MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————

• discussion archive

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 12:16 am
  The following intelligence report written 18 months ago is also worth reading.

  http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2841wolfowitz.html

  Glad to be of assistance.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo,
  Ontario, Canada

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 3:18 am
  Pythagoras, if Macedonians and Serbs have little in common in Greek eyes, what are the historical links between the Greeks and the Serbs that you are talking about?

  I guess if the attitudes in Greeces have vastly changed after 1996, I guess the reason is that the Greeks like to think of Macedonia in terms of "Slav Macedonia", and that presupposition suddenly appeared shattered, when the international troops started to promote the "dialogue" between the Albanians and the Slavs.

  Maybe I was too sweeping in talking about "self-interest". These things go both ways. But I think the main sticking point in the Balkans at the moment is that the Greeks - and the EU in general - would like to strengthen the north-west-links (the "Orthodox Axis"), while the Americans want to strengthen the east-west links (the "Oriental Axis"). This has its fallout in the Cypriot conflict as well.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 4:33 am
  Checking Ian's links you will see that it was probably the ultra-conservative "Wolfowitz cabal" (the type that writes columns in Townhall.com) that managed to pressure Clinton to carry out his intervention in Kosovo. In their letter to Clinton, dated on the ominous date Sept. 11, 1998, they started by saying something about the humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo, and then insisted: "There can be no peace and stability in the Balkans so long as Slobodan Milosevic remains in power." This letter was then taken to NYT, which published the writing on September 20. So maybe Clinton never called the intervention a "regime change", but that is what it was.

  The New American Century archives also include Seth Cropsey's article in Washington Times on October 9, 2000. The WT is the Moonist publication which is always ready to defend the Croats. It says:

  "Mr Milosevic's departure doesn't end Serbian nationalism; it doesn't resolve the tension between ethnic Albanian residents of Kosovo and their Serb neighbors..."

  Maybe had escaped Mr Cropsey what these Serb neighbors amounted to at that time. Anyway, he continues: "It still needs the calming presence of the US..."

  Thus things hadn't changed that much. In the meantime the Wolfowitz cabal had also criticized the ineffectiveness of Clinton's bombing-for-peace.

  And what did the Wolfowitz cabal do this for? To strengthen the good old Judeo-Christian values, which keeps Townhall in business? Am I the only one who is missing something here?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 4:36 am
  Another problem with 92 bis is that the written statements it generates are comprised as only of the answers to questions. The questions are not included in the statement.

  Slobodan Milosevic is in the position of a contestant on the American game show "Jeopardy" he has the answers given to him in the witness statement, but he still needs to ascertain what the question is that the answers go to.

  You can see how this process can be manipulated by the prosecutor in order to take statements out of their proper context, so that a false picture can be painted.

  Slobodan Milosevic has to not only cross examine what the witness said during the examination in chief, but he also has to cross examine the witness regarding the written statement where he only has the answers and not the questions that were used to generate the statement.

  Because Slobodan Milosevic has to cross examine based on the examination in chief, and he has to cross examine based on the written statements he should be given at least twice as much time as the prosecutor on each witness.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 11:33 am
  To Jari on Greek - Serb links and Greek - FYRO Macedonia relations

  RELIGIOUS LINKS
  Greek - Serb links originated in the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and the shared experiences under Ottoman rule. In fact, religion rather than nationality was the main defining characteristic of Ottoman subjects. During the empire's break up, religion rather than language or genetic ancestry was often the basis of self-identification as a member of a national group (Greek - Turk, Serb - Bosnian Muslim).

  HISTORIC - POLITICAL LINKS

  Political events, mainly wars, provide the second link. The 2 peoples, for mainly political reasons, fought on the same side in wars of liberation from Ottoman rule, the Balkan wars of 1912-13, WWI and WWII. Shared memories of immense suffering and consequent societal divisions under fascism and nazism of WWII are very much alive. The post war division of east-west was only ephemeral and failed to significantly weaken the bonds between the 2 peoples. Finally, Washington's criminal policies of the last decade against the Serbian nation, deeply resented by an overwhelming majority of Greeks, have formed an additional bond.

