Na ruke Predsednika Republike Srbije
G-dina Tomislava NIKOLICA

Postovani gospodine Predsednice!

Pozivajuci se na izjave date u medijima od strane nekih vodecih ljudi u drzavi o razmisljanju o eventualnom prihvatanju ultimativnog zahteva od strane Zapada, a za nedvosmislenu i iskljucivu korist privremenih i protivustavnih institucija u Pristini, dozvolite da Vam s tim u vezi prenesemo otvoreno neslaganje i javno protivljenje srpske dijaspore Australije.

Srpska dijaspora kao integralni deo srpskog nacionalnog bica ne sme, ne moze i nece se sloziti ni sa kakvim i ni sa cijim aktom koji ce znaciti direktno i/ili indirektno priznavanje samo-proglasenih institucija lazne tvorevine tzv. Republike Kosovo (u daljem tekstu ”RK”). Prihvatanje uslova iz Brisela bi znacilo legitimizaciju, NATO bombama, otete srpske vekovne teritorije. Jednom svojevoljno predana teritorija (i/lii ne dao Bog izdana ili prodana, a time i naroda koji polaze vekovno pravo na istu) je izgubljena zauvek.

Svi smo svesni ogromnih i neprincipijelinih pritisaka Zapada da Srbija prihvati ”realnost” na terenu te da pusti KiM da ode. Zavarava se svako ko misli da ce politikom popustanja i ne dao Bog (na)pustanjem KiM prestati ultimatumi Srbiji i srpskom narodu.

U proteklom periodu od 1999, a i ne samo od tada, vise je nego jasno koje su namere svetskih mocnika. Srbija je sve vreme popustala i gde nas je to dovelo. Dovelo nas je do toga da se od nas eksplicitno trazi da ukinemo i poslednje institucije drzave Srbije na KiM. Sledeci korak ce, nema sumnje, biti zahtev ili novi ultimatum za dopustanje stolice u UN za tzv. RK. Kad bismo to dopustili trazilo bi se priznavanje tzv. RK od strane Srbije itd.

Srbija je u svojoj blizoj i daljoj istoriji ucinila previse ustupaka, a da i ne spomenemo koliko je zrtava podnela za Evropu koja joj sad ultimativno zahteva napustanja svog vekovnog teritorija, a sta ne bi niko nikada i ni po kojim uslovima iz te Evrope ucnio kad bi njihov teritorij bio u pitanju, a sve to zarad dobijanja ”fikcije” – datuma otpocinjanja prgovora koji ce voditi, praksa je do sad pokazala, ka novim uslovljavanjima i ultimatumima. S punim pravom se postavlja pitanje koliko je iskrena Evropa kad smo mi u pitanju. Koja je to drzava bila uslovljena na slican nacin pri pristupanju EU? Svakako da Vam je poznat odgovor – slovom i brojkom – ni jedna.

Gospodine Predsednice, jos uvek odzvanjaju reci Vase zakletve u Skupstini Srbije, kao i obecanja datog srpskom narodu na KiM kao i, uostalom, vascelom srpskom (na)rodu ma gde on ziveo da cete svo svoje bice posvetiti borbi za ocuvannje srpske teritorije ukljucujuci KiM. S tim u vezi gospodine Predsednice mi Vas svesrdno pozdravljamo i podrzavamo te se molimo svevisnjem Bogu da ne popustite duhom i da klonete pred ogromnim pritiscima koji ne jenjavaju, a sve se cini da isti nece prestatiti skoro. Ocigledno Evropi nije stalo do nas i zasto se onda gurati tamo gde nas nece?

Ukoliko evropski pregovaraci i posrednici prenebregavaju cinjenicu da je KiM pravni, politicki, duhovni i istorijski neotu|ivi deo Srbije nama onda ne preostaje nista drugo nego da promenimo posrednika tj. vratimo ceo slucaj u UN gde imamo prijatelje i gde vecina clanica nije priznala protivustavnu secesiju KiM.

Dozvolite gospodine Predsednnce da Vam predlozimo da umesto prihvatanja neprihvatljivog i ponizavajuceg, i onog sto se prihvatiti ne moze i ne sme, da se obezbedi, bez obzira da li pregovore o statusu KiM vodi stručnjak ili političar, da se ne samo pregovarači, već i Vlada Srbije i svi njeni organi, pridržavaju pravila struke razresenja konfliktnih situacija i pravila reklamacionog postupka (kada u razresenju spora između pregovarača ne učestvuje objektivni sudija, a u ovom slučaju vise nego pristrasna – Evropska zajednica, koja otvoreno podržava secesioniste) te da se u u tom smislu:

- odustane od tvrdnje da ova Vlada mora da trajno resi status KiM, već treba raditi da ova Vlada pronalazi resenja prihvatljiva za sve aktere jer postizanje brzog resenja u sadasnjim konstelacijama snaga i političkih faktora ide na ruku secesionistima, a ne nikako u korist Republike Srbije,

- ne insistira na tome da Republika Srbija mora posto poto da uđe u evrointegracione procese, već da se stavi do znanja Evropskoj zajednici da postoje granice ispod kojih Republika Srbija ne može, ne sme i neće da ide,

- Republika Srbija treba da stavi do znanja Evropskoj zajednici da joj je stalo do dobrih odnosa ne samo sa Zapadom nego i sa Istokom: na taj način će se otupeti ostrica Zapada koja je već duži period okrenuta isključivo protiv Republike Srbije,

- postuju principi sadržani u prvobitnoj platformi o KiM a posebno princip da «nista nije dogovoreno dok sve nije dogovoreno» u svakoj fazi pregovora između privremenih nelegalnih institucija Pristine sa Beogradom,

- smesta prekine i ukloni integrisano upravljanje administrativnih prelaza koje pristinska strana tumači kao granične prelaze, a ubiranje dažbina koristi za nekakve razvojne fondove Severa kao demonstrativni oblik korupcije i kompromitacije organa na Severu Kosova i Metohije,

- preispitaju sve odluke prethodne i sadasnje Vlade, te da se one odluke i dogovori koji su u suprotnosti sa Ustavom Republike Srbije proglase nistavim,

- obezbedi da svaki postignuti sporazum i/ili dogovor mora biti kompatibilan i saglasan sa Ustavom Republike Srbije,

- da insistirate da se Vlada Srbije bavi prevashodno privrednim oporavkom Srbije jer samo privredni oporavak Srbije može biti osnov za resavanje drugih vitalnih pitanja, pa i statusa KiM,

- da ne dopustite da se u formulisanju pozicije Srbije za razresenje postojeceg protivustavnog stanja na KiM polazi «od realnog stanja na terenu» jer je to izraz koji služi u svrhu zanemarivanja etničkog čisćenja srpskog naroda, jer ako Vlada Srbije ne može da poboljsa faktičko stanje Vlada Srbije moze i mora da brani pravno stanje i Ustav Srbije, i da insistira na primeni Rezolucije 1244 Saveta bezbednosti UN, a ne da legalizuje otcepljenje delova Srbije,

- da se predsedničkom Uredbom konstatuje to sto je očigledno svima da je kao posledica NATO bombardovanja deo Srbije na KiM okupiran i da se armijama koje imaju svoje jedinice na prostoru KiM odredi adekvatna suma (u milijardama evra) kao naknada za dosadasnje korisćenje tog prostora,

- da se u raspravu o resavanja statusa KiM ukljuci i rasejanje.

U to ime zelimo da Vi gospodine Predsednice, na celu drzavnog vrha umesto odobravanja briselskog ultimatuma kazete jasno i glasno veliko NE politici ucena i pritisaka i vratite slucaj pred UN gde imamo prijatelje i gde moramo insistirati na postovanju i primeni Rezoluciji 1244 Saveta bezbednosti UN.

Gospodine Predsednice, niko nema mandat da potpise kapitulaciju ili predaju celog i/ili jednog dela teritorija Republike Srbije – Ustav to zabranjuje. Oci vascelog srpstva su uprte u Vas i u drzavni vrh. Istrajte zajedno u borbi za srpske nacionalne interese i ne dozvolite da Vas iko i ista pokoleba u tome.

