worse cases of
repression and violence in the world), has left some
folks blind to the reality that just saying that a
policy helps people doesn't mean that, in fact, the
policy does help those people. The desire not to ignore
the plight of the Kosovars is worthy. But to advocate
policies that end up hurting the Kosovars, Yugoslavia as
a whole, international law, the UN, and by the
threat-effect all who might oppose U.S. pursuits, on
grounds that at least it is doing something, is
unworthy.

10. Why do many leftists inside Serbia deny that the Serbs have
committed atrocities? Are we being misled about that?

There are many factors at work, no doubt. Ethnic
conflicts frequently find leftists on opposite sides,
swept up in the myths and distortions of their own
ethnic group. (Think of the Palestine-Israeli or the
Turkish-Greek conflicts.) Having bombs drop in your
neighborhood and nation, which destroy the daily
functioning of your society, has, we know from history,
a tremendously galvanizing and homogenizing effect on
people's views. More, there is likely also honest
confusion. Facts available outside Yugoslavia may not be
available inside, or at least may not be comprehensible
there.

In matters such as this, testimony from people on the
scene, from whatever persuasion, must be understood in
context. Single events can be elaborated into whole
theses, a common trick of the mass media, but in chaotic
situations there are single events demonstrative of
pretty much any kind of behavior one might wish to find.
What matters most is not single examples or events, but
widespread patterns of behavior and broad policies and
their broad implications.

11. How come many right-wingers are against this action?

Some rightwingers reflexively oppose anything Clinton
does (a draft-dodger can't lead us into war, etc.) But
there are two other sources of rightwing opposition. One
is the general point that elites can differ in their
views as to what best serves U.S. elite interests. If it
doesn't work as planned, which is certainly a reasonable
projection of likelihoods, this operation may in fact
leave NATO and the U.S. in a worse place than at its
outset. Therefore, for those who doubt the bombing's
capacity to lead to stable results that legitimate NATO,
reduce risk of spreading conflict, etc., there is reason
to oppose the policy.

Moreover, to some rightwingers, multilateralism -- even
if it's NATO rather than the UN -- is suspect because it
reduces to some extent U.S. freedom of action. If the
situation in Kosovo might cause a crisis in southeastern
Europe, let the Europeans deal with it. The right
opposes peacekeeping operations ("the United States
needs to husband its resources for great exertions, not
dissipate them in a thousand stagnant fens" [Charles
Krauthammer]). And where left critics of the bombing
argue that it will not achieve -- and will in fact
exacerbate -- any humanitarian objectives, the right is
about as concerned about the suffering in Kosovo as it
is about the suffering in America's cities.

12. What is the role of law in international relations and in this
crisis? Where is the UN in all this?

U.S. officials frequently proclaim their adherence to
international law, except when they don't want to. So,
Washington ignored a ruling by the World Court on
Nicaragua, vetoed a Security Council resolution calling
on all states to obey international law, and more
generally acts unilaterally whenever it feels like. The
same pattern pertains in this case, too.

The Charter of the United Nations -- which is a treaty
signed by the United States and thus part of the
"Supreme law of the land" -- prohibits the use or threat
of force against other nations except in self-defense to
an armed attack or if authorized by the UN Security
Council. When the United States can bring along the
Security Council it is delighted to do so (for example,
during the 1991 war against Iraq), even if it takes
blatant bribery to pressure other states to assent. But
where such consensus is impossible, Washington has been
happy to simply ignore the Security Council, claiming
that it has authorization from previous Council
resolutions, even though most other countries see no
such authorization (the U.S.-British bombing of Iraq in
December 1998, for example) or else advancing ludicrous
claims that it is acting in self-defense (as in its
recent missile strikes on a Sudanese pharmaceutical
plant).

Regional organizations like NATO simply do not have the
right to act on their own. Article 53 of the UN Charter
states that "no enforcement action shall be taken under
regional arrangements or by regional agencies without
the authorization of the Security Council." So in the
case of Kosovo, the U.S. and NATO, confronting a
problem, turned not to the UN but to the Pentagon. The
UN is not entirely under U.S. auspices and could,
conceivably, act independently and in a humanitarian
manner which would frequently conflict with U.S.
interests and require changes in U.S. policies.

13. But aren't borders an abstraction? Shouldn't we be concerned
with people rather than with nations? Why does it matter that
Yugoslavia is a sovereign nation and that this is an internal
conflict rather than between nations?

Borders exist. And the reason to be concerned about
their violation even with good motivations much less by
a unilateral and illegal force uninterested in the
plight of the suffering, is because respect for borders
is one of the few impediments to the mighty doing
whatever they please with the weak. To establish the
precedent that national sovereignty is inconsequential
is to remove perhaps the major impediment to one nation
sending troops, bombers, or missiles into another. Once
that is done, there remains only debate over what is
warranted, and in the world as we know it such debate is
dominated by the most powerful states and their massive
media machines, most particularly the U.S. (Military
intervention, Richard Falk has reminded us, is like the
Mississippi River: it only flows from North to South.)
Thus, to deny the validity of national sovereignty is to
effectively give the U.S. carte blanche to intervene
when and where it decides -- which is, of course, from
the U.S. perspective, a delightful by-product of the
current events.

14. What is the right way to deal with crises like this? There are
two questions: How can we reduce violence and get settlements, and
what rights are national minorities entitled to?

Crises inside sovereign nations are complex problems on
the international scene. Should Japan bomb Washington
out of solidarity with blacks subjected to horrible
conditions and violence in our inner cities? Would that
improve or worsen the plight of blacks, have ancillary
affects that were positive or negative from the point of
view of justice and self-determination? The major means
of impacting relations ought to be diplomacy,
international opinion, and domestic movements. In some
instances (as in the case of apartheid in South Africa)
these may be rightly augmented with economic sanctions
which are supported by the internal opposition. In other
instances, however, sanctions can amount to a deadly and
immoral weapon, having as their chief consequence huge
and criminal casualties among civilians, as in Iraq in
recent years. And yes, one can certainly imagine
situations where a powerful state or community can and
will devastate a minority ethnic group if there is not
some form of more powerful intervention -- but this does
not mean bombing by interested parties not seeking true
peace and which will only aggravate crimes and
divisions.

