Šio mu ga Đura

problem to sto Vukadinovic dobija priliku da svoje toksicne analize plasira jednom nedeljno preko Politike koja je u delimcnom drzavnom vlasnistvu ?

Zanimljivo da ste se ovoliko potrudili da ocrnite jadnog Vukadinovica. Naravno da ima mnogo diskutabilnog u njegovim stavovima, da se o njima moze polemisati, ali ne vidim potrebu da mu treba “zatvoriti usta”, sto vi otvoreno trazite, jer nekoliko puta u tekstu implicitno zagovarate potrebu da se Vukadinovic suspenduje (“ Što se mene tiče, Vukadinović je zaslužio suspenziju kao politicki analiticar” kazete vi, i mislite da ste u pravu!). Pa zar treba suspendovati sve one s kojima se ne slazemo? Jer u analizama imenovanog ima ne lako branjivih stavova, ali ima i dobrih i zdravorazumskih stavova. Dakle, nemate pravo da trazite da se mal’te ne hapse vasi neistomisljenici, delujete previse slicni onim damicama iz tzv. nevladinih organizacija koje se ne libe da traze obaranje vlade, da traze od medjunarodne zajednice da vrsi pritiske na Srbiju (a pritisci mogu biti veoma razliciti, od nedavanja podrske u medjunarodnim organizacijama do ponovnog bombardovanja – ne daj Boze!), a formalno sve te NVO imaju zadatak da "pomognu brzoj demokratizaciji Srbije".
Svakako da Srbiji nije u interesu da se previse konfrontira sa SAD, ali bi SAD morale da preispitaju neke svoje stavove. Znam, oni su oni (veliki i preveliki) a mi smo mali, pa smo jos i pravili greske, da su oni morali da nas mlate, mlate, pa nisu nas bas umlatili do mrtvog, ali nastavljaju sa pritiscima zato da bi (sic) opravdali ili bar bili na liniji svojih ranijih postavljanja koja su bila izuzetno radikalna i neprimerena XX. Veku. Mozete vi mislite sto god hocete, ali doci ce vreme kada ce se predsednik SAD izviniti Srbima zbog 1999. godine! I Srbija ce imati odlicne odnose sa SAD, ali ne na stetu odnosa sa Rusijom, Kinom, Indijom i Brazilom, pa i Venecuelom.
Siguran sam da vlada Srbije istinski zeli da se ukljuci u evroatlantske organizacije, ali da ta orijentacija nikako ne sme da bude protiv nekih drugih znacajnih svetskih sila. Na kraju, podrska Rusije Srbiji u ovoj fazi resavanja problema KiM ne sme da se banalizuje i omalovazava, makoliko to Rusija radial i radi svojih sopstvenih interesa.
DAkle, Jelena, kritikujte stavove sa kojima se ne slazete, ali ne budite iskljucivi, ne trazite suspenzije i hapsenja. Dobro je sto ima razlicitih misljenja, bilo bi lose kada bi vecina analiticara mislila slicno, a narocito onako kako Vi mislite.

Verovatno taj imenovani analitičar sada piše novu kolumnu u Politici u kojoj analizira tvoje pisanije na ovom blogu (recimo) i takođe ti daje crveni karton i zahteva da budeš "suspendovana"... Što se mene tiče, ja bih sve "političke analitičare" (termin koji ništa dobro ne donosi) suspendovao, pošto mi svi odreda idu na živce. Takvih Vukadinovića ima mnogo, i onih koji su na istoj "frekvenciji" kao i on, a bogami i onih koji pevaju sasvim drugačiju pesmu... modus operandi im je isti.