Gospodine Predsednice srpsko rasejanje je sa Vama i uz Vas i polaze svu nadu u Vase drzavnicke sposobnosti te veruje da cete znati i umeti zastititi srpske interese na KiM, i ne samo na KiM.

S duznim postovanjem!

U Sidneju, 9. aprila 2013. god.

SRBI ZA PRAVDU I DEMOKRATIJU
A U S T R A L I J A

TOO bad if you were a Serb victim of any crime in the former Yugoslavia. More Serbs were displaced — ethnically cleansed — by the wars in the Balkans than any other community. And more Serbs remain ethnically displaced to this day. Almost no one has been held to account, and it appears that no one will be.

The United Nations war crimes tribunal in The Hague has acquitted Ramush Haradinaj, Kosovo’s former prime minister, of war crimes. Last month, it acquitted on appeal the generals who led Croatia to victory over the Serbs.

Altogether, almost all of the West’s friends have been acquitted; almost all of the Serbs have been found guilty. These results do not reflect the balance of crimes committed on the ground.

I have no sympathy with the Serbs who have been convicted. On the contrary. I lived through the siege of Sarajevo. I served as a witness for the prosecution in the cases against the former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, the wartime leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, and, most recently, the Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic, who is accused of ordering the massacre at Srebrenica.

The Serbs committed many of the war’s worst crimes, but were not at all alone, and it is not right, or useful, for them to carry the sole responsibility. Convicting only Serbs simply doesn’t make sense in terms of justice, in terms of reality, or in terms of politics.

The Croatian leaders connived in the carve-up of Yugoslavia, and contributed mightily to the horrors on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I witnessed for myself the indiscriminate fury of the Croatian assault on the beautiful city of Mostar. I lived in a town in Bosnia where the decapitated heads of captured Muslims were displayed in the marketplace.

I saw for myself tens and tens of thousands of Serb civilian refugees fleeing Croatia in the wake of the 1995 Croatian offensive that ended the war. If the acquitted generals were not responsible for this ethnic cleansing, then somebody was, somebody who will presumably go free.

Nor were the Serbs and Croats alone, though they must shoulder most of the judgment of history. The Bosnian Muslim leadership had deeply compromising links to the international jihahist movement, and hosted at least three people who went on to play key roles in the 9/11 attacks on the United States. I witnessed attacks by foreign mujahedeen elements against Croat civilians in the Lasva Valley.

And the Kosovar Albanian authorities deserve a special mention, having taken ethnic cleansing to its most extreme form — ridding themselves almost entirely of the Serb and Roma populations. Kosovo’s ancient Christian Orthodox monasteries are now almost the only reminder of a once-flourishing non-Albanian population. (These monasteries have been the object of numerous violent attacks. Several have been destroyed; others remain under threat.)

Haradinaj has been cleared of the charges brought against him, but the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of Serbs — mostly the elderly, women and children — were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo by the Kosovar Albanians.

What has happened at the tribunal is far from justice, and will be interpreted by observers in the Balkans and beyond as the continuation of war by legal means — with the United States, Germany and other Western powers on one side, and the Serbs on the other.

This will amplify the worst political instincts of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia: the persecution complex of the Serbs; the triumphalism of the Croats; the sense of victimization of the Bosnian Muslims; the vindication of the Kosovar Albanian quest for racial purity. Each of these traits has some basis in truth, and each has been exaggerated and manipulated by politicians on all sides.

The lack of legal reckoning will once again channel grievances into the political process, laying up plenty of ammunition for further rounds of conflict. It is the opposite of what the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was created to achieve.

David Harland is executive director of the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/opinion/global/selective-justice-for-the-balkans.html?_r=1&

By DAVID HARLAND

Published: December 7, 2012

Uoci svecanosti polaganja zakletve i formalnog preuzimanja duznosti Predsednika Republike, zelimo da Vam iz daleke Australije uputimo cestitke, prenesemo nase iskrene nade i zelje da upravo Vas dolazak na celo drzave bude dan otpocinjanja posvemasnjih promena, vise nikad u pravcu propasti na rubu ocaja, vec samo i jedino napretka.

Svesni smo tezine situacije i uveravamo Vas da na Srbiju i dogadjaje u Otadzbini ne gledamo samo srcem vec i razumom. Utoliko vise su nas proteklih godina bolele silne nepravde koje srpski narod ne trpi samo od belosvetskih mocnika, vec i domacih bezumnika koji su pokazali neverovatnu spremnost da zarad nesto vlastitog interesa prodaju u bescenje i neprocenjiva nacionalna bogatstva. Koristimo ovu priliku da Vas zamolimo, gospodine Predsednice,  da u okviru ustavnih ovlascenja Predsednika Republike ucinite sve sto je moguce da se takva praksa energicno prekine i da se vise nikad ne ponovi. Ako smo kao narod na vetrometini, na tako osetljivom geostrateskom polozaju morali zarad vecitih sudara Istoka i Zapada da trpimo ono sto valjda niko istrpeo ne bi, ne moramo da pomazemo otezavanju ionako uvek izazovima prebogatog i zahtevnog polozaja.

Svesni smo da niste i da necete ni biti u mogucnosti da carobnim stapicem odjednom od iscrpljene, opljackane i, sto je najgore i ponizene Srbije stvorite drzavu prosperiteta, bezbednosti i ponosa. Ali upravo kad je o ponosu rec, moramo da Vas zamolimo, gospodine Predsednice, da ne dozvolite ponizavanja kojih je proteklih godina bilo nebrojeno puta, vec da svi dobro znaju, kako srpski tradicionalni, istorijski prijatelji, isto kao i oni koji nam cesto nisu bili prijateljski naklonjeni, da je Srbija drzava pravednih, vrednih i postenih ljudi na koju uvek moze svako da racuna kada se poziva na univerzalne principe pravednosti i mirnog resavanja svih problema. Mislimo da i ne treba posebno naglasavati kako pri tome mislimo na odnos prema istorijskim vrednostima, isto kao i odnos prema problemima nasledjenim iz bliske proslosti, nadasve krajnje neprihvatljivim i po srpsko nacionalno bice, cijeg je dijaspora integralni i nerazdvojivi deo, pogubnim razvojem stanja na

juznom delu Srbije – Kosovu i Metohiji – kolevci srpske drzave i kulture, srpskog postojanja i srpskog opstajanja.

Molimo Vas da za razliku od dosadasnjeg predsednika, postujete Ustav ne samo kad Vam se cini da je to u interesu bliskog Vam okruzenja, vec uvek i jedino na dobro svih gradjana Srbije i vascelog srpskog naroda ma gde se on nalazio.

Gospodine Predsednice, pruzamo Vam ruku bratske podrske kao znak nase zelje da napravimo odlucujuci korak ne samo ka pomirenju Otaddzbine sa cesto obespravljenom i drasticno zanemarenom dijasporom, vec i saradnji o kojoj se proteklih decenija mnogo prica, a vrlo malo konkretno radi, posebno kad je rec o ekonomskoj saradnji.

Uz najbolje zelje za dobro zdravlje, mudrost i strpljenje u drzavnim poslovima, cestitamo Vam preuzimanje duznosti prvog coveka jedine nam i voljene Srbije, nadajuci se da cete dati sve od sebe da pomognete ono sto je pomoci vredno, isto kao i da u okviru svojih ustavnih ovlascenja sprecite ono sto se spreciti mora za dobrobit svih postenih gradjana Srbije i miliona nas Srba rasejanih po belom svetu cije ogromno poverenje i nepodeljenu podrsku uzivate.

S nadom u bolje sutra za sve nas, srdacno iz daleke Australije, u ime organizacije “Srbi za pravdu i demokratiju”,

u Sidneju, 31. maja 2012. god.

Tihomir NOVAKOVIC dipl. prav

PREDSEDNIK

SRBI ZA PRAVDU I DEMOKRATIJU

- A U S T R A L I J A

Pogledajte PDF fajl

Print: Petition – Srebrenica
If you have any questions, please send us an email.