Most world problems, including most humanitarian crises,
don't call for military solutions, but non-pacifists
believe that there are some situations where force is
the only option. If that force is wielded by the United
States, however, it will be used to further U.S. elite
interests rather than any humanitarian objective. Other
countries, too, look out for their own elite interests,
so the way to minimize the influence of the
elite-serving agendas of individual governments is to
put a humanitarian military force under democratic
international control. International control must mean
the UN General Assembly, not the Security Council which
is set up in the most undemocratic way imaginable, with
five countries (the United States, Russia, Britain,
France, and China) having veto power.

Even the General Assembly does not represent real
democracy. There's no relation of votes to population,
many members states are themselves undemocratic, and
even those that are formally democratic are dominated by
elites with money. True democratic control of a
humanitarian force must await global social change, but
in the meantime the General Assembly provides the best
approximation.

Thus, in extreme cases, what is needed to prevent human
travail is no doubt a true peace-keeping force, under
the auspices of the General Assembly of the UN, prepared
to stand between combatants and, if necessary, to defend
itself and those being abused, to create conditions for
negotiations.

What rights are national minorities entitled to? As a
basic position, we must support self-determination as a
fundamental democratic right. But there are some tough
questions. What if a minority wants to secede, but
within their territory live other minorities? Such
situations have no simple solution, especially if the
minority does not live in contiguous territory. What if
a minority wishes to leave a country and take with it
the bulk of the country's resources or assets, leaving a
majority behind bereft of the means to sustain
themselves?

A proper policy regarding national minorities requires a
flexible mechanism of international law and
adjudication, respected by the peoples and nations of
the world, with binding powers that all abide, and with
priority attention to ensuring that the powerful do not
subjugate or otherwise delimit the options of the weak
within or between countries. We are far from having any
such mechanism, but U.S. flouting of international law
moves us in precisely the wrong direction.

15. What should we demand for the Balkans?

* An end to the bombing.
* Pursue diplomacy, not rejecting out of hand every
diplomatic overture (such as the Russian call for
talks or Milosevic's offer of a cease-fire).
* An international peace keeping force overseen by
the UN General Assembly to stand between the
combatants.
* An international system, under the auspices of the
General Assembly, to adjudicate and make decisions
about the use of peace-keeping forces.
* And an insistence that other atrocities, often
perpetrated or abetted or ignored by Washington
because they serve U.S. interests, receive the same
media visibility and humanitarian attention as the
atrocities in Kosovo.

________________________________________
Chomsky Replies re Kosovo
From the ZNet Forum System

Chomsky was asked first about support among
progressives for the position that "military
intervention is needed to stop Milosevic from
committing genocide, regardless of whether
NATO's motivations are pure," with comparisons
about "WWII being necessary to stop Hitler,
even if the U.S. did not have truly
humanitarian objectives." As well as, "Is the
Yugoslavian government genocidal" and "Will
the NATO intervention have the effect of
stopping Milosevic and/or saving the people of
Kosovo from extermination?"

I don't want to say anything about the people you are referring
to, because I don't know, but it seems to me reasonably clear that
if we think the matter through, the arguments you report are
untenable, so untenable as to raise some rather serious questions.

First, let's consider Milosovec's "genocide" in the period
preceding the NATO bombings. According to NATO, 2000 people had
been killed, mostly by Serb military, which by summer 1998 began
to react (with retaliation against civilians) to guerrilla (KLA)
attacks on police stations and civilians, based from and funded
from abroad. And several hundred thousands of refugees were
generated. (We might ask, incidentally, how the US would respond
to attacks on police stations and civilians in New York by armed
guerrillas supported from and based in Libya). That's a
humanitarian crisis, but one of a scale that is matched or
exceeded substantially all over the world right now, quite
commonly with decisive support from Clinton. The numbers happen to
be almost exactly what the State Department has just reported for
Colombia in the same year, with roughly the same distribution of
atrocities (and a far greater refugee population, since the
300,000 resulting from last year's atrocities are added to over a
million from before). And it's a fraction of the atrocities that
Clinton dedicated substantial efforts to escalating in Turkey in
the same years, in the ethnic cleansing of Kurds. And on, and on.
So if Milosovic is "genocidal," so are a lot of others -- pretty
close to home. That doesn't say he's a nice guy: he's a monstrous
thug. But the term "genocidal" is being waved as a propaganda
device to mobilize the public for Clinton's wars.

Second, the US ("NATO") intervention, as predicted, radically
escalated the atrocities, maybe even approaching the level of
Turkey, or of Palestine in 1948, to take another example. I
wouldn't use the term "genocide" for such operations -- that's a
kind of ultra-right "revisionism," an insult to the memory of the
victims of the Holocaust, in my opinion. But it's very bad, and it
suffices to undermine the claim that "military intervention is
needed to stop Milosevic from committing genocide," on elementary
logical grounds.

About "WWII being necessary to stop Hitler," that's not what
happened at all. The US/UK were rather sympathetic to Hitler (and
absolutely adored Mussolini). That went on to the late '30s, with
varying defections in the latter stages (much the same was true of
Japanese fascism). When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France
went to war -- called "a phony war," because they didn't do much.
When Hitler attacked them, it became a real war. When Germany
declared war on the US, after Japan had attacked mainly US
military facilities in US colonies that had been conquered (in one
case, with extraordinary violence) half a century before, the US
went to war. No one went to war "to stop Hitler."

There's always more to say: history is too complex to summarize in
a few lines. But the basic assumptions you describe are so far off
the mark that discussion is hardly even possible.

Chomsky was also asked: "To what extent could
US resort to military force in the Balkans be
related to Caspian Sea oil and concerns over
declining reserves, uncertainty about Russia
and its former empire, the threat to Western
interests of increasing conflict in the
Balkans, the desire to increase the Pentagon
budget, or maybe other factors, since the
professed humanitarian concerns seem
`dubious.'"

On the last, "dubious" is too kind. If a Mafia don who runs the
local branch of Murder Inc. shows some kindness to children, the
humanitarian concerns don't rise to the level of "dubious" -- and
that's even more so if he shows his humanitarian concerns by
kicking the kid in the face. We can put that aside, as sheer
hypocrisy.
More plausible, in my view, is just what Clinton, Blair, etc.,
have been saying from the start. It's necessary to ensure the
"credibility of NATO." But that phrase has to be translated from
Newspeak.

The US is not concerned with the "credibility" of Italy or
Holland: rather, with the US (and its British attack dog). And
what does "credibility" mean?