sve pohvale, baš je odmereno i korektno iako to dotični gospodin svojim cinizmom ne zaslužuje.
Ja razumem potrebu nekoga da se dodvorava određenoj političkoj opciji, partiji i grupaciji i da piše analize po narudžbini, ali se onad , kao što je slučaj sa gospodinom autorom, ne mođe prodavati za tobože nezavisnog analitičara. Inače, imamo inflaciju samozvanih političkih, vojnih , socioloških , psiholoških i svih drugih vrsta analitičara i eksperata, od kojih je većina sa skromnim stručnim kapacitetom ali zato imaju podršku medija i onih za koje rade.
Tekst «Sami smo krivi» po svojoj sadržini,argumentima i asocijacima više bi pristajao nekom tabloidu ali nikako da se objavi u Politici,koja slovi za ozbiljnu novinu. Doduše, možda če ponovo otvoriti rubriku Odjeci i reagovanja.
Vukadinoviča navodno fasciniraju komentari koji izražavaju zabrinutost da bi retorika DSS ministara mogla da slabi našu pregovaračku poziciju. Zatim, konstatuje da je politika SAD i V.Britanijom odavno okrenuta potiv nas, bez obzira koliko se ovdašnja politička elita trudila da to promeni.
Pa i slepom je jasno da se ovakvom politikom slabi naša pregovaračka pozicija , koja i onako nije posebno jaka jer ne priznaje realnost. Kao da se svi pravimo ludi i ne znamo da je kosovsko pitanje odavno internacionalizovano, a to znači da nije više unutrašnje pitanje. Prihvatanjem pregovora i posrednika i Srbija to priznaje.
Ne bih citirao ali preporučujem da Vukadinović pročita današnji tekst Danice Draškovič u Kuriru.
Siguran sam da i Vukadinović zna da Srbija nije u poziciji u kojoj se nalazi zbog navodnog kašnjenja u rasčiščavanju sa komunizmom, niti su je smatrali komunističkom več bahatom i nacionalističkom a za to je kriva politika koja je tako predstavljala.
Stalno pominjanje zavera je već deplasirano, ali nekima je to još jedini izgovor i argument za nemanje argumenata. Nije Zapad bio protiv nas onda kad mi nismo bili protiv njega, nije Srbija nikad bila toliko močna da se je Zapad bojao ali je zapad shvatao i shvatao Srbiju kao značajnog činioca i partnera u regionu , i to čini i sada EU.
Nije li obrenovićevska Srbija prosperirala kada je imala dobre odnose i trgovinu sa Zapadom tj.Austro-ugarskom. Građanska Srbija je uvek imala i imaće perspektivu ali nacionalistička samo teškoće.

Pa zašto stalno potezati pitanje Republike Srpske, je li nam interes da ti Srbi tamo žive dobro i konačno mirno a to znači da traže zajednički interes u BiH, ili ih treba podbunjivati, sejati im iluzije o nekom ujedinjenju. I onda se ne treba čuditi ako oni jednom kažu nemojte nas više braniti.
Što se tiče broda, tačno je da je havarisan a čim je havarisan on je nagnut. I umesto da se trudimo da ga ispravimo,gospodin Vukadinović ga i dalje navija pa makar se i prevrnuo.
Ja sam za to da brod ispravimo , da imamo normalne odnose sa Rusijom, EU, SAD i pre svega susedima. U takvom kontekstu treba tražiti i rešenje za Kosovo i težiti da ono bude takvo da Srbiji ne predstavlja kamen o vratu zarad fikcije o suverenitetu.
Inače i ovaj tekst analitičara Vukadinovića pokazuje da se kod nas razmišlja u kategorijama iz XIX veka, čak ne uvažavajući ni ondašnju realnost. Anahrono je govoriti o ujedinjenju pravoslavnih zemalja kad su nam Grčka, Bugarska i Rumunija več u NATO, da i ne govorim o sveslovenskom savezu jer bi tu morali akceptirati Slovence i Hrvate. Konstatacijom da će se u Srbiji uvek naći zavidan broj onih koji su ubeđeni kako se Veliki brat upravo sprema da nam oprosti to što nas je tukao... Vukadinović već upozorava na NATO i strane plaćenike i domaće izdajnike, na koje je i usmerena retorika DSS. Pa šijo mu ga Đuro, ko nije shvatio.
Pozdrav

mislim da cak i od izbora nove Vlade ove godine,
Srbija, po treci put dobija sansu,
odnosno, blagonaklon stav EU