  THE MACEDONIAN ISSUE
  Slav Macedonians share with Greeks religion and Ottoman experiences, but unfortunate Balkan realities have driven a wedge between the 2 peoples. Until the 20th century there was no Macedonian national identity (Philip's and Alexander's Macedonia was assimilated by Greek and later Roman cultures more than 2000 years ago). Macedonia was an Ottoman administrative region inhabited by more than a dozen ethnic groups including Christians of Greek, Serbian or Bulgarian (but not "Macedonian") church affiliations. Of this administrative region, 50% now belongs to Greece, 40% to FYRO Macedonia and 10% to Bulgaria. Most Slav Macedonians of the Ottoman era followed the Bulgarian church and spoke (and still speak) a language unquestionably close to Bulgarian. The Balkan wars of 1912-13 were primarily fought among Ottoman Turks, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians. In both Greek and Bulgarian eyes and by almost all historical accounts, most Slav Macedonians fought in the second Balkan war in the name of Bulgarian (not "Macedonian") national identity against Greece and Serbia. A vocal minority of Slav Macedonians, especially in the diaspora, still openly promote historical claims with political ramifications antagonistic to Greece. Fortunately, bilateral political consultations on the matter are deiscrete.

  BALKAN STRATEGIC AXES
  Essentially in agreement with Jari, I believe that strategic considerations dictate that Serbia, FYRO Macedonia and Greece should cultivate strong relations among them. I don't see, however, an independent "Orthodox axis" as a practical objective. I believe instead that the main objective is a broad alliance between the EU and Russia, an objective deeply feared by Washington hawks of both neoliberal and neoconservative persuasions and unfortunately sabotaged by certain EU politicians. Both Greece and Serbia will be natural participants in such an alliance. FYRO Macedonia would follow too because the US-favored alternative of east-west Balkan axis does not bode well for its sovereignty and identity. The latter axis is not economically viable and depends on the regimes of Albania, FYRO Macedonia and Bulgaria accepting bribes from and being subservient to US interests. However, in such a case the strong US Albanian lobby and the persistent Bulgarian aspirations will probably lead to the carving up of FYRO Macedonia.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 12:15 pm
  Greece blocked the EU humanitarian aid in order to solve its petty quarrel with Macedonia over the national symbols (Sun of Alexander) and the name of the state. It defended these policies by arguing that these symbols suggested Macedonia would try to conquer the northern part of Macedonia. With what army?

  Now I understand why the EU limited its humanitarian aid to Energy for Democracy. That seemed politically motivated at the time, but wisened up by the Macedonian experiences, it knew it had to make the humanitarian aid political in order for it to arrive at all.

  Well, the European Commission didn't find the Greek solo policy too comical, and took the Hellenic Republic to the European Court of Justice.

  The Greek policy toward Macedonia changed, when Greece noticed that others might treat the Slavs in Macedonia just the way the Greeks did, and the Greeks thought this was their prerogative. Besides, the rise of the Albanian minority made Macedonia more "oriental" than Greece had thought. But it was Greece that paved the way for trampling Macedonia under foot, with all the consequences thereof for Kosovo.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 12:17 pm
  

  How convenient it is to claim human rights :

  Bosnian Serbs ordered to pay compensation over massacre

  The panel of international and local judges also ordered them to provide information about the 1995 slaughter at Srebrenica, where more than 7,000 Muslims were killed at the hands of Serb forces during the Bosnian war.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 1:21 pm
  

  "Around 6,000 bodies have been found so far in more than a dozen graves around the city, but fewer than 600 have been identified."

  The above quote is from the article linked by Gogol Charlemagne. I just can't get this story straight -- 6000 "around the city"??? That is not what I remember. Those bodies were found all over Bosnia Hercegovina and presumed to be all ethnicities. I'm sorry, I try to keep track of this. Does anybody have a link that reports this objectively? If I have it I'll save it this time.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 1:35 pm
  

  It is not true 6,000 bodies have been found. All what they had is about 4,000 body bags containing incomplete bodies. There was a limited budget prepared to use DNA testing to connect the bodies and its parts and determine eventually the identity of all. I know such program was abandon by lack of founds more accurately by lack of interest since the figures and the evidence don't match the claims by any stretch of the imagination. It is easier and politically more efficient to have the Dutch parliament to continue blame itself for the failure of Srebrenica.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 1:42 pm
  

  Most people in the former Yugoslavia are very aware of the fantastic claims of the Western media. It is a waste of time to try to convince them for what they know to be a gross exaggeration of figures and blames. The western media is more interested now to keep the myth among the countries which participated in the destruction, by political, economical and military means of Yugoslavia.

  Recently there are news reports of attacks in Serbia, spontaneous attacks against journalists involved in spreading lies about Serbia and Yugoslavia. The propaganda has now become obvious and inefficient.
  
  G C
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 1:48 pm
  Great! The Bosnian Court ordered the Bosnian Serbs to pay reparations.Lots of Luck......you can’t get gold out of gravel.