Here we can return to the Mafia don. If someone doesn't pay
protection money, the don has to establish "credibility," to make
sure others don't get funny ideas about disobeying orders. So what
Clinton, et al., are saying is that it's necessary to ensure that
everyone has proper fear of the global enforcer. I think it is
also useful to bear in mind the Clinton strategic document called
"Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence" that's quoted in an
article of mine in Z a year ago on "Rogue States," the same one
Steve Shalom reviewed in more detail in a recent post. It
advocates that the US portray itself as "irrational and vindictive
if its vital interests are attacked," "part of the national
persona we project to all adversaries": "It hurts to portray
ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed," and surely not
subordinate to treaty obligations or conditions of world order.
"The fact that some elements" of the US government "may appear to
be potentially `out of control' can be beneficial to creating and
reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's
decision makers."
That makes sense for a rogue superpower, with a near monopoly on
means of violence. The "humanitarian cover" has been used by
violent states throughout history: we'd probably find it was true
of Genghis Khan, if we had records. It was surely true of the
Crusaders who left a hideous trail of death and destruction. In
fact, about the only clear exceptions I know are in the Biblical
tales, which call for outright genocide -- the Carthaginian
solution -- with no credible motive.

In the background is the dedicated US assault against any
institution of international order: the UN, the World Court, even
the WTO when it gets out of hand. That's been going on for almost
40 years, for reasons that are explained very clearly and would be
taught in every school in the country and headlined in every
newspaper and journal, under conditions of authentic freedom: they
don't follow our orders, so they can get lost. That's why the US,
in this case, compelled its more reluctant NATO allies to reject
even "authorization" from the UN.

A very important observation leaked through the NY Times on April
8, in one of the last paragraphs of a story on an inside page by
Steven Erlanger, their Belgrade correspondent, who has a record of
reliability. Possibly the most important bit of information about
what has been happening. He writes that "just before the bombing,
when [the Serbian Parliament] rejected NATO troops in Kosovo, it
also supported the idea of a United Nations force to monitor a
political settlement there." If Erlanger's report is true, then it
provides very dramatic evidence of US intentions: like the bombing
of Iraq in December, it is another brazen attack against the
institutions of world order, since the Serbian Parliament would be
right, and Washington wrong, on the alternatives of a UN vs. a
NATO force. If the report is true, then the last shreds of
legitimacy for the US/NATO operation disappear. I hadn't seen this
reported before; maybe others have. It surely merited a front-page
headline, the day before the bombings began, not a hidden phrase
two weeks later -- though that's better than nothing.

I'd be intrigued to know if others have come across similar
reports.

The other factors you mention could be real, but I think they are
secondary. The US (NATO) operation is likely to exacerbate most of
the problems. And expanding the Pentagon budget is not a value in
itself. The kind of expansion that will follow this episode is
largely a waste, from the point of view of the Pentagon and the
large sectors of the "private" economy that rely on it for R&D.

______________________________________
______________________________________________

FAIR ACTION ALERT:
WAS A PEACEFUL KOSOVO SOLUTION REJECTED BY U.S.?

April 13, 1999

Since the beginning of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the war has
been presented by the media as the consequence of Yugoslavia's
stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan, in
particular its rejection of plans for an international security
force to implement a peace plan in Kosovo.

An article in the April 14 New York Times stated that Yugoslavian
President Milosevic "has absolutely refused to entertain an
outside force in Kosovo, arguing that the province is sovereign
territory of Serbia and Yugoslavia."

Negotiations between the Serb and Albanian delegations at the
Rambouillet meeting in France ended with Yugoslavia's rejection of
the agreement adopted, after much prodding, by the Albanian party.

But is that the whole story? On February 21, the Yugoslavs
assented to the terms of the political portion of the Rambouillet
agreement. Their rejection stemmed from their opposition to the
requirement that 28,000 NATO troops be stationed in Kosovo to
oversee the implementation of the accord. This military clause,
requiring NATO troops, was inserted without the knowledge of the
Russian representatives, who opposed the provision.

By the close of the first round of the Rambouillet talks in late
February, Serb President Milan Milutinovic had already declared
Serbia's willingness to to discuss "an international presence in
Kosovo" to monitor the implementation of the accords. On February
21, Madeleine Albright responded by insisting that "We accept
nothing less than a complete agreement, including a NATO-led
force."

On March 23, the day before the NATO bombing began, the Serbian
parliament adopted a resolution again rejecting the military
portion of the accords, but expressing willingness to review the
"range and character of an international presence" in Kosovo.
According to the Toronto Star's correspondent in Belgrade on March
24, "There have been hints Serbia might ultimately accept a U.N.
force."

But the U.S. appears to have been unwilling to consider any option
other than NATO troops. At a March 24 State Department press
briefing, spokesman James Rubin was asked about this development:

QUESTION: Was there any follow-up to the Serbian
Assembly's yesterday? They had a two-pronged decision.
One was to not allow NATO troops to come in; but the
second part was to say they would consider an
international force if all of the Kosovo ethnic groups
agreed to some kind of a peace plan. It was an ambiguous
collection of resolutions. Did anybody try to pursue
that and find out what was the meaning of that?

MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Holbrooke was in Belgrade,
discussed these matters extensively with President
Milosevic, left with the conclusion that he was not
prepared to engage seriously on the two relevant
subjects. I think the decision of the Serb Parliament
opposing military-led implementation was the message
that most people received from the parliamentary debate.
I'm not aware that people saw any silver linings.

QUESTION: But there was a second message, as well; there
was a second resolution.

MR. RUBIN: I am aware that there was work done, but I'm
not aware that anybody in this building regarded it as a
silver lining.

In other words, the State Department was aware that the Serbian
parliament expressed openness to an "international presence," but
this was not seen as a "silver lining," apparently because only a
NATO force was acceptable to the U.S.

Those who support the bombing of Yugoslavia argue that all
peaceful options for arriving at a settlement in Kosovo had been
exhausted. Journalists need to do more reporting on the
Rambouillet process to see if that in fact was the case.

ACTION: Please contact local and national media and call
on them to report on the U.S. State Department's
insistence that only a NATO-led force in Kosovo could
keep the peace there. Did this position make it more or
less likely that the rights of ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo would be protected?

You can contact the New York Times at:

Andrew Rosenthal-- Foreign Editor
mailto:letters@nytimes.com; andyr@nytimes.com

Contact information for other media outlets can be found
at: http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html

For more information on media coverage of the war in
Yugoslavia, see
http://www.fair.org/international/yugoslavia.html .

----------

Feel free to respond to FAIR (mailto:fair@fair.org). We
can't reply to everything, but we will look at each
message. We especially appreciate documented example of
media bias or censorship. All messages to the 'FAIR-L'
list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.

Also, please send copies of email correspondence,
including any responses, to us at: fair@fair.org .

Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on
conferences where it is appropriate.

Don't miss a single email from FAIR-L. To subscribe to
FAIR-L send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.

____________________________________________

Bombing A La Mode

By Edward S. Herman

The U.S. leadership and elite are ready, willing, and often eager
to drop bombs on the lesser peoples of the world. They can do this
without fear of retaliation because of the huge military advantage
of a superpower and the subservience of the "international
community." U.S. leaders are also never constrained by any sense
of embarrassment or shame at using advanced weaponry against
essentially defenseless people.

Joy in Bombing

One factor explaining this readiness to bomb is the elite's
long-standing sense of racial and cultural superiority, and
self-serving assumption of the right to police, rule, and
exterminate. Its classic expression was Secretary of State Richard
Olney's 1895 proclamation that "the United States is practically
sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects
to which it confines its interposition." But from Teddy Roosevelt
to Lyndon Johnson and his successors, Olney's arrogance is matched
by a stream of racist putdowns of the "niggers" and "gooks" we
were killing and pacifying. Furthermore, throughout the
post-colonial wars of our age, the increasingly high tech, capital
intensive warfare we have employed has been openly designed to
reduce our casualties, while increasing the civilian as well as
military toll imposed on our enemies. Enemy casualties are given
zero weight in the calculus of U.S. military-political planners, a
dehumanizing process reflected in the frequency with which war
casualty enumerations entirely ignore those of the enemy.

This attitude makes bombing easy, but the key factor in
stimulating the bombing activity is no doubt the U.S. imperial
role. Military forces with global reach, as demonstrated by
bombing, serve the interests of the U.S.-based transnational
corporations dominant in the globalization process, by showing
what can happen to countries that are slow to open markets or to
install friendly regimes in power. Using boycotts and bombs to
punish "rogues " who somehow presume to control their own markets
and resources has been an integral feature of U.S. and western
policy since 1917. Periodic bombing forays also help justify the
large military establishment and allow it to reduce old
inventories and display and experiment with new weapons.

A further and related factor in the readiness to bomb is that
bombing is a political winner at home, with the media always
getting on the chauvinistic bandwagon, and the public also
regularly rallying around the flag and in support of our boys.
George Bush's poll ratings rose as he bombed Iraq in 1991, with
the reporters and public enthralled at our new clean war.

With the right-wing and mainstream media helping demonize anybody
standing in our way, U.S. presidents are also regularly under
pressure to drop bombs as a display of macho "character" and
"leadership." Weak presidents are especially prone to bomb in
order to quiet their critics and protect and improve their poll
ratings. Clinton's 1993 attack on Baghdad in the wake of an
alleged Iraqi assassination plan against George Bush was a model
case of a bombing response to media/right-wing political pressure.
The rapid bombing response to the attacks on the U.S. African
embassies in August 1998 was also based heavily on the need to do
something forceful to forestall political criticism. Of course, in
the official explanations and mainstream media the bombs are
allegedly dropped only after "agonizing choices," but this is
apologetic propaganda that glosses over the exclusively political
considerations involved in the decisions and the miniscule weight
given "collateral damage" and international law.

When the evidence assembled after the 1998 bombing of the
pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan showed that the U.S. claims
justifying the attack were false and based on incompetently
gathered and evaluated data, there was very little if any
criticism in the mainstream media. For the media, the U.S. has a
right to bomb another country if it thinks it has any kind of
case--it doesn't have to be sure of the facts, or rush to
compensate the victims of its errors, any more than it is obliged
to abide by international law.

Rules of the Bombing Game

The rules of the bombing game are simple: if you are a friend and
useful ally, you automatically possess legitimate "security
concerns" and can cross borders, kill, and ravage, free of any
bombing threat; but if you are an enemy or otherwise obstruct the
achievement of our objectives, your crossing of borders and
killing, at home or abroad, cannot be tolerated and you are
bombable.

There is even an obligatory and droll tendency to exaggerate the
crimes and threats of the bombables. Thus, just months before the
U.S. attack and proxy invasion of Guatemala in June 1954, the
National Security Council described the virtually disarmed victim
country as "increasingly [an] instrument of Soviet aggression" in
Latin America, as if it rather than the U.S. was about to engage
in an armed attack. Similarly, tiny Nicaragua, under U.S. attack
in the 1980s, was alleged to be carrying out a "revolution without
frontiers," and when it pursued U.S.-sponsored terrorists across
the border into Honduras, was declared by the U.S. government (and
media) to be carrying out an "invasion." Neither of these bombable
countries was allowed the right of self defense. The governments
of both were removed by U.S. bombs and other forms of violence,
although the Nicaraguan government's final exit was engineered by
an election held under conditions of blackmail after years of
devastating terrorist attack.

Iraq, of course, became eminently bombable after its invasion of
Kuwait in 1990. It had crossed us, and there were other important
reasons to bomb: the right-wing pundits were screaming for blood,
Bush was in political trouble, and the military establishment
needed a post-Soviet military budget rationale and had large
inventories of bombs to run down and weapons it wanted to put on
display. With the help of the media, the long appeasement and
support of Saddam Hussein was ignored, and the many efforts to
allow him to withdraw from Kuwait with dignity were brushed aside.
So bombs away.

It is enlightening that Iraq was not bombable before the 1990
invasion of Kuwait, despite its doing some pretty awful things,
like attacking Iran and using chemical weapons against its
indigenous Kurds in 1986. As Saddam Hussein was then a U.S.
friend, a recipient of U.S. aid, and performing a desired
service--killing Iranians, when Iran was a high-ranking
enemy--these matters could be overlooked by us and by the
"international community." Never let it be said that principle and
the need for policy consistency would stand in the way of pursuit
of our short term interests.

Another notable exception to bombability occurred following
Suharto's 1975 invasion and occupation of East Timor. This
involved ethnic cleansing far beyond anything the Serbs or even
Saddam Hussein have ever perpetrated. But as our friend, with an
open door and providing an investors paradise, not only was
Suharto not bombed, he was supplied the arms to kill, diplomatic
protection, and the necessary eye aversion in the U.S. and other
western media.

Turkey and Israel

In the midst of the western furor over the Serbs in Kosovo, in
October 1998 the Turkish army launched another pacification drive
against the Kurds in Eastern Turkey. In 1995 the New York Times
acknowledged that the Turkish army had been "using the F-16s and
other American weapons to strafe Turkish villages...killing
thousands of civilians and leaving millions homeless" (ed.,
October 17, 1995). Turkey has also repeatedly invaded northern
Iraq in extended campaigns of pacification, not only killing
alleged Kurdish "terrorists" but with its troops "frequently
reported to murder Kurdish villagers at random," engaging in
"beatings, looting and destruction of homes and property" of the
civilian population (Financial Times, August 8, 1995). Turkey is
also notorious for the institutionalized use of torture on
prisoners of all kinds.

The Turkish torture, ethnic cleansing and invasions have been an
"embarrassment" to its allies (NYT, September 7, 1992), who have
urged Turkey to be nicer. Although the Turkish attacks on the
Kurds have caused far more death and destruction than Serb
repression of ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo, have been going on
for years, and have also involved repeated invasions of another
country (Iraq), there has never been any call for bombings or even
for monitoring of Turkish actions by the U.S. or international
community. In accord with the rules of the bombing game, as a
friendly power, with an open door and regularly obeying orders,
Turkey has "security concerns" that must be acknowledged, and it
is not only not bombable, it continues to receive U.S. aid and
diplomatic support. In the midst of its further assault on the
Kurds, the European Commission has proposed giving Turkey an aid
package of $182 million "to help it prepare for European Union
membership and strengthen a customs union" (Financial Times,
October 23, 1998). The Clinton administration has exerted no
pressure whatsoever on Turkey to stop killing Kurds. It goes
without saying that the mainstream U.S. media have given the
Turkish ethnic cleansing minimal attention and indignation and
have failed to note the remarkable double standard.

Israel, of course, is even more closely allied to and protected
by the U.S. than Turkey, and is freer still to engage in ethnic
cleansing and cross-border invasions and raids, without fear of
international sanction. For decades Israel has been pushing
Palestinians out of their homes in favor of Jewish settlers, and
has maintained a system of discriminatory housing and land
ownership that has been compared unfavorably to South African
apartheid in the Israeli (but not U.S.) press (see Ha'aretz,
February 10, 1991). The homes of Palestinian protestors throwing
stones are regularly demolished, but following his murder of 29
Palestinians Baruch Goldstein's home was left intact. Torture has
been used on a systematic basis for decades, the New York Times
acknowledging in passing (August 14, 1993) that 400-500
Palestinians were being so treated per month. Well over a thousand
Palestinians were killed and over 130,000 injured during the
Intifada protests against discrimination, in which Defense
Minister Yitzhak Rabin instructed the Israeli army that they were
free to enter Palestinian homes and beat men, women, and children
without fear of prosecution. No action against Israel was taken by
the international community in response to this brutal repression.

The state of Israel has also repeatedly invaded Lebanon,
relentlessly bombing and killing many thousands of civilians and
putting hundreds of thousands into flight. It has for many years
maintained a terrorist army in South Lebanon to serve its
pacification interests there. And Israel has felt free to make
periodic punitive raids into Lebanon and to bomb the country at
its discretion.

This ethnic cleansing within Israel, persistently violating
international law as well as UN Security Council resolutions, and
the regular invasions and cross-border attacks against Lebanon,
have never led to Israel being threatened with bombing. It has
never even been subjected to any reduction in U.S. aid or the flow
of supplies of bombs and other weapons to carry out its repression
and invasions. Although Israel has had towering military
superiority over the Palestinians and the neighbors which it has
periodically invaded, Israel's behavior is justified by its
allegedly serious "security concerns," whereas its victims have
none. Israel is also declared to be a victim of "terrorism" and
its massive ethnic cleansing and discrimination, and cross-border
attacks, are counter-terrorism and retaliation, by virtue of its
status as a U.S. client state (even if a case where the tail wags
the dog). These truths are institutionalized in the U.S.
mainstream media, so that Israel can obtain subsidies to do things
that would make an enemy power extremely bombable.

Bombable Serbia

Yugoslavia's Serbs are the latest in a long line of demonized
bombables. Its president Slobodan Milosevic is furiously denounced
by editorialists as a world class villain, and cartoonists can
portray "the Serbs" as pigs without being reprimanded for racism.
The crimes for which the Serbs must be severely chastised,
however, are frequently equalled or exceeded by that of U.S.
client states, who can remain beneficiaries of western aid even
while engaging in genocide in an invaded territory (Indonesia's
Suharto regime in East Timor). Mass murder alone is not enough to
merit demonization and bombability. Behind the carefully channeled
outrage lies the geostrategic interest of the U.S. and its leading
Western allies.

While great understanding is displayed for the "security concerns"
that drive U.S. clients to violence, instances of violence by the
bombables are attributed to a defiant and perverse desire to "test
the resolve" of Western leaders. This unlikely motive is played
up, while any genuine fears of a country that finds itself singled
out for pariah treatment are ignored.

Yugoslavia's post-World War II leader Tito may have been a
communist dictator, but his quarrel with Stalin turned him into an
ally of the West. Yugoslavia was relatively open and prosperous,
and received lavish Western credits. The resulting debt burden was
a major factor in splitting the country along economic and ethnic
lines in the 1980s. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, Yugoslavia
lost its strategic interest to the U.S. The newly reunited
Germany, along with Austria, could resume its traditional
hostility to a unified Yugoslavia, sponsoring Croatian and
Albanian nationalism against the Serbs. German clout forced rapid
international acceptance of an unnegotiated breakaway of Slovenia
and Croatia, turning the Yugoslav army into an "aggressor" on its
own territory. For the Serbs, who had seen Nazi German conquerors
carve Yugoslavia into separate pieces in 1941, it was deja vu all
over again.