Yours faithfully,

Serbs for Justice & Democracy
P.DOBRICH SECRETARY

MEMBER
FOR MELBOURNE PORTS

Dear
Mr Danby,

RE:     Your
MOTION  proposed for 21 November
2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

___________________________________________________________________

It is
with great concern that we write to you about your proposed motion which has
the potential to be divisive and unnecessary from Australia’s interest
perspective. You should avoid being drawn into the one-sided web of
misinformation born of a war-time propaganda campaign. You should withdraw this
Motion.

The Politics of Division:

The human
tragedy arising from the destruction of the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s is
well recognized and Australia has accepted as Citizens many refugees and
migrants from that destruction of a European State into several smaller States
and Protectorates. The recently applied “politics of division” has resulted in
Bosnia’s population  being more divided
than ever into of the 3 Minority groups, Serbians, Croatians and Bosniaks. Each
group speaks the same language (but the politics of division have dictated that
each must have their own language – Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak). The analogy
is that if that policy were applied here, we would speak Australian, and
English would be a foreign language ( with the emphasis that we never spoke
English ever). Bosnia is a small territory, about the size of Tasmania. In
terms of religion, it has a Christian majority and a Muslim minority.

Misinformation born of a war-time propaganda
campaign

Recent disclosures have begun to unravel the
intricate web of misinformation behind the continued push by the Bosniak
Leadership to destabilize the peace brokered in the Dayton Accords with their
non-muslim countrymen. We refer you to 2002 Report “ Srebrenica: a ‘safe’ area” [1]
by the Dutch, as
their soldiers were in the Un contingent at that time.

In this regard we also draw your
attention to the 2011 Report “Deconstruction
Of A Virtual Genocide: An Intelligent Person’s Guide To Srebrenica”[2].
 We will email to you a copy of this work for
you to be better informed before you proceed with the proposed Motion.

Your attention will
be drawn to the over 3,350 men, women and children brutally murdered in the
villages surrounding Srebrenica by members of the Bosniak Army based in
Srebrenica. Even when, on the basis that the Bosniak Leadership and
Serbian-Bosnian Leadership agreed to the demilitarization of Srebrenica, the UN
declared it a Safe-Haven with only the UN personnel to carry weapons, no real
demilitarization occurred, the UN in Srebrenica did not disarm the Bosniak Army
between 1993-1995, and the Bosniaks used the time to regroup their Army Units
there and rearm. Their continued military incursions into surrounding civilian
areas could can only be said to be provocative.

Add to this the
Clinton-Izetbegovic arrangement, where the US President told the Bosniak Leader
that if 5,000 Bosniaks were to die, then the US and West would have a reason to
support the Bosniak Leadership and bomb the Bosnian Christians.

Then add to this the
subsequent US and West supported Operation Storm in early August 1995 in the
then neighboring  Republic of Serbian
Krajina, which the International Criminal Court at The Hague has found to be a
Crime Against Humanity. As many, if not more Serbian civilians were murdered by
the Croatians, yet will you call this genocide. In an effort to distract world
attention to this tragedy for over 300,000 indigenous Serbian Christians from that
region, US and Western public relations sought to cover its role in this human
tragedy and instead focus on the Serbian victims and make them the Perpetrators
and Villains ( as attack is the best form of defence, they say).  The result was to focus on the prior July
military events of the clash between the Bosniak Army Units and the
Serbian-Bosnian Army units around Srebrenica in neighbouring Bosnia and ignore
Operation Storm.

The Forensic Analysis:

We draw your
attention to the careful
pattern of injury analysis of some 3568 forensic case reports prepared by  ICTY Office of the Prosecutor’s experts and
Dr. Simic[3]
demonstration that:-

Firstly, that 44,4% of the cases do not refer to whole
bodies or significant portions of bodies at all, and that no forensically
significant conclusions can even be drawn from them. They refer, rather, to
just a few bones or body fragments grouped together and said to constitute a
“case”.

Second, that there was considerable
variety in the pattern of injury so that while some cases were consistent with
the hypothesis of execution, many others were consistent with combat
casualties, while still others had to be categorised in other ways.

Finally, by pairing femur bones,
Dr. Simic demonstrated that in all the Srebrenica-related  graves which were exhumed by Tribunal
Prosecution forensic experts there was a total of 1919 human casualties (
Serbian, Bosniak and others), from all causes.

The ICTY findings:

The ICTY witnesses
have confirmed that the vast majority of men who died were killed in a
legitimate military action caused by Bosniak Army 25^th Regiment
units of some 12,000 to 15,000 men advancing (or retreating)  from Srebrenica toward Tuzla and then
conflicting with the Bosnian-Serbian Army Units. There were military deaths of
men on all sides in this particular legitimate military action.

Are you perpetuating the ‘Srebrenica Myth’:

In paragraph 3 you
refer to “7,000” Bosniaks with the inference that they were all inferredly
‘captured’ or ‘taken’ on 12 July 1995. This is not true. The evidence is clear.
This figure is one used by the Bosniak Leadership in Bosnia to perpetuate the
Politics of Division. We draw your attention to the article : Srebrenica 15 Years After:
The Politicization of “Genocide”, by Edward S. Herman.[4] Also only some 200 Serbian-Bosnian soldiers were needed to retake
Srebrenica, as the Bosniak Army had departed.

In paragraph 4 you
allege “systematically targeted executions”. This is not true. The vast
majority of those who died did so in a recognized legitimate military action.
Women and children were not killed, which is what one would expect in a Crime
against Humanity, such as US sponsored Operation Storm one month later.

In paragraph 5 you allege “intent to destroy
the Bosniaks”.  This is not true as the
Bosniaks number over 2 million in Bosnia, and the women and children in
Srebrenica were not killed. You need to read the 2011 Report  ”The SREBRENICA MASSACRE,  Evidence, Context, Politics“ by
Professor Herman. We will send you a copy in an
email.

In paragraph 6 you
allege “genocide” but this allegation is untrue, unless you use it in a
political context where the definition is convoluted to fit a political outcome
that is sought. The word is used by the Bosniak Leadership in Bosnia to
perpetuate the Politics of Division.

In paragraph 7 you
allege the ICTY has confirmed the allegations in your paragraphs 1 to 6. This
is untrue. Bosniak Leadership in Bosnia may seek to interpret things in their
own way for their political aspirations against their fellow Christian
citizens, but you should not join with them in this conspiracy. Please read the
attached article,”Srebrenica 15 Years After:”[5]

Conclusion:

We call for you to not proceed with your proposed Motion as it will
reopen old wounds and bitter feeling within members of the Australian community
and propagate the demonization of the Christian Serbian community. In this
country which has a policy of non-discrimination and the fostering of  tolerance and harmony, your proposed action
does not propagate the same.

We believe that you are not making an informed decision, based on the
above submission to you, since ample evidence has surfaced pointing to the
deliberate cover up and manufacture of evidence.[For instance some of the so
called victims have only died recently in the last 5 years, and there is ample
evidence of other listed “victims” being alive and receiving Bosnian Pensions
as well as living under false names in USA, Canada, EU an AUSTRALIA.]

It is not
in the Australian interest to raise and support the politics of division, and
we ask that you withdraw your proposed Motion.

Yours
sincerely,

SERBS FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY

THE HON. PETER RYAN, MP

Level 3

1 Treasury Place

East Melbourne

Victoria, 3002

10 june 2011

peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au

Honorable Minister,

THE RIGHT TO THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

We are writing to you to express our great concern at the
comments made by a senior serving member of the Victorian police, Inspector
Mick Beattie on then 8^th June 2011. His inappropriate and damaging
comments have been broadcast nationwide, and no doubt internationally.

He has made inappropriate comments about Australians
carrying banners at a soccer match on 8 June 2011 which are also
discriminatory. Australians who support an AFL club can carry banners, and no
comments are made. As Minister for Police, you would be responsible for
implementing the Government’s policy to support the fundamental right of all
people to the presumption of innocence. The serving members of your force are
also duty bound and obliged to support this very important fundamental right of
innocence, and any deviation must be the subject of a sanction, especially from
any highly ranked public servant.

On this occasion Inspector Beattie has made subjective, and
not objective comments, that banners unfurled by Australians at a soccer match
were offensive, simply because they support a person who is presumed innocent
at Law. This is totally inappropriate for a senior public servant, especially a
senior police officer. It reflects badly upon your Government.

His condemnation of the right of Australians to indicate
their support of a person presumed innocent is deplorable.

Victoria espouses an anti-discrimination policy and people
who are presumed innocent should not be pre-judged by those who duty and obligation
it is to uphold the Law.

We await your early reply and hope that the above was an
aberration rather than a part of your Government’s policy.

Yours faithfully,

President

Г-дин Миловановић је са Црвеним крстом Аустралије договорио ефикасан начин који
омогућава пореске олакшице дародавцима. Сва прикупљена средства ће бити послата
Црвеном крсту Аустралије који ће иста потом проследити Црвеном крсту Србије.
Црвени крст Аустралије ће на захтев дародаваца издати потврде о уплаћеним средствима.

КОРИСНО СВИМА

Позивамо и молимо све наше пословне и не само пословне људе да подрже ову акцију.
Потенцијалним дародавцима је од користи да помогну ову важну хуманитарну акцију јер за сва даровна новчана средства могу потраживати и добити пореске олакшице
(нпр. за даровну суму од     1 000 АУД
дародавац може зависно од висине његовог укупног годишњег прихода, потраживати и добити назад пореске олакшице у висини од 150 до 465 АУД.

Ово даље значи да ће дародавцу, у горњем примеру, бити враћено између 150 и 465 АУД од стране Пореске управе Аустралије.
Срећа је у томе да ови дародавци могу онда опет да дарују 150 до        480 АУД те да их потражују у наредној пореској/фискалној години. На овај начин корист има како дародавац тако и пострадали становник Краљева.

Ова иницијатива подржава сличне пројекте у Америци и Европи за прикупљање материјалних средстава за хуманитарну помоћ жртвама несреће у Краљеву.

ГДЕ УПЛАТИТИ/ПРИЛОЖИТИ НОВАЦ

Новац се може уплатити/приложити као чек или у готовини (CASH) у било којој филијали Комонвелт банке Аустралије(Commonwealth Bank of Australia).

КАКО УПЛАТИТИ/ПРИЛОЖИТИ НОВАЦ

Чекове правити на;

“Serbs for Justice and Democracy Australia – Kraljevo Appeal”

Новац уплаћујете на рачун;

“Serbs for Justice and Democracy Australia – Kraljevo Appeal”062196
Account Number: 11002028
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Liverpool NSW Australia

BSB:

КАКО СЕ ДОБИЈА ПРИЗНАНИЦА ЗА ПОРЕСКУ ОЛАКШИЦУ(“Tax Deduction Receipt”)

Сви дародавци који директно уплате на горе наведени рачун и доставе тражене податке организацији “Срби за правду” добиће признаницу о уплаћеним средствима.

КАКО СЕ ИСПОРУЧУЈЕ ПРИЗНАНИЦА ЗА ПОРЕСКУ ОЛАКШИЦУ

Након достављања потребних информација Црвени крст Аустралије ће послати признанице за пореску олакшицу (“Tax Deduction Receipt”) свима који то буду захтевали.

ПОТРЕБНЕ ИНФОРМАЦИЈЕ

Да би сте добили признаницу за пореску олакшицу (“Tax Deduction
Receipt”) требате доставити следеће податке; име, презиме, вашу поштанску адресу,  ваш број телефона, суму дарованог новца и број признанице од Комонвелт банке где сте уложили новац.

ГДЕ И КАКО ПОСЛАТИ ТРАЖЕНЕ ПОДАТКЕ

Тражене податке можете послати путем обичне поште скретару организације

“Срби за правду”; The Secretary, Serbs for Justice P.O. Box 153 Liverpool NSW 1871 NSW Australia или пак путем електронске поште (e-mail) на info@serbsforjustice.com

ЗА СВА ПИТАЊА И ИНФОРМАЦИЈЕ НАЗОВИТЕ ИЛИ ПИШИТЕ

The Secretary
Serbs for Justice
P.O. Box 153
Liverpool NSW   1871
NSW Australia
e-mail: info@serbsforjustice.com
Mobile: +61 414 300 877

Ili

Delegate of Serbian Diaspora
Australia & New Zealand
PO Box 1725
Hornsby-Westfield NSW 1635
NSW Australia
е-mail: dmilovanovic@serbiandelegate.com
Mobile: +61 451 943 008

To:

Extradition and Mutual Assistance Review Team

International Crime Cooperation Branch

Attorney-General’s Department

Robert Garran Offices

National Circuit

BARTON   ACT   2600
AUSTRALIA

___________________________________________________________

PURPOSE:

comment on proposed amendments to Australia’s extradition and mutual assistance laws.

BACKGROUND:

The Attorney General’s Department (Authorised By: Branch Head, International Assistance and Treaties Branch) invited citizens and organizations to submit Submissions in relation to a comprehensive review of Australia’s extradition and mutual assistance policies and processes and the operation of the Extradition Act 1988 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 , with a request that Submissions be focused on the issues boxes presented throughout the paper headed  “A new extradition system – A review of Australia’s extradition law and practice”. The closing date is 14 March 2011.

INITIAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH METHODOLOGY:

The Attorney General’s Department writes:  What is the case for reform?

The current extradition arrangements involve outdated, cumbersome legal frameworks which must be overhauled in light of the increasing globalisation of the law enforcement fight against transnational crime and terrorism.

Reform is needed so that Australia can extradite to and from a larger number of countries and can grant extradition for a wider range of offences.  The process must also be more responsive and streamlined in order to prevent lengthy delays and offer appropriate safeguards.

1. Clearly the thrust is from the Executive Arm of Government, and is looking at the issue from the one-dimensional perspective of “Transnational Crime and Terrorism”.

The public policy perspectives of “fairness” and a ”level playing field” that pervades the Parliamentary and Judicial Arms of Government is downplayed.

The implied and erroneous presumption is that “everyone is a potential criminal” and that a ”foreign country would not send a Request for extradition unless the person is a Criminal”. This is a dangerous presumption, but one common in Law-Enforcement. Many in Law-enforcement, like many areas, suffer from a “biased professional world view”, ie divorce lawyers can tend to take the view that large numbers of married couples are deluding themselves and actually heading for divorce, psychiatrists can tend to take the view that large numbers of people are mentally ill eventhough the people don’t recognise this, Law-enforcement officers can tend to take the view that large numbers of people are criminals and that everyone has something to hide, and so on.

This must be balance by the countervailing public policy that it is better for 5 ‘allegedly guilty” persons to go free rather than 1 “innocent” person go to jail for a crime they did not commit. This is the presumption of innocence.

We do not live in a world of some 191 countries where all countries are the same and treat their citizens the same, and have the same respect for humanity and life. There is no “level-playing field. Consequently Extradition Laws must not be based on the presumption that there is a level-playing field. A more ‘holistic’ approach to the respect for humanity and life and the lack of a level playing field must be taken by Australian politicians and Governmental Officials in their duty to protect Australian Citizens. This would explain the prior Treaty approach which worked well where 2 countries agree to create a more level playing field between them in this regard.

1. SMALL VOLUME – not a “flood”:

From Annual Report Attorney General’s Department 2009-2010:

Figure 12: Extradition requests made to Australia, 2004–05 to 2009–10

The Attorney general’s Annual Reports clearly demonstrate that given there very low number of Extradition Requests, and that the Categories of alleged Offences tend to have about only 1 or 2 for Australian Citizens annually, and 4 to 10 non-citizens. At this level, many of the Guiding Principals for the Review are difficult to implement, as the Guiding Principals tend to imply a ‘critical mass or number’ that is  already large, and by implication growing. This is not the current situation, with very small total annual numbers of about 30-45, of which about half are refused. Further there is no evidence of any growing number of persons being sought for extradition for “transnational crime and terrorism”.

Submissions on the Issues sought by The Attorney General’s Department:

1. A. Issue 12: Should Australia Consider Citizenship?

SUBMISSION:

1. Yes.   - Sovereignty: The extradition process should operate to support Australia’s national interests.

1. There should be a distinction between:-

a)       Australian Citizens,

b)      Australian Residents and

c)      Non-Citizens  and non-residents.