Fenomen Vukadinovic moze se razumeti analizirajuci psiholosku strukturu njegove licnosti.Gledajuci talk show u kome Vukadinovic,Zarkovic i Gorcin Stojanovic raspravljaju o pojedinim temama koje nisu strogo politicke mozemo zakljuciti o kakvoj licnosti se radi.Vukadinovic je pre svega okrenut negativno,on uvek vidi do pola praznu casu.On je nepoverljiv i sujetan uz to frustriran i zavidan.Za njega su oni koji su jaki,pozitivni,uspesni,prodorni i veseli sve ono sto nije on sam,mali iskompleksirani gubitnik.Te svoje frustracije prenosi na nivo nacije i brani sve ono sto po prirodi stvari pripada gubitnistvu.On ne mrzi Zapad zbog arogancije i nerazumevanja drugih,on ga mrzi jer je jak,napredan,dinamican.Njegovi argumenti samo su na izgled racionalni,u sustini on brani svoj polozaj gubitnika koji u svom porazu uziva ali posto nema snage da se tom jacem odupre on beskrajno kukamavci.Kada govori o Srbiji on je uvek stavlja u polozaj nemocne zrtve,cak ne i neduzne ali nemocne da se odupre osim da se buni,kuka,bogorada i mazohisticki uziva u svojoj nesreci.On ne zeli da se zaborave ponizenja naneta Srbiji i na tome zeli da izgradi novi identitet:po njemu Srbi trebaju biti ljudi koje je EU i USA brutalno tukla,kaznjava,mrzi i kinji.To je njemu dovoljno.On ne vidi izlaz,resenje a i zasto bi?Pa tako je lepo jalovo seiriti nad jacim uzivajuci u samosazaljenju.Vukadinovic nema stroga politicka nacela,on je zapravo vrlo skromno obrazovan,njegove ideje su plitke i bio sam zacudjen kada sam saznao da je univerzitetski profesor.Iskren da budem ne bih mu dao vise od neke srednje strucne skole u provinciji.On samo na izgled podrzava konzervativnu desnicu, a zapravo ideal mu je neka palanacka Srbija iz doba Milovana Glisica i Stevana Sremca.Njegova slika drustva je karikaturalna i on savremeni svet i ne razume pa je njegov strah od tog istog sveta tim veci.Vukadinovic je po sebi beznacajna pojava kao i ostali kvazi analiticari(Antonic i dr) pa je mnogo vaznije pitanje zasto su takve individue neopravdano mnogo zastupljene u nasem javnom zivotu?

Ono što "još drži vodu" jeste rešenost EU da nas integriše...
Inače po onome što rade naši političari, mi bi već debelo u izolaciju.
Ne znam šta je Jeremić i ostatak onoga što kod nas predstavlja spoljnu politiku drugačije od ovih što "pričaju o NATO državi"....Samo su tako podelili uloge...

onome što se u 21 veku smatra nedopuštenim i u kreiranju ideologija i politika- shvatanju svog naroda kao žrtve, nikad kao egzekutora. Otužno opšte mesto svakog šovinizma

Hm vrlo interesantno nepisano pravilo o kreiranju ideologije i politike.

Međutim, nisu li svi narodi u okruženju svoju ideologiju i politiku pa u krajnjoj liniji i trenutnu spoljnopolitičku poziciju stekli na poziciji žrtve od "velikosrpskog fašizma". Istovremeno su svoju ulogu u istom negirali ili istorijski marginalizovali.

Albanci na toj ulozi žrtve grade pravni argument za nezavisnost zar ne?

Stvarno je postalo dosadno da kada neko ukaže na zjapeći nesklad između zadate istine i stvarnog bude etiketiran kao neko ko negira zločine i krivce, a onda time i diskvalifikuje bilo kakvu ideju da naša država i narod je ipak imala i ima neko pravo da se pita o nekim stvarima.

Godinama slušam priču o suočavanju sa prošlošću, čišćenju svojeg dvorišta, prihvatanja uloge agresora i tome slično.

Šta imam od tog čišćenja sopstvenog dvorišta ako neki Dnevni Avaz piše o nekom Jurišiću kao oslobodiocu čiji zločin je usput u svetskim razmerama potpuno anoniman?

Šta imam od toga da se suočavam sa Ovčarom ako su zločini u Sisku potpuno anonimni i marginalizovani?

Zašto neko može da spoljnopolitičku poziciju gradi na Račku a moja država ne može na Klečki?

Zašto neko može da nezavisnost dobije na aparthejdu do 1999 a ja ne mogu da to negiram za isti od 1999?

Zbog čega je Srebrenica genocid a Jasenovac "zločin u Jasenovcu" (da nije možda zato što tada nije bilo interneta)?

Kako nekome može da se toleriše da izabere SSovca za predsednika a sa druge steane ti isti čitavu naciju etiketiraju zato što je većina glasala za Miloševića kao fašističku?

Pa zbog tog čišćenja sopstvenog dvorišta zamalo da mi okrive domovinu za genocid? I to od strane koga Hrvata, Bošnjaka i Albanca? Ma dajete molim vas.

Da se razumemo suočavanje sa zločinima je ok, ali čišćenje sopstvenog dvorišta je utopija!

Mi moramo na svakom koraku ukazivati na ono što nam se dogodilo i na ono što smo uradili, ali ne jedno bez drugog.

Dakle slažem se sa vama da je neukusno da na sopstvenim žrtvama gradite politiku ali je neophodno ako želite bilo kakav uspeh u njoj.

PS odgovorio sam vam na prethodnom blogu ono što ste me pitali. Hvala na pitanju.

Kvalitetan tekst !
Uostalom, više i nije iznenađenje --- standardno kvalitetni tekstovi Vukadinovića, jednog od retkih neostrašćenih ličnosti naše javne scene !

Ja mislim da za Vukadinovica i politicki mu bliske komentatore vazi pravilo da, kada ocenjuju politiku SAD i zapadnih zemalja kao nepravednu i svojevoljnu, oni projektuju sopstveni mentalitet na motive tih zemalja. Oni verovatno zamisljaju sta bi oni radili kada bi bili u poziciji moci i kakvi bi bili njihovi motivi, i jedino sto, izgleda, moze da dopre do njihovog uma je svojevoljnost i kapricioznost siledzije. Ocigledno im promice cinjenica da je politika tih zemalja vodjena principom zastite svojih gradjana i njihovih interesa, a ne Srbije. Stoga u optuzbama drugih za siledzijstvo, od strane Vukadinovica, ali i nasih politicara, ja samo vidim frustraciju siledzijskog mentaliteta realnom nemoci u svetu.

Tekst je ok. U prilicnoj meri se slazemo. Medjutim jedno ishodiste, jedno odredjenje Vukadinovica jesu memljive kelije monaha Vojislava. Jedna nesposobnost srpska da se suoci sa vremenom u kom se zivi da se resavaju problemi, uvek je svetionik za napredak u dalekoj proslosti, umesto da se vlastiti identitet trazi u vremenu u kom jesmo u kom postojimo. Otuda pitanje je da li su Srbi ikada bili nacija, ako naciju smatramo novovekovnim izumom, da li je u Srbiji moguce uspostavljanje bilo kakvog ljudskog individuuma, jer upustajuci se u raspravu sa nekrofilom tipa vukadinovica prihvatate i njegov jezik jezik memljivih kelija pravoslavnih manastira u kojima je pekao zanat, i sticao samospoznaju njegov idol i mentor dr Vojislav Kostunica. Zbilja on me u svim svojim komentarima najvise podseca na nekoga ko brani jedan zanos jedan odnos jedno nemanje vlastitog mislim licnog identiteta pred navalom vrednosti koje se srecu u kapitalistickom drustvu, a pre svega pred slobodom ljudskog individuuma.

Problem je s njim i plejadom "slobodnih" mislilaca iz te plejade novokomponovane srpske "slobodne" misli upravo u recniku a i u definiciji pojma sloboda. Ako slobodu vezujemo za pojam naroda dolazimo do feudalistickog sistema do omiljenog doba kneza Laze i njegovog recnika, koji nije bio prijateljski ni prema ostalim srpskim velmozama a kamoli prema ostalim narodima. Pitanje je problem koji traje od oslobodjenja od turaka, jednostavno srbija nema identitet, srbi nemaju slobodu, jer toj nasoj individualnoj slobodi uvek je pretpotstavljana sloboda kolektiva, a pre svega nasih vodja. I tako dok su se pre svega slovenci a potom i hrvati koliko toliko uspesno prilagodili vremenu u kom zive,. kod nas su se dizali hramovi svetom savi, i drugim svecima slavila i velicala proslost, cetnistvo i slicno tome. Sve je to krajnje problematicno. Jer pocev od dvadesetog veka Srbija jedan pretezno neobrazovan i poljoprivredan narod, naoruzava se zestoko, da bi u nekoliko ratova prisvojila teritorije na kojima i nema srba. I sta se dogadja. Ljudi kao ljudi, nisu svi kao Srbi i ne gledaju svi u srednji vek, i iz tog uglavnom tog razloga jer pricamo jezikom kostunice, seselja, draskovica, milosevica, nas ne vole, jednostavno treba taj jezik prevladati i ostaviti ga iza sebe, jer taj jezik nam je cak i milijardere koji ne znaju nista drugo no da otimaju iznedrio, bas kao i nasoj braci rusima. Sve svoje blago podelili su domacim tajkunima, rodjacima politicara i slicno a ocekuju da ce ih zapad placati da ce zapad podizati fabrike da vecina rusa imaju od cega da zive dok "ugledni ruski biznismeni" haraju evropom i jure za najlepsim zenama sveta. Pravoslavlje nikada nije znalo da uspostavi kontakt sa ljudskim individuumom. Uvek ga je negiralo. Nikada za pravoslavca nije prihvatljivo da je covek stvoren po slici bozijoj, vec pre svega da je rab boziji a da su nasi svestenici u direktnoj vezi sa bogom, ogromna je teznja nase crkve oduvek bila da zaglupi i ponizi nas narod. Jos je Dositej Obradovic pisao o tome da su Turci spasavali narod od zuluma srpske pravoslavne crkve. Duboki su koreni te nekulture koju iskazuje svojim ponasanjem Vukadinovic. Rekao bih da usled pomenutih okolnosti kod nas u nasoj pravoslavnoj domovini do sada pojedinac, najvisi domet imao kao drug. Jer biti gospodin u pravoslavlju je nedostizno, velmoza si ili kmet. Jer mi smo narod a ne nacija, kao slovenci ili hrvati. I njihovoj crkvi nije bilo lako pocetkom devetnaestog veka pa se povukla, i ostavila prostor za ljudski individuum, no nasa crkva se tesko odrice vlasti nad ljudskim umom, nad ljudskim pravom nad ljudskim dusama, i nije malo onih koji i dan danas veruju u reci svestenstva koje su vise nego problematicne.

Sve u svemu cemu tolika analiza nekog misljenja koje je dostojno srednjeg veka ili nemanjickih analiticara a ne dvadesetog veka. Jasno je da se u javnosti ne bi trebalo pojavljivati nesto tako ali sta da se radi, uvek moze da se trazi azil, ili nesto slicno.

Jelena Milić
Sad što smo sliku posle atenata na premijera Đinđića vrlo brzo počeli da vraćamo na onu od pre 2000, zaista smo sami krivi.

Potpuno se slažem sa ovom konstatacijom. Npr. neki članovi NGO su bliske prijateljice Tereze Sovjecki koja je u Evropskoj komisiji zadužena za Srbiju i sastavlja izveštaje o nama. Njihovi subjektivni utisak i vokabular se tu može često prepoznati. U tom pogledu zaista smo krivi za sliku koju sami o sebi kreiramo kod uticajnih ljudi.

Za punopravno članstvo u EU potrebno je biti i članica NATO. Gde smo na tom putu?

Sugestivno pitanje koje u sebi sadrži pogrešnu tvrdnju za koju se podrazumeva da je istinita. Takav uslov ne postoji. Malta i Kipar npr. nisu ni članice Partnerstva za mir.

prvo sto se tice Vukadinovica ne bih komentarisala - prosecno , nista znacajno osim dela da je primetio retoriku i zadrt stav DSS - a koja nas sve plasi.
a sto se tice Đure - da ga sije sije ga

Being the World's Only Superpower
Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

I will never apologize for the United States
of America. I don't care what the facts are.
George H. W. Bush[1]

Cuba
Cuba, said US District Judge James Lawrence King on December 17, 1997, "in outrageous contempt for international law and basic human rights, murdered four human beings in international airspace." He then proceeded to award $187.6 million to the families of the Florida-based Cuban pilots who had been shot down in February 1996 by Cuban jets while on an air mission, destination Cuba.[2] (In actuality, the Cuban government had done no more than any government in the world would have done under the same circumstances. Havana regarded the planes as within Cuban airspace, of serious hostile intent, and gave the pilots explicit warning: "You are taking a risk." Planes from the same organization had gone even further into Cuban territory on earlier occasions and had been warned by Cuba not to return.)
In November 1996, the federal government gave each of the families a down payment of $300,000 on the award, the money coming out of frozen Cuban assets.[3]
Such was justice, anti-communist style.
Totally ignored by the American government, however, was Cuba's lawsuit of May 31, 1999, filed in a Havana court demanding $181.1 billion in US compensation for death and injury suffered by Cuban citizens in four decades of "war" by Washington against Cuba. The document outlined American "aggression", ranging from backing for armed rebel groups within Cuba and the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, to subversion attempts from the US naval base of Guantanamo and the planting of epidemics on the island.
Cuba was demanding $30 million in direct compensation for each of the 3,478 people it said were killed by US actions and $15 million each for the 2,099 injured. It was also asking $10 million each for the people killed, and $5 million each for the injured, to repay Cuban society for the costs it has had to assume on their behalf. That was "substantially less" than the amount per person fixed by US Judge King in the pilots' case, the document pointed out.
Cuban officials delivered the papers for the suit to the US Interests Section in Havana, but the Americans refused to accept them.[4] The Cuban government then took its case to the United Nations, where it has been in the hands of the Counter-Terrorism Committee since 2001. This committee is made up of all 15 members of the Security Council, which of course includes the United States, which may account for the inaction on the matter.

Vietnam
On January 27, 1973, in Paris, the United States signed the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam". Among the principles to which the United States agreed was the one stated in Article 21: "In pursuance of its traditional policy [sic], the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam [North Vietnam] and throughout Indochina."
Five days later, President Nixon sent a message to the Prime Minister of North Vietnam in which he stipulated the following: "(1)The Government of the United States of America will contribute to postwar reconstruction in North Vietnam without any political conditions. (2)Preliminary United States studies indicate that the appropriate programs for the United States contribution to postwar reconstruction will fall in the range of $3.25 billion of grant aid over 5 years."[5]
Nothing of the promised reconstruction aid was ever paid. Or ever will be.
However -- deep breath here -- Vietnam has been compensating the United States. In 1997 it began to pay off about $145 million in debts left by the defeated South Vietnamese government for American food and infrastructure aid. Thus, Hanoi is reimbursing the United States for part of the cost of the war waged against it.[6]
How can this be? The proper legal term is "extortion". The enforcers employed by Washington included the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Export-Import Bank, the Paris Club, and the rest of the international financial mafia. The Vietnamese were made an offer they couldn't refuse: Pay up or subject yourself to exquisite forms of economic torture, even worse than the considerable maiming you've already experienced at the hands of our godfathers.[7]
At the Vietnamese embassy in Washington (a small office in an office building), the First Secretary for Press Affairs, Mr. Le Dzung, told the author in 1997 that this matter, as well as Nixon's unpaid billions, are rather emotional issues in Vietnam, but the government is powerless to change the way the world works.

Nicaragua
Under siege by the United States and its Contra proxy army for several years, Nicaragua filed suit in 1984 in the World Court (International Court of Justice), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, located in The Hague, Netherlands, for relief from the constant onslaught, which included mining its harbors. The Court ruled in 1986 that the US was in violation of international law for a host of reasons, stated that Washington "is under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all such acts [of hostility]" and "is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury".
Anticipating the suit, the Reagan administration had done the decent and right thing: It announced, on April 6, 1984, three days before Nicaragua's filing, that the US would not recognize the World Court's jurisdiction in matters concerning Central America for a two-year period.
Apart from the awesome arbitrariness of this proclamation, the court's ruling of June 27, 1986 actually came after the two-year period had expired, but the United States ignored it anyway. Washington did not slow down its hostile acts against Nicaragua, nor did it ever pay a penny in reparation.[8]

Libya
The April 1986 American bombing of Libya took the lives of scores of people and wounded another hundred or so. The dead included Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi's young daughter; all of Qaddafi's other seven children as well as his wife were hospitalized, suffering from shock and various injuries. A year later, 65 claims were filed with the White House and the Department of Defense under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Foreign Claims Act, on behalf of those killed or injured. The claimants, who were asking for up to $5 million for each wrongful death, included Libyans, Greeks, Egyptians, Yugoslavs and Lebanese.[9] Before long, the number of claimants reached to about 340, but none of their claims got anywhere in the American judicial system, with the Supreme Court declining to hear the case.[10]

Panama
For several years following the American invasion of 1989, with its highly destructive bombing and ground combat, many individual Panamanians tried in various ways to receive compensation for the death or injury of themselves or family members, or the wreckage of their home or business. But their legal claims and suits were met by an implacable US government. One American law firm filed claims on behalf of some 200 Panamanians (all non-combatants), under provisions of the Panama Canal treaty, first in Panama with US military officials, who rejected the claims; then in two suits filed in US courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, with each of the courts declining to hear the cases.[11]
During the years 1990 to 1993, some 300 Panamanians petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) for a finding that the United States had violated many of their rights and was liable for "just compensation". In 1993, the Commission ruled the petition "admissible". But as of the year 2005, it was still pending as to its "merits", which were being "studied".[12] It should be born in mind that over the years, the United States has wielded inordinate influence in the OAS, far more than any other member. Witness Washington's success in getting Cuba suspended from the organization in 1962 and kept out to the present time despite repeated, growing, and publicly-expressed support for Cuba's reinstatement by other OAS members.
There was a report some years ago that a few small payments -- seemingly somewhat arbitrary -- had been made "on the ground" by US officials to Panamanians in Panama. But in December 1999, the State Department Press Office dealing with Panama stated that "the United States has not paid any compensation for combat-related deaths or injuries or property damage due to Operation Just Cause" (this being the not-tongue-in-cheek name given to the American invasion and bombing). [13] Some of the American aid given to Panama since 1989, the State Department added, has been used by Panama for such purposes. The State Department puts the matter thusly, it would appear, to make it clear to the world that they do not feel any guilt or responsibility for what they did to the people of Panama and will not succumb to any kind of coercion, legal or moral, to pay any compensation.
On December 20, 1999, the tenth anniversary of the American invasion, hundreds of Panamanians took to the street to demand once again that the US pay damages to civilian victims of the bombing.

Sudan
The El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant had greatly raised Sudanese medicinal self-sufficiency while producing about 90 percent of the drugs used to treat the most deadly illnesses in the desperately poor country. But on August 20, 1998, the United States saw fit to send more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles screaming into the plant, in an instant depriving the people of Sudan of their achievement.
Based on a covertly acquired soil sample, Washington claimed that the plant was producing chemical weapons. At the same time the US gave the world the clear impression that the factory's owner, Saleh Idris, was a close associate of terrorists and was involved in money laundering. Washington proceeded to freeze $24 million in Idris's London bank accounts. But the US was never able to prove any of its assertions, while every piece of evidence and every expert testimony that surfaced categorically contradicted the claim about chemical weapons.[14] The case fell apart completely, and in the meantime, Idris sued to recover his money as well as compensation for his pulverized plant.
Finally, in May 1999, the United States unfroze Idris's accounts rather than contest his suit because they knew they had no case. However -- as far as what's publicly known -- the US has yet to offer any kind of formal or official apology to Sudan or to Idris for the plant's destruction, or for the serious harm done to his reputation, and has yet to compensate him for the loss of the plant and the loss of business; nor the plant's employees for the loss of their jobs and income, or the ten people who were injured. The degree of Washington's arrogance in the whole matter was stunning, from the initial act on. "Never before," observed former CIA official Milt Bearden, "has a single soil sample prompted an act of war against a sovereign state."[15]

Iraq
The American government and media had a lot of fun with an obvious piece of Iraqi propaganda -- the claim that a biological warfare facility, bombed during the Gulf War in 1991, had actually been a baby food factory. But it turned out that the government of New Zealand, whose technicians had visited the site repeatedly, and various other business people from New Zealand who had had intimate contact with the factory, categorically confirmed that it had indeed been a baby food factory. The French contractor who had built the place said the same. But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, insisted: "It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure."[16] As to American compensation, there was none.

China
After the United States bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999, killing three people inside the building, Washington apologized profusely to Beijing, blaming outdated maps among other problems. But this, it appears, was just a cover for the fact that the bombing wasn't actually an accident. Two reports in The Observer of London in October and November, based on NATO and US military and intelligence sources, revealed that the embassy had been targeted after NATO discovered that it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. The Chinese were doing this after NATO jets had successfully silenced the Yugoslav government's own transmitters.[17]
Over and above the military need, there may have been a political purpose served. China is clearly the principal barrier to US hegemony in Asia, if not elsewhere. The bombing of the embassy was perhaps Washington's charming way of telling Beijing that this is only a small sample of what can happen to you if you have any ideas of resisting or competing with the American juggernaut. Being able to have a much better than usual "plausible denial" for carrying out such a bombing may have been irresistible to American leaders. The chance would never come again.
All of US/NATO's other bombing "mistakes" in Yugoslavia were typically followed by their spokesman telling the world: "We regret the loss of life." These same words were used by the IRA in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions over the years following one of their bombings which appeared to have struck the wrong target. But their actions were invariably called "terrorist".

Guatemala
On March 10, 1999, in a talk delivered in Guatemala City, President Clinton said that US support for repressive forces in Guatemala "was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake." But the word "sorry" did not cross the president's lips, nor did the word "apologize", nor the word "compensation".[18] Forty years of unholy cruelty to a people for which the United States was preeminently responsible was not worth a right word or a penny.
This was the first visit by an American president to Guatemala since Lyndon Johnson went there in 1968, during the height of the oppression by Washington's client-state government. Johnson did not of course say that the current US policy in Guatemala was wrong, when it would have meant a lot more than Clinton saying so 31 years later. LBJ did, however, inform his audience that he had heard that Guatemala was called "the land of eternal spring".[19]

Greece
Clinton's visit to Greece in November 1999 brought out large and fiery anti-American demonstrations, protesting the recent American bombing of Yugoslavia and the indispensable US support for the torturers par excellence of the 1967-74 Greek junta. During his one-day stop, the president found time to address a private group -- "When the junta took over in 1967 here," he told his audience, "the United States allowed its interests in prosecuting the Cold War to prevail over its interest -- I should say its obligation -- to support democracy, which was, after all, the cause for which we fought the Cold War. It is important that we acknowledge that." National Security Council spokesman David Leavey was quick to point out that the president's statement about the former junta was "not intended as an apology."[20]
Questions arise. How can it be that the US fought the Cold War to "support democracy" and wound up supporting not only the Greek dictators but dozens of other tyrannies? Were they all simply "wrong" actions, all "mistakes", like in Guatemala? At what point do we conclude that a consistent sequence of "mistakes" demonstrates intended actions and policy? Moreover, if US "interests" in the Cold War "prevailed" over the cause of democracy, we must ask: What are these "interests" that are in conflict, or at least not harmonious, with democracy, these "interests" which are routinely invoked by American statesmen, but never given a proper name?

Finally, we have the words of President Clinton spoken in Uganda in March 1998:

During the cold war when we were so concerned about being in competition with the Soviet Union,
very often we dealt with countries in Africa and in other parts of the world based more on how they
stood in the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union than how they stood in the
struggle for their own people's aspirations to live up to the fullest of their God-given abilities.[21]

What is going on here? Guatemala, Greece, Africa, other parts of the world ... Was the president disowning a half-century of American foreign policy? Was he saying that the United States brought all that death, destruction, torture and suffering to the world's multitudes for no good reason? That all we were diligently taught about the nobility of the fight against the thing called "communism" was a fraud?
We'll never know what William Clinton really thought about these things. He may not know himself. But we do know what he did. As discussed in the Introduction and in the Interventions chapter, we know that he continued the very same kind of policies he was, in the above examples, repudiating. And some day, decades hence, another American president may acknowledge that what Clinton did in Iraq, Colombia, Mexico, Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and what George W. Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, was "wrong" or "mistaken". But that future president, even as he utters the words, will be doing the "wrong" thing himself in one corner of the world or another. And for the same "interests".

NOTES
1. Speaking as vice president in the context of the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane
by an American ship, taking 290 lives, Newsweek, August 15, 1988

2. Washington Post, December 18, 1987

3. New York Times, November 11, 1996, p.12

4. Author's conversation with the Cuban Interest Section in Washington, DC

5. "U.S. Aid to North Vietnam", Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, House Committee on International Relations, July 19, 1977, Appendix 2.

6. Los Angeles Times and New York Times, March 11, 1997

7. For a discussion of this maiming, see John Pilger, "Vietnam: The Final Battle", Covert Action Quarterly (Washington, DC), #64, Spring 1998, p.54-65

8. Holly Sklar, Washington's War on Nicaragua (South End Press, Boston, 1988), p.169-70, 314

9. San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 1987, p.15

10. Interview of attorney Ramsey Clark, September 7, 1999, by the author. Clark had acted on behalf
of many of the claimants. See also Clark's account in his book, "The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes
in the Gulf" (New York, 1992), p.167-8

11. Interview of attorney John Kiyonaga of Alexandria, VA, September 10, 1999; he and his brother David were the attorneys for these cases; see their op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, April 1, 1990; see also The Guardian (London), July 28, 1990, p. 7; San Francisco Examiner, April 26, 1992, p.4

12. Interview of Elizabeth Abimershad of the IACHR-OAS in Washington, September 7, 1999 and Aurora Amezquita of the IACHR-OAS in February 2005. The case is Salas, et al. against United States of America, Case No. 10.573

13. Read to the author over the phone, December 22, 1999, by the State Department's Panama desk from
an official press announcement.

14. The Independent (London), February 15, 1999, p.12; Seymour Hersh, "The Missiles of August", The New Yorker, October 12, 1998, p.34-41; New York Times, October 21, 1998, p.1 and 8

15. Washington Post, July 25, 1999, p.F1. For a fuller account of this matter, see William Blum, "Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire" (2004), chapter 7

16. Peacelink magazine (Hamilton, New Zealand), March 1991, p.19; Washington Post, February 8, 1991, p.1 (includes Powell remark)

17. "Nato bombed Chinese deliberately", The Observer (London), October 17, 1999; and November 28, 1999. Also see Extra! Update (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, New York), December 1999

18. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, dated March 15, 1999, p.395

19. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (GPO), 1968-69, Vol. II, p.800

20. The Associated Press, dispatch from Athens, Greece, November 20, 1999, by Terence Hunt; Washington Post, November 21, 1999

21. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, March 24, 1998, p.491


This is a chapter from the book Rogue State: A Guide to the
World's Only Superpower, by William Blum

return to homepage:

http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

evo linka http://members.aol.com/superogue/sorry.htm

sto se tice NATO- a trenutno nemam vremena ali ima par interesantnih linkova i o tome