|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Europa, Italija i Hrvatska Sto obican hrvatski covjek moze misliti o Europi? Kakva je cijena koju placamo, da smo joj blizu? Promatrajuci ovih zadnjih 10 godina, morao bi doci do zakljucka, da nam ona nije prijateljica, i da sve sto dobivamo placamo preskupo. U teskim danima rata, kada je cijeli narod vapio za pomoci radi obrane vlastitih zivota i imovine od agresije najprije JNA, a poslije i kojekakovih dobrovoljackih organizacija, pa i sluzbene Srbije i Crne Gore, kulturna je Europa nasla za shodno prije svega zabraniti nam bilo kakvu kupnju oruzja, neobhodnu za vlastitu obranu, ne vodeci racuna, da je nas neprijatelj i prema europskim procjenama raspolagao jednom od najoruzanijih vojski u Europi Izhod ratnih zbivanja svrsio je okupacijom trecine Hrvatske, koja je etnickom metlom bila ociscena od Hrvata. Zapocelo je odlazenje kojekakovih delegacija (pa i iz Italije) u t.zv. Krajinu s kojih se slusalo o razgovorima o Istri i Dalmaciji, ne vodeci nikakva racuna o volji hrvatskih gradana o cijoj se kozi zapravo radilo. I sa sluzbene strane Italije u ono su vrijeme odlazili razni visoki drzavni sluzbenici u Beograd, u posjet jedinom preostalom komunistickom satrapu od prije proboja berlinskog zida, Slobodanu Milosevicu, sigurno ne zalazuci se za plebiscitarno htijenje naseg naroda za vlastitom slobodom. Poslije strpljivog cekanja, pripremanja i organiziranja vlastite vojske, poslije prepunih hotela izbjeglica bez igdje icega svoga, poslije bombardiranja vlastite prijestolnice naredene od zapovjednika okupiranog teritorija, (sto smo osobno slusali preko televizije), hrvatska je vlada u roku od tri dana uspjela vratiti vlastiti suverenitet nad tim podrucjem, i kao odgovor na sva ova zbivanja bogata i kulturna Europa zaledjuje neke komunitarne ekonomske programe vec u toku, poznate pod imenom PHARE, ne vodeci racuna ni o preko 400.000 izbjeglica iz susjedne Bosne i Hercegovine, koji su nasli utociste u onakovoj osakacenoj i ranjenoj Hrvatskoj. Tko kao nizepodpisani zivi u demokratskoj i susjednoj nam zemlji, ne moze ne zabiljeziti sustavno pisanje nekih najuglednijih ovdasnjih tiskovina, kao uostalom i emisija drzavne televizije, s jedinom svrhom: prikazati kako su na Balkanu zapravo svi jednako krivi, i napadaci i napadnuti, i kako nema nikakve bitne razlike izmedju Milosevica i Tudjmana. Kroz cijelo ovo vrijeme EU ne pokazuje nikakve znakove benevolencije prema napadnutima. Kojekakove europske komisije donose "rjesenja" ove krize koja za nas znaci zivot ili smrt, predlazuci solucije, koje mirisu na nagradjivanje agresora. Za Hrvatsku ne vrijede parametri iz Maastrichta za priblizavanje UE. Neki prave cak analize o nacionalnoj demokraticnost, a drugi o fasistizaciji Hrvatske. Kada se radilo o Paktu stabilnosti za ovo zemljopisno podrucje, cini se da je to zapravo zamrzavanje postojeceg status quo od onoga malo sto je ostalo od velike Jugoslavije: Srpska Republika u BH, Kosovo i Crna Gora cvrsto povezani uz Srbiju, kojom i danas upravljaju politicka djeca medjunarodnog ratnog zlocinca Milosevica. Izgleda, kao da u UE neki traze nekakvu carobnu formulu po kojoj bi ponovno - i na silu, ako bude potrebno - povezali nekoliko juznoslavenskih jedinica u jednu drzavu, sto je povijest vec nekoliko puta pokazala stetnom za sve skupa. Nas najblizi susjed - Italija - kako se ponasa? Prateci ovdasnje tiskovine nekoliko je politickih poteza na dnevnom redu: ovdasnji predsjednik nedavno odlikuje neke bivse fasisticke ustanove na nasem teritoriju, uz ako ne blagoslov, a ono sigurno dobronamjernost desnog i lijevog tiska, koje ne pravi nikakve znacajnije komentare. Samo se iz Zagreba cuju odredjeni glasovi, bez ikakvog odjeka u inozemstvu. Znaci li to da "je kocka vec pala"? Ili je to neke vrsti signal za novu situaciju, po kojoj izgleda UE prepusta Italiji uredenje Balkana? Ova je Italija nas prvi susjed, ne samo zemljopisno, s vise od tisucu kilometara pomorskih dodira, nego i po kulturi, vjeri, nacinu zivota. Znatna su hrvatska podrucja stotinama godina bila pomijesana i pod istim vladarima. Danasnja Italija, ne narod, nego vladajuci politicki krugovi, kao da ne vode o svemu tome previse racuna. Samo rijetki se sjecaju, da je ondasnji predsjednik Republike, Francesco Cossiga, prvi inozemni visoki drzavni politicar sluzbeno posjetio tek oslobodjenu republiku Hrvatsku. Nedavni sluzbeni posjet aktualnog talijanskog predsjednika prosao je u talijanskom tisku jako sturo, i da nije tom prilikom obisao i Istru i Rijeku, vjerojatno bi jos manje bio obiljezen. Drukcija je pjesma s njegovim posjetom Beogradu, pa je u ciglih nekoliko dana bio slubeno u dodiru s "demokratskim"predsjednikom Srbije Kostunicom 7 puta. (Je li ovaj broj u nekakvnoj vezi s Biblijom, pitaju se neki zlomisleci medju nama) Nitko se u talijanskoj javnosti nije sjetio, da se taj isti Kostunica, u vrijeme srbijansko-komunistickog divljanja po Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini i po Kosovu, slikao po novinama u cetnickoj odori, s kalasnikom u ruci. Jedna od znacajnijih novosti novih upravljaca Hrvatskom je pripustanje talijanskog bankarskog kapitala u hrvatski bankovni sustav. Najvece i najuspjesnije hrvatske banke dobile su tako za partnere nekoliko poznatih talijanskih bankarskih kuca, koje su inace u Europi poznate kao najnepovoljnije za proizvodjacki razvoj. Praktican primjer je uspjeh tolikih nasih poduzetnika u poslijeratnoj Njemackoj, koji su bez vlastitog kapitala, samo s idejama i vlastitim radom, uzivali pomoc njemackih banaka, koje su na taj nacin sudjelovale u radu i zaradi, ali i u riziku svakog naseg poduzetnika. Talijanske banke medjutim dodjeljuju kredite samo onima koji imaju vlastite novce ili vrijedne nekretnine, koje postaju zalog za dobivene kredite. Poznavajuci stanje proizvodnje u Hrvatskoj i pomanjkanje uzrasta u vlastitom bankarskom sustavu, namece se pitanje: jesmo li s time zapravo napravili dobar posao? Kako je moguce, da usprkos sudjelovanju u vladi HSS jos nije donesen nikakav znacajniji zakonodavni propis za lansiranje hrvatske poljoprivrede? Hoce li talijanske banke omoguciti hrvatskim poljopivrednicima, podjelom prihvatljivih zajmova za nabavku modernih strojeva, koji bi trebali znatno povecati i pojeftiniti hrvatsku proizvodnju hrane, koju je do sada prisiljana uvoziti iz inozemstva, u visini od l milijardu dolara godisnje, najvecim dijelom upravo iz Italije ? Luka Krilic Predsjednik hrvatsko - talijanske Udruge Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
   |
| Letters to the Editor The New York Times New York, NY. March 5, 2002 Dear Editor: The news article about Milosevic's trial (March 2) mentions that Mr. Bogdanic, the Serb director of the so-called "documentary" film: "Yugoslavia, the Avoidable War" protested Milosevic's selective use of the film as part of his defense in his war crimes trial. Mr. Bogdanic's protests sound hollow, considering the content of his film which portrays the republics of former Yugoslavia , Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, as "armed separatists" which gave Milosevic the right to attack them. The historic facts of the events are quite different. The "armed separatists" were the ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, incited by Milosevic and armed by the Yugo/Serb army in order to prevent the legitimate right of the Republics to secede. Far from the Republics' being "recognized too early", - a point made in Bogdanic's film, - it was more than shameful that it took the West six months of watching the vicious aggression on Croatia before acknowledging its legal right to independence. The "tragic breakup" was only tragic because of the aggression by Serbia, not because of the wish of the other Republics to be free of Serb domination. Sincerely, Hilda M. Foley National Federation of Croatian Americans 13272 Orange Knoll Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| More info on those congressional hearings last week; CAA press release + Larry Hammond's testimony, which is required reading for anyone with the slightest interest in such issues. The CAA tack was well considered; picking at the rights/evidence problems and political biases. And I'm very pleased that the Hartmann thing was mentioned! I sense things are moving forward. Look out for more from me on AnteGotovina.Com. If anyone has copies of the other testimonies given, I'd be grateful for copies. (esp P Wald) Brian Press Release of The Croatian American Association Box 287, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 tel: 202.429.5543 Washington, D.C.- a six-month effort by CAA to promote Congressional scrutiny of the political bias and disregard for the rights of the accused at The Hague proved successful on February 28. For the first time in eight year the history of the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia, the U.S. Congress held an oversight hearing that proved to be highly critical of the conduct of the Hague court. The case of Croat General Ante Gotovina was noted as one of the best examples of bad prosecution at The Hague. On Februrary 28, 2002 the House International Relations Committee held a hearing under the Chairmanship of Rep. Henry H. Hyde that heralded a change in U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia. The witnesses, including former ICTY judge Pat Wald and U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes Issues Pierre Prosper, were all critical of the political biases and mismanagement of the tribunal. During his testimony, Larry Hammond, one of Americas top criminal attorneys, was highly critical of the prosecution of Croats by the tribunal. He cited instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the Blaskic, Kordic, Furudzija and Gotovina cases. Hammond noted that one of the charges against Gotovina held him responsible for a massive artillery assault on the city of Knin. He noted that a few hours after the alleged incident, three busloads of international reporters including Roy Gutman, visited Knin and saw no evidence of that occurrence. Despite the news coverage to the contrary, the ICTY still filed the charge against Gotovina without investigating. He also noted that even though ICTY spokesperson Florence Hartman said that Milosevic had ordered the Serbs to leave the Krajina, her boss Carla del Pontes principal charge against Gotovina is that he forced out the Serbian population. TESTIMONY OF LARRY A. HAMMOND BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (February 28, 2002) I am grateful to the Committee for affording me this opportunity to appear and to provide my observations about the operation of the International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). I wish that I could open my remarks with a glowing endorsement of the workings of these Tribunals. Sadly, I cannot. Anyone who cares about assuring basic due process and fairness must be concerned about recent events involving the trial and appellate chambers of these Tribunals. For the reasons I will summarize briefly in this testimony, there is cause for concern that the rights of those charged with crimes have been subordinated to the larger political objective of gaining convictions and maintaining cooperative relations with Governments affected by the Tribunals. At a time when there is growing international concern about the establishment of criminal tribunals to address acts of terrorism and wrongdoing, there is heightened need to assure that these tribunals command respect of nations like the United States that are committed to fair trials and due process of law. There is reason for concern that to date these existing Tribunals have fallen short of fulfilling this goal.Before summarizing these concerns, I will briefly provide to the Committee my background as it might be relevant to the issues discussed here. In 1993, I was invited to serve on an American Bar Association Task Force engaged in an effort to recommend rules to govern the prosecutions that might be brought at the Hague. Several members of the Task Force expressed concerns about basic due process issues arising from the anticipated structure and the proposed rules that would govern the ICTY. While some changes were embraced by the ABA and the State Department in commenting on the proposed rules, most of these concerns were not. I believe that I was asked to join the Task Force because of my experience during the Carter Administration at the Justice department. From 1977 to 1980, I served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under Attorneys General Griffin Bell and Benjamin Civiletti. During the last year of the Carter Administration I worked on matters in connection with the Iranian Hostage Task Force. The absence of any international criminal tribunal to prosecute the hostage-takers in Tehran was an always-present reality in dealing with that crisisa reality that caused me (and many others at that time) to hope for the creation of an international criminal court.* Since leaving Justice, I have remained a believer in the creation of an international criminal court. I am a criminal defense lawyer, but nothing in my professional experience has caused me to doubt the importance of such courts. It has always been evident to me, however, that central to any system of ordered criminal justice is the institution of aggressive, honorable and independent prosecutors and judges who truly regard themselves as independent and free to apply the law without political concern.. Much of what disturbs me about the operation of the ICTY and ICTR concerns the roles and responsibilities of judges and prosecutors. As a young lawyer I was honored to work for Archibald Cox and the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. That experience informs many of my opinions about the seminal importance of independent judges and prosecutors in assuring that doing justice is more important than gaining convictions. It is also of overarching importance that prosecutors and judges retain an independence from each other. This structural separation inheres in our Constitutional system and is often taken for granted. The same is not the case in many countries that employ the Civil Law tradition. I have had occasion to work with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights on a project that gave me exposure to the Turkish judicial systema system very much within the Civil Law tradition. The close alliance of judge and prosecutor we observed in Turkey is reflective of the structures of both the ICTY and ICTR. That alliance accounts for much of what disturbs me about these Tribunals. Let me begin with the role of the Tribunals themselves. While all of us like to think that courts are created to see that justice is done in specific cases, it was evident from the creation of the Hague Tribunal that it would be seen as having a different purpose. Recall that the ICTY was established under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter as an "enforcement measure" to restore peace in the former Yugoslavia. The Security Council had made a specific finding that violations of international humanitarian law had constituted a "threat to peace" in the region. From the beginning, then, the ICTY was established to carry out a specific political purpose: to restore peace. This purpose is evident. Note the official name of the Tribunal: "The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991." There may be nothing wrong with the purpose, but it is not one that should guide a court that exists to assure just trials. There is no hint of any presumption of innocence, or of the possibility that persons brought before the Tribunal might not be "responsible for serious violations" of law. This is not to say that the judges and prosecutors serving these Tribunals are indifferent to questions of due process, but in reality there exists an always present pressure to gain convictions. To a great extent these Tribunals are subjected to pressure to convicta pressure that is fueled by the presumption evident in virtually every pronouncement of the present Chief Prosecutor. This prosecutorial and judicial attitude is predictable given the history and funding for these Tribunals.. Both the ICTY and the ICTR must annually seek funding from the United Nations General Assembly. As anyone familiar with the process of fundraising will know, increased funding is very much related to whether the project for which funding is sought will be successful. Again, it is difficult to imagine that the ICTY could successfully obtain a budget increase by convincing the General Assembly that it was successfully acquitting people brought before the Tribunal. Indeed, the opposite is true: the arguments made in recent years to the General Assembly often focus on the "success" of the Tribunal in apprehending and convicting those accused by the Prosecutor of war crimes. In addition, the two ad hoc tribunals bear the burden of being the precursors to the ICC. The success or failure of the ICTY and ICTR could have a great impact on the establishment of the ICC. Acquittals would not have the effect of creating momentum for the establishment of a permanent court. Apart from questions of funding, these Tribunals are subject to pressures from the countries and political factions they must count on for the development of evidence. Because the tribunals do not have a police force, an intelligence service, or an ability to gain immediate and unfettered access to the territory they are investigating, the ICTY and ICTR are very much dependent upon the cooperation of governments and international institutions. For example, the tribunals have no ability to make arrests, gather intelligence data, or secure a crime site for investigation. Without the cooperation of NATO and countries from the region, the ICTY and ICTR would be unable to fulfill their mandates. These pressures understandably cause the Tribunals to want to protect witnesses secured through the cooperation of affected governmentsoften at the expense of the right of the accused to confront his accuser. This was a problem foreseen by members of the ABA Task Force. Rules that allow witnesses to testify anonymously, and procedures that permit the prosecution to withhold information that might allow the accuseds attorneys to investigate the credibility of key witnesses, were implanted in the structure of the courts from the outset, and the results have been as one might expectdisturbing. For example, in the Tadic case, the first case before either tribunal, the ICTY Trial Chamber allowed the prosecution to call witnesses whose true identities were withheld not only from the public, but from the defendant and his attorneys. Only later was it discovered that two anonymous witnesses against Mr. Tadic had lied about their identities to the Trial Chamber and in fact had been coached by the secret services of the Bosnian government. In the Kordic trial, public criticism of the slow pace of most trials at the ICTY led the Trial Chamber to allow the prosecution to script its questions with its witnesses on direct examination. Furthermore, the prosecution was allowed to lead its witnesses by asking a series of "yes or no" questions. In the case of Prosecutor v. Furundzija, most of the testimony in the case (including that of accusing witness) was held in closed session and outside of public scrutiny. To this day, none of the testimony that is relevant to Mr. Furundzijas guilt or innocence is available to the public. Perhaps the clearest example of political pressure influencing the ad hoc tribunals is the Barayagwiza case before the ICTR. In that case, the defendant had been held for three years without charge. Finally, defense counsel filed a motion seeking the release of the accused on the basis that his right to a speedy trial without delay had been violated. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR (which is the same Appeals Chamber for both ad hoc tribunals), after hearing the arguments, granted the defense motion and ordered that the accused be released. In so doing, the Appeals Chamber held that "nothing short of the credibility of the tribunal is at stake, and to allow these proceedings to continue would amount to a travesty of justice." Because the Appeals Chamber is the highest authority at either Tribunal, this decision was final and no further appeal could be taken. Immediately, however, politics intruded into the work of the Appeals Chamber. The government of Rwanda, which sought Barayagwizas conviction, immediately protested and declared that it would no longer cooperate with the ICTR. Indeed, Rwanda denied visas to all members of the Office of the Prosecutor, which made it impossible for the Prosecutor to conduct investigations in Rwanda or to prepare for trial. In short, without Rwandas cooperation, the work of the ICTR would come to a halt. The Prosecutor, despite the fact that the decisions of the Appeals Chamber are final, brought a motion on the basis that she had "new evidence" which would cause the Appeals Chamber to reconsider. In reality, this was nothing more than an excuse so that the Appeals Chamber, in light of the political firestorm that had resulted, could reverse itself. Ms. Del Ponte made no secret that this was her real motive, and she made this clear in her argument to the Appeals Chamber. The Washington Post reported her comments as follows: "Whether we like it or not, we must come to terms with the reality that our ability to continue our investigations depends on Rwanda," she told the five-judge panel. Without the help of the country where the genocide occurred and so many witnesses reside, "we might as well open the doors to the prison." "It is my hope," she said in closing, "that Barayagwiza will not be the one to decide the fate of this tribunal ." No secret was made of the fact that political considerations, and not necessarily the law and due process, required that the Appeals Chamber reverse itself. Surprisingly, this view was not only espoused by the Prosecutor, but by the Chief Judge of the ICTR herself. In an article that appeared in The Washington Post on March 10, 2000, Judge Navanathem Pillay made perfectly clear the point that I too wish to make: due process rights of the accused are often viewed as secondary to the political considerations surrounding the Tribunals. Judge Pillay admits that "public opinion" influences the work of the ICTR, and that due process rights do not necessarily fit into the political purpose of the ICTR (and presumably the ICTY). After hearing the arguments, the Appeals Chamber reversed itself and ordered that Mr. Barayagwiza continue to be held in custody for trial before the ICTR. It seems that the political considerations discussed by Carla Del Ponte and Judge Pillay did take priority over the due process rights of the accused. Let me pause here to make clear the essence of my concern. I would not advocate that persons accused of serious crimes be released on what the world community might see as technicalities. My concern goes to the fundamental roles and responsibilities of judges and prosecutors. Unless principles of evenhanded justice are seen to animate the decisions of these Tribunals, they will be stripped of the moral authority necessary to successfully prosecute and convict the guilty. Some might wish to claim that the Barayagwiza case is not reflective of the true nature of these Tribunals. A signal test of whether these international Tribunals will place due process above the goal of getting and upholding convictions is unfolding this year before the ICTY in the appeal of a Bosnian Croat General named Tihomir Blaskic. This appeal deserves close attention. General Blaskic was tried in an extraordinarily lengthy trial of a series of war crimes. The case against him rested on the belief that he enjoyed command responsibility over forces in the field that committed atrocities against civilians and non-combatants. The most celebrated of the charges involved the deaths of approximately 100 Bosnian Muslim civilians in the village of Ahmici during a raid in April, 1993. He was convicted based on assertions that he controlled these events. He received a 45-year sentence. The defense sought to prove that in fact the military General had no command authority over those who committed these unlawful acts. At trial he was unsuccessful. His case is now on appeal. Stunningly, however, the Prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence in the Blaskic case and is using the same evidence to proceed with the prosecution of another man named Dario Kordic. Mr. Kordic was prosecuted for his role in the same massacre under a theory that Bosnian operatives under his controland reporting directly to the highest levels of the Government of then President Franjo Tudjmancarried out the crimes. Evidence developed by the prosecution in the Kordic case was not provided to the defense in the Blaskic case. That evidence revealed decisionmaking chains of command that bypassed Blaskic and may well have been unknown to him. It is difficult not to conclude that Prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in order to win a conviction over Mr. Blaskic. Whatever mystery may have surrounded this seemingly inconsistent set of prosecutions was exposed to public scrutiny in the Spring of 2000 when Franjo Tudjman died and previously secret and now famous archives were found in the basement of the Croatian intelligence services. This is not the time to go into the emerging details of these files, except to say that they cast serious doubt on the theory of the ICTYs prosecution of General Blaskic. What is most disturbing from a due process standpoint is the question why every shred of information and evidence in the hands of the prosecutors that might relate to this issue was not freely disclosed before, during or after the trial of General Blaskic. While the archives may have been unknown before early 2000, it now appears that much was known by the prosecutors and was regarded as reliableindeed, reliable enough to be used as evidence in the Kordic case. The Blaskic appeal deserves close attention by those who wish to assess whether our international Tribunals are capable of dispensing justice. Another case recently indicted by the ICTYthis one involving alleged war crimes said to have occurred at the end of the war in Croatiaalso deserves close attention. The ICTY Prosecutor has indicted General Ante Gotovina in connection with crimes alleged to have been committed by Croatian military forces against Serbian civilian populations in the Krajina region. In the last days before the ceasefire that led to the Dayton Conference, the Croatian Military engaged in an offensive known as Operation Storm. As with the case of General Blaskic, serious questions remain with respect to whether the acts alleged were in fact undertaken with General Gotovinas knowledge and authorization, but of even greater interest are questions with respect to whether the events in question were part of a military operation undertaken with the cooperation and knowledge of the United States. One need only read two documents to see the uncomfortable questions: (1) the indictment of General Gotovina, and (2) the memoir of Richard Holbrooke, entitled To End A War. If it is true that the General is a war criminal, it may well also be true that our Government is complicitous. Even if not complicitous, it is absolutely clear that our Government and our military and intelligence personnel in the Krajina region in August of 1995 have information relevant to the caseand possibly critically important to the Generals defense. Journalist Roy Gutmans Newsweek article from August 27 of last year lays bare much of this apparently delicate problem. The disturbing article, entitled What Did the CIA Know, catalogues the close engagement of U.S. military and political resources in the Croatian offensive (copy attached.) The question this information raises is much like the question that should have surfaced in the Blaskic trial. How far is the prosecution and the ICTY willing to go to see to it that the accused has access to information so that he may defend himself? I cannot begin to predict whether the United States Government would turn over intelligence information if it were demandedas it should bebut if information and witnesses from the United States military and diplomatic establishment are not made available there should be no prosecution. The pressures discussed above make one wonder whether the ICTY will have the courage to say that the rights of the accused should dominate over the political goal of obtaining convictions. The name of the Chairman of this International Relations Committee is associated with one of the most important recent enactments designed to govern the conduct of prosecutors in the American federal prosecutorial system. The Hyde Amendment, enacted in 1997, is designed to assure that federal prosecutions are "substantially justified"that is, that individuals are not indicted and pushed through our judicial system unless a careful evaluation has first been undertaken by an independent prosecutor. This Amendment, which authorizes an award of attorneys fees to the accused in cases of meritless prosecution, is supported by strongly worded remarks from Congressman Hyde. He asked questions that might with equal justification be asked of those who would prosecute war crimes before the ICTY and the ICTR. Is there a potential that prosecutors will "keep information from you that the law says you must disclose?" Will prosecutors be tempted to "hide . . . exculpatory information to which you are entitled?" Is it possible that a prosecutor may "wrench somebody out of their job and their home and put them on trial as a criminal" in a case that lacks substantial justification? Again, the Gotovina indictment affords what may be suitable and distressing examples of the need to ask similar questions about ICTY prosecutorial decisions. Paragraph 20 of the Gotovina indictment charges that the General is responsible for a "large-scale deportation" a "forced displacement" of an "estimated 150,000-200,000 Krajina Serbs." Amazingly, that very charge is contradicted by the Prosecutors own spokeswoman, Florence Hartman. Ms. Hartman published a book in 1999 in which she wrote that Milosevic, not Croatia, ethnically cleansed the area in question: "It was Belgrade that evacuated the Serbs from Krajina and led them to Banja Luka and northern Bosnia. This was done so that Belgrade could later justify holding on to these Bosnian territories during future peace negotiations over Bosnia and Herzegovina." One might argue that a prosecutor is not bound by the public statements of her official spokesperson, but my concern is that such blatant inconsistencies evidence a lack of prosecutorial care and attention to accuracy. The Gotovina indictment affords a second example. The last paragraph of the indictment (Paragraph 44) alleges that "Croatian forces [said to be under the command of General Gotovina] directed a massive artillery assault on Knin" (the city described by the Serbs as their "capital"). Where did this accusation come from? At least three American journalists who were in the region on the day of the supposed "massive artillery assault" saw no evidence of one. It is a reasonably safe assumption that had there been such an assault the destructive effects would have been evident. It may be even safer to conclude that no investigator or prosecutor from the Hague visited Knin to assess artillery damage. A federal prosecutor in the United States, mindful of the Hyde Amendment, would surely not bring charges of this portent without careful evaluation. A prosecutor acting on behalf of an international tribunal can operate on no lower standard of justification. The recent history of the cases like the Gotovina, Blaskic and Barayagwiza cases suggests that, indeed, proceedings that disserve due process can happen at the Hague and in Rwanda. Unless a fair trialone in which the accused is given full access to all information in the hands of the prosecution or within his graspis assured, there will be little cause to support this Tribunal and even less cause to place confidence in the International Criminal Court yet to come into existence. The world and the United States need these courts. They perform critical roles, but they cannot be embraced and respected unless they exist as a first priority to secure justice, rather than to secure convictions. I have read and considered the recent appellate decisions authored by former Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Pat Wald in her capacity as a member of the ICTY. These opinions, especially the case handed down in October of 2001 known as Prosecutor v. Kupreskic, et al, deserve careful attention. Judge Wald is plainly a judge who appreciates the seminal importance of due process and full disclosure. Readers of her opinions will be struck by her respect for fairness when, for example, her opinion urges "extreme caution when assessing witness identification of the accused made under difficult circumstances." At a time in the United States when the cause of wrongful conviction seems often to surround faulty eye-witness identification, it is comforting to see that at least one appellate Tribunal at the Hague appreciates the dangers of witness testimony that has not been subjected to full examination. These rulings are cause both for optimism and concern. Optimism, because they reflect a maturing Court coming to recognize that there may be something more important than convictions. Concern, because Judge Wald has concluded her two-year term and will no longer be there to check the prosecutors and the judges less inclined to withstand public criticism. Judge Walds remarkable appellate handiwork also calls to mind one of the fundamental deficiencies in the structure of these Tribunals. The absence of a separate and independent appellate court remains a serious shortcoming. It is unrealistic to believe that many judges who must interact and cooperate with their trial and appellate judicial colleagues on a daily basis would have the courage displayed by Judge Wald to reject and reverse their colleagues in the Trial Chamber. Several members of the ABA Task Force urged that this obvious flaw be remedied. I am sorry that the argument did not prevail. We would have had a better court, one in which the accused could have greater confidence that errors at trial would genuinely receive evenhanded appellate review. Plainly, the two Tribunals now in existence are at a crossroads. Their performances to date can be most fairly characterized as mixed. How they perform in the near term will inform our judgments about whether the International Criminal Court concept is one achievable in conformance with American principles of fairness. A first step would be the establishment of a principle of full disclosure and full cooperation in gathering relevant evidence. Whether that evidence is already in the hands of the Tribunalas some of it apparently was in the Blastic caseor in the hands of cooperating Governmentsas it apparently is in the Gotovina casethe watchword of these Tribunals should be that every effort will be expended to make sure that all facts are known to the accused. Due process and a fair trial requires nothing less. Concluding Observation Much of what the world hears about these tribunals is wrapped up in the highly visible, and sure to be long-running, trial of Slobodan Milosevic. The daily reports of the savagely disrespectful and inappropriate behavior of Mr. Milosevic deserve sharp rebuke from the world community. But if the ICTY is to merit the respect denied it by this defendant, it must establish by example that it is above politics and exists truly to see only that justice is done. Experience over the early years of these Tribunals, in my judgment, leaves open the question whether international courts, and those who serve them as judges and prosecutors, have the will to take the steps and make the sometimes unpopular choices required when justice and due process, rather than convictions, are the overarching goals. Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| By Peter Finn Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, February 11, 2002; Page A18 VIENNA -- From Vienna to Berlin, the embers of history have unexpectedly flared in politics, literature and journalism to reveal an allegedly neglected victim of World War II and its aftermath. The German. After decades of fitful introspection about the crimes of Hitler's Reich and the burdens of atonement, the German-speaking world has recently become seized with the fate of 13 million Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe in 1945 and 1946. Tens of thousands died as they fled to Germany and Austria, rousted from their ancestral homes by the redrawing of Poland's borders and their status as defeated pariahs in what was then Czechoslovakia. An unusual constellation in the culture that combines the leftist, Nobel Prize-winning German novelist Gunter Grass with the Austrian hard-right politician Jorg Haider has resurrected German suffering as a worthy if still controversial topic. Grass, in his latest novel, "Crab Walk," has fictionalized the horrific death of 8,000 Germans fleeing Poland by ship in 1945. Haider has capitalized on recent Czech comments that ethnic Germans expelled from the Sudeten borderlands with Germany and Austria after the war were traitors deserving of their rough fate. Suddenly, the long-ago dislocated Germans are a popular sorrow. The influential Austrian tabloid, Neue Kronen-Zeitung, ran an emotional series last week under the headline "Death to the Germans," recounting in excruciating detail the deprivations suffered at the hands of Czechs. And the premier German magazine, Der Spiegel, in a cover story on Grass's novel, said the last taboo was being broken as Germans moved beyond their own atrocities to confront the cruelty of their neighbors. "Since the crimes committed by us Germans were and are so overwhelming, there was obviously no strength left to also talk about the history of our own suffering," Grass said in the weekly German newspaper Die Woche. The debate over whether this compulsory flight was righteous revenge for Hitler's willing minions or a crime upon a crime has long been consigned in Germany and Austria to the margins of political and academic consideration. The cause of the expellees, as they are known in Germany and Austria, found little or no outlet in societies busy ignoring or apologizing for the sins of their fathers. To raise it too loudly smacked of apologizing for fascism. Frank Bajohr, a historian at the Institute for Contemporary History in Hamburg, noted that the last broad political discussion of the expellees occurred in the 1950s and was marked by a self-pity that allowed Germans to avoid confronting their own crimes. The discussion died as the horrors of the Holocaust came into focus for Germans in the late 1960s. The German politician Antje Vollmer said Auschwitz left no room for the subject of German tribulations. But Austria and Germany are no longer so silent. "With this book, Gunter Grass keeps the tragedy of millions of people who suffered greatly in the expulsion from the east or who lost their lives from being forgotten," former German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher wrote in a recent newspaper column. "Gunter Grass is writing not to settle scores, but to counter forgetting about the horrors and the distress always associated with the war." On a continent where accelerating integration through the European Union is supposed to bury the bloody past, not everyone is comfortable with this subject -- not least those countries that kicked the Germans out, often at gunpoint. Poles remain leery that Germans will reclaim what they lost by using their wealth to buy up areas that were formerly part of Germany. For that reason, in negotiations to enter the European Union, the Poles have fought for a long transition period in which foreigners -- meaning Germans -- would be barred from buying agricultural land. Also, the issue of restitution remains a real fear for eastern countries, which firmly oppose it. An Austrian group of expellees is threatening to launch a class-action suit in U.S. courts to reclaim property, following the path of Jewish groups that sought recompense for the Holocaust. But it was Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman who galvanized political interest in the expellees. He said in an interview with an Austrian magazine this month that ethnic Germans were Hitler's fifth columnists, bent on the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Their forced removal, he said, was a founding moment in the denazification of the country and the establishment of Czechoslovak sovereignty. "Many Sudeten Germans committed treason, a crime which was punishable by death according to the laws of the time," Zeman said. "If they were expelled or transferred, it was more moderate than the death penalty." That set off a firestorm in Austria and Germany, where it was interpreted as assigning collective guilt to the 3 million people expelled from Czechoslovakia, many of whom were children. Haider, the power behind Austria's far-right Freedom Movement, jumped on the comments, saying the Czech Republic should not be allowed to join the European Union until it repeals the Benes decrees, approved by the Allies at the Potsdam conference in 1945, that allowed the expulsion of Germans and the seizure of their property. Expellee groups have long linked EU membership for eastern countries to redress for the past, but they have failed to move either the German or Austrian government. But this time the controversy quickly spilled beyond the far right. The leader of the German opposition, Edmund Stoiber, said the Benes decrees were an "injury to Europe [that] must be finally healed when the European Union is enlarged eastwards." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who pronounced the Sudeten question closed after the signing of a German-Czech reconciliation treaty in 1998, threatened to cancel a March visit to Prague. The German Parliament moved to debate the subject. Austrian President Thomas Klestil called the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, to complain. And the expellees and their descendants suddenly found themselves with an avalanche of welcome publicity. "It is almost as if people are rediscovering that something was very wrong," said Hildegund Pobel, a Berlin resident who was 14 when she and her family were stripped of their valuables and expelled from Czechoslovakia in June 1945. "It was a taboo. And in the West, hardly anyone dealt with the expulsion for the last 30 years. It was something people distanced thems elves from -- it was uncomfortable." Germans with no connection to the Sudeten Germans are also now speaking with none of the old self-censorship. "I think the issue of suffering is too one-sided," said Jenny Buehnig, 33, who works in a Berlin video store. "For years we have only been hearing about the pain and suffering of one group. But there were other groups, too, and what happened to them was not right, either. There were German expellees, and they shouldn't be forgotten. But as soon as you say that, you are considered a neo-Nazi." Such sentiments worry some observers. "The expulsion was unjust, but it is minor compared to what the Nazis did and cannot be understood in isolation but in the larger context of the time," said Gerhard Botz, a professor of history at the University of Vienna. And Josef Harna, a historian at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague, said the Sudeten Germans were the authors of their own misery because of their overwhelming support for the Nazis. The Benes decrees, he said, were an expression of Czechoslovak liberty. And he rejects the idea that they were a criminal ethnic cleansing, noting that anti-fascist Germans were allowed to stay in their homes. It is the historians' hope that Germany's long self-examination, which began in earnest after the student revolts of 1968, may now be mature enough to allow a studied consideration of the whole period, including the trauma of German refugees. More than anyone else, it is Grass, the brilliant curmudgeon of German letters, who might allow this to happen. A native of Danzig, which is now Gdansk in Poland, Grass has used his fiction since the publication of "The Tin Drum" in 1959 to lecture his countrymen on their burdens and failings. He was unsparing in lacerating Germans and just as often resented for it, which makes his newest sympathy all the more surprising. His new novel, published last week, centers on the sinking of a German liner, the Wilhelm Gustloff, which was torpedoed by a Soviet submarine while fleeing Danzig in January 1945. More than 8,000 people perished in what is being called the German Titanic. Beyond neo-Nazi memorializations, the story was little known in Germany until Grass picked it up. Grass said he wants to reclaim that history from the fascists. The book has received sterling reviews for its prose as much as for its political ramifications. The distinguished literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki, a Jewish survivor of the Warsaw ghetto, said on German television that he nearly wept as he read "Crab Walk" and pronounced it among the "best, most distressing works that Grass has written." The response was just as emotional in the popular press. Writing in the German tabloid, Bild, the columnist Franz Josef Wagner, an expellee, addressed Grass and said, "My mother fled from village to village with me. For that reason I did not drown in the cold water. I survived camps, hunger and lice. You write about the German victims of Hitler. So many relatives of mine died trying to flee. Uncles, aunts, cousins, we expellees are now allowed to cry together. I thank you for this feeling." 2002 The Washington Post Company Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| Two Croatian women conducted this interview. From Zagreb, Nevenka Sudar is a Professor of English and literature, editor-in-chief of the only women's e-zine in Croatia, called CROW and a woman's human rights activist. Katarina Tepesh left Croatia in 1968 at age of 17 and lives in New York City. Women in the United States organized the first national Women's Day in response to the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that killed 146 women who were trapped in a locked workroom. Their actions helped inspire International Women's Day on March 8th. American women initiated a recognition week for Women's History, which was expanded in 1987 by Congressional action to the entire month of March. Katarina: Janica Kostelic superb skiing at the Olympics by winning 4 medals fulfilled hers and our dream. Janica was holding fast to her dreams for more then 12 years. Nevenka: Janica's achievements are her own. We can brag about her being from Croatia, but the fact remains that her achievement was the result of hers, and nobody else's efforts, time, self-sacrifice, pain, perseverance, etc. K - How will you celebrate March 8th in Croatia? N - This year Croatian women's groups are organizing a big event which will take place in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. In one of Zagreb's most popular theaters "ZKM" (short for Zagreb's Youth Theater) in town's center, the first V-day celebration in Croatia will be organized by B.a.B.e., Be active. Be emancipated, www.crowmagazine.com/arhiva.htm a woman's human rights group and Autonomous Women's House Zagreb, the oldest shelter for women and children victims of violence. The event will include a performance of "Vagina monologues" by Eve Ensler as well as readings of facts about women by various famous Croatian women from all walks of life. They will speak out about violence against women, economic & political discrimination of women, sexism in the media, trafficking, women from minorities, education etc. All the tickets have already been sold out. Many have been invited to this event, leading Croatian politicians, ministers, ambassadors. The ticket's lowest price was around 4 USD, while the highest amount was unlimited. The amount which will be gathered at this event will be given to the Women's Shelter. Other events taking place on March 8th will include various round tables across the country, appearances in all the media on the subject of March 8th as International Women's Day, a lot of promotional and informational material distributed (a lot of people in Croatia still think of March 8th as "communist holiday" rather than an international women's day). Very few people know about the history of this day and women's groups will try to inform them. For a long time March 8th was considered a day when children were obliged to make a card for their mothers, and men were obliged to buy women flowers and get drunk with their buddies. We feel that March 8th, International Women's Day, must be demystified and used for raising awareness about status of women in Croatia and generally. K - In US, American women have a joke that in our wallet we hold two most important cards: One is our voter registration and the other is a membership card to a progressive organization that will improve our lives. N - Nobody ever disclosed how many women voted at any elections in Croatia. Unfortunately, there are no gender sensitive statistics in Croatia. K - Women in US are breaking barriers in the military, athletics, the arts and every type of workspace. N - Yes, there are women in military in Croatia. But, there is a twist to their inclusion into the military. During the war their presence was welcomed and they fought together with men. Today, you can read about this or that woman who joined this or that army division, but the articles are mainly written to show that what those women need the most is to remain feminine even in their uniforms or in the training grounds. For example, the articles about women in military would emphasize more on their looks and make-up than on their skills or achievements. At the moment Croatia is in the middle of one of the biggest scandals concerning women in military. In short, several women from one of the army divisions sent an anonymous letter to the Minister of Defense and to B.a.B.e. asking for help because they wrote, they had been constantly sexually harassed by their superiors. Their lives became unbearable because the superior officer to whom they made complaints about two other superior officers, laughed at them. They couldn't stand assaults by drunken men anymore. However, the military officials sent a commission not to find out what happened but to intimidate women further. The media wrote a lot on this issue and the women's groups demanded a fair investigation which would include psychologists, women and proper procedure. Army officials who claimed after half an hour of investigation that nobody was harassed and that it was all a lie, had to form another commission and include women and psychologists into the procedure. It is still going on. However it seems that women are too frightened and that their lives are unbearable (on top of that they are afraid they will lose their jobs since there is more than 10.000 surplus people in the military) and that they want to withdraw thinking that it would be better to suffer in silence. Today I read in the paper that one man from the city where the army barracks are situated said: ŤWhat would a decent woman do in the army anyway?ť This case shows one of the biggest problems of Croatian women (not just in military but at work anywhere) and that is sexual harassment. Croatia does not have a law which would recognize sexual harassment as unacceptable and punishable behavior. It is still a laughing matter for most people and remarks are: what do they complain about if they haven't been raped? K - In US we have very fragile margin for women's rights on the Supreme Court. Only two women! Our reproductive choice is on the line. When vacancy occurs on the high court and our President George Bush nominates one of the arch-conservative judges from his "short list", American women will be busy trying to persuade our Senators to turn down any high court nominee who does not support women's constitutional right to reproductive choice N - At the moment there are around 22% of women in Croatian Parliament. In the previous parliament (1991-1999) there was only 7% of women in Parliament. One woman is a vice-president of the government, two women are ministers (minister of Justice and minister of tourism), only one woman is a party president (HNS - Vesna Pusic - Croatian People's Party). Women's groups who formed a Women's Ad Hoc Coalition for monitoring and influencing elections in 1995, 1997 and 1999, demanded introduction of women's quotas in Election law and party statutes, but unsuccessfully. There are a lot of women within parties but they are not high ranked in party hierarchy and seldom promoted on candidate lists on places most likely to win elections. As long as women politicians are in opposition to the ruling party, they are more inclined to represent women's point of view and fight for equality or advancement of the status of women in Croatia. But it has been proven over and over again that once they do get elected, they "forget" that they are women and play "boys'" game just to hold on to the ruling position. Since women's groups are doing their best to help women politicians to come to the places of power and become a part of decision making bodies, they are the best witnesses of how women politicians turn their backs to everything they spoke in favor of before they came to power. Their priority list changes, the issues of their concern as well as their vocabulary. Suddenly, everything else becomes more important than women's rights. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but it seems that general attitude of women politicians, once they gain power in Croatia, is that women's rights are really "less important" to everything else. On the other hand, even when they become politicians and/or fight hard to enter the Parliament or the government, women are still not safe from insults based on their sex. General attitude of politicians, media and the majority of public opinion is that these gender based insults are only cute, harmless and charming jokes. In general, the parliamentarians have no sense of political or personal responsibility when it comes to gender equality, respect and civilized behavior towards women despite all official proclamations and ratified international declarations. Here are few examples from Croatian political scene. Vice Vukojevic, a parliamentary representative of previously ruling party (Croatian Democratic Union) and the current judge of Croatian Constitutional Court, made remarks during the parliamentary speech of one of woman politicians of the opposition: ŤTalk less, bear more children!ť and ŤMy pussycat!ť None of any party members reacted to these remarks or denounced them as socially unacceptable. A parliamentarian from the opposition, Ivan Jakovcic made a remark that the Minister for European Integrations was certainly listened to (only) because she was a Ťcharming womanť, while the Minister of Justice talked about women as Ťweaker sexť. Sexist escapades in Croatian Parliament are not rare. One of the most recent incidents happened at the end of last year, when one of the parliamentarians, Anto Kovacevic, directly attacked a woman colleague Vesna Pusic during Parliamentary session. Wanting to interrupt her speech he disagreed with, he said: ŤYou were made for bed, not for the head!ť The woman in question left the session in protest while the politician who insulted her (and who is a member of the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights!) was not asked to leave by the presiding chairperson! The media approach supports sexism portraying women politicians in a manner which discredits their political importance and influence. Thus, we can often read interviews in which women politicians reveal their kitchen secrets and cooking skills, their wardrobe secrets and preferences in underwear, or appear on pictures where they are caught in embarrassing positions. The public opinion will not easily change as long as women themselves participate in patriarchal marginalization of women's politicians. A few weeks ago in one of the most popular talk shows hosted by a woman, the same parliamentarian Anto Kovacevic was invited as a guest and repeated his insults calling the same woman politician a Ťrattle snakeť and bringing with him a mattress to illustrate his Ťcharmingť remark that she (and women in general) are (primarily) Ťmade for bed and not for the headť. This talk show has entertaining character and his insults were minimized by the show's atmosphere, the host (a woman!) giggled to his insults and the public in the studio cheered. Again, only women's groups reacted fiercely and issued a press statement sent to the Committee of Croatian Television to do something about such sexist, antidemocratic, and intolerant treatment of women in the media. They accepted the statement and confirmed them officially in regard to this show, but the fact is that the show still goes on and in essence nothing changed beyond verbal reproach. K - Forbes magazine just published their annual lists of billionaires. On the list of 15 riches billionaires, 4 are actually women. Number 8 and the riches woman in the world is Alice Walton, 56 years old with $20.5 billions from Walmart stores; Number 10 is Helen Walton, 82 years old with an $20.4 billions from Walmart; Number 12 is Johanna Quandt, 74 years old from Germany with $18.4 billion from BMW; Number 13 is Lilliane Bettencourt, 79 years old from France with $14.9 billion from L'Oreal cosmetics; N - Good thing or a step forward for brighter future of Croatian nonprofit groups is a new Law on NGOs which came into force beginning of this year. For the first time, profitable organizations will have tax reductions if they sponsor or donate money to non-profitable organizations. We hope many profitable organizations will now be motivated to give some money to the nonprofit organizations of their choice or liking. It is hard to say to which and we foresee that charitable or humanitarian organizations will get more money, as well as sports and cultural/artistic ones. www.crowmagazine.com/arhiva.htm Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| To all the Croatians living outside of the homeland, This mail is my account of how I see the future of Croatia and it will be short and to the point (as much as I can be talking about the future of the country). I am a Chicago born Croatian, grew up there and then moved to Croatia in 1991. I came with the expectation that the country would blossom and achieve at least a small portion of its potential. That hasn't happened and the whole time I am wondering about what it is that can be done to improve the situation. At first I thought a democratic system would be the solution, giving people the freedom to prosper and to achieve their dreams. However in socialism people became so passive, irresponsible and corrupt. On the other hand, a democratic system relies on people being proactive, positive, responsible and ethical - so in Croatia democracy only exists on paper. Then I thought it was the legal system which would govern everything and weed out corruption. But you can make any system you want but if the people are corrupt they will find ways around it. And then I came to the conclusion that it was the economy. Given enough money, people would have their basic needs satisfied and then would be able to truly contribute to the development of the country and think more long term (and this is another problem, everyone thinks very short term). But this hasn't happened. You can make all the stimulation programmes for small and medium-sized businesses but if the people do not have the right business attitude and knowledge, nothing will come of it. And this has happened. There are litteraly billions of kunas that can be available to Croatians but they either do not know how to make use of it or are to lazy to make use of it. Therefore in my opinion the future of Croatia depends on the people. Concretely that means: - investing in a change in the attitude of the people investing in building up knowledge and skills of the general population - working with the top leaders in the private and public sectors to give them world class know-how and advice to carry out change There are a few (too few) of us in Croatia working in this field. My organisation, Horizon or Horizont in Croatian (more information can be found on (http://www.horizont.hr) is one working in this area. Having lived in the US, I would like to involve my colleagues abroad (not only the US) in working with us and others in the field. I believe that if we are to contribute to the country, the best contribution we can make is in the know-how of the people. I will stop here so that I do not go too much into detail and write more follow-up mails with information on what is being done and suggestions. Warm regards, Ante Glavas ante.glavas@zg.hinet.hr Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| Vjesnik, Utorak, 12. veljace 2002. Goli otok kao umjetnicki izazov Ideja naseljavanja otoka suvremenom umjetnoscu koja bi privukla turiste prilicno je utopijska / Spontanom akcijom te izlozbom u zagrebackoj galeriji Miroslav Kraljevic umjetnici su uspjeli svratiti pozornost na jedan zapostavljeni prostor U galeriji Miroslav Kraljevic, otvorena je izlozba pod nazivom >Goli otok - novi hrvatski turizam<. Izlozba u zagrebackoj galeriji pokazala je radove nastale 2001. na jednom od ljepsih, a ujedno i ozloglasenijih jadranskih otoka. Postavlja se pitanje kako to da su se umjetnici okupili i odlucili izlagati upravo na mjestu koje za sobom ima konotaciju politickog zatvora. Jos od Benjaminova eseja o umjetnickom djelu u doba tehnicke reprodukcije termin aure se primjenjuje kako na umjetnost, tako i na prirodu. Neugodna reputacija Golog otoka rezultirala je neposjecenoscu i osamom, koje su omogucile prirodi da nesputano siri svoju auru. Niz umjetnika privucenih aurom otocke prirode ljeti, okupilo se na ovom projektu koji se razvijao u nekoliko etapa, a kulminirao je izlozbom. Tu je >superstar< umjetnickog svijeta Ivan Kozaric koji se u skupnim projektima u suradnji s mladjim umjetnicima sve vise okrece performativnoj umjetnickoj praksi. Gost umjetnik iz Sarajeva - Jusuf Hadzifejzovic takodjer je izveo performans koristeci ready made predmete, izmedju ostalog i skulpturu Ivana Kozarica koju je upotrijebio da bi njome razbio orahe. Tu su nadalje nekoliko clanova splitske umjetnicke obitelji Brajnovic - Tomislav i Petar, koji su izveli konceptualne radove eksplicitno tematizirajuci ideolosku obojenost mjesta. U slicnom tonu su radovi Rajka Radovanovica, koji je intervenirao na fotografiji generala pomocu crvene boje i znaka kriza, te Zlatka Kutnjaka, koji je za svoj rad upotrijebio ikonografiju zastave. Igor Zlobec je izveo rad >Maja putuje na Goli<, a Vlado Martek postavio je plocu kojom je proglasio Goli otok obucenim. Osim ovih umjetnika izlagali su i voditelji MMC-a u Rijeci, Damir Cargonja i Sven Stilinovic. Potonji je kroz svoj rad pokazao da je pristalica teorije da se >nered siri s vremenom jer mjerimo vrijeme u smjeru u kojem se nered siri<. Uz umjetnike ekspediciju su pratili i neki povjesnicari umjetnosti medju kojima valja istaknuti Branka Cerovca, autora zanimljivog teksta u katalogu u kojem je kljucna tocka, otocima inspirirana umjetnost Paula Gaugina. Ideja naseljavanja otoka suvremenom umjetnoscu koja bi potom privukla turiste prilicno je utopijska. Medjutim, svojom su spontanom akcijom, a potom i izlozbom u galeriji Miroslav Kraljevic, umjetnici uspjeli svratiti pozornost na jedan iz pogresnih razloga zapostavljeni prostor. Olga Majcen Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| Dear All, For those who are not aware, Thomas Golubic is a music supervisor for the HBO show "Six Feet Under", created by Alan Ball, author of American Beauty. Since I know Tomica, I want you to know few things about him. He is extremely talented man, who loves music and know function of the same in the visual arts. He worked at the radio station in Los Angeles and was struggling music supervisor for years. For my taste, and ability to recognize the talent, he was already there many years ago. It was just matter of time when someone else would recognize it. And it finally did. In my opinion one of the best writer of our generation Alan Ball is working with Tomica. What is also important for us Croatians is that he is very proud of his name and keep his (Ch), the line above c, intact on the credit screen. One thing that I also recognized is that Tomica and his partner Gary Calamar have full screen credit. That doesn't happen by chance. If you get your full screen as a music supervisor it means that you are doing tremendous job for the show. I cannot remember last time I've seen that. Ivo Skoric discovered Tomica for me years ago and knowing Ivo's, to say the least avangard, taste in music, I would expect something else. But what is impressive to me as an author is a wide taste and appreciation of any sound that comes over the speakers. I share the same love for music and somehow for me everything is easy in communication with such people. Story after story, we see that our roots go deep. Deeper then six feet under. We are not present just at the landing on the moon or every possible university, or we just don't build parts for space ships and write good music and literature, we have a great music supervisor too. I have a great joy in watching professional at work. Surgeon or buss driver, it doesn't matter. People who love their work and go deep to discover their own vehicle to divine through their talent. The way someone plays the music for you, takes care of CDs or vinyl records... you are watching ballet of movements. One last note: Thomas Newman's main title theme is original piece of music and so well edited with the picture. It's the best I have ever seen on TV. Nenad Bach Dig TV's 'Six Feet Under' Fri Mar 1, 2:40 PM ET By Steve James NEW YORK (Reuters) - Undertakers were skeptical that "Six Feet Under," the TV drama set around a funeral home, would portray them as grim stereotypes, or play for cheap laughs. But America's funeral directors now are actually praising the show, not burying it. Unlike lawyers who lambaste court dramas, and cops who cringe at crime dramas, some death-care industry professionals think the highly-rated AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Home Box Office drama might even help the image of their business. The view of the industry's human side is helpful at a time when the business is in flux, with an increasingly corporate funeral industry trying to hold onto its traditional personal style. "Funeral directors are always portrayed as very eerie, Vincent Price stereotypes, so we brushed it off at first thinking it would be another Hollywood portrayal," said Dawn Fisher, whose husband, John, owns the Fisher Funeral Chapel in Logansport, Ind. Not that kids are suddenly rushing out to become embalmers or makeup artists for the deceased in the same way everyone wanted to be a reporter after "All the President's Men." But undertakers say the TV drama, which starts its second season on Sunday, has people talking more openly about death and the sensitive issue of what happens afterwards. "People kept saying: 'You have to see this,' and so we signed up for HBO," she said. "The death-care industry gets a lot of bad press, but this shows what funeral directors do behind the scenes." "I was concerned at first, when I heard it would be humorous," said Steve Turner, a third-generation funeral director and owner of the Walker Mortuary in Freeport, Ill. "But somebody has really done their homework -- it brings an awareness of the business." In "Six Feet Under," the fictional Fisher & Sons funeral home in Los Angeles is run by two brothers, one gay, one straight. Their widowed mother is re-discovering her youth and their sister is an angst-ridden teen. Son David's gay lover is a black cop, and Nathaniel's girlfriend has a mentally disturbed brother. The family may be dysfunctional, but in the past, Hollywood has usually portrayed undertakers as Dickensian, obsequious Uriah Heep-like characters. For action-minded viewers it may bring to mind "Paul Bearer," the creepy urn-carrying ex-manager of World Wrestling Federation performer, The Undertaker. "They (undertakers) are usually very morbid characters portrayed in a negative light," said David Walkinshaw, spokesman for the National Funeral Directors Association. "On 'Six Feet Under,' they are believable people, albeit with character flaws. Death is traditionally a difficult subject to talk about, he said. "Now they can, in the guise of asking about the show," said Walkinshaw, a funeral director at Saville & Grannan in Arlington, Mass. "A lot of what's in 'Six Feet Under,' I lived myself." HBO spokeswoman Mara Mikialian said the show was the channel's highest rated series in a first season -- better than "The Sopranos (news - Y! TV)" even, or "Sex and the City (news - Y! TV)." This season it will feature its first Buddhist and first Jewish funerals. E-mails and letters from funeral homes pour in. "They say the show is doing a service de-mystifying death," Mikialian said. The show comes at a time when the issue of corporate takeover of family-run funeral homes is a recurring theme and major funeral and cemetery companies have recently reported disappointing income. At a time when people in the United States are living longer, a more mobile population means that families tend to be dispersed. And because fewer people are buried in family plots, funeral companies have focused on so-called pre-need sales, in which customers pre-pay the cost of their own funeral. Also, more Americans are choosing cremation, which costs less. Bob Achermann, executive director of the California Funeral Directors Association, said there is an approximate 50-50 split between cremations and burials in his state. Achermann said of the TV show: "You see lots of issues raised that the public is not aware of, like the obvious bias against corporate ownership. "They are portrayed as trying to threaten and buy out the small funeral directors. (But) Corporate ownership is common and in the show, the corporations tend to be heavy-handed." "I watch the show and I think it's well-written. Talking about it (death) is normally difficult as people would rather not know the details. Anything that fosters understanding of the death-care industry is helpful," said Achermann. "I have not heard of anyone who thinks it's awful," said Tammy Neville, administrator of the Illinois Funeral Directors Association. "Whoever the writers are, they have true insight into the funeral profession." But it's the gallows humor of creator Alan Ball's drama set in a funeral home that has the professionals laughing. "We all have curious things that have happened that would fit into a dark comedy," said Walkinshaw. "Like the clergyman falling in the grave or the grave caving in. "I was at one funeral where the moment the priest ended the prayer, the stone slid silently into the grave. But we wouldn't want to embarrass anyone and we keep it to ourselves." Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| Tamara Boros European champion in table tennis. Surbek, Stipancic, Boros ťI mene je iznenadio medijski odjek moje pobjede u Rotterdamu. Nazvao me je nakon finalnog dvoboja čak i premijer Ivica RačanŤ / ťProtiv Olge Nemes sam u četvrtfinalu odigrala čudesan meč u kojem sam pogađala i neke sasvim nemoguće poeneŤ, kaže Tamara Boroš, nakon Dragutina Šurbeka i Antona Stipancica, prva hrvatska pobjednica europskog TOP 12 ZAGREB, 12. veljače - Strahovanja da bi stolnoteniski TOP 12 u Rotterdamu mogao ostati u debeloj sjeni Zimskih olimpijskih igra i teniskog Davisovog kupa, pomalo su se iznenađujuće pokazala potpuno promašenima. Barem kada je riječ o Tamari Boroš i njezinom impresivnom nastupu na turniru 12 najboljih europskih stolnotenisačica. Tako je to kad se pobjeđuje... - I mene je to, priznajem, malo iznenadilo. Nazvao me je nakon finalnog meča čak i premijer Ivica Račan, pa mu se još jednom na tome zahvaljujem. Termin odigravanja TOP-a 12 pomaknut je za tjedan dana zbog kraljevskog vjenčanja u Nizozemskoj, pa se zato preklapao s drugim sportskim događajima. Drugog termina jednostavno više nije bilo, pojasnila je Tamara Boroš. Finalni meč smo, srećom, gledali u izravnom TV-prijenosu i tamo uz Tamaru Boroš neočekivano vidjeli nekadašnju europsku prvakinju, Nicole Struse. - Struse je igrala loše i jedva prošla kvalifikacije. U četvrtfinalu je imala sreću sa ždrijebom, a u polufinalu je, pak, sve iznenadila pobjedom protiv luksemburške Kineskinje, Nie Xie Lian. Meni je Struse pomalo nezgodna, pa se zato na trenutke činilo da igra dobro, iako to nije bilo ništa posebno. Mnogo je teže bilo u polufinalu s odličnom defanzivkom Viktorijom Pavlovič. - Bio mi je to najteži meč na turniru. No, ovaj sam put bila vrlo strpljiva i bez žurbe sam gradila svaki poen. Samo se tako može igrati protiv nje. U posljednje vrijeme imam sparing-partnera za igru protiv ťlovacaŤ, pa je i to pomoglo. Viktorija je, inače, strašno napredovala i bit će uskoro opasna suparnica svima. Najbolje sam, međutim, odigrala u četvrtfinalu protiv Olge Nemes. Bio je to čudesan meč u kojem sam pogađala i neke sasvim ťnemogućeŤ poene! Pobjedom u Rotterdamu napravili ste si ťmedvjeđu usluguŤ jer će sada na Europskom prvenstvu u Zagrebu sve osim zlatne medalje biti proglašeno neuspjehom. - Toga sam bila sasvim svjesna već i prije TOP-a 12. Moja pozicija na svjetskoj stolnoteniskoj ljestvici (nakon pobjede u Rotterdamu vjerojatno je već došla na drugo mjesto op.a.) sve promatrače upućuje na to da bih u Zagrebu trebala sigurno pobijediti. Zato ću se na Europskom prvenstvu koncentrirati isključivo na svoju igru i suparnice, a nikako ne na očekivanja i prognoze. Već od 1. ožujka bit ću u Zagrebu i pripremati se za EP. Mislim da mogu odigrati još 25 posto bolje negoli u Rotterdamu, pa što bude. Očekivalo se da bi vam u Zagrebu glavna suparnica trebala biti Rumunjka Mihaela Steff, no ona je i u Rotterdamu bila vrlo loša, kao uostalom i na svim turnirima posljednjih mjeseci. Što se događa s vašom partnericom u igri parova? - Ona mora riješiti neke osobne probleme i ozbiljno se posvetiti treningu. Trenutačno nije sto posto u stolnom tenisu. Ima li vaš trener Neven Cegnar kakvih primjedbi na nastup u Rotterdamu? - Primjedbi uvijek ima, no bio je vrlo zadovoljan kako sam odigrala TOP 12, a naročito meč protiv Olge Nemes. I Nevenu se, naravno, moram posebno zahvaliti na ovom sjajnom rezultatu, baš kao i mojim psiholozima, Goldenu i svima ostalima koji imaju udjela u mojim posljednjim rezultatima. Tamara Boroš se osvajanjem ovog cijenjenog europskog turnira pridružila galeriji najvećih hrvatskih stolnoteniskih izdanaka, Dragutinu Šurbeku i Antonu Stipančiću, koju su također svojedobno bili pobjednici TOP-a 12. Marin Sarec Distributed by www.CroatianWorld.net. This message is intended for Croatian Associations/Institutions and their Friends in Croatia and in the World. The opinions/articles expressed on this list do not reflect personal opinions of the moderator. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy all copies of this communication and please, let us know! |
| |
| Croatian Constellation |
|
|
| Popular Articles |
|
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. |
full story
printer version