Under pressure from media always on the lookout for villains, the
U.S. soon got on board this destabilization bandwagon, largely to
reassert its leadership role in Europe, and also to forge new ties
with its closest Near Eastern allies (Turkey, Israel, Saudi
Arabia) by creating a new area of domination in the Balkans at the
expense of what had been a relatively autonomous and less amenable
power. Yugoslavia, after all, had been known both for its own
special brand of "self-management socialism," in contrast to the
Soviet model, and for its international role as co-founder of the
Non-Aligned Movement, with close ties to Third World countries.
These were aberrations that U.S. leaders were only too happy to
get rid of once and for all.

As ethnic Serbs had been targeted for liquidation in the
"Independent State of Croatia" (which included Bosnia) run by the
Nazi-backed Croatian Utasha movement during World War II, German
support for the breakaway of Croatia under a nationalist
leadership openly sympathetic to the Ustasha tradition, posed a
real security threat to the large Serb population in Croatia. This
could only strengthen nationalist forces in Serbia. In various
ways, Western policy encouraged Croatian, Slovenian, and Albanian
nationalist movements to seek to exit from the Yugoslav state. By
thus endorsing ethnic identity as the basis for territorial
sovereignty, the West encouraged all factions in Yugoslavia to
seek spatial domination--which entailed pushing out members of
rival ethnic groups, often by murdering them to scare the rest.
The Serbs participated aggressively in this terrible process, but
they were not alone. Leaving aside the question of who started
what and who killed and drove out more people in the "ethnic
cleansing" in Croatia and Bosnia between 1991 and 1995, what is
certain is that the U.S. media focused on Serb crimes and played
down those committed by Croats and Muslims. There was no great
display of moral indignation in the media and from Western leaders
when a quarter of a million Serbs in Krajina were driven out of
their homes by Croatian forces in August 1995 (with substantial
killing). In fact, those Croatian forces had been (illegally)
rearmed with German weapons, trained by U.S. "retired" generals
and given the green light by the U.S. ambassador. Moreover, it was
just as this was happening that NATO designated the Serbs as their
first bombable target on the European continent since the end of
the Cold War.

When trouble flared this year in the Serbian province of Kosovo,
the most difficult trouble spot in all the troubled Balkans, the
West immediately reverted to its stance in Bosnia: the Serbs are
to blame and must be bombed. Knowing this, the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA), which seeks to detach Kosovo from Serbia and form a
Greater Albania has a simple strategy. Depend on Serbian
repression to bring in NATO forces to attack the Serbs and allow
the KLA to take over.

This scenario has been obvious and predictable from the start. For
several years the KLA assassinated not only policemen and Serbian
officials, but also ethnic Albanians who opposed the violent
secessionist movement. In the summer of 1998 the Serbian security
forces finally took the bait and went into the Kosovo countryside
to root out the KLA. As usual in such cases, hapless civilians
suffered and the guerrillas simply regrouped. Untold thousands of
civilians were driven from villages believed to be sheltering KLA
fighters before security forces battered down walls and set family
compounds on fire. Between 500 and 1,000 people have been killed
in this conflict. Both sides have massacred civilians, with the
stronger Serb army very likely responsible for a disproportionate
share. But only the Serb side is threatened with any kind of NATO
action.

In this way, the U.S. propensity to bomb becomes an instrument
that can be wielded even by a relatively small armed rebellion to
break up a recognized nation. The KLA may be the first
"liberation" movement in history to consider NATO its virtual air
force. This opens up new horizons for the uses of NATO.

The Turkish armed forces have generously offered to take time off
from destroying Kurdish villages in and beyond Turkey's borders to
participate in NATO's humanitarian crusade against the Serbs for
having done roughly the same, but on a much smaller scale and only
within Serbia.

The selectivity of the West's humanitarian concern is blatant. And
in this case, Western policy has actually fanned the flames of
conflict. Whereas fair and friendly mediation is called for, the
West's bias toward one side, and contradictory signals have made
it virtually impossible for the Serbs and Albanians to work out a
solution among themselves.

The ethnic Albanians say they want to secede. The West rules that
out, as it would set a bad precedent for the Bosnian Serbs who
want to secede from Bosnia. Some Serbs suggest partitioning Kosovo
between Serbia and the Albanians. The West rules that out, as it
would set a bad precedent for Macedonia, where Albanians would
then also want to secede. The Serbs offer to negotiate without
preconditions, the Albanians refuse to sit down at the table, and
the West thereupon threatenss to bomb the Serbs "to force them to
the negotiating table."

However provoked, Serbian security forces are almost surely guilty
as charged of "using excessive force." In its righteous
indignation, NATO has assembled a mighty armada of warplanes,
stealth bombers, and cruise missiles which threaten to wipe out
Yugoslavia's entire national defense capacity, including command
and control centers. This is because NATO abhors the use of
"excessive force."

_______________________________________

______________________________________________
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway
New York, New York 10014
212 614-6430 or 212 243-3805
e-mail: mratner@igc.org

Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo:
A Highly Suspect Pretext for War

By Jules Lobel and Michael Ratner

On September 23, 1998 Hitler wrote to Prime Minister Chamberlain
that ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia had been "tortured," that
120,000 had been "forced to flee the country," that the "security
of more than 3,000,000 human beings was at stake," and that they
had been "prevented from realizing also the right of nations to
self-determination." Hitler was laying the basis for humanitarian
intervention; a claim to intervene militarily in a sovereign state
because of claimed human rights abuses. Although NATO is obviously
not Hitler, the example illustrates the mischief caused when
countries assert the right to use force on such a basis: it is
often a pretext for acting in their own geo-political interests
and it sets a dangerous precedent-other governments can do the
same.

Hitler's assertions were not the first time a county has used
humanitarian excuses to mask social, political and territorial
goals. It is a frequent occurrence: whether is was the Russians in
the Balkans in the 19th century, the Japanese intervening in
Manchuria or the United States in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic,
Grenada and Panama. International law professors Thomas Franck and
Nigel Rodely concluded in a 1973 study that "[i]n very few, if
any, instances has the right [to humanitarian intervention] been
asserted under circumstances that appear more humanitarian than
self-centered and power seeking." They further pointed out that
the failure of countries to intervene when real humanitarian
atrocities take place--such as those in Nazi Germany, South Africa
under apartheid, and Indonesia (and today we could add the Tutsis
the Kurds and others)-- should make claims of humanitarian
intervention "highly suspect." They conclude that countries have
no legal right of humanitarian intervention under international
law.

