Friday, June 26, 2015

Beginn der US-Aggression gegen Korea vor 65 Jahren - das Muster ist bekannt

Die Geschichte vergisst nichts - es kommt alles an den Tag. Das Ende des Imperiums, das Ende der unipolaren Weltordnung naht.


Es war an einem Sonntag – Beginn des Korea-Krieges

by Hyoksin
Am 25. Juni 1950 brach in Korea ein Krieg aus. Wer hat ihn verursacht und wie? Mag auch Zeit ins Land gehen und die Generation wechseln, klagt die Geschichte das aggressive Verbrechen der US-Imperialisten und der südkoreanischen Marionetten klar und eindeutig an.
Nach dem Untergang Japans (August 1945) hielten die US-Imperialisten unter dem Vorwand der Entwaffnung der ehemaligen japanischen Armee Südkorea besetzt und beschleunigten im Wesentlichen die Kriegsvorbereitungen auf die Aggression in den nördlichen Landesteil.
Sie bildeten in der „Militärschule für Englisch“ die antikommunistisch eingefleischten böswilligen Elemente heran, die aus der japanischen Armee, der Mandschurei-Marionettenarmee und der Armee von Jiang Jieshi stammten. Sie fabrizierten aus ihnen die „Landesverteidigungsarmee“ und gaben Ansporn zur Erweiterung der Streitkräfte.
Unter aktiver Aufhetzung der US-Imperialisten entwickelte sich im Jahr 1948 die Marionettenarmee sogar zu mehr als 107 000 Mann starken Streitkräften und entstand die halbmilitärische Organisation namens „Jugend-Verteidigungstruppen“ mit über 200 000 Jugendlichen und Männern im besten Alter. Auch danach leisteten die USA der Marionettenclique um Syngman Rhee die Militärhilfe von 110 Mio. USD und übergaben ihr umfassende Kriegsausrüstungen wie verschiedenartige Feuerwaffen, Kriegsschiffe, Flugzeuge, Fahrzeuge und Minen.
Im Juli 1949 verschwor sich der US-Außenminister mit dem „Sonderabgesandten“ der Clique um Syngman Rhee, über die Streitkräfte von 400 000 starken Marionettenarmee einschließlich der „ständigen 100 000 starken Soldaten und 100 000 starken Polizei“ zu verfügen. (Aus dem Bericht der „UNO-Kommission für Korea“ am 5. Sep. 1950)
Die US-Imperialisten ließen die damals weltweit größte Militärberatergruppe aus 500 Personen in Südkorea stationieren, das Führungssystem und Truppenzusammensetzung der Marionettenarmee in Form der US-Armee herstellen und dementsprechende Militärübungen machen.
Bezüglich der Verfügung über Kriegsführungsfähigkeit der Marionettenarmee gegen den Norden prahlte der Leiter der US-Militärberatergruppe bei einer Pressekonferenz, dass „seines Erachtens die „südkoreanische Armee dazu fähig ist, 2- oder 3-fache Streitkräfte der ausländischen gleichen Streitmacht zurückzuschlagen ... “ Im Mai 1951 zeugte der US-Außenminister davon, dass „bis zur Zeit des Angriffsbeginns diese Sicherheitsarmee (Marionettenarmee) dank unserer Hilfe auf 150 000 Mann verstärkt wurde“.
In die Erarbeitung des Koreakriegsplans („A, B, C-Plan“) bezogen die US-Imperialisten die Geheimdienstorgane und Operationsinstitutionen wie „G-2“ und „G-3“ des MacArthur-Kommandos und die „Geschichtsgruppe“ und das „Kato“-Organ aus hochrangigen Offizieren der ehemaligen japanischen Armee.
Die US-Imperialisten gliederten den Kriegsplan in 3 Phasen ein, in der ersten Etappe mit dem Aggressionskrieg gegen Korea zu beginnen (A), in der zweiten Etappe die Kriegsflamme nach China zu erweitern (B) und in der letzten Etappe auf Sibirien zu überfallen (C). Sie setzten den Operationsbeginn als 1949 voraus. Dann trieben sie die Marionettenarmee zu bewaffneten Provokationen, um die Wirksamkeit des Plans nachzuprüfen. Im Jahr 1949 belief die Zahl der feindlichen bewaffneten Provokation auf 2 617, ca. mehr als 2.8fache gegenüber dem Vorjahr.
Als die Marionettenarmee bei ihren Provokationen wiederholt Niederlage erlitt, hatten die US-Imperialisten vor, sofort nach der Koreakriegentfesselung unter dem UN-Aushängeschild die in Japan stationierten US-Truppen einzusetzen. Demnach wurde der Koreakriegsplan korrigiert, dass die Marionettenarmee die Grenzlinie am 38. Breitengrad durchbricht und sofort die US-Truppen eingesetzt werden. Auch die Zeit wurde auf den 25. Juni 1950 verschoben.
Nachdem ihr Kriegsplan korrigiert wurde, offenbarten die US-Imperialisten bei der Vervollkommnung der Vorbereitungen für dessen Ausführung in der letzten Etappe noch unverhohlener ihre aggressive Natur.
Vorangetrieben wurden die Vorbereitungen dafür, für den künftigen Koreakrieg die US-Luftwaffe und -Marine schnell einzusetzen und die Streitkräfte ihrer Satellitenstaaten umfassend einzuführen.
In vielen Ortschaften, darunter Suwon, Kwangju, Taegu, Insel Jeju und Kimpho, wurden die US-Luftstützpunkte gebaut und erweitert und der pazifischen US-Flotte die Befugnis zur Benutzung der Häfen in Inchon, Pusan, Ryosu und Jinhae gegeben. Beim Besuch von Syngman Rhee in Tokio gab Mac Arthur ihm die „11-Punkte-Anordnungen“, die zum Inhalt hatten, dass Südkorea zuerst den Krieg gegen den Norden entfesselt, die Marionettenarmee und die japanische Armee einen gemeinsamen Kampf führen und von Mac Arthur befehligt werden.
Um den wahren Sachverhalt der Entfesselung des Koreakriegs zu verbergen und aus Schwarz Weiß zu machen, fabrizierten die US-Imperialisten die 3. „UNO-Kommission für Korea“. Gleichzeitig wurden schon die „Grunddokumente“ und „Resolutionen“ angefertigt, die nach dem Kriegsausbruch dem UN-Sicherheitsrat und den UN-Versammlungen unterbreitet werden sollten.
In Bezug darauf, dass die USA den 25. Juni als Datum für den Kriegsbeginn festgelegt hatten, gestand Robert, Leiter der damaligen Militärberatergruppe, wie folgt, dieser Tag sei Sonntag. In den USA oder Südkorea, wo der Sonntag als Ruhetag betrachtet wird, wird wahrscheinlich niemand daran glauben, dass die USA am Sonntag zuerst den Krieg begonnen haben. Nämlich ziele es darauf ab, dass die Menschen daran glauben, wir hätten ihn nicht als Erster begonnen.
Um ihre aggressive Natur zu verbergen, wurden die Theaterspiele inszeniert: am 24. Juni verließ der US-Präsident Truman mit seiner Frau für den „Wochenendurlaub“ Washington, der US-Außenminister reist nach seinem Heimatland, Dulles nach Kyoto (Japan) und Leiter der in Südkorea stationierten US-Militärberatergruppe nach dem US-Festland. In Südkorea wurde eine falsche Anzeige veröffentlicht, dass der vom Junianfang an gültige Notstandszustand aufgehoben und die An- und Abreise, Übernachtung der südkoreanischen Armee im Freien und ihr Urlaub erlaubt worden seien.
So wurde der bewaffnete Angriff der südkoreanischen Marionettenarmee gegen den Norden am 25. Juni 1950, morgens eines friedlichen Sonntags, in allen Gegenden am 38. Breitengrad begonnen.
Die Geschichte wird die aggressiven Verbrechen der US-Imperialisten und der südkoreanischen Marionetten, die den Frieden Koreas zerstörten, ausführlich anklagen und niemals vergessen.

Hillary Clinton: Profile of Rogue Leadership

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 17.06.2015 | 09:13

The possibility of another Clinton or Bush becoming president in 2017 should make everyone’s blood run cold.
Both represent everything wrong with America – a gangster state run by monied interests for their benefit alone, waging endless wars for power, profit and unchallenged global dominance along with governing under a homeland police state apparatus.
Hillary was Washington’s 67th Secretary of State. She served from January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013. She was arguably America’s worst – at least until John Kerry succeeded her.
From 2001 – 2009, she was US Senator from New York. In 2008, she unsuccessfully challenged Obama for the Democrat party’s presidential nomination. She’s back again for another try.
She’s unabashedly pro-war. In January 2014, Time magazine said “(a)s Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war.”
“She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes.”
“In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues – Afghanistan, Libya, and the (staged) bin Laden raid – Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.”
As first lady, she partnered with husband Bill’s high crimes. She urged bombing Yugoslavia. Straightaway post-9/11, she supported waging (phony) war on terror.
She endorses nuclear weapons use. She calls them peacekeeping deterrents. As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she told AIPAC she “stands with Israel now and forever.” She deplores peace and stability. “What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life,” she blustered earlier.
She’s fundamentally against peace, equity and justice. As head of state, perhaps she’ll launch WW III.
She’s a serial liar. Believe nothing she says campaigning. On Saturday, she officially launched it with a large New York City rally after previous smaller events in early primary states.
Her remarks were a litany of Big Lies – polar opposite of her agenda, claiming she supports:
“equality of opportunity:” she’s fundamentally anti-populist;
“jobs for those who can work:” as president she’ll be a jobs destroyer, not creator, continuing the policy of offshoring US jobs to low-wage countries;
“security for those who need it:” she endorses eroding social justice en route to eliminating it altogether;
“the ending of special privilege for the few:” she supports wealth, power and privilege at the expense of popular interests;
“the preservation of civil liberties for all:” she favors the same homeