Vatikaani rikos ihmisyyttä vastaan

Vatikaani on rypenyt vuosia otsikoissa pedofilian toteuttajana, edistäjänä ja suojelijana – tämäniltainen (1.7.2013) dokumentti TV1:ssä antoi asiasta melko kiistattoman kuvan. Vähemmälle huomiolle sen sijaan on jäänyt Vatikaanin pankin rahanpesuaktiviteetit, yhteydet mafiaan, vapaamuurareihin sekä sotarikoksiin. Tämä aihealue kaipaa syventämistä koska se mielestäni kuvastaa laajemminkin Vatikaania uskonnollisena ja poliittisena toimijana jonka vaikutukset ulottuvat nykypäiviin saakka.

Itse olen viime vuosina pyrkinyt kirjoituksillani nostamaan esiin yhtä läheiseksi kokemaani Vatikaanin rikosta ihmisyyttä vastaan eli katolisen kirkon IIMS:n aikaista toimintaa Balkanilla; aihe elää vielä nykypäivinäkin.

Tässä mielessä lienee aiheellista tarkentaa Vatikaanin roolia yhdellä IIMS:n törkeimmistä julmuuksista, nimittäin – Suomessa valitettavan vähän tunnetun – Jasenovac’n tuhoamisleirin kautta. Jasenovac oli Kroatiassa sijaitseva kolmanneksi suurin tuhoamisleiri Auschwitzin ja Treblinkan jälkeen; tapettujen määräksi arvioidaan 300.000 – 700.000 ihmistä, joista vajaa 90 % oli serbejä ja loput juutalaisia ja romaneja. Muihin tuhoamisleireihin verrattuna Jasenovacin tekee poikkeukselliseksi ensinnäkin julmuus, jota jopa Saksan natsitkin kauhistelivat, toiseksi se että uhreista valtaosa oli muita kuin juutalaisia ja kolmanneksi leiriin liittynyt uskonnollinen aspekti pelkän kansanmurhan sijaan.

Katolisen Ustasha organisaation – Kroatian valtaapitävät natsit, jotka työskentelivät yhteistyössä natsi-Saksan kanssa – tavoitteena oli paitsi tapaa ortodoksiserbejä myös käännyttää heistä kolmasosa. Uskonnollinen motiivi teki tuhoamisesta erityisen raakaa. 743 roomalaiskatolista pappia osallistui henkilökohtaisesti muunuskoisten tappamiseen ja itse tuhoamisleiriä johti komendanttina aikanaan Fr. Filipovic-Majstorovic – katolinen pappi joka kerskui henkilökohtaisesti teurastaneensa kymmeniä tuhansia serbejä omin käsin. Jasenovacin leirijärjestelmä käsitti myös katolisten nunnien johtaman lastenleirin jossa uhrit myrkytettiin luotien säästämiseksi.

Partisaanien edetessä fransiskaanit avustivat Ustashan sotarikolliset pakoon ja näiden tuhoamisleirin uhreilta ryöstettyä omaisuutta pestiin Vatikaanin pankin kautta. Vuonna 1986 Yhdysvaltain hallitus julkisti asiakirjat, jotka paljastivat kuinka Vatikaani organisoi pahimpien noin 200 sotarikollisten paon Euroopasta Argentiinaan ns. “Vatican Ratline” nimellä tunnetun järjestelmän kautta. . Tuhannet pienemmät murhamiehet saivat pakopaikan roomalaiskatolisen kirkon suojista ja vain harvat on saatu palautettua myöhemmin tuomiolle.

Jokunen vuosi sitten Britanniassa aivan vakavissaan käynnistettiin prosessi – kuten aiemmin Chilen Pinochetin tapauksessa – paavin pidättämiseksi ja oikeuteen saattamisesta hänen saapuessaan Britanniaan, syytteenä oli katolisen kirkon vastuullisuus pedofiiliskandaalin peittelyssä ja laajemmin rikos ihmisyyttä kohtaan. Sen sijaan en ole huomannut suomalaisessa valtamediassa juttua Yhdysvalloissa v. 1999 aloitettua yhä käsiteltävästä ryhmäkanteesta Vatikaanin pankkia ja Franciscan Order -järjestöä vastaan koskien näiden osallistumista toisen maailmansodan sotarikoksiin ja rahanpesuun. Ryhmäkanteen nostivat Jasenovacin tuhoamisleiriltä selvinneet serbit, juutalaiset, ukrainalaiset ja romanit. Yhä vieläkin Vatikaani kieltäytyy avaamasta sodanaikaisia arkistojaan Yhdysvaltain hallituksen ja serbi- ja juutalaisorganisaatioiden vaateista huolimatta menetellen aivan samoin kuin pedofiliaskandaalinkin yhteydessä.

Aihetta olen käsitellyt tarkemmin artikkelissani

Jasenovac – Holocaust promoted by Vatican

Transnistrian konflikti syvenemässä

Jännitys on jälleen kohoamassa Transnistrian ja Moldovan välillä huolestuttaen niin naapuri Romaniaa kuin EU:takin. Moldova on yksi Venäjän, EU:n ja USAn vaikutuspiirien ”taistelukentistä” jolla on myös oma vaikutuksensa energiapoliittisiin sopimuksiin, kansainväliseen lakiin, konfliktinhallintaan ja alueelliseen suveriniteettiin.

Pääosin venäläisten ja ukrainalaisten asuttama Transnistria irtautui vuoden 1992 ”vapaussodassa” Moldovasta jonka väestöllä taas on yhteinen historia, kulttuuri- ja kielisukulaisuus naapurimaa Romanian kanssa. Transnistria on yli 20 vuoden aikana luonut kaikki itsenäisen valtion rakenteet ja käytännössä elänyt itsenäisen maan tavoin vaikkei mikään YK:n jäsenvaltio tätä itsenäisyyttä ole tunnustanutkaan.

Kansainvälisen yhteisön avulla jo 20 vuotta soviteltu jäätyneen konfliktin sulatus otti takapakkia maalis-huhtikuussa 2013 Moldovan alkaessa perustaa passintarkastupisteitä vuoden 1992 sodan jälkeen muodostetulle turvavyöhykkeelle (aselepolinjalle). Transnistria puolestaan vastasi alkamalla merkkaamaan ko linjalle rajalinjaa jonka sisälle moldovalaiset puolestaan katsoivat jäävän hallinnassaan olevia kyliä. Pienimuotoisesta sapelinkalistelusta huolimatta alueella ei uskota laajamittaisen sodan syntyyn – neuvottelut sen sijaan hidastunevat entisestää. Kuitenkin venäläisdiplomaatin sanoin parempi kymmenen vuotta neuvotteluja kuin vuosi sotaa.