Rights of Australian Citizens paramount

The former Prime Minister Mr Rudd[1] has spoken about the need for the interests of Australian Citizens to be paramount, especially when foreign countries arrest or take or seek to take Australian Citizens.

Any exercise of the power to extradite a Citizen must be offset by the reciprocal obligation of the Commonwealth to protect the legitimate civil and democratic rights of all Citizens. This moral imperative must not be forgotten.

Apart from the obvious downside of being faced with a serious alleged criminal charge, fighting that charge in a foreign jurisdiction involves all sorts of additional burdens. The witnesses that Australians may need to call or documents they may want to rely on may be inaccessible or thousands of miles away. They will have to engage foreign lawyers and foreign translators to try and understand what is happening around them and these may be more expensive than in Australia. The foreign system will be unfamiliar and possibly prone to delay. As a foreigner Australians may be held in detention pending a trial. The prison system there will usually be more onerous than Australia’s.

Low number of Australians involved.

The Attorney Generals Annual Report clearly shows that only 1 or 2 Australians are involved for extradition on an annual basis. This number is so low that there can be no increase in efficiencies or reduced duplication. It really is a case by case situation.

As for Australian Residents, these should be considered as having the same level of protection as Citizens or at least a very near same level.

1. B. Issue 2: Countries Australia will deal with

Should Australia be able to receive extradition requests from any country?  Should Australia be able to make extradition requests to any country? (noting that laws in some countries might require a treaty to receive such requests)

SUBMISSION:

The public policy perspectives of “fairness” and a ”level playing field” between States should continue to apply to Extradition. There are some approximate 191 Countries in the World,  and these Countries have various levels of recognition between them. Some Countries may be only recognised by 1 other Country (which may support its independence – such a Turkish Cyprus), while others may have 70, and others almost universal recognition. New Countries are being regularly created, and prior Countries being dismembered. The World’s ‘Countries’ are in a constant fluid situation, and this will not change.  One only has to look at the world Map in 1990, 1939, 1950 and now to see these changes.

Australia should not recognise Requests from any ‘Country’, but rather continue to develop good neighbourly relations with other Countries as equals, and as that Country protects its Citizens then so should Australia consider the same protection of its Citizens. Those Countries that still follow the Law of the Jungle – that is ‘everyone is my enemy’ should be treated accordingly with no-one extradited. Those that follow the Old Testament Law – that is ‘an eye for an eye’ should also be treated accordingly, and great care taken to ensure the welfare of any non-resident being considered for extradition. Citizens should not be extradited. Finally those that follow the New Testament Law – that is ‘turn the other cheek’ may have a more level playing field for any non-citizen being considered for extradition.

Example:

On the International stage, for example, the newly created Country of Croatia, which emerged in the 1990’s from the illegal and violent secession of the former Yugoslav republic, still embraces covert Racial Discrimination (Amnesty International 2010 Report) against a substantial portion of the former population of that former Yugoslav republic. This Country also engaged in the largest single act of ethnic cleansing in Europe in August 1995 when over 250,000 civilians were displaced and fled.

As a result of that illegal and violent secession Croatia is seeking the Extradition of an Australian Citizen Daniel Snedden for the purposes of seeking to question him in relation to events that occurred in the County of Yugoslavia in early 1990, while elements within that former Yugoslav republic were seeking to illegally and violently create a new independent entity.

This new Croatia, after waiting some 15 years, and only after Mr Snedden had been defamed in Australia, did a Magistrate in Croatia, pursuant to a repealed procedural Law, and on the basis of a repealed Law, issue an unlawful Detention Order for the questioning of Mr Snedden and then issued an unlawful Arrest Warrant.  However these illegalities were simply ignored and a Request submitted to Australia by the Croatian Minister, who proffered a document full of illegalities. Regardless, Croatia is seeking to use the ‘no-evidence rule’ to hide all of these illegalities, and attack Mr Snedden personally. The Attorney General is well aware of these issues, but the result is that Mr Snedden (who is presumed innocent) has spent some 4 years in detention as a result.

There is no Level-playing field between Australia and Croatia.

This is demonstrated by the fact that in the first “Independent Croatian Constitution” there was an express prohibition banning the extradition of Croatian Citizens.  When Australia in September 1996 entered into a Note of understanding, one of the Treaties that was envisaged to continue in force was the Treaty between Serbia & Great Britain of 1900 (based on mutuality and reciprocity). However the new Croatia had unilaterally repudiated this mutuality and reciprocity – but said nothing. Even now, after recently amending its Constitution, it is still prohibited from extraditing its Citizens to Australia ( notwithstanding arguments that it can extradite non-croatians to Australia (and being silent on the continued non-extradition of its citizens). An Al-quaida terrorist with a Croatian citizenship could well cause harm and do large damage in Australia, and then escape to Croatian, and be immune from the threat of extradition to Australia.

What about other countries where there is no ‘level-playing field’?

Countries such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, to name but a few, should have any Requests for Extradition heavily vetted and reviewed to avoid innocent Australians being sent there simply on the basis of ‘allegations without any proof” and be held in their detention centres. Are our soldiers at risk of being Requested to be sent there for questioning and to sit in their jails pending their justice systems ?

1. C. Issue 4: Dual criminality

Should Australia extradite for offences that do not constitute an offence under Australian law? Should Australia retain a discretion to refuse to extradite a person if the conduct is not considered criminal under Australian law?  Should dual criminality be a discretionary ground to refuse extradition?

SUBMISSION:

Yes, as in some Countries, as referred to above , the Old Testament Law of ‘an eye for an eye’ applies. Further no-one should be made to face the possibility of extradition to Countries that do not have Anti-discrimination Laws, or who do not actively promote anti-discrimination.

However this area is hard to reconcile with the request for focus on “terrorism” or “transnational crime”, and the review needs to be wider than the narrow constraints sought.

1. D. Issue 9: Political offence exception

Should the political offence exception be abolished?

SUBMISSION

1. No. Maximum protection should be provided to Australian Citizens, Residents and Non-residents from politically motivated requests.

1. E. Issue 11: Discrimination

Should Australia continue to not extradite a person sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person on account of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinion? Should Australia continue to not extradite where the person sought may be prejudiced at his or her trial or punished, detained or restricted in his or her personal liberty, by reason of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinion?

Should Australia extend these grounds in the Extradition Act to include colour, sex, language, and other status?

SUBMISSION:

1. Yes,  Racial or other forms of discrimination must be considered in relation to the bona fides of any Requests. This is in keeping with the ‘level-playing field’ policy of protecting Citizens and their civil rights from abuse.
2. The recent case of Mr Snedden , referred to in detail above, demonstrates the issues confronting a Citizen where there is no level-playing filed, such as with Croatia, a Country which overtly and covertly embraces inter alia racial discrimination (see Amnesty International Reports 2010 and earlier Reports).

1. F. Issue 17: Judicial review mechanism

Should Australia adopt a single judicial review mechanism? Should judicial review be deferred until the end of the extradition decision making process?

SUBMISSION:

1. There should be the right to seek bail on more that the one occasion as at present and the power in Magistrates and Judges to grant bail at any time. This limitation to only 1 bail hearing severely restricts a Citizen who may be jailed for years from being properly able to give instructions, even where he is being held on a Request to ask Questions about an allegation.
2. The current system should be retained in some form to allow Australian Citizens the maximum protection against Requests based on other than good intentions.
3. There should be an onus on the Requesting Country, where it does not use English, to prove that its translations are absolutely correct, and without errors, as these can lead to Magistrates and Judges and the Minister being mislead. It could be a requirement that Requesting Countries use and pay Australian Certified Translators for such documentation. Lack of a level-playing field.
4. There should be an onus on the Requesting Country, where it does not use English, to prove that its documentation is in compliance with its Criminal and Procedure Laws , to avoid miscarriages of justice. At the present time this is presumed, and in real situations it is left to the Citizen at his expense to try and obtain detailed legal advise as to the validity of the documentations in the Requesting Country, before any judicial processes. Lack of a level-playing field.
5. There should be allowed in Judicial Review the ability to introduce fresh and more up-to-date evidence about matters surrounding the Request, rather than be limited to the matters presented to the Magistrate only. The Citizen should have the right to introduce and rely upon additional facts and evidence of which he may not have been aware of at the Magistrate initial Hearing into the Request and its associated matters. The onus should be on the Requesting Country to provide as much detail as possible, including things which do not support its Request, to be presented.

1. G. Issue 21: Eligibility for surrender

Australia could remove the magistrate’s current section 19 stage decision on the person’s eligibility for surrender.  The Minister could decide whether the person is eligible for surrender.

SUBMISSION:

1. The current system should be retained in some form to allow Australian Citizens the maximum protection against Requests based on other than good intentions.
2. There should be an onus on the Requesting Country, where it does not use English, to prove that its translations are absolutely correct, and without errors, as these can lead to Magistrates and Judges and the Minister being mislead. It could be a requirement that Requesting Countries use and pay Australian Certified Translators for such documentation. Lack of a level-playing field.
3. There should be an onus on the Requesting Country, where it does not use English, to prove that its documentation is in compliance with its Criminal and Procedure Laws , to avoid miscarriages of justice. At the present time this is presumed, and in real situations it is left to the Citizen at his expense to try and obtain detailed legal advice as to the validity of the documentations in the Requesting Country, before any judicial processes. Lack of a level-playing field.

1. H. Issue 24: Backing of foreign arrest warrants

Under the possible model in Flowchart 2, rather than the Minister considering extradition requests, a magistrate could indorse a foreign arrest warrant.

1. There should be an onus on the Requesting Country, where it does not use English, to prove that its translations are absolutely correct, and without errors, as these can lead to Magistrates and Judges and the Minister being mislead. It could be a requirement that Requesting Countries use and pay Australian Certified Translators for such documentation. Lack of a level-playing field.
2. There should be an onus on the Requesting Country, where it does not use English, to prove that its documentation is in compliance with its Criminal and Procedure Laws , to avoid miscarriages of justice. At the present time this is presumed, and in real situations it is left to the Citizen at his expense to try and obtain detailed legal advise as to the validity or illegality of the documentations in the Requesting Country, before any judicial processes. Lack of a level-playing field.  The case of Mr Snedden is a clear example of such abuse.

14 march 2011

SYDNEY

On behalf of our organization Serbs For Justice and Democracy we am writing to you to commend your justifiable actions in responding to the concerns of a constituent about the policy implications of the treatment of a person detained in a NSW prison.

Daniel Snedden has now spent nearly 5 years in NSW prisons without any conviction or charges. He is also not on remand.

The Federal Government has constantly maintained that it has the power under the Constitution to hold not only refugees indefinitely (even children) in detention, but even Australian Citizens without any Convictions or Charges – here on the very simplistic basis of a foreign country requesting the removal of the citizen to that country, where that country does not even need to produce any proof of the allegations ( and has never done so) against the Citizen. But this power must be offset by the reciprocal obligation of the Commonwealth to protect the legitimate civil and democratic rights of all Citizens. This moral imperative must not be forgotten.

For your information, the new country of Croatia has proffered to the Federal Attorney General an “indictment” alleging offences under a Croatian Law that had not been enacted at the time and is not retrospective, by a Croatian Magistrate who issued the “Indictment” under a repealed law and who then issued an Arrest Warrant on the basis of that repealed Law. At the Local Court NSW, the Federal Court and the High Court, Croatia has continued to proffer this “indictment” so tainted with illegality. But then legal niceties, while respected in NSW, are often not so respected elsewhere. The Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney are well aware of these matters, but have failed to intervene to protect the legitimate rights of an Australian Citizen. Instead he is shackled and at times held in solitary confinement in NSW. In these circumstances it can only be right for voices to be raised, in exercise of our democratic rights to advocate for our fellow citizens.

The REAL ISSUE is that he has spent much of these 5 years enduring Trial-by-Media, and in your raising a voice of concern, you also have become a target of that Trial-by-Media by one media group. This Trial-by-Media has arisen due Mr Snedden’s taking legal action in relation to defamatory statements against him in that media group, and the particular media group retaliating accordingly. It was only after he commenced the defamation actions that certain parties in Croatia rose to the challenge and arranged for an “indictment” to issue. The media group has then used this “indictment” at every opportunity to justify its Trial by Media campaign against Mr Snedden. Those defamation actions are still not concluded.

It is disappointing to see the comments of spokesmen the current “Labor” Government joining in the media-frenzy hue-and-cry, and seemingly adopting a policy position of a support for the trend toward the continued restriction of the civil and political rights of NSW Citizens in favour of more Executive Government power.

Further, the use of analogies by the Government spokesmen with Milat and Bayeh ( as per Daily Telegraph) indicate a totally and morally bankrupt approach. Perhaps the NSW Government should be asked whether it supports the long-term detention of Citizens in NSW without any Convictions or Charges, and not on remand.

In many ways, Mr Snedden can be seen as a political prisoner. This situation is an embarrassment to not only the Federal Government, but to the NSW Government by its strict collaboration with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has passed the responsibility for Mr Snedden’s conditions of detention to NSW and is now washing its hands of this responsibility. The prospect of a change of Government in NSW is , as you are aware, a real possibility. You, as Leader, will need to be prepared to properly address the needs and situation of our fellow Citizen, Mr Daniel Snedden.

If there is any further information that you require, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully,

Serbs for Justice & Democracy

P.DOBRICH
SECRETARY

On September 10, at the UN General Assembly, Serbia abruptly surrendered its claim to the breakaway province of Kosovo to the European Union.  Serbian leaders described this surrender as a “compromise”. But for Serbia, it was all give and no take.

In its dealings with the Western powers, recent Serbian diplomacy has displayed all the perspicacity of a rabbit cornered by a rattlesnake.  After some helpless spasms of movement, the poor creature lets itself be eaten.

The surrender has been implicit all along in President Boris Tadic’s two proclaimed foreign policy goals: deny Kosovo’s independence and join the European Union.  These two were always mutually incompatible. Recognition of Kosovo’s independence is clearly one of the many conditions – and the most crucial – set by the Euroclub for Serbia to be considered for membership.  Sacrificing Kosovo for “Europe” has always been the obvious outcome of this contradictory policy.

However, his government, and notably his foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, have tried to conceal this reality from the Serbian public by gestures meant to make it seem that they were doing everything possible to retain Kosovo.

Thus in October 2008, six months after U.S.-backed Kosovo leaders unilaterally declared that the province was an independent State, Serbia persuaded the UN General Assembly to submit the following question to the International Court of Justice for an (unbinding) advisory opinion: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’”

This was risky at best, because Serbia had more to lose by an unfavorable opinion than it had to gain by a favorable one.  After all, most of the UN member states were already refusing to recognize Kosovo’s independence, for perfectly solid reasons of legality and self-interest.  At best, a favorable ICJ opinion would merely confirm this, but would not in itself lead to any positive action.  Serbia could only hope to use such a favorable opinion to ask to open genuine negotiations on the status of the province, but the Kosovo Albanian separatists and their United States backers could not be forced to do so.

One must stop here to point out that there are two major issues involved in all this: one is the status and future of Kosovo, and the other is the larger issue of national sovereignty and self-determination within the context of international law.  If so many UN member states supported Serbia, it was certainly not because of Kosovo itself but because of the larger implications. Nobody objected to the splitting of Czechoslovakia, because the Czechs and the Slovaks negotiated the terms of separation. The issue is the method.  There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of potential ethnic secessionist movements within existing countries around the world.  Kosovo sets an ominous precedent.  An armed separatist movement, with heavy support from the United States, where an ethnic Albanian lobby had secured important political backing, notably from former Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole, carried out a campaign of assassinations in 1998 in order to trigger a repression which it could then describe as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” as a pretext for NATO intervention.

This worked, because US leaders saw “saving the Kosovars” as the easy way to save NATO from obsolescence by transforming it into a “humanitarian” global intervention force.  Bombing Serbia for two and a half months to “stop genocide” was a spectacle for public opinion.  The only people killed were Yugoslav citizens out of sight on the ground.  It was the lovely little war designed to rehabilitate military aggression as the proper way to settle conflicts.

The reality of this cynical manipulation has been assiduously hidden from Americans and most Europeans, but elsewhere, and in certain European countries such as Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia, the point has not been missed.  Separatist movements are dangerous, and whenever the United States wants to subvert an unfriendly government, it has only to incite mass media to portray the internal problems of the targeted government as potential “genocide” and all hell may break loose.

So Serbia did not really have to work very hard to convince other countries to support its position on Kosovo. They had their own motivations – which were perhaps stronger than those of the Serbian government  itself.

What did Serb leaders want?

The question put to the ICJ did not spell out what Serb leaders wanted.  But it had implications.  If the Kosovo declaration of independence was illegal, what was challenged was not so much independence itself as the procedure, the unilateral declaration.  And indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Serb leaders thought they could reintegrate the whole of Kosovo into Serbia.  It is even unlikely that they wanted to do so.

There are very mixed feelings about Kosovo within the Serb population.  It is hard to know how widespread is the sense of concern, or guilt, regarding the beleaguered Serb population still living there, vulnerable to attacks from racist Albanians eager to drive them out.  The sentimental attachment to “the cradle of the Serb nation” is very strong, but few Serbs would choose to go live there, even if the province were returned to them.  In former Yugoslavia, the province was a black hole that absorbed huge sums of development aid, and would certainly be a heavy economic burden to impoverished Serbia today.  Economically, Serbia is probably better off without Kosovo.  Nearly twenty years ago, the leading Serb author and patriot Dobrica Cosic was arguing in favor of dividing Kosovo along ethnic and historic lines with Albania.  Otherwise, he foresaw that the attempt to live with a hostile Albanian population would destroy Serbia itself.

Few would admit this, but the proposals of Cosic, echoed by some others, at least suggest that in a world with benevolent mediators, a compromise might have been worked out acceptable to most of the people directly involved.  But what made such a compromise impossible was precisely the US and NATO intervention on behalf of armed Albanian rebels.  Once the Albanian nationalists knew they had such support, they had no reason to agree to any compromise. And for the Serbs, the brutal method by which Kosovo was stolen by NATO was adding insult to injury – a humiliation that could not be accepted.

By taking the question to the UN General Assembly and the ICJ, Serbia sought endorsement of a reopening of negotiations that could lead to the sort of compromise that might have settled the issue had it been taken up in a world with benevolent mediators.

International Court of No Justice

On July 22, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, concluding that Kosovo’s “declaration of independence was not illegal”. In some 21,600 words it evaded the main issues, refusing to state that the declaration meant that Kosovo was in fact properly independent.  The gist was simply that, well, anybody can declare anything, can’t they?

Of course, this was widely interpreted by Western governments and media, and most of all by the Kosovo Albanians, as endorsement of Kosovo’s independence, which it was not. 

Nevertheless, it was a shameful cop-out on the part of the ICJ, which 

marked further deterioration of the post-World War II efforts to establish some sort of international legal order.  Perhaps the most flagrant bit of sophistry in the lengthy opinion was the argument (in paragraphs 80 and 81) that the declaration was not a violation of the “territorial integrity” of Serbia, because “the illegality attached to [certain past] declarations of independence … stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law…”

In short, the ICJ pretended to believe that there has been no illegal international military force used to detach Kosovo from Serbia, although this is precisely what happened as a result of the totally illegal NATO bombing campaign against Serbia.  Since then, the province has been occupied by foreign military forces, under NATO command, which both violated the international agreement under which they entered Kosovo and looked the other way as Albanian fanatics terrorized and drove out Serbs and Roma, occasionally murdering rival Albanians.

The ICJ judges who endorsed this scandalous opinion came from Japan, Jordan, the United States, Germany, France, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, Somalia and the United Kingdom.  The dissenters came from Slovakia, Sierra Leone, Morocco and Russia.  The lineup shows that the cards were stacked against Serbia from the start, unless one actually believes that the judges leave behind their national mind-set when they join the international court.

Digging Itself Deeper Into a Hole

Probably, the Tadic government had expected something better, and had planned to follow up a favorable ICJ opinion with an appeal to the General Assembly to endorse renewed negotiations over the status of Kosovo, perhaps enabling Serbia to recover at least the northern part of Kosovo whose population is solidly Serb. 

Oddly, despite the bad omen of the ICJ opinion, the Tadic government went right ahead with plans to introduce a resolution before the UN General Assembly.   The draft resolution asked the General Assembly to state the following:

Aware that an agreement has not been reached between the sides on the consequences of the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo from Serbia,

Taking into account the fact that one-sided secession cannot be an accepted way for resolving territorial issues,

1. Acknowledges the Advisory opinion of the ICJ passed on 22 July 2010 on whether the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo is in line with international law,

2. Calls on the sides to find a mutually acceptable solution for all disputed issues through peaceful dialogue, with the aim of achieving peace, security and cooperation in the region.

3. Decides to include in the interim agenda of the 66th session an item namely: “Further activities following the passing of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on whether the unilaterally proclaimed independence of Kosovo is in line with international law.”

The key statement here was “the fact that one-sided secession cannot be an accepted way for resolving territorial issues”. This was the point on which the greatest agreement could be attained. The United States made it known that it was totally unacceptable for the General Assembly to hold a debate on such a resolution.  The main Belgrade daily Politika published an interview with Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute in Washington saying that the Serbian draft resolution on Kosovo was “irritating America and the EU’s leading countries”.  American diplomats were “working overtime” to thwart the resolution, he said.  Carpenter said that the Serbian resolution was seen in Washington as an unfriendly act that would lead to a further deterioration in relations, and that as a result of its Kosovo policy, Serbia’s EU ambition could suffer setbacks that would have negative consequences for the Serbian government “and the Serb people”.

Carpenter conceded that this time around, the country would not be threatened militarily, but noted that the United States was influential enough to “make life very difficult” for any country that stood up against its policies. He concluded that Serbia would “have to accept the reality of an independent Kosovo”, and that Washington would thereupon leave it to Brussels to deal with the remaining problems.

The American stick was accompanied by a dangling EU carrot. Carpenter expressed his hope that the EU would consider various measures, “including adjustment of borders, regarding Kosovo, and the rest of Serbia”, but also, he noted, Bosnia-Herzegovina, suggesting that Serbs could be satisfied if a loss of Kosovo were compensated by a unification with Bosnia’s Serb entity, the Republika Srpska. Giving his own opinion, Carpenter said such a solution would at least be much better than the current U.S. and EU policy, “which seems to be that everyone in the region of the former Yugoslavia, except Serbs, has a right to secede”.

Carpenter, who was a sharp critic of the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, and who warned that secessionist movements around the world could use the Kosovo precedent for their own purposes, said that such a solution was possible “in the coming decades”… a fairly distant prospect.

The decisive arm twisting was perhaps administered by German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle on a visit to Belgrade.  Whatever threats or promises he made were not disclosed, but on the eve of the scheduled UN General Assembly debate, the Tadic government caved in entirely and allowed the EU to rewrite the resolution.

The resolution dictated by the EU made no mention of Kosovo other than to “take note” of the ICJ advisory opinion, and concluded by welcoming “the readiness of the EU to facilitate the process of dialogue between the parties.”

According to this text of the resolution, which UN General Assembly adopted by consensus; “The process of dialogue by itself would be a factor of peace, security and stability in the region. This dialogue would be aimed to promote cooperation, make progress on the path towards the EU and improve people’s lives.”

By accepting this text, the Serbian government abandoned all effort to gain international support from the many nations hostile to unilateral secession, and threw itself on the mercy of the European Union. 

Still More to Lose

In a TV interview, I was asked by Russia Today, “What does Serbia stand to gain?”  My immediate answer was, “nothing”.  Serbia implicitly abandoned its claim to Kosovo in return for nothing but vague suggestions of “dialogue”. 

A usual aim of all policy is to keep options open, but Serbia has now put all its eggs in the EU basket, in effect rebuffing all the member states of the UN General Assembly which were ready to support Belgrade as a matter of principle on the issue of unnegotiated unilateral secession.

Rather than gain anything, the Tadic government has apparently chosen to try to avoid losing still more than it has lost already.  After the violent breakup of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines, Serbia remains the most multiethnic state in the region, which means that it includes minorities which can be incited to demand further secessions.  There is a secession movement in the ethnically very mixed northern province of Voivodina, which could be more or less covertly encouraged by neighboring Hungary, an increasingly nationalist EU member attentive to the Hungarian minority in Voivodina.  There is another, more rabid separatist movement in the southwestern region of Raska/Sanjak led by Muslims with links to Bosnian Islamists.  Surrounded by NATO members and wide open to NATO agents, Serbia risks being destabilized by the rise of such secession movements, which Western media, firmly attached to the stereotypes established in the 1990s, could easily present as persecuted victims of potential Serb genocide.

Moreover, no matter how the Serbs vote, the US and UK embassies dictate the policies.  This has been demonstrated several times.  Little Serbia is actually in a position very like the Pétain government in 1940 to 1942, when it governed a part of France not yet occupied but totally surrounded by the conquering Nazis. 

It would take political genius to steer little Serbia through this geopolitical swamp, infested with snakes and crocodiles, and political genius is rare these days, in Serbia as elsewhere.

EU to the rescue?

Under these grim circumstances, the Tadic government has in effect abandoned all attempt at independence and entrusted the future of Serbia to the European Union.  Serb patriots quite naturally decry this as a sell-out.  Indeed it is, but Russia and China are far away, and could not be counted on to do anything for Serbia that would seriously annoy Washington.  The fact is that much of the younger generation of Serbs is alienated from the past and dreams only of being in the EU, which means being treated as “normal”.

How will the EU reward these expectations?

Up to now, the EU has responded to each new Serb concession by asking for more and giving very little in return.  At a time when many in the core EU countries feel that accepting Rumania and Bulgaria has brought more trouble than it was worth, enlargement to include Serbia, with its unfairly bad reputation, looks remote indeed. 

In reality, the most Belgrade can hope for from the EU is that it will muster the courage to take its own policy line on the Balkans, separate from that of the United States.

Given the subservience of current EU leaders to Washington, this is a long shot.  But it has a certain basis in reality.

United States policy toward the region has been heavily influenced by ethnic lobbies that have pledged allegiance to Washington in return for unconditional support of their nationalist aims.  This is particularly the case of the rag-tag Albanian lobby in the United States, an odd mixture of dull-witted politicians and gun-running pizza parlor owners who flattered the Clinton administration into promising them their own statelet carved out of historic Serbia.  The result has been “independent” Kosovo, in reality occupied by a major US military base, Camp Bondsteel, NATO-commanded pacifiers and an EU mission theoretically trying to introduce a modicum of legal order into what amounts to a failing state run by clans and living off various criminal activities.  Since Camp Bondsteel is untouchable, and the grateful hoodlums have erected a giant statue to their hero, Bill Clinton, in their capital, Pristina, Washington is content with this situation.

But many in Europe are not.  It is Europe, not the United States, that has to deal with violent Kosovo gangsters peddling dope and women in its cities.  It is Europe, not the United States, that has this mess on its doorstep.

The media continue to peddle the 1999 fairy tale in which heroic NATO rescued the defenseless “Kosovars” from a hypothetical “genocide” (which never took place and never would have taken place), but European governments are in a position to know better.

As evidence of this is a letter written to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on October 26, 2007 by Dietmar Hartwig, who had been head of the EU (then EC) mission in Kosovo just prior to the NATO bombing in March 1999, when the mission was withdrawn. In describing the situation in Kosovo at a time when the NATO aggression was being prepared on the pretext of “saving the Kosovars”, Hartwig wrote:

“Not a single report submitted in the period from late November 1998 up to the evacuation on the eve of the war mentioned that Serbs had committed any major or systematic crimes against Albanians, nor there was a single case referring to genocide or genocide-like incidents or crimes. Quite the opposite, in my reports I have repeatedly informed that, considering the increasingly more frequent KLA attacks against the Serbian executive, their law enforcement demonstrated remarkable restraint and discipline. The clear and often cited goal of the Serbian administration was to observe the Milosevic-Holbrooke Agreement to the letter so not to provide any excuse to the international community to intervene. … There were huge ‘discrepancies in perception’ between what the missions in Kosovo have been reporting to their respective governments and capitals, and what the latter thereafter released to the media and the public. This discrepancy can only be viewed as input to long-term preparation for war against Yugoslavia. Until the time I left Kosovo, there never happened what the media and, with no less intensity the politicians, were relentlessly claiming. Accordingly, until 20 March 1999 there was no reason for military intervention, which renders illegitimate measures undertaken thereafter by the international community. The collective behavior of EU Member States prior to, and after the war broke out, gives rise to serious concerns, because the truth was killed, and the EU lost reliability.”

Other official European observers said the same at the time, and in 2000, retired German general Heinz Loquai wrote a whole book, based especially on OSCE documents, showing that accusations against Serbia were false propaganda.  While the public was fooled, government leaders have access to the truth.

In short, EU governments lied then, for the sake of NATO solidarity, and have been lying ever since.

Now as then, there are insiders who complain that the situation in reality is very different from the official version. Voices are raised pointing out that Republika Srpska is the only part of Bosnia that is succeeding, while the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo continues to count on largesse due to its proclaimed victim status.  There seems to be a growing feeling in some leadership circles that in demonizing the Serbs, the EU has bet on the wrong horse.  But that does not mean they will have the courage to confront the United States.  In Kosovo itself, the most radical Albanian nationalists are ready to oppose the EU presence, by arms if necessary, while feeling confident of eternal support from their U.S. sponsors.

The Betrayal of Serbia

If the latest self-defeat at the UN General Assembly can be denounced as a betrayal, the betrayal began nearly ten years ago.  On October 5, 2000, the regular presidential election process in Yugoslavia was boisterously interrupted by what the West described as a “democratic revolution” against the “dictator”, president Slobodan Milosevic.  In reality, the “dictator” was about to enter the run-off round of the Yugoslav presidential election in which he seemed likely to lose to the main opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica.  But the United States trained and incited the athletically inclined youth organization, Otpor (“resistance”), to take to the streets and set fire to the parliament in front of international television, to give the impression of a popular uprising.  Probably, the scenarists modeled this show on the equally stage-managed overthrow of the Ceaucescu couple in Rumania at Christmas 1989, which ended in their murder following one of the shortest kangaroo court trials in history. For the generally ignorant world at large, being overthrown would be proof that Milosevic was really a “dictator” like Ceaucescu, whereas being defeated in an election would have tended to prove the opposite.

Proclaimed president, Kostunica intervened to save Milosevic, but not having been allowed to actually win the election, his position was undermined from the start, and all power was given to the Serbian prime minister, Zoran Djindjic, a favorite of the West who was too unpopular to have won an election in Serbia.  Shortly thereafter, Djindjic violated the Serbian constitution by turning Milosevic over to the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague – for one of the longest kangaroo court trials in history.

Pro-Western politicians in Belgrade labored under the illusion that throwing Milosevic to the ICTY wolves would be enough to ensure the good graces of the “International Community”. But in reality, the prosecution of Milosevic was used to publicize the trumped up “joint criminal enterprise” theory which blamed every aspect of the breakup of Yugoslavia on an imaginary Serbian conspiracy.  The scapegoat turned out to be not just Milosevic, but Serbia itself.  Serbia’s guilt for everything that went wrong in the Balkans was the essential propaganda line used to justify the 1999 NATO aggression, and by going along with it, the “democratic” Serbian leaders undermined their own moral claim to Kosovo.

In June 1999, Milosevic gave in and allowed NATO to occupy Kosovo under threat of carpet bombing that would destroy Serbia entirely.  His successors fled from a less perilous battle – the battle to inform world public opinion of the complex truth of the Balkans.  Having abandoned all attempt to assert its moral advantage, Serbia is counting solely on the kindness of strangers.

By DIANA JOHNSTONE

http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone09172010.html