This historical background should make us very skeptical regarding
current U.S. and NATO claims that the war against Serbia is to
stop "ethnic cleansing" or even "genocide." President Clinton says
the bombings were necessary to prevent a "humanitarian
catastrophe," to end "instability in the Balkans" and to prevent a
wider war."

But the evidence is otherwise. The NATO countries, as the
historical record predicts, appear to be acting primarily in their
own self-interests. To date the bombings have created the very
evils President Clinton claims he is trying to prevent: over 500,
000 refugees have fled Kosovo. Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania and
even Bosnia are being destabilized and Russia is threatening a
wider war.

The administrations claims that Serbia was planning this ethnic
cleansing and it would have occurred even without the NATO
attacks. But even if this were the case, it was the NATO attacks
that gave Serbia the opportunity to carry out its alleged plans,
particularly in a circumstance when all of the unarmed monitors
from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE)
were withdrawn. Nor should it be overlooked that the bombing
itself probably caused many of the refugee to flee their homes.
NATO had to have realized that its massive bombing campaign had
the potential to create a serious humanitarian crisis, yet
incredibly it had made no preparations for housing, feeding or
caring for the refugees. Had humanitarian concerns been at the
forefront of NATO policy or even a serious concern, such plans
would have been a priority.

If the U.S. and NATO really believed that Serbia was planning
"ethnic cleansing" than the bombing was the absolute worst
strategy; it was almost guaranteed to bring about that result. If
the goal was to really prevent expulsions of people from Kosovo
there were other peaceful alternatives that should have been
undertaken. A sticking point in the negotiations with Yugoslavia
was the deployment of 28,000 NATO troops in Kosovo; a compromise
could have been worked out by making that force an international
force of the United Nations or one that at least included Russian
troops Support for the Kosovo Liberation Army could have ended.
Had these and other peaceful means been employed there is a fair
chance that the human tragedy unfolding in the Balkans could have
ben avoided.

Once again it appears that the claim of humanitarian intervention
is a pretext for countries acting in their own self-interest and
for their own geo-political reasons. Western countries are
insuring that it is they, not Serbia and Russia, who will be the
dominant force in the Balkans; NATO is pushing Europe's borders
into the edge of Asia. A NATO military base in the region cannot
be far behind. Also at play here is the broader underlying
interest of the United States to mold the world to its will
through a policy of coercive diplomacy. Under this doctrine, when
the United States tells another country to do something, it must
do so or suffer the consequences. That is what it told Yugoslavia:
sign the Rambouillet agreement or get bombed. It is not a way to
negotiate and certainly not a way to create a safer world. That is
why after World War II, the nations of the world through the
Charter of the United Nations mandated that only the Security
Council could authorize the non-defensive use of force: unlike the
current U.S./NATO bombing, force was to be used in the interest of
the international community and not individual states.

_____________________________________

A Q/A initiated by Mother Jones Magazine
also available on their web site but made available here in a
simpler format and without adsŠ

BARBARA EHRENREICH

In answer to your first question, Yes, I think there was a moral
imperative for someone to intervene, somehow, to stop the Serb
brutalities in Kosovo. Some of my friends point out that the U.S.
and international bodies calmly sat out genocide in Rwanda and
against the Kurds in Turkey, as if this were a reason for not
doing anything this time around. I don't follow that logic. I'm
sorry no one intervened in Rwanda and would like to see more
international readiness to stop anti-civilian warfare wherever it
crops up.

That said, is NATO the body to do it in this case? The worrisome
thing about NATO is that it is now constituted to maximally
irritate Russia, as the NATO bombing campaign seems to be in
general. Why risk deepening and widening tensions in this way?
Seems to me, the more appropriate body to intervene in this and
future cases would have been the UN, but by completely bypassing
the Security Council, NATO and the US have contributed to further
undermining it.

As for "use of force," this is not easy to separate from
"tactics." Naturally, you are not going to send unarmed
peacekeepers into a place like Kosovo. But there could have been,
and probably still should be, a DEFENSIVE, on-the-ground,
peacekeeping mission to protect Kosovar Albanians and their cities
and villages and to establish a safe haven for refugees within
Kosovo. But the air strikes have not done a thing to help the
Kosovars:

1. In the first phase, NATO/US completely neglected to bomb
Yugoslav troops in Kosovo because this would have meant
flying dangerously low. No help for Kosovars from that.
2. In bombing Serbia, the emphasis has been on striking
anti-aircraft sites - to make things safer for the bombers,
not for the Kosovars.
3. In the current phase, NATO is supposedly targeting
command-and-control centers and supply routes within Serbia.
But it is not clear to me that the FRY troops in Kosovo would
be stopped in their tracks by being cut off from Serbia.
Looting can be an effective substitute for supply lines; and,
to the extent that the ethnic-cleansers in Kosovo are
paramilitary units, they may not be entirely dependent on
orders from any central command post.

So what has been accomplished so far?

1. Toward stopping the expulsion of ethnic Albanians from
Kosovar: exactly zero. Maybe less than zero - if in fact the
Serbs stepped up their ethnic cleansing campaign in response
to the onset of bombing.
2. Toward undermining Milosevic: definitely less than zero. The
effect of the bombings so far has been to eliminate his
considerable opposition within Serbia and produce an
extraordinary burst of unity and solidarity within the Serb
population. This could have been predicted. In short, the
effect of the NATO/US bombing campaign has been to do nothing
for the suffering Kosovar Albanians and to consolidate
Milosevic's power domestically. Clever, no?

GEORGE KENNEY

Negotiation was always an option. Remember, in Bosnia it was the
U.S., more than the Bosnian Serbs, who resisted a negotiated
settlement that fell short of the desires of the Sarajevo regime.
Not until 1995, when the Europeans threatened to pull out their UN
peacekeepers and thereby forced the U.S. to reassess its position,
was a deal possible. The eventual settlement in Bosnia was very
much like what had been offered before the war began (the
Cutilheiro plan) and during the war (Vance-Owen). Very likely it
could have been achieved much earlier had the U.S. been more
amenable instead of encouraging the Sarajevo regime to fight.
Anyway, in Kosovo there was a lot to be negotiated that should
have been, but wasn't. Specifically, whether Kosovo or some part
of it should become independent, and then what compensation the
Serbs could expect. The whole issue of the Balkan crisis from the
beginning, as I've argued for a long time, boils down to changes
in borders-the problem of why should I be a minority in your
country when you can be a minority in mine. The borders of the
region have changed, are changing, and will continue to change.
So, the sensible thing is to help negotiate those changes rather
than exacerbate the fighting over them. The U.S. government,
however, has taken the opposite view since 1992: Balkan borders
must not change and the U.S. will defend their inviolability with
force. With such an entrenched attitude, though in theory
negotiation was possible, in practice the U.S. left itself with
nothing to negotiate, with no choice except forcing an outcome on
the Serbs that was unacceptable. War was inevitable.

That said, it is important to take issue with the rhetoric of
Genocide. What was going on in Kosovo was not even junior Genocide
or Genocide-light. From the beginning of this year up to NATO's
attack probably a couple hundred were killed, about a quarter of
them Serbs-this was a mild form of ugly civil insurrection, the
likes of which with far worse examples is to be found all over the
place. It involved a lot of complicated nuances in the shade of
gray. While as usual the Serbian regime acted brutally, so did the
Kosovo Liberation army, an entity described within the past year
by the CIA and the U.S. State Department as a terrorist
organization. One should note that, according to numerous reports,
including in the London Times, its funding comes in large measure
from heroin trafficking in Europe. And that, according to other
reputable sources, it maintains active ties with terrorist
organizations in the Middle East. Presumably the U.S. would react
better than the Serbs did if faced with such an insurrection in,
say, Texas, but on the other hand, within their own frame of
reference, the Serbs probably felt they were showing restraint.

Moral imperatives cannot, by definition, apply only to specific
circumstances. To date I have not seen, nor can I imagine, an
argument for a moral imperative in Kosovo that would not apply
even more aptly to at least half a dozen other conflicts around
the world.

We seem to be talking not about the reality but about the
perception of a moral imperative. And-I have a lot of trouble
articulating this because I don't want merely to say everybody is
nuts-why a very large, influential community of journalists,
intellectuals, and policy-makers would whip themselves into a
frenzy screaming for bloody vengeance over Genocide in Kosovo.
Having watched this intervention movement evolve from the middle
of the scrum it seems to me that many of those most directly
involved have found that Genocide crusades make a meal ticket. We
are witnessing a sort of mega-meshing of selfish interests under
the mantle of altruism. To put it bluntly, I know many (most) of
the prominent interventionists. I think they are phonies. I just
wish I could explain better, from a sociological point of view,
how they happened to rally together.

HOWARD ZINN

Where people are suffering, there is a moral imperative to act.
But how one acts is crucial, because there are interventions which
make things worse. What we have here is such an instance. In the
past, we have often had to wait a long time before it became clear
that bombing did not help the people we claimed to care about. We
have rarely been able to come to a clear conclusion as quickly as
in this case. The bombing, as became evident almost immediately,
multiplied many-fold the suffering of the Kosovars, and
simultaneously inflicted suffering to innocent people in Serbia.
The admonition "we must do something" or the question "what else
could we have done?" become moot in such a situation. No matter
how complex the situation, how elusive the alternatives, we need
to start with: "The bombing is wrong", and go on from there.

The rhetoric of Clinton and other government officials reveals an
utter lack of intelligence as well as an indifference to human
suffering. Clinton, speaking to a miitary audience, again and
again talked about making Milosovic "pay a price". The assumption
that we will bomb him into submission makes no sense. The "price"
is not being paid by Milosovic but by the Kosovars and Serbs alike
as both are victims ofour bombing campaign. This is comparable to
the notion that we are making Saddam Hussein "pay a price" by the
economic sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children. They have paid the price. The terrible consequences of
the sanctions constitutes powerful evidence that U.S. foreign
policy is indifferent to large-scale suffering, and suggests its
declared concern for the Kosovars is sheer hypocrisy.

If the bombing if morally indefensible, the difficulty of finding
other "options" cannot change that fact. Bombing is always an easy
option. Diplomacy, compromise are more complex, more difficult,
require coming down from macho heights of superiority. Again and
again in recent decades we have seen that military conflicts had
to be resolved by diplomatic means, and that the final agreement
could have been arrived at earlier without massive loss of life. I
recall the Christmas bombing of Hanoi in 1973, and after it took
place, and all those people died, the peace agreement was
substantially what it had been in October, before the bombing.

NATO, was created to meet a Soviet threat which was never real. It
built a huge military machine to guard against a threat to Western
Europe which was never real, and which was useless in dealing with
the Soviet control of Eastern Europe, which was real. Now, with no
Soviet threat, it is being artifiically kept alive by again
creating unreal threats. Its massive armaments cannot deal with
the complex conflicts we have today -- and Kosovo reveals this.
NATO should be discarded, and the sooner people start talking
about this the better. We don't need stronger military alliances;
we need stronger instruments of international peacekeeping.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
research education action
Q u e b e c P u b l i c I n t e r e s t R e s e a r c h G r o u p
at Concordia University
- --------------------- http://concordia.pirg.ca/ ----------------------

Return to Contents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1999 18:56:11 -0400
From: Jacques Belin
Subject: Tuberculose à_Paris

O, on dirait presque que les ordinateurs de l'AP sont déjà touchés par
le bug de l'an 2000 et nous ressortent les news du 16 avril 1899..

- ---------
AP 16 Apr 99 10:37 CDT FAP4054

Xavier Emmanuelli s'alarme du nombre de tuberculeux à Paris

PARIS (AP) -- Trois jours après la création d'un observatoire de la
grande pauvreté, Xavier Emmanuelli s'est dit vivement inquiété,
vendredi sur RCF (Radios Chrétiennes de France), de la proportion que
prend la tuberculose à Paris parmi les exclus.

Rappelant que la découverte à New-York en 1996 de 25 cas de
tuberculose évolutives sur 100.000 avait déclenché une véritable
panique, l'ancien ministre chargé de l'Aide humanitaire et sociale a
souligné: "Nous, on s'aperçoit que sur Paris, la tuberculose est de
50 pour 100.000. C'est donc effroyable. Il faut faire quelque chose.
Il faut inventer pour ces gens-là (ndlr:les exclus) des nouvelles
manières de dépistages".

A+ Jacques.
- ------------------------------
Le dernier administrateur du web "altern"atif se trouvait chez lui..
On frappa à la porte...
- ------------ Une histoire de Fredric Brown revue par Estelle Hallyday.
- ---------------------------- La résistance est sur http://altern.org/defense

Return to Apr. Index