Itse pidän parhaana ratkaisuna v. 2003 jo melkein hyväksyttyä Kozak suunnitelmasta päivitettävää versiota. Suunnitelma pitää Moldovan yhtenäisenä liittovaltiona käsittäen Moldovan, Transnistrian ja Gaugazian osavaltiot. Länsivallat torpedoivat aiemmin suunnitelman koska osavaltiot veto-oikeutensa turvin olisivat voineet estää Moldovan Nato- ja EU-haaveet. Toinen mahdollisuus tietty on hajoamisen sinetöiminen tunnustamalla Transnistria omaksi valtiokseen.

Näitä teemoja käsittelen laajemmin pääblogini artikkelissa

Confrontation Between Transnistria and Moldova Deepening

Confrontation Between Transnistria and Moldova Deepening

The escalation of tensions between Moldova and the break-away Transnistria region is causing concern in the EU and neighbouring Romania. Growing dispute between parties started by unilateral actions by both parties during this Spring. First Moldova established migration control of citizens in six checkpoints, second Transnistria started to mark border in in the sc Security Zone or line of demarcation after the Transnistrian war (1992).

Transnistria – also known as Transdnistria aka Pridnestrovie aka Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (PMR) – is a new and emerging country in South Eastern Europe, sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine. Moldova is one of the frontlines of “battlefield” of interest spheres between EU and Russia, between U.S. and Russia and between future energy political deals. It is also a test for international law, conflict management and territorial sovereignty.

From Moldovan point of view Transnistria’s actions would expand the separatist region to include eight Moldovan villages. There is heightened fears in region of a military confrontation with Moldova, but in my opinion this can be avoided.

Current confrontation

The present round of changes started already on March 2013 in particular, the Republic of Moldova unilaterally decided to establish migration control of citizens in the six checkpoints: Gyrbovets (Novye Aneny), Khadzhimus (Kaushany), Dubossary, Kriulyany, Rezina, Seneteuka (Floreshty) without proper coordination at the bilateral or multilateral international level and within the framework of the Joint Control Commission. (Source PMR FA) The decision imposes limitations on the citizens of Russia, living in Transnistria (about 150 thousand people) and forming one-fourth of Transnistria’s population. The Moldovan authorities said they did it in order to establish order on the future eastern border of the European Union, which Moldova plans to join.

Tensions increased during the night of April 26-27 in the Security Zone of the Republic of Moldova. The Security Zone was set up at the end of the Transnistrian war (March-July 1992). The Transnistrian authorities unilaterally installed two checkpoints between the village of Varniţa (a commune that remains controlled by the Moldovan government) and the city of Bender (controlled by the separatist authorities of Transnistria). This led to clashes between Moldovan civilians, who tried to remove the checkpoints, and the Transnistrian militia, who intervened to stop them. The conflict was brought to an end a few hours later, by the Unified Control Commission, a joint mechanism established to monitor, among other things, the Security Zone. Transnistria claimed that the new checkpoints were aimed at combatting smuggling. (Source: Globalvoice )

Moldovan army is prepared to defend itself if a violent conflict is to escalates. However, a scenario similar to the one in 1992 is unlikely, said Vitalie Marinuta, Moldovan Defense Minister. The Moldovan Defense Minister believes that the separatists do not have the guts to generate a violent conflict because they are currently not fully supported by Russia.“Transnistrian army’s potential cannot break out a new military conflict, especially to continue this action alone,” the Minister pointed out. “On the other hand, Russia does not have an interest at the moment to support such a conflict because loses at international level would be greater than any gains.”According to the Moldovan official, the mobilization of resources of Transnistria, as well as the support of this regime by the population of the region is not as strong as it was back in 1992. Moreover, Russia has weaker military assets which “are incapable to carry on a prospect military attack.”The Moldovan Government admits that after the adoption of the so-called law on state border of Transnistria, issued by Transnistrian’s president Shevchuk, Moldova is losing their struggle in the Eastern districts. From Moldova’s perspective, according to the bill, the separatist region will cover some towns and villages which are currently under the legitimate authorities of Moldova. ((Source: Moldova.org (USA based NGO))

Political turbulence on both sides

Moldova itself has been marked by political turbulence in recent years. In Chișinău, there is a big fight, for money and power.The constant power struggle left Moldova without a president for nearly two years, then without a prime minister, and then also without a speaker of the Parliament. Earlier this year there was the collapse of Moldova’s pro-European governing coalition.

In 2011 presidential elections President Igor Smirnov, who had been in power since Transnistria declared independence in 1990, was replaced by opposition MP and former speaker of the Supreme Council Yevgeny Shevchuk. Earlier President Shevchuk, made a startling proposal to move the region’s legislature, the Supreme Council, from Tiraspol to the territory’s second-largest city, Bender. The choice of Bender was clearly symbolic: the city is the site of one of the bloodiest battles in the 1990s war that ended with Transnistria declaring independence from the Republic of Moldova. The proposed move would also take the significant step of carrying Transdniester’s political center of gravity across the Dniester River, which geographically separates the bulk of the breakaway region from Moldova proper. Bender is one of the few regions on the Dniester’s western bank that is under Transdniester’s de facto jurisdiction. Bender also lies within the security zone established after the war, a narrow strip that includes Transdniestrian and Moldovan exclave territories on both banks of the river. The terms of the 1992 cease-fire agreement prohibit either party from taking actions that would deliberately aggravate tensions between the two sides. In this light, the Bender proposal has been interpreted by some as the kind of land grab that has been seen in other territorial conflicts in the former Soviet Union and the post-war Balkans. Supreme Council lawmakers rejected the proposal on May 23, voting to pass a resolution stating that the Transdniestrian parliament should remain in the territory’s de facto capital, Tiraspol.

Graphics credit: RFE/RL

One should however emphasize that the power changes in Transnistria give positive boost to peace process: the official negotiation process re-started after six years interruption in November 2011 in Vilnius, Lithuania, to be followed by a meeting on February 2012 in Dublin, Ireland and on April 2012. Finally the Document of principles and procedures and agenda of negotiations were agreed in Vienna, whereas on July 2012 this Document was signed. It included such issues as freedom of movement of passengers and cargo, traffic of trains, education issues,etc. Now the progress seems to go backwards.

From war towards independence

Moldova was part of Romania before the Soviet Union annexed it in World War II. Before the First World War it was part of Tsarist Russia. A landlocked country lying between Romania and Ukraine, most people speak Romanian, although the country’s constitution calls the language Moldovan. Moldova became independent in 1991. Moldovans share a linguistic and historical heritage with Romania. Although widely seen as part of Moldova, historically, Transnistria and Moldova were always separate. Throughout 2500 years of history, the Dniester River forming the current border has been a traditional border between Slav lands (Scythia, 450 B.C.) to the East and Romanian lands (Dacia) to the West.

In 1992 Moldova and Transdnistria fought a brief, bitter war which the separatists won, with the assistance of a contingent of locally-based Russian troops left over from the Soviet Red Army. Cease fire left Russian troops in place as peacekeepers and Transdnistria has since then acted de facto as independent – although not recognized – state. Transnistria region broke away in Soviet times because it feared Moldova would unite with Romania. Most of Moldova was once part of its western neighbour.

Most of Moldova was once part of Romania and now there are growing social forces in Moldova seeking reunification with its western neighbour for nationalist reasons and as an easy path to EU membership. Already between 10% and 20% of Moldovans have Romanian, and by extension EU, passports. The fear of Romanian expansionism frightens Transnistria away from reconciliation, while the “Kosovo precedent” gives its arguments for independence more weight. In 2009 Romanian President Traian Basescu told the Romanian parliament that he would fast-track Moldovans for Romanian citizenship following riots in the Moldova (Source DW) . Fast-tracking citizenship to some 1m people next door in Moldova, in effect giving EU citizenship to a quarter of the population of Europe’s poorest state.

Transnistrian population – about 555,000 people (2009). 90% of the population of Transnistria are citizens of the unrecognized Transnistria. Transnistrians have double or triple citizenship, including:

a) Citizens of Moldova – around 300,000 people (including double citizens of Russia (around 170,000, or EU states (around 80%) Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic)

b) Citizens of Russia – around 150,000 people (including around 15,000 – double the citizens of Belarus, Israel, Turkey); without quantity of dual citizenship Russia and Moldova (around 20,000)

c) Citizens of Ukraine – around 100,000 people. There are around 20,000-30,000 people with dual citizenship (Moldova and Ukraine, or Russia and Ukraine), or triple citizenship (Moldova, Russia and Ukraine). They are considered in the quantity of citizens of Ukraine and finally

d) persons without citizenship – around 20,000-30,000 people.

In my opinion even without international recognizion Transnistria meets the requirements for sovereign statehood under international law, as it has a defined territory, a population, effective elected authority, and the capability to enter into international relations. It is currently seeking international recognition of its de facto independence and statehood.

Frozen talks

“Ten years of negotiations are better than one day of war.” ( Sergey Gubarev, Russian diplomat on Transdnistrian Moldovan conflict )

Conflict was frozen nearly ten years, then started first serious try to find sustainable solution. Internationally most used format has been sc 5 +2 process (Moldova and Transdniester as sides in negotiations, with Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE acting as intermediaries and the EU and the US as observers). Also 2+1 format (Moldova and PMR as parties, Russia mediator) has been used. In February 2011 the so-called “5 + 2 Talks” were started again in Vienna. More about negotiation history in my article Transnistrian number game .

Related to current escalation of tensions Moldova’s Parliament on June 22nd 2013 has called on international partners (the U.S., the European Union, Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Cooperation )negotiating a settlement with a breakaway republic to stop separatists from seizing territory in eastern Moldova to “resolve the situation in Trans-Dniester through political and peaceful means, respecting democratic…principles.” (Source: Montreal Gazette )

The European Union reacted to the so-called legal act on state border issued by the Transnistrian leadership. High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton issued a statement on June 21 saying that she supports the statement made on June 17 by the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Leonid Kozhara, calling on sides to abstain from unilateral actions which impede the negotiation process. “I urge the two sides of the Transnistrian conflict to work in a constructive spirit, within the framework of the ‘5+2’ negotiating process, towards a peaceful settlement,” Catherine Ashton said. “I reaffirm the EU’s commitment to supporting the settlement process, in the interest and for the benefit of the populations on the ground, through dialogue with all the parties concerned and through an extensive programme of confidence-building measures open to both sides.” The Romanian Foreign Minister, Titus Corlatean, appealed to the two sides to refrain from unilateral action. “I urge my colleagues in Chisinau (Moldova) to be politically intelligent people and not to get back to provocations,” Corlatean said. (Source e.g: Moldova.org )

When Ukraine took on the rotating chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) this year, it pledged to make progress on Moldova-Transnistria conflict. However during negotiations on May 2013 in Odessa the hopes of a breakthrough appeared increasingly distant. The so-called 5+2 group was barely able to agree on an agenda for the talks, let alone negotiate a any settlement to this 21-year-old frozen conflict.

Kozak plans as solution

Moldova and Transnistria have been close for solution by widely agreed sc “Kozak plan” which still is valid for further examination.

In the Spring 2003 Dimitry Kozakin – a special envoy of Russian President Putin – started to broke deal between local stakeholders and finaally proposed on the creation of an assymmetric federal Moldovan state, with Moldova holding a majority and Transnistria being a minority part of the federation. Known as “the Kozak plan”, it did not coincide with the Transnistrian position, which sought equal status between Transnistria and Moldova, but gave Transnistria veto powers over future constitutional changes; this encouraged Transnistria to sign it. However when the plan was ready and preliminary agreed to sign on November 2003 the Western powers put some pressure towards Moldova leading to President Voronin’s rejection to sign.

August 2008 was the turning point in negotiation process. Conflict in Georgia was in background when Russian President Medvedev first held talks with Moldova’s President Voronin and later with Transdnistria’s leader Smirnov. 5+2 format was replaced with 1+2 format including Moscow as mediator, Chisinau and Tiraspol as the parties of conflict. The basic elements of new deal are probably similar like in Kozak plan I. The price of reunion will be high to Moldova because probably federation form with strong minority or veto rules would neutralize Moldova’s foreign policy related integration towards EU and Nato. Higher price for Moldova could be even stronger sovereignty of Transnistria with thread that also other autonomous territory of Moldova – namely Gagauz region – would follow the steps of Transdnistria; it is expected that the demands of transforming Gagauzia region from autonomy to republic will increase.

(Note: The Moldovan parliament granted autonomous status to the Turkic-language speaking Gagauz region in the southwest of the republic in late 1994. Earlier the proclamation of the Gagauz Union Republic took place on 19 August 1990 and Moldovan military forces entered to Gagauzia right after that. Now Gagauz has powers over its own political, economic and cultural affairs.)

There is an opinion, that the Transnistrian conflict will be resolved if Moldova joins the Eurasian Economic Union (EurAsES or EAEC)where Moldova now has an observer status: “The Transnistrian conflict is soluble. When we all come into the EurAsES, all questions will be resolved”. However this option seems to be unrealistic. A new approach (joint initiative of Russia and Germany, Meseburg, 2010) by the EU and Russia to resolve the conflict could be the setting up of a joint Political and Security Committee (EU-R-PSC) at minister level.. Transnistria thereby became a test case for future cooperation with Russia.

Natsien perustama monikansallinen EU juhli, eurooppalaiset eivät niinkään

EU eliitti juhli viikolla Eurooppapäivää keskenään onnistuttuaan jälleen vuodeksi pelastamaan läpimädän rakennelmansa veronmaksajien rahoilla. Tapahtuma olisi minultakin jäänyt noteeraamatta ellei mieleeni olisi tullut joku vuosi sitten paljastunut salainen raportti EU:n synnytyksestä elokuussa 1944 – siis 9.5.1950 sijaan. Raportti kuvaa saksalaisten yritysjohtajien suunnitelmaa neljännestä valtakunnasta hävityn sodan jatkamiseksi taloudellisin keinoin. Ironista asiassa on ylikansallisen organisaation suunnittelu kansallismielisten, natsien, johdolla.

Ns ”Red House Report” kuvaa kuinka valloitetuilta alueilta ryöstetyt varat ja sotateollisuuden voitot suunniteltiin siirrettäviksi Sveitsin kautta ulkomaille käytettäväksi Saksan uuteen nousuun ja sen hegemonian turvaamiseksi Euroopan taloudellisella ja poliittisella integraatiolla. Suunnitelmaa lobbasi menestyksellä jo vuonna 1946 perustettu ”The European League for Economic Co-operation”.

Edellä mainittua historiaa käsittelen tarkemmin pääblogini artikkelissa Europe Day For EU Decline.

Nykypäivä aiempaa selvemmin näyttää suunnitelman toteutuneen johdonmukaisesti. Hiiliunionin moottorit Ranska ja Saksa ovat juurtuneet edelleen päätöksenteon ytimeen, komissio ja EU byrokratia vie päätökset täytäntöön. Demokraattista harhakuvaa ylläpitämään luotu nukkeparlamentti on menettänyt olematonta merkitystään kun kova finanssipolitiikka seurannaisvaikutuksineen siirretään sen ja kansallisten parlamenttien ulottumattomiin.

Nyt kuitenkin osa kehityksen sivuraiteella olevista on noussut vastustamaan nykymenoa. Kehityssuunnan muutosta vaativat eri ryhmät eri syistä: Britanniassa yhä useampi merkittävä konservatiivi haluaa EU:n vaikutusvallan pienentämistä (mm säilyttääkseen Lontoon City rahanpesun paratiisina), Britannian ja Euroopan populisteilla on omat motiivinsa (mm pitää köyhät siirtilaiset ulkona maistaan,rikkaille tietty punainen matto on aina levitetty) ja vasemmistolaiset ruohonjuuriliikkeet sekä suuri osa kansoista puolestaan on saanut tarpeekseen EU eliitin (ja sitä ohjailevien tahojen) kurjistavasta leikkauspolitiikasta.

On siis ymmärrettävää ettei tavallisella eurooppalaisella juuri ollut syytä juhlia 63. Eurooppapäivää sen enempää perustamishistorian kuin nykytodellisuudenkaan takia. Systeemin muitopäivälle saattaisi olla enemmän kysyntää. Vaihtoehtoiseksi politiikaksi – ja EU:n alasajoksi verrokkinsa ”Soviet Unionin” tapaan – olen itse esittänyt konfederaation alhaalta ylöspäin tapahtuvaa uudelleenrakentamista lopputulemanaan ehkä ns EU:n kevytversio (EU lite). Tätä puolta koskettelin enemmän bittiavaruuteen välittämässäni vappupuheessa My 1st May Manifesto .

Europe Day For EU Decline

 

EU elite celebrated again Europe Day when they had succeed to maintain the fasade their to the score rotten creation with taxpayer money squeezed from the common people. The Day went again so that I noticed it only next day from newsreel. It might be not so exceptional as the institutions – the commission, the parliament and the council – and its 27 member states use the day for celebrating mainly themselves. For the rest of Europe as well for people outside elite there was not any reason to celebrate.

The EU is a bold and unique project. It resembles less that of the United States of America and more that of the Soviet Union. Until the last decade the EU has been more or less a community of democratic nations. While the USSR was a communist dictatorship the EU has been following its steps last years due a full-on economic crisis. Vladimir Bukovsky a former soviet dissident, once made a comparison: ‘We were told, that the purpose of the Soviet Union is to create a a new historic entity, the soviet people, and that we must forget our nationalities, our ethnic traditions and customs. The same seems to be true to the European Union. They don’t want you to be British or French, they want you to be a new historic entity: European.’ There is amazing similarity in decision making between EU and ex-Soviet Union. USSR had also some “democratic” institutions like parliament and government, but the real power was in party machine and its “politburo”. Anyway as USSR already went so when will we celebrate EU remembrance Day.

The supranational organisation planned by Nazis?

‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’ (Joseph Goebbels)

EU gratuitously got Nobel award as a peace project: to underscore the very reason that it was created on 9 May 1950, which was to limit any future wars or conflicts on the continent (more in my article Devaluation of Nobel Peace Prize Continues But EU Could Show Way For Better Crisis Management ). An alternative history shows that EU is continuation of war with economic means. This view came to my mind while reading about now published secret report about how Nazis were planning the Fourth Reich.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany’s post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis’ return to power and work for a ‘strong German empire’. In other words: the Fourth Reich.detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany’s economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again. The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire – but not just German. The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Ludwig Erhard (economist) pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism – the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body. German industrialists were also members of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union. Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany’s first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today. However one should remember that the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe – was built on mass murder and gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries and that a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich – an economic rather than military empire.

Note: I have summarized this secret report item from: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich – in the EU by Adam Lebor

EU today

Forgetting EU’s organogram as illusion and speaking today’s reality one can easily find different decision making practices in EU depending about importance of issue. Most important core group is cooperation between France and Germany sometimes earlier (pre-€) adding UK to group. Commission of course has great de facto power not only on implementation level but also designing proposals handled in EUs inner cores; the same can be said about bureaucrats in national ministries who are designing policies decided EU meetings at summit/ministry levels.

So where is this leaving European Parliament? It may handle some energy bulb level issues but honestly the whole institution seems to be unnecessary creation only to keep some democratic illusion on show. As EU citizens are not so stupid to keep his institution more than a puppet theatre they show their attitude by low turnout percentage. Before last EU Parliament elections I proposed and argumented (in my article Let’s elect Donkey Parliament) why replacing MEPs with monkeys might not be so bad idea. Today EP is practical place to locate some second class politicians for retirement or out to not make any mess in national policy. They also can show good places to get fresh mussels while voters are visiting in EP as their quests. Designing EU policy happens anyway somewhere else.

EU Out

Today there is increasing EU Out movement lead by Britain. Besides populist UKIP party many leading Tories are supporting cutting ties with Brussels. Former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson supports a referendum for Britain to leave the EU while Michael Portillo, former Tory cabinet minister, describes the Euro as a “disaster” and says the UK does not share the EU’s vision. The Tories might have their own motivation to pull out from EU (to save speculators and money laundry in London City) as well UKIP and other populist movements in EU (to keep poor immigrants out, rich ones can bye entrance anyway as usual) and leftist grassroot movements (to stop austerity measures). Whatever reasons are the aim is against EU’s federalist development.

Quite common view is that EU is an opaque bureaucracy cut off from the citizens it was (publicly) intended to serve. The unofficial core and value of EU in my opinion is that EU is a system to protect, favor and facilitate the interests of big economic powers. A steady decline in voter turnout over the past three decades for European elections has lent credence to the idea that citizens feel increasingly estranged from the European project. The crisis appears to be making this worse by prompting politicians to rush through policies that concentrate more power in Brussels with limited public understanding or support.

From my point of view subsidiary principle should be widen so that more legislation should be implemented at national level and those few remaining issues could be decided between governments and implemented by slimmed European Commission and its agencies. With this approach the whole EP could be closed as useless extra body. This outcome – which I have called as EU lite version – is about the opposite to ongoing federalist tendency and indeed I support rebuilding EU with confederalist approach. This subject I dealt recently with my article My 1st May Manifesto .

Epilogue

The two dominating trends among EU leaders are to cut losses of players in virtual economy at the expense of taxpayers and to guide EU towards strict federation at the expense of democracy. (Ari Rusila)

After 63 years of existence of EU what do we have to celebrate? Financial speculators, banksters and EU elite can congratulate themselves for creating such a massive well connected system that it is hard to break. The citizens have enjoyed from few benefits such as student exchange programme, Schengen area and common agricultural policy which subsidized farmers to produce goods that nobody wanted, dumped excess supply on world markets creating falling incomes for world farmers. The decline of EU as actor in international politics continues with its disastrous European External Action Service (=foreign policy, EEAS) so that the union can concentrate to its core function as distributor of agricultural funds and as aggregate of high-flown statements. The present challenge is, how to distance unsatisfied citizens and state parliaments away from disturbing egocentric and sel-governing elite. I hope that grassroots finally will get fed up with this experiment and starts to demand some power back.

Vappupuhe

Vapun kunniaksi julkaisin pääblogissani blogosfääriin levittämäni puheen My 1st May Manifesto . Sen keskeisiä teemoja ovat euron pelastamiseksi toteutettavan kurjistamispolitiikan varjolla tehty vallansiirto demokratiasta debtokratiaan, valtaväestön uhrautuminen bankstereiden hyväksi. Liittovaltiokehityksen nimissä 99 % kansasta valjastetaan talkoisiin rikkaimman prosentin voittojen takaamiseksi. Tämän kuolemanspiraalin kääntämiseksi ja lähidemokratian rippeiden pelastamiseksi esitän EU:n hallittua alasajoa – eräänlaista EU:n kevytversiota. Mielestäni täydellinen suunnanmuutos edellyttää rakennelman uudelleenrakentamista alhaalta ylöspäin pelkän nykyvasemmiston ajaman uusliberaalin kapitalismin hienosäädön tai valuvirheiden korjauksen sijaan. Konfederaatioperiaatteiden mukainen visio voi olla hyvinkin utooppinen mutta mielestäni jo pelkän prosessin aloitus olisi suuri edistysaskel nykymenoon verrattuna. Mutta näistä tarkemmin blogipuheessani My 1st May Manifesto!

My 1st May Manifesto

In EU today the ‘austerity’ measures are destroying national economies making it impossible for them to ever to pay back those debts created by banksters of virtual economy and their political cabals. At grassroots people have become the victim of parasitic credit capitalism and its unelected institutions. Neoliberal capitalism has been winning ground last 30 years. During last five years emergency economics has made it possible to replace democracy with debtocracy. EU and especially Eurozone today is in condition which was recognized by Abraham Lincoln already one and half century ago as follows:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

EU elite today does not see any alternatives to its only right policy. Lincoln had the opposite approach and he saw an alternative to the corrupt money power:

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principals the taxpayers will be saving immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master, and become the servant of humanity.”

So in this way said Lincoln – an U.S. Republican. Coming back to present-day EU I see two dominating trends among EU leaders: First is to cut losses of players in virtual economy at the expense of taxpayers and the second is to guide EU towards strict federation at the expense of democracy. Change to this is needed for saving 99 % of people instead saving profits of the rest one per cent. With today’s strategy there is a risk that the combination of economic insecurity and political paralysis has been recipe for an increase in extremism and xenophobia. It is slow motion death spiral of economic collapse. That is the base to my view that people and the real world should be the first priority and not virtual economy, fiscal system, euro or EU elite. In my opinion it is time to whistle game out, collect losses and start new game in Day after Euro/EU context.

The best scenario from my point of view could be some kind of EU Lite version. A bit of similar ”privileged partnership” agreement than planed with Turkey (to keep it out from EU). EU Lite should be build simply to EU’s early basics as economical cooperation area including a customs union, the EU tariff band, competition etc linked to idea of the Common Market. EU Lite could also apply a structure of Confederation. Federalist intentions, the EU puppet parliament and the most of EU bureaucracy should from my point of view put in litter basket together with high-flown statements and other nonsense. In my opinion average citizen does not need EU to decide how wide tires one have in tractor or how big curve bananas can have. Most topics can more democratic way be handled at national level. For international affairs – e.g climachange, civil liberties, development aid – there are lot of official forums as well NGO-cooperation.

Even I sited Lincoln above I see some benefits with confederalist view in new desirable politics. Policy-making starts from community assemblies based on the practices of participatory democracy and continues further by interlinking villages, towns, neighborhoods, and cities into confederal networks. Power thus flows from the bottom up instead of from the top down like today. With critical issues – such as human rights, civil liberties, international policy etc political units can adopt a common constitution while the task of central governments would be providing support for all members. Democratic confederalism is based on grass-roots participation. Its decision-making processes lie with the communities; in conclusion my vision is decentralized society a network of directly democratic citizens’ assemblies in individual communities/cities organized in a confederal fashion.

Sure the scenario above can be seen as utopistic – however from my perspective the process or moving towards that Utopia is the core question.

My bottom line:

• People first system after
• Power flow from the bottom up
• Money for the people not the banks
• From private to public money creation
• Real economy instead of virtual economy
• Investor risk instead of taxpayers risk

P.S:

Related to Eurozone crisis some background in my article

EU in Turmoil and not only in Financial One

as well in article

Common Appeal for the Rescue of the Peoples of Europe

Armenian kansanmurhaa muisteltiin (Suomen hiljaa hyväksyessä tapahtuneen)

Armenialaiset ja useat heitä sympatisoivat ihmiset ympäri maailmaa muistelivat kuluneella viikolla jälleen – kuten jo liki sadan vuoden ajan – turkkilaisten toteuttamaa jopa 1.5 miljoonaa henkeä vaatinutta kansanmurhaa. Turkki ja sen painostamana usea muukin maa kieltää koko asiaa tapahtuneenkaan, useat maat – kuten Suomi – eivät halua siihen ottaa kantaa. Yli kaksikymmentä valtiota – mm Venäjä, Ruotsi, Ranska, Italia ja Saksa – tunnustaa kuitenkin tosiasiat ja muutama maa – kuten Israel ja Serbia – harkitsee tälläkin hetkellä näin tekevänsä. Useissa maissa –  kuten viimeksi Ranskassa – Armenian(kin) kansanmurhan kieltäminen on rangaistava teko. Armenialaisten kansanmurhalla on vaikutusta myös nykypäivän jäädytettyyn Nagorno-Karabahin konfliktiin ja ehkä epävirallisesti myös Turkin EU jäsenyysneuvottelujen mateluun.

Kansanmurhan taustalla nähdään olevan Balkanin liigan (Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Kreikka) menestyksekäs sota Ottomaanien imperiumia vastaan 1912-13. Balkanin sotien seurauksena ottomaanit menettivät 85 % alueistaan Euroopassa ja sen myötä myös sadat tuhannet muslimit pakenivat valloittajia nyky-Turkin alueelle. Muslimiyhteisö janosi kostoa ja nuorten turkkilaisten nationalistinen liike tarjosi sen. Merkittävä armenialaisvähemmistö katsottiin Venäjän liittolaiseksi ja heitä vastaan aloitettiin järjestelmällinen, hallittu ja valtiotasolla hyvin organisoitu suunnitelmallinen kansanmurha.

Kansanmurhan alkupisteenä pidetään Istanbulissa 24 huhtikuuta 1915 toteutettua 250 johtavan armenialaisen pidätystä. Tämän jälkeen ympäri maata kaikki aikuisikäiset armenialaismiehet pyrittiin tappamaan, naiset, lapset ja vanhukset puolestaan lähetettiin kuolemanmarssille Syyrian autiomaahan. Tämän yleislinjan ohella naisia ja lapsia pantiin myös veneisiin ja upotettiin mereen; myös ristiinnaulitsemista ja lasten kaasuttamista kouluissaan harjoitettiin edellisten keinojen ohella. Kaiken kaikkiaan ajanjaksolla 1915-1923 tapettujen armenialaisten määräni arvioidaan asettuvan miljoonan ja puolentoista miljoonan välille.

Vanhoilla etnisillä jännitteillä on vaikutuksensa myös nykypäivänä. Vuonna 1989 Nagorno-Karabahin armenialaisenemmistöinen autonominen alue Neuvosto-Azerbaizanissa julistautui itsenäiseksi haluten samalla liittoutua Armenian kanssa. Konflikti yltyi täydeksi sodaksi vv 1991-1994 ja nykyiset rajalinjat pohjaavat 1994 tulitaukoon. Armenialaiset pakenivat azerien hallitsemilta alueilta ja päinvastoin joten noin miljoona ihmistä joutui pakolaisiksi.

Nagorno-Karabakh on käytännössä itsenäinen – joskaan ei tunnustettu – valtio poliittisesti monimuotoisessa kansainvälisessä toimintaympäristössä. Venäjä tukee pääsääntöisesti Armeniaa kun taas Azerbaizanilla on tiivis suhde Natomaa Turkkiin; vahvistamattomien tietojen mukaan Turkki jopa kouluttaa azereita Turkissa Armeniaa vastaan tehtävää hyökkäystä varten. Iranilla puolestaan on läheinen suhde kristittyyn Armeniaan vaikka Azerbaizanissa ovat Iranin tapaan shiittimuslimit vallassa azerien samalla muodostaessa merkittävän vähemmistön Iranissa. Israel puolestaan on luonut tiiviin taloudellisen ja nyt myös sotilaallisen yhteistyön Azerbaizanin kanssa ja käytännössä ”ostanut” sieltä lentokentän käytettäväksi mahdolliseen ilmaiskuun Iranin ydinlaitoksia vastaan. Tämä siitä huolimatta, aikojen alussa Armenian hallitsija Tigranes otti 10 000 juutalaista mukaansa Juudeasta Armenian kuningaskuntaan ja että Jeruslemin vanhassa kaupungissa tänä päivänäkin on armenialaiskortteli. Vapun alla Knesset mahdollisesti toteaa kansanmurhan tapahtuneen.

“The nearest successful example [of collective denial] in the modern era is the 80 years of official denial by successive Turkish governments of the 1915-17 genocide against the Armenians in which 1.5 million people lost their lives. This denial has been sustained by deliberate propaganda, lying and cover-ups, forging documents, suppression of archives, and bribing scholars.”

(Stanley Cohen, Professor of Criminology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

Armenian kansanmurhasta monipuolista tietoa sivustolta

Genocide1915.info

ja aiheesta laajemmin pääblogini artikkelissa

The Armenian Genocide Still Denied by Turkey (and Azerbaijan)

The Armenian Genocide Still Denied by Turkey (and Azerbaijan)

Armenian as well other people around the world paid homage to the memory of 1.5 million innocent victims of the 1915 Armenian Genocide implemented by the Ottoman Empire. 98 years after the Genocide the present Turkish nation not only deny that its predecessors plotted and committed the Genocide, but also continues its anti-Armenian policy, still retaining confiscated church estates and properties, and religious and cultural treasures of the Armenian people.

NYT 1915

Different views about history have their impact also today when the frozen conflict of Artsakh, better known as Nagorno-Karabakh, still waits its solution. Nineteen years after the ceasefire in 1994, an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is still not reached and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic continues its existence as a de facto independent republic recognized by no other state.

The Balkan Wars as background

The First Balkan War, which lasted from October 1912 to May 1913, pitted the Balkan League (Serbia, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria) against the Ottoman Empire. The combined armies of the Balkan states overcame the numerically inferior and strategically disadvantaged Ottoman armies and achieved rapid success. The Balkan Wars resulted in a defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the loss of 85% of its territory in Europe which were and partitioned among the allies.

An important consequence of the Balkan Wars was also the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans. Already beginning in the mid-19th century, hundreds of thousands of Muslims were expelled or forced to flee from the Caucasus and the Balkans as a result of the Russo-Turkish wars and the conflicts in the Balkans. Muslim society in the empire was incensed by this flood of refugees and overcome by a desire for revenge.

After the Balkan Wars (1912-13) the Turkish nationalist movement in the country gradually came to view Anatolia as their last refuge. That the Armenian population formed a significant minority in this region would figure prominently in the calculations of the Young Turks who would eventually carry out the Armenian Genocide. During the First World War, the Turkish authorities accused Armenians of sympathizing with Russia and used it as a pretext to declare the entire Armenian population their enemy.

The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide, also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, among Armenians, the Great Crime was the Ottoman government’s systematic uprooting and extermination of its minority Armenian population from their historic homeland in Turkey. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day when Ottoman authorities arrested and massacred some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople(Istanbul), on orders from the Turkish government. Tragic events took place during and after World War I, in two phases: the wholesale killing and enslavement of the able-bodied males, and the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches to the Syrian Desert. In addition women and children were placed on boats and drowned at sea, or crucified. There is also evidence that children were put to death with poison gas in schools that were converted to death camps.

The total number of Armenians killed as a result is estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million in period of 1915-1923. Armenia claims that the total number of dead exceeds 1.5 million people, the half of all Armenians at the beginning of the last century. The Assyrians, the Greeks and other minority groups were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, as part of the same genocidal policy. It is considered by many to have been the first modern genocide, due to the organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians.

However the Armenian Genocide can also be seen otherwise, not as having begun in 1915, but rather as an ongoing genocide, from 1894, through 1908/9, through World War I and right up to 1923. For example 200,000-300,000 Armenians were massacred in Turkey on period 1894-1896.

Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes genocide the quintessential state crime as only a government has the resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, it was carried out during WWI between the years 1915 and 1918 and the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923.

Recognize or deny

“The nearest successful example [of collective denial] in the modern era is the 80 years of official denial by successive Turkish governments of the 1915-17 genocide against the Armenians in which 1.5 million people lost their lives. This denial has been sustained by deliberate propaganda, lying and cover-ups, forging documents, suppression of archives, and bribing scholars.”

(Stanley Cohen, Professor of Criminology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

In recent years, parliaments of several countries have formally recognized the event as genocide. Turkish entry talks with the EU were met with a number of calls to consider the event as genocide though it never became a precondition (so far).

The fact of the Armenian Genocide is recognized by many states. It was first recognized in 1965 by Uruguay. In general, the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey has already been recognized e.g. by Russia, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, Cyprus, Lebanon, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, and 42 U.S. states. Armenian Genocide was recognized also by the Vatican, European Parliament and the World Council of Churches.

The position of Israel is most interesting or even ambivalent as the Jews have first hand experience about genocide/holocaust. From my perspective more than any other nation, Israel has the moral obligation to recognize the Armenian Genocide. On November 7, 1989 the Union for Reform Judaism passed a resolution on recognition of Armenian Genocide. This year the Knesset held a ceremony to mark the memory of the Turkish genocide of Armenians. MK Reuven Rivlin (Likud) said before the ceremony that he believes that “as human beings and as Jews, we must not ignore the catastrophe of another nation for any reason, including diplomatic considerations, important as they may be. We will mark the annual memorial day for the massacre of the Armenian people regardless of the relations with today’s Turkey, which is an ally.” Turkey was of course highly displeased with the Knesset’s decision to mark the day. Various events devoted to the subject, which were supposed to be held at the Knesset, were cancelled in recent years because of Turkish pressure. Anyway Israel progressing with this issue as the Knesset’s Education Committee will hold a discussion on Monday (29th Apr.2013) regarding two initiatives presented by Members of Knesset Professor Arieh Eldad (Hatikva) and Zehava Gal-On (Meretz) to recognize the Armenian genocide 1915.

Kurdish recognition of the Armenian Genocide is the recognition of the Kurdish participation in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians during WWI, when Kurdish tribal forces attacked and killed Armenian civilians and refugees. In several of the Kurdish regions, the Kurds participated in the genocide of the Armenians while others opposed the genocide, in many cases even hiding or adopting Armenian refugees.

On 2010 the Serbian Radical Party submitted a draft resolution to the Serbian parliament condemning the genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey against Armenians from 1915 to 1923. SRS submitted the draft so that Serbia can join the countries which have condemned the genocide. At the end of 2011, the Serbs in Bosnia started an initiative to make Armenian genocide denial illegal.

Turkey has consistently denied responsibility for the genocide, which is sometimes referred to as the Armenian Holocaust. Azerbaijan, being in deep strategic alliance with Turkey and in a state of war against Armenia, shares the position of Turkey.

Some countries, including Argentina, Armenia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Uruguay have adopted laws that punish genocide and also in October 2006, the French National Assembly passed a bill which will make Armenian Genocide denial a crime. Last week, France ratified a bill in parliament, according to which denying the 1915 Armenian genocide would be punishable by a jail sentence of up to one year and a 45,000 Euro fine. The bill has yet to receive final approval in the French senate.

Artsakh aka Nagorno-Karabakh

 Docent of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics Alexander Perinjiyev believes that the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is inevitable. Moreover, Perinjiyev predicts when Azerbaijan will open hostilities. It would be logical if this military campaign would start immediately after the Olympic Games in Russia’s Sochi.

Old ethnic tensios take place in region also today. Artsakh was the tenth province of the Kingdom of Armenia from 189 BC until 387 AD. Much of historical Artsakh presently overlaps with the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Populated for centuries by Christian Armenian and Turkic Azeris, Karabakh became part of the Russian empire in the 19th century. The conflict has roots dating back well over a century into competition between Christian Armenian and Muslim Turkic and Persian influences.

The conflict started in 1989, when the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, a predominantly Armenian territory within Soviet Azerbaijan, declared its independence from Azerbaijan and union with Armenia. The resulting tension between the Armenian and Azerbaijani residents soon turned into an ethnic conflict and finally to the 1991–1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which ended with a ceasefire that left the current borders. As the Azeris in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and surrounding territories fled to Azerbaijan, the Armenians in Azerbaijan moved to Armenia proper. The total number of displaced people is estimated to be one million. Today, Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto independent state, calling itself the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It is closely tied to the Republic of Armenia and uses the same currency, the dram. On the other side according to reports as yet unconfirmed Turkey still trains Azerbaijani soldiers in Turkey for the purpose of attacking Armenia.

The political situation in region is quite confusing. Armenia accounts for the Russian military base. Russia sponsors Armenia, actively supports it in many issues one can say that the relations between Moscow and Yerevan have reached the level of allied partnership. It is clear that Russia would not want to lose such an important ally in such a serious and potentially explosive geopolitical region. Azerbaijan has close military ties with NATO member Turkey. Iran, which borders both, is the biggest wildcard; although Shiite Muslim like Azerbaijan, Tehran reviles Baku because of Azerbaijan’s secular orientation, its close ties with Israel, and fears about separatist tendencies among Iran’s large Azeri minority. Iran, ironically, has far better ties with Christian Armenia. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993.

Israel has been developing closer ties with Azerbaijan and have helped modernize the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan. It is claimed that with this cooperation Israel has ”bought” an airport for planned strike against Iranan nuclear facilities. On the other hand Armenian-Jewish relations date back to the time of Armenian emperor Tigranes the great , who, retreating from Judea, took 10,000 Jews with him on his return to the Kingdom of Armenia. Israel itself is home to the Armenian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

The final status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of international mediation efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States. At present, the mediation process is at a standstill. Azerbaijan’s position has been that Armenian troops withdraw from all areas of Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh and that all displaced persons be allowed to return to their homes before the status of Karabakh can be discussed. Armenia does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as being legally part of Azerbaijan, arguing that because the region declared independence at the same time that Azerbaijan became an independent state, both of them are equally successor states of the Soviet Union. The Armenian government insists that the government of Nagorno-Karabakh be part of any discussions on the region’s future, and rejects ceding occupied territory or allowing refugees to return before talks on the region’s status.

More background information from Genocide1915.info

Who Gets Justice From ICTY?

Finnish leading daily newspaper – Helsingin Sanomat – published today (14/04/2013) an investigative feature story Winners Justice related to recent release of Croatian war criminal Ante Gotovina. Gotovina was responsible about biggest ethnic cleansing during Balkan wars. The article clearly proves the political and biased nature of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Bosniacs have got most justice from Hague, Albanians and Serbs least
Lines from top to bottom: Croats, Bosniacs, Serbs, Albanians, Other
Column 1: Civilian deaths, Column 2: Refugees, Column 3: ICTY sentences (years) about crimes against nations on line, Column 4: ICTY sentences against nations on line/days/civilian death
Column 5: ICTY sentences against nations on line/ratio of deaths + 50% of refugee amount
Free translation AR///Source: Helsingin Sanomat

Ante Gotovina was leading sc Operation Storm against Serb populated Krajina region. Krajina had been under UN protection from 1992, however some 10,000 UN peacekeepers could not stop the attack against civilians – three peacekeepers was murdered and over 200,000 Serbs escaped to Serbia. Croatian army looted homes of Serbs and burned most of them (about 17,000) down. Few thousands old or handicapped Serbs could not flee and hundreds of them were found later decapitated, burned or executed. More about operation Storm and ethnic cleansing in Krajina in my articles Krajina – Victory with Ethnic Cleansing and Operation Storm – forgotten pogrom.

The operation “Storm” successfully finalized the ethnic cleansing of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Croat president Franjo Tudjman cynically described the pogrom of Croatia Serbs at the opening of the Military school Ban Josip Jelacic in Zagreb, on December 14 1998: “We have, therefore, resolved the Serbian question! There will no longer be 12 percent of Serbs, nor 9 percent of Yugoslavs, as before. One may find some equivalence between terms of Serbian question and Jewish question and not by coincidence as Mr.Tjudman is a widely acclaimed Holocaust denier and international hero to Neo-Nazis.

Serb populated areas in Croatia/Krajina before the Operation Storm

ICTY started to investigate war crimes and ethnic Krajina’s cleansing immediately 1995. U.S. – who was the main financier of ICTY – tried at daily basis to stop investigations and when they however continued U.S. refused to submit satelite photos and other evidencies in their possession to prosecutor. Despite all this sabotage ICTY anyway had enough evidence against Gotovina; after years of hiding he was arrested on 2005 – maybe because his arrest was one preconditition for Croatia’s EU membership. Gotovina got sentence of 24 years in Hague. However ICTY Appeals Chamber released him on Nov. 2012.

The obvious reason for outcome Ante Gotovina’s trial from my perspective is that operation Storm was implemented by help of U.S. All the procedure manifests that ICTY is a political construction to implement U.S. will, to whitewash actions and war crimes implemented by U.S. and their allies and to demonize Serbs to get justification for U.S. intervention to Balkan wars. The dominating political aspect casts shadows also the earlier court decisions – whether accused were acquit or not as well throws suspicion on ongoing trials in Hague.

P.S:

I have tried to tell the other side of Balkan war story in my previous articles such as

• Why It Happened InYugoslavia?
• Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed” – Finally a Critical Documentary about Srebrenica Tragedy
• Media War of Yugoslav Secession continues
• NIOD Report on Srebrenica
• Srebrenica again – Hoax or Massacre?
• High pressure to fabricate Racak reports
• 10th anniversary of Nato’s attack on Serbia
• Kosovo: Two years of Pseudo-state and
• Captured Pseudo-State Kosovo