  Who made the... unbiased judges.... the great Gods over the Serbs?

  As for explaining what happened at Srebrenica? How can you explain something that never happened? Come on..... 7,000 men shot to death with CIA, and spy planes hovering over the Serbs day and night? Get real! Time to dispel of the propaganda. Someone should wire up Madelene Albright to a lie detector machine along with some so called widows.

  ----------------------------- I recall a full page ad in the Los Angeles Times. The ad was an open letter to then President Clinton urging him to take action against the Serbs. It has been a long time and I do not remember if it was on Bosnia or on Kosovo, I do remember quite a few names, all of them were Republicans. (I add the Republican bit for those who think or thought the Republicans were saviors to the Serbs). One of them George Shultz, another Jeanne Kirkpatrick. I believe both of these people have in one way or another business dealings that would behoove them to please Saudi Arabia. As I recall Margaret Thatcher’s signature was also there. Thatcher’s son is a very wealthy man, who was and maybe still residing in Texas. He is very wealthy. Could be from the sell of planes to Saudi Arabia.

  If you examine each of these names who constantly begged for the bombing of Bosnian Serbs and/or Kosovo, it will always leads you straight to Saudi Arabia.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 2:08 pm
  Appropos Srebrenica, this is an interesting story. I haven't seen it picked up anywhere else: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA302A.html
  
  Robert Hessen
  New York
  N.Y.

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 5:51 pm
  Robert,

  Very good article -- thanks.

  A pity it will have the relatively small readership that most of the intelligent commentry on the Balkans has.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  Californ-eye-eh

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 7:27 pm
  Well here you have it. The Kososvo war will be used to sell the next one. Hope (and it seems) the 'Europeans' have learned their lesson.

  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, citing former President Clinton's use of force in the Balkans without U.N. backing, said in Washington there was legal precedent for going to war against Iraq without U.N. approval.

  Another nice quote:

  Evidently frustrated, Powell told reporters: ``There are some people, in my judgment, who don't want to see the facts clearly."
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 7:30 pm
  From the AFP article that Gogol posted:

  In its first such ruling, the court responded to a lawsuit by 49 families against Bosnian Serb authorities, charging their rights have been violated because they have not received information about their missing relatives. More than 1,700 such claims are still pending.

  If there are 6,000 7,000 or 8,000 victims (depending on the whim of whoever is making the accusation) then why are there only about 1,750 claims filed against the RS? Didn't anybody care for the other 4,000 to 6,000 so-called "massacre victims?"

  Obviously it should be easy to compile a list of victims since the accusation goes that the women were separated from the men and then the men were massacred. Why can't the women, or anybody else for that matter produce a list of the men who were supposedly massacred?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 10:36 pm
  The USA, often talks of how they saved Europe (twice), but they forget that it took them years to commit, and then, only after they had experienced a direct blow. Roosevelt even had to create the Lend-Lease and Cash and Carry programs to look like they were neutral to try to avoid pissing off the “stay out of European wars crowd.”. Mr. W. Bush in his address to the nation reminded me of Oral Roberts the Evangelist minus the healing power. Does the man really think that the world is full of morons.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday March 07, 2003 at 11:55 pm
  Since the ICJ voted 5 to 4 against Provisional Measures in the Clinton Bombing case in a vastly different political climate............isn't it likely that the ICJ would rule in favour of implementing Provisional Measures in a Iraq vs. USA/UK case ?
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Saturday March 08, 2003 at 3:47 am
  Who is next, was the question posed by Canadian PM? We should be concerned also, since it appears that EU is alos on the list as well as others. I lived through WW II, and found to be discusted by prospect of WAR, as prescribed by Emperor Bush.
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Saturday March 08, 2003 at 4:21 am
  Kathryn, the letter you are referring to must be the same that appeared in New York Times on September 20, 1998. I found it yesterday in the New American Century files at http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans_pdf_04.pdf .

  I must hand it to you. These people are Republicans. They used Clinton's domestic problems at the time with Monica to change the American foreign policy toward Kosovo. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld from the present administration have been mentioned in connection with what has been called the "Wolfowitz cabal", which was behind the open letter to Clinton. Add to this the fact that Clinton's rival in the presidential race, Bob Dole, the Republican, is an advocate of the Kosovo independence, as you mentioned.

  I feel I have to come back to the Greek role in Macedonia once more. The newly independent Macedonia was one of the poorest countries in Europe. For that reason alone, the EU humanitarian aid should have been allowed to enter Macedonia. Instead, Greece stopped it at the border.

