Serbia has become a "democratic" society by Western standards.
PETER HANDKE est victime d'une attaque par les dinosaures français
<http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/3/1929441.html
>
http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/3/1929441.html
...........
<http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/12/1951789.htm
l>
http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/12/1951789.html
CirqueMinime/Paris
Ljubodrag Simonovic - a reply to Noam Chomsky
by Mick
<_javascript_:openWindow('http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/cmd=view
_user/username=mickcollins', 'info', 450, 600);> Collins on Fri 12 May 2006
06:01 AM EDT | Permanent
<http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/12/1951789.htm
l> Link
[[Ljubodrag Simonovic, 'Duci' to his friends, but straight up 'Simonovic' to
the many admirers of his heroism both on the basketball court and in the
arena of political philosophy, is my dear friend, comrade and teacher.
Though I didn't know it at the time, I was preparing to meet Simonovic in
March 1999 during the short-lived demonstrations in Paris against the NATO
bombing of Serbia over its southern province of Kosovo. A couple of the
chants at that manif that stuck with me were:
'NATO is Mafia-Kosovo is Serbia!'
and
'Clinton in Monica-Kosovo in Serbia!'
After that first street rally there were no more-and people who publicly
expressed opposition to US/NATO policies toward Yugoslavia, especially if
they were Serbs, were harassed, arrested, beaten and some were even killed.
I started to see how France was abandoning another ancient ally-the Serbs
and the French having fought together victoriously in WWs I & II-well, their
fights against Fascism, and its sub-set, Imperialism, were certainly
glorious if not really victorious. And when French Mirages flew missions in
the 1993-95 NATO bombing of the Bosnian territory held by the remnants of
the Yugoslav Army known by then as the Bosnian Serb Army, and actually
bombed the graves of some of their own war heroes (I wonder how many of
these old war dead were exhumed in the search for mass-graves, then tested
positive on the 'Muslim DNA test', and were counted among the 200,000
victims of the 'Serb genocide of Muslims in Bosnia'?-an issue with which
Professor Chomsky is intimately familiar, if sadly disinformed.), and French
'intellectuals' started agitating support for the UCK (KLA in English), the
Albanian terrorists, just as they had done for the 'multi-cultural'
Islamists in Sarajevo: it was then I knew that the French had gone well
beyond mere abandonment of an old comrade-in-arms and re-donned their
déguisement à la poule mouillée with its full Vichy and anti-FLN plumage to
be the cozy duvet for their US & NATO con-spooners in that shit-stinking
bunk reserved for Fascist collaborators.
After 911 it became further apparent what all this reflexive collaboration,
all this 'Nous sommes tous les Américains' was about: shifting the onus for
the waste culture's military occupation of the planet, with its inherent
population control, from its US(read Israeli)/EU(read German)/Israeli(read
US) beneficiaries to the hapless patsies du jour, the Muslim expansionists,
the 'Arab terrorists', the Islamo-Nazis, organized as the UCK, al Qaeda, the
Palestinian Authority (now known as Hamas), the Sudanese government, and
even, although not Muslim, the 'Tropical Naziism' of the 'rascist'
Hutu/Habyarimana government of Rwanda.
I wrote that paper, 'Belgrade-NY: aller/retour', comparing the 911 attacks
on NYC and DC to the 1999 78-day terror bombing of Serbia, and presented it
at the first meeting of the International Committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic (ICDSM) in October 2001. After I'd finished, nobody said much, but
this really tall, really 'interesting' looking guy came up to me and said we
should talk. I knew from the jump he was either stone nuts or a world-class
genius (and, with any luck, maybe both). When I found out he had done the
poster that was all over the walls of the conference, the 'Welcome to The
Hague (now just try and get home!)' posters, I kinda got the feeling we
might get along.
Simonovic's writing on Olympism, which has been on this blog for some time,
as have a lot of his posters, is among the best critical thinking I've ever
come across-it's right up there with the Franks, with Horkhiemer and Adorno
and Marcuse. His primary concern is play, and especially how it is manifest
in Olympic sports. So, as an actor, playing is what I've done all my
life-though because of the exigencies of survival (my euphemism for drugs
and alcohol), I sometimes lost sight of the fun, the pleasure in my playing.
I often became very serious, too serious, even morose-too serious, anyway,
for a self-promoting comic. Simonovic is very serious too-but also very
funny, yebega-after all, he's a Serb. And when he played forward for Red
Star Belgrade, I'm told by all those who still, after nearly 40 years,
revere this courageous roundballer, that Simonovic had serious game,
incredible handle. And he showed me what real seriousness is-what creative
seriousness can be and can do.
Simonovic did a lot for my game. He told me that in the great match-up
between Communism and Fascism, you're either in the game, fighting for one
side or the other, or you're dead. In the Big Game, there are no corporate
sky boxes; there are no objective journalist; there might be some Laker
Girls, but there are no disinterestsed spectators. He told me creative
seriousness is best expressed in play. Get out there and have fun,
kids-you'll have a way better game. He made real Oscar Wilde's notion that
'Life is too important to take seriously'.
Here's Simovic at the top of his game. -mc]
*********************************
Ljubodrag Simonovic - a reply to Noam Chomsky
Mr. Chomsky deserves respect for his brave resistance to American
imperialist politics. Unfortunately, in the interview with the Belgrade
daily paper "Politika" of May 7th and 8th, Chomsky sees the ultimate
solution for the Balkan crisis in the implementation of Washington's policy.
To the question "What do you see as a realistic solution to the final status
of Kosovo and how much does it differ from what the USA advocates today?"
Chomsky replies: "I have for a long time felt that the only realistic
solution to the final status of Kosovo is actually the one offered by the
president of Serbia (Dobrica Cosic), I think, sometime in 1993, that is a
kind of partitioning of the Serbs. There are few Serbs left now, but what
used to be Serbian regions should be a part of Serbia, the rest can be
"independent", as they call it, which means integrated with Albania. I
simply did not see any other solution ten years ago either."
Chomsky's idea is not new. It is actually a "model" for Kosovo that in the
Second World War was realized by fascist Italy and Germany. As for Chomsky's
reference to Dobrica Cosic, the ex-president of Yugoslavia, it is, as a
matter of fact, a highly problematic alibi in view of the motives behind
Cosic's advocating the division of Kosovo.
Chomsky's position is identical to that of the American establishment. That
is, Chomsky does not speak of a just and principled solution to the problem
of Kosovo, but of a "realistic solution". What actually is the basis of
Chomsky's "realism"? First of all is the fact that the Albanians are a
majority in Kosovo, and that they do not want to live in Serbia. Would
Chomsky's "realism" be really "realistic" if America did not stand behind
the Albanians? In that case wouldn't another kind of realism apply, namely
that the Albanians represent about 15% of the population of Serbia and that
the Serbs, as a majority, do not want Kosovo to secede from Serbia?
Chomsky's "realistic solution" is actually founded on the results of the
ethnic cleansing of the Serbs and other non-Albanians (about 300,000),
carried out by Albanian terrorist groups which, even according to Chomsky,
were organized and armed by the USA - as well as the settlement in Kosovo of
hundreds of thousands of Albanians from Albania.
What would happen if the principle of ethnic majority "self-determination"
were applied to the solution of the question of ethnic minorities in
European countries? Would, according to Chomsky, the Albanians' breaking off
of western Macedonia and its annexation to Albania be a "realistic
solution"? Or the Greeks' annexation of the parts of Albania where they are
the majority? Or the Turkish annexation of the parts of Bulgaria and Greece
where they represent the majority? Or Hungarian annexation of the parts of
Romania, Serbia and Slovakia where they are the majority of the population?
What about Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabach, etc.? What about
Catalonia, the Basque country, Corsica, South Tirol, parts of Turkey where
the Kurds form the majority, or Crimea and other parts of Ukraine populated
by Russians, as well as the Baltic states with a majority Russian
population?
Chomsky offers to the Albanians of Kosovo as a national minority the right
to form their state and to be annexed to Albania. What about the right of
the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina -who are not national
minorities, but constitutive peoples-what of their right to decide on their
independence?
The question is whether Chomsky is aware that his "realistic" conception in
fact gives legitimacy to the principle of ethnic cleansing openly backed by
the American administration. Chomsky's conception, no matter what the
author's real motives are, represents an invitation to a violent breaking up
of multi-ethnic states. What would that mean for Serbia where 24 nations
live? Practically, all the border areas of Serbia would become zones where
national clashes could be provoked in order to make possible their
annexation to the neighboring countries. Provocations already exist in the
parts of the country populated by Muslims (Sandzak) and Hungarians
(Voivodina).
How can the secession of that part of the country which represents the
foundation of the Serbian state and the national consciousness of the people
be "peacefully" accepted by the Serbs? Serbs are aware that the real
occupiers of Kosovo are not Albanians, but Americans. Chomsky doesn't
mention the presence in Kosovo of Camp "Bond-Steel", which is the largest
American military camp in Europe. And that is, in fact, the main reason why
Americans are trying to tear off Kosovo from Serbia and to annex it to
Albania. Americans are trying to turn the Balkan and East-European states
into a military corridor in order to isolate Europe from Russia and prevent
Europe from approaching the Middle East. "Greater Albania" would become the
main strategic point in the American plan to become entrenched in European
territory. In his interview Chomsky "forgot" to mention that the immediate
reason for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was Milosevic's refusal to sign
the document in Rambouillet in which the Americans demanded the deployment
in Yugoslavia of over 30,000 NATO soldiers. In effect, they demanded that
Milosevic endorse the occupation of his country.
In answering the question "Why the USA started that war?" Chomsky refers to
the book by John Norris that states, "The real cause of the war had nothing
to do with care for the Kosovo Albanians. The real cause was that Serbia did
not implement the required social and market reforms, which meant that it
was the only corner of Europe refusing to accept neo-liberal programs
dictated by the USA, and this had to be stopped." In the same interview
Chomsky says that Milosevic "should have been overthrown, and probably would
have been, in the early 90s, had the Albanians voted." Chomsky sees in the
political groups in Serbia who played the "Trojan horse" for the USA and who
received hundreds of millions of dollars from the USA to overthrow
Milosevic, and in the separatist Albanians, the forces which should have
overthrown Milosevic. How can anybody fight the criminal policy of the USA
in the Balkans, and, at the same time, give support to the political forces
carrying out the American policy in the Balkans?
What is Chomsky's opinion of Milosevic? Chomsky thinks that Milosevic
"committed many crimes", "that he is not a good person", "that he is a
terrible person, but the accusations against him could have never been
proved." To the question "Are you a Milosevic sympathizer?" Chomsky replies,
"No, he was terrible. . . . I certainly would never have dined or talk to
him. Yes, he deserved to be tried for his crimes, but this trial could not
be carried out even had it been half fair. It was a farce; they were
actually happy that he died."
For what "crimes" should Milosevic have been tried and why should he have
been overthrown in the beginning of the nineties? - The man who introduced
the multi-party system and brought about a constitution according to which
the citizen and not the nation is the basis of the political formation of
society, something that was thoroughly opposed by the political forces which
Chomsky supports. Chomsky didn't give a concrete reply to the repeated
question.
Basically, Chomsky has no political vision of the Balkans that might give
these countries the possibility of preserving their independence, without
which the story of "democratic freedoms" is but a farce. That is the reason
why Chomsky constructs some "democratic" opposition which ought to have
overthrown Milosevic - something that never really existed. Madeleine
Albright has many times said that Yugoslavia was bombed in order to bring to
power those who would support American policy in the Balkans. This is the
real opposition that tried to overthrow Milosevic, and that came to power on
October 5th 2000 - that turned Serbia and Montenegro into an American
colony.
In the "democracy" which the West imposed on Serbia by military aggression
more than 50% of the population capable of working is without a job; over
65% of the people under 30 are without a job; the average salary is below
300 ?/month; almost 80% of the employed in the private sector have no social
security; in Belgrade alone there are over 80,000 drug-addicts; today's
students pay as much as ten times higher fees than in Milosevic's time; in
the process of forced privatization almost all the important factories,
mines, water resources and other social property have been sold for small
money to Western companies and domestic mafias; the gross national product
is below the level it was even during the time of the harshest economic
sanctions; never was the number of young people emigrating from the country
greater than today; newspaper and television houses critical of the West are
being closed; people are losing their jobs daily if they do not conform to
the ruling policy; banks are being robbed every day, postal workers killed,
people die in mafia clashes . . . Serbia has become a "democratic" society
by Western standards.
Whether Chomsky likes it or not, Slobodan Milosevic was and still is a
symbol of the struggle for freedom of the Serbian people. It is no accident
that the funeral ceremony in Belgrade and Pozarevac was attended by far more
people than were gathered on October 5th, 2000. One of the main slogans was
"Kosovo is Serbia!" That is the reality that we also should insist on if we
want peace in the Balkans.
x x x
Posted to:
Main <http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog> Page
No comments found.
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL:
<http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_trackback/1951789>
http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_trackback/1951789
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
===============
Group Moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
page at http://magazine.sorabia.net
for more informations about current situation in Serbia http://www.sorabia.net
Slusajte GLAS SORABIJE nas talk internet-radio (Serbian Only)
http://radio.sorabia.net
SPONSORED LINKS
| Human rights | Human rights watch | Cause and effect essay |
| Causes of depression |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "sorabia" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