  Greece is a member state of Nato. If there were any truth to the claims that Macedonia was planning to conquer northern Greece, that would have been the excuse for Nato to invoke Art. 5 (collective self-defense) for the first time in its history. Macedonia would certainly have noticed that there was more to the alleged conquest of Thessaloniki than they had thought.

  The Greeks used plenty of excuses to prove the plans for Macedonian expansion. Macedonia used the Sun of Alexander in its flag, and since Alexander the Great was Greek in the Greek eyes, this supposedly pointed to the Macedonian expansion (actually his mother was not Greek but one of the Epirote barbarians). One of the Macedonian banknotes had a picture of a tower in Thessaloniki. And as the crown to the plan, Macedonia decided to called itself Macedonia, which the Greeks thought only the Greeks could use.

  Forget about the historic links between the Greeks and the Serbs, with the now-canonical citation of Ottoman yoke and the Orthodox faith. Those links don't mean anything in regard to the Macedonian Slavs. So there must be another reason. What the Greeks were really protesting against was the breakup of Yugoslavia, which threatened (potentially) its northern border.

  The Greeks knew perfectly well the Macedonians were not planning a conquest, the national symbols notwithstanding. The whole point in the Macedonian independence had been the uti possidetis rule, which meant that the former Yugoslav republics should preserve the Yugoslav administrative borders at independence. That certainly consolidated the Macedonian border in regard to Serbia. Nothing out of the ordinary was signalled at the Albanian or Bulgarian border. So what gave the Greeks the excuse to start ranting about the Macedonian expansion?

  Greece may act as if it were not a Nato country (for whatever reason), but the fact remains that it is. When Greece made such a noise about Macedonia threatening its national security, the US reacted immediately, being the leading Nato partner. And the Greek worries about the mixup in the name of Macedonia got a feedback in the US. The US followed the international policy at the time and decided not to recognize Macedonia until the Greek grievances concerning the name were addressed.

  Now the official name is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). This Orwellian nomenclature was meant to be temporary, but a suitable replacement has never been found. The fact that the Greeks found FYROM so appealing points to the fact that the breakup of Yugoslavia was the problem. On the other hand, it knew full well that Macedonia never intended to change its borders that it had had in Yugoslavia.

  It has been said that the US started its "peace-keeping" mission in Macedonia, in spite of the fact that it hadn't recognize the state. Viewed from the above perspective, one could just as well say that the US entered Macedonia because it couldn't recognize Macedonia. As soon as Greece signalled it was threatened, the US had no alternative but to act.

  On the other hand, Turkey, the archrival of Greece, is also a member of Nato. So to find a suitable compromise, the US troops concentrated on the Albanian minority in Macedonia, in order to take both Greek and Turkish interests into account. And as if to show that the US could accept the official worries of the international community concerning Macedonia, the US made an exception this time and joined the international peace-keepers in Macedonia, the UNPREDEP, which they avoided doing anywhere else in former Yugoslavia.

  The US had still an agenda of its own. Papa Bush had warned Milosevic in December 1992 that he shouldn't start messing up in Kosovo. The US presence in Macedonia allowed it to "monitor" the situation in Kosovo as well. In fact, this monitoring function was so rewarding to the US and the "international community" that the UNPREDEP mandate was continued in Macedonia (to promote the "dialogue" between the Albanians and the Slavs), even if UNPREDEP was discontinued everywhere else. The Russians of course knew what was going on and the Russian representative in the Security Council gave his separate opinion on the need for UNPREDEP to stay in the republic. That was in 1996. Two years on, the situation across the border in Kosovo was unbearable.

  The Milosevic case, among others, has given the people the impression that the main sticking points in Yugoslavia were in Croatia and Bosnia. The Macedonian crisis is forgotten, even though it surpassed both Croatia and Bosnia in publicity at the time.

  However, even today, if one accepts that the rial clash in the Balkans is between the US-sponsored east-west axis, and the European-sponsored north-south axis, one has to find the root of the problem where these axes cross each other: in Macedonia. Greece may have protested against the Macedonian independence, because provided the US (and supposedly Turkey) the missing piece in the east-west axis, but by treating Macedonia as dirt, Greece only aggravated the consequences of the breakup of Yugoslavia and actually ended up sealing Macedonia's place in the east-west axis. Greeks may not be bad people, but in this instance their foolishness is unforgiveable.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday March 08, 2003 at 12:56 pm
  

  Bosnian Muslim Hague Indictee Dies of Heart Attack

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 08, 2003 at 1:21 pm
  Bulgaria backing American bullying and drumbeat of propaganda in the Security Council is not surprising. Bulgaria is isolated in the Balkans just as they were isolated in the first half of the twentieth century. They sided with the German patron in both WWI and WWII out of self interest. Bulgaria sees any solidarity between the Serbs and Greeks as anti Bulgarian while the Turks have never been a friend of Bulgaria. Therefore, Bulgaria looked for patrons to promote their security and expansionist interests in Macedonia. The patron during the Cold War was Russia (the nation that freed them from the Ottomans) and now it is America. This Bulgarian support on Iraq is strictly out of self interest

  The Greek Serbian relations in the Diaspora, personally speaking, have always been solid. The Serbs have found a home in Greek traditions, restaurants, church services, picnics and social gatherings as if they were their own. The Greek have always treated me as one of them. For me, one of the most disappointing events during the Milosevic regime was the fact that he took Macedonia’s side in the Greek Macedonian dispute over the name “Macedonia”. The Greek people were our best friends, while the Macedonians did not want anything to do with us and in fact stabbed us in the back. Milosevic sided with them. What did he gain by this? Macedonia became an American Trojan horse that opened the door to the bombing of Yugoslavia.

  Iraq fear mongering is a Trojan horse, a distraction from what the Bush gang is doing to America. The conservative agenda has assailed the social fabric of the American society. The conservative policy has been security of America through fear mongering as a way of getting the people to forget their social needs. This way they stay in power and fleece the society while they and their corporate friends reap the benefits. The manufacturing of fear is a dig business. Soviet threat, Khadafi, Nicaragua, drugs and crime in the streets, terrorism and now Iraq are all manufactured by the conservatives in order to stay in power. The Americans, unfortunately have bought it all hook line and sinker.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday March 08, 2003 at 1:57 pm
  GC
  Your Reuters' link is interesting in that it contains the the following single sentence paragraph...

  Muslims and Croats started the war as allies against the Serbs but later turned on each other.

  Is this a start of a 'shift' in the media to exonerate Milosevic in this stage of the 'tribunal'. Very odd to me, but seems like their's finally a crack in media.
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Saturday March 08, 2003 at 3:47 pm
  "General Alagic did not die of a heart (attack), he died of injustice," Bosnian Muslim former leader Alija Izetbegovic told the Dnevni Avaz newspaper”. Stalin said “In the end everyone dies from a heart attack” but in the case of the Hague Tribunal some more conveniently than others.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 2:10 am
  I deleted some of the article for the purpose of keeping the space taken to a minimum. This article was on the New York Times and Anti War.This is an eye opener. I predict he will be a one term president.

  Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear

  By PAUL KRUGMAN

  Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."

  Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" - emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

  And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

  These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was.

  Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That's Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush's remarks as a threat to do the same to them?

  So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such blatant bullying - or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic, multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not, which country he comes from?

  But my most intense reaction to this story isn't anger over the administration's stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie villain - "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" - what I feel, above all, is shame.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 4:50 am
  
  Real Politik as practised by Mr Morality

  “ALL ASYLUM seekers arriving in Britain will be sent to Albania, under new government plans to curb the flow of economic migrants to this country.” By Brown and Elliott, Sunday Telegraph UK: 9 March 2003.

  Can you imagine the one sided conversation “If you don’t act as a dustbin for our undesirables we’ll hand back the piece of Serbia we just grabbed for you.”?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 5:49 am
  It is amazing how accurately one can predict the course of events by looking at who sided with whom in WW II. What do we need the news for then? One only has to commit one logical fallacy to make it stick: one has to assume that the US is really the present-day Nazi Germany, so siding with the US equals siding with Germany in WW II. May I remind the honourable participants in this discussion that the US fought Germany in WW II? You are getting ahead of your story by changing that little detail of history.

  The Greeks protested against the bombing. Big deal. The protests do not count. Nato bombed Serbia anyway.

  To illustrate this point: Everybody in this discussion seems to be aware of the fact that Bulgaria allowed Nato to use its airspace during the bombing. The same goes for the recent forced marriage between the US and Bulgaria. Who remembers the violent Bulgarian protests? Who has even heard about them? But then again: Bulgarians are not Greeks, so it doesn't matter.

  And the bottomline is this: Greece allowed the military convoys to pass through its territory to Kosovo. This is more than one can say of the military convoys that the EU sent to Macedonia, which were stopped at the Greek-Macedonian border.

  This shows that Mladic sure didn't know what he was doing when he let the humanitarian convoys pass. Indeed that is one of his crimes, because according to the indictment, that showed he was in charge, so he is also responsible for the crimes committed by his subordinates.

  It is also interesting that people have to come up with some Bulgarian plan to take over Macedonia. This is the first time I have ever heard of it. I guess some people don't even notice they are reading WW II to the present situation without checking anything. Besides, wasn't the original assumption that Macedonia the state with some expansionist master plan?

  If you want to believe that Greece is the friendly face of Nato you can just as well say that the Kosovo bombing was a humanitarian intervention.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 5:59 am
  Walter, if you think Milosevic was wrong to side with Macedonia in the name dispute, start referring to that country as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," like everybody else of you decent people. That means that the people are Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonians and they speak Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 7:12 am
  

  Colonel-General von Brauchitsch has promised me to bring the war against Poland to a close within a few weeks. Had he reported to me that he needs two years or even only one year, I should not have given the command to march and should have allied myself temporarily with England instead of Russia for we cannot conduct a long war.

  Adolf Hitler, on the invasion of Poland
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 7:19 am
  

  Thirty years would have been sufficient to reduce again to barbarism those territories which the Germans, painstakingly and with industry and thrift, had saved from barbarism. Everywhere traces of this retrogression and decay were visible. Poland itself was a 'nationalities State.' That very thing had been created here which had been held against the old Austrian State. At the same time Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people. It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military. The fate of Germans in this State was horrible. There is a difference whether people of lower cultural value has the misfortune to be governed by a culturally significant people or whether a people of high cultural significance has forced upon it the tragic fate of being oppressed by an inferior. In this inferior people all its inferiority complexes will be compensated upon a higher culture-bearing people. This people will be horribly and barbarically mistreated and Germans have been evidence of this fate for twenty years. It was, as already emphasized, tragic and painful. Nevertheless, as everywhere else, I tried to find a solution here which might have led to a fair adjustment. I have tried in the West and then later in the South to maintain final frontier delineations in order thus to deliver region upon region from uncertainty and assure peace and justice for the future. I made the greatest efforts to attain the same thing here also. . .

  Hitler's Speech at Danzig Sept. 19, 1939
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 10:49 am
  Jari, I hope that the writings of at least 3 forum participants of Serbian origin (Kathryn, Nico, Walter) in addition to my own have convinced you that Greek-Serbian links are strong and secure. As for your anti-Greek stance on the Macedonian question, it is based on bits and pieces of partially inaccurate information, on quite imaginative speculations concerning cause-effect relationships and on an inadequate appreciation of depth of time in Balkan history and politics.

  WHO PROVOKED? DISTORTING HISTORY FOR POLITICAL GOALS

  The heritage of ancient Macedonia
  I think everyone will agree that Slav Macedonians can in no case claim the ancient Macedonians and Alexander as their ancestors, whereas Greeks have a valid claim. Ancient Macedonians were primarily non-Greeks until king Philip and his son Alexander consciously adopted almost every aspect of the Greek civilization of the time. Alexander spread Greek, not "Macedonian", civilization throughout the eastern mediterranean and middle east. The ancient Macedonian people were quickly assimilated in the Greek world. Topographically, the location of king Philip's capital is not in today's FYRO Macedonia but in Greek Macedonia close to Thessaloniki.

  Greek concerns were based on historical and diplomatic realism
  Greece never claimed that FYRO Macedonia was about to invade northern Greece. What Greece essentially feared, with plenty of good reason, was a constant source of tension from the north combined with a diplomatic alliance between FYRO Macedonia and Turkey (a reality in the early '90s), which could turn to a military one with US blessing. In the very real possibility of a Turkish-Greek war in the future, FYRO Macedonians could very well try to do what they tried in 1913 (then as "Bulgarians") and what their Bulgarian brothers did (with the Nazis) in 1941-44: conquer Greek Macedonia. Fortunately, such a possibility looks much less likely today than what it looked in the early '90's.

  FYROM had chosen a politically provoking stance
  FYROM politicians' original goal was of course not to antagonize Greece but to build historical roots for their newborn country. But by adopting the ancient Macedonian flag, they blatantly usurped history in a way that would predictably trigger a Greek reaction. As for the name, while name sharing is a historically and diplomatically reasonable solution, FYROM politicians have insisted on a name signifying to the outside world that they alone can be called "Macedonians", with all historical and political implications that may ensue. After the removal of foreign minister Samaras over the issue in 1992, all major Greek politicians have taken a reasonable attitude and either privately or publicly accepted a compound name for FYROM. On the other hand, FYROM was recalcitrant on both name & flag until they were eventually forced to drop Alexander's flag; a victory for Greece, for historical justice and, in the long run, for FYROM too. Had FYROM politicians been historically honest and diplomatically smart, the embargo and the whole confrontation would have been avoided. They, not Greece, were historically dishonest and diplomatically foolish. Nevertheless, they still have the opportunity to ally with with Serbia and Greece if they want to avoid being carved up between greater Bulgaria and greater Albania, the latter possibility with US indifference or even blessing.

  
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 1:27 pm
  KL
  Who is going to provide for the defense of the USA? Billions+ in taxes for defense, paid by you and me, are spent by the Congress. We also elected a President who has this task as a primary responsibility. We don't defer this decision to the Cameroon's, Mexico, France, DNC, or the UN for that matter. For them to jockey around, at the expense of WTC victims, for prestige, favors and handouts, is disingenuous .

  France isn't an ally, never was, always constantly nipping. Powell said it best.. para phrase " all we ever asked of France was for ground to bury our dead". What's Mexico's Fox stake in this, does he aim to wag us. He and Canada's Cretien better get in line before they become 'enemies'. Geo Will pointed out today, the UN is ill conceived, ill run, and has been a disaster as evidenced by its' history.

  Texas elected W twice , honors the death penalty, and groomed W for president. It does them proud.
  
  J P
  USA. Wis

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 2:57 pm
  LINK TO A SOURCE OF AUTHORITATIVE NUMBERS ON KOSOVO DEAD.
  Good ammunition for letters to media.

  The article by George Szamuely pointed to above by Robert Hessen offers a reference to an authoritative account (by the Council of Europe) on the numbers of Kosovo dead and missing: http://www.commissioner.coe.int/docs/CommDH(2002)11_E.htm

  These numbers offer a persuasive argument to be used in letters addressed to mainstream media authors who knowingly or (more often) unwittingly promote anti-Serbian propaganda by parroting the myth of "10000 Albanians killed by Serb forces". Forum participants who send letters can cite the original Council of Europe link and display the simple math as Szamuely did in his article:

  Total number of identified bodies (as of October 2002) = 2100
  (breakdown of ethnic background or other info is not given)

  Total number of still missing ethnic Albanians = 2750

  Therefore;
  Total number of ethnic Albanian dead = less than 4850

  Needless to say, the number includes large numbers of armed combatants, victims of intra-Albanian violence or NATO bombing, natural and accidental deaths. Most of the journalists writing about "10000 dead" are themselves victims of ignorance and propaganda. They should be politily advised to check the numbers for themselves and to realize that some of their sources on Kosovo are unreliable and malicious.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 3:36 pm
  I have been following this forum for some time now, and although I prefer "sitting on the fence" as the trendy expression goes, I can't resist to comment on the Greece-bashing from JN. It seems that this gentleman is on the bottle (viina in his country of origin) frequently.That's the only explanation I can come up with.At times he sounds sober and his analyses are quite logical, at other times he writes nonsense.For example suggesting that bombing Iraq will do Iraqis a favour, because....it will end their suffering from...the sanctions!! Now, with his all-knowing, legalese style turned to Greece. Mr Pythagoras C.has repeatedly tried calmly, stating facts, to explain Greece's position.To no avail.Mr Nousiainen keeps ranting about Greece being responsible for FYROM'S(and FYROM it is, until proper name is found) troubles. This is not the place to open this can of worms, so Mr Nousiainen's diatribes should stick to the subject he (admittedly) knows best:Milosevic and his trial at the Hague. I should thank him though, for mentioning that Greeks are not really bad people.Thank you Mr J., you are most generous! One final note for Mr Pythagoras, before I retire to my fence: The ancient Macedonians were Greek people!They were not Hellenized by Philip.Read your history better!! SK Athens,Greece
  
  Stylianos Kerasiotis
  Athens
  Greece

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 4:34 pm
  Stylianos, good to see more Greeks in the forum. I hope we won't be challenged any more on the Macedonian issue, so that we can stick with Milosevic and the organized demonization of Serbia.
  I don't think the Greekness of ancient Macedonians in the archaic and classical periods is a question with a black & white answer but, in any case, this is an academic issue with marginal relevance. The critical point, on which we agree, is that by the time of Philip they were thoroughly hellenized.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 6:43 pm
  Jari you write that I should be “like everybody else of” my “decent”. I am not like everybody of my decent. I was born in Yugoslavia and that part of the world will always be Yugoslavia to me. When I refer to “Macedonia” I am speaking of one of the republics within Yugoslavia. By thinking anything else I legitimize the past twelve years of international lawlessness. Call me naïve but please don’t refer to me as “like everybody else of your decent”. My views on world events are shaped by many factors and one of these factors is my ethnicity but more than anything I am motivated by my belief that universal values must predominate over national interests.

  Germany entered WWII out of self interest when they attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland. Likewise, United States entered WWII out of self interest not to save the world for democracy as they would like us to believe. International law provides nations with territorial integrity and national sovereignty not the right to attack others. For example Finland had a legitimate reason to enter WWII- self defense. I would call that a just reason. Unfortunately for Finland it found itself between the rock and the hard place and lost Karelia and half of Lake Ladoga. United States entered because of Tora Tora Tora as did Yugoslavia because of Operation Punishment -both cases of self defence.

  Bulgaria entered WWI because her tsar Ferdinand was a German prince and the Premier like Chamberlain was a Germanophile. Like Italy in 1915, Bulgaria was a fence sitter waiting for the best offer. In a secret agreement with the Central powers Bulgaria was promised Serbian territory along the Morava and part of Macedonia as well as an outlet on the Aegean, at Greece’s expense. The Bulgarian hate of the Serbs and Greeks won out and the rest is history. For Bulgaria WWII followed a similar path.

  Bulgaria is a nation state in economic crisis. Her present action vis a vis Yugoslavia and Iraq are motivated by economic factors. Unfortunately, in both cases Bulgaria has sacrificed Balkan interests for self interest with a great deal of pressure from the American carrot and the stick policy. Yes I remember the Bulgarian protests but this does not change history. Bulgaria was neither a NATO nation nor an EU member so her government action over her people’s protests is inexcusable. On the other hand the action of the Greek government is understandable since they are both an EU and NATO member and at the same time condemnable because the government ignored 98 percent of its people. I thank both the Bulgarian and the Greek people who protested the lawlessness of NATO
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 7:26 pm
  

  Nations have the right to pursue their interests, nations have no right to wage wars of aggression for any purpose. Ivanov is right in saying war against Iraq without UN approval will be a violation of the UN Charter and the UN will have to act accordingly. Expelling the USA and the UK seems to be the proper action.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn.,USA

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 7:40 pm
  Walter

  I agree with you about considering one's self "Yugoslav" when one was born in Yugoslavia. It's the same for me -- I will always be a Yugoslav.

  This was of no matter, however, when I needed to renew my US passport a couple of years ago to make an urgent trip. On the application form where it asks for "place of birth," I naturally put my place of birth - Yugoslavia. But I was told in no uncertain terms by the ignorant clerk there that I could not put down Yugoslavia -- that Yugoslavia doesn't exist. (This was more than 2 years ago, mind.) When I said that it was THE country in which I was born and I was not born in any other, and to my knowledge there was still a rump state of Yugoslavia, he told me to take it up with Congress. (!)To my indignant question of "What should I put down if I was born in Yugoslavia and YOU say Yugoslavia isn't a country, then?," he replied "Just put where you were born."(!?@!) In my frantic state where I had to have a passport in order to go abroad to see a dying family member, I just put Pancevo, Yugoslavia, as my place of birth. When I got my newly issued passport the next day, at the place where it says Country of Origin, or whatever it actually says, they had put Pancevo. No country. Just Pancevo. I wanted to ask him where the country of Pancevo was, but I just gave up in disgust. Nobody has ever questioned on my travels why it says this.

  This experience confirmed my opinion that the United States decided long ago that Yugoslavia was not going to exist and made sure to fulfill that plan. Even the US Postal Service has for YEARS told us that the "correct" address for Yugoslavia was Serbia-Montengro. It's the utmost arrogance. As for Buglaria, my father, who remembers the shenanignans of WWII, has always said that Bulgaria is a parasitic state that goes which ever way the breeze blows better for it. In other words, an unprincipled state without any integrity.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  Californ-eye-eh

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 8:58 pm
  Albania says troops will join war on Iraq

  TIRANA, March 9 -Albania said on Sunday it would send troops to join any U.S.-led attack on Iraq, a largely symbolic gesture that underlines Tirana's gratitude to Washington for intervening in the 1999 Kosovo crisis....Both Albanian officials and the U.S. embassy in Tirana declined comment on whether the government was responding to a request from the United States...

  German Official: U.S. Acting Like 'Dictator'

  The Americans look more and more like dictators with their unilateral decisions," Walter Kolbow, junior minister in the Defense Ministry, was quoted as saying in the "Welt am Sonntag" newspaper...Last year, relations between Washington and Berlin were soured after Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin reportedly compared Bush's political tactics with Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler's....
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Sunday March 09, 2003 at 9:26 pm
  

  It is all Blix fault!

  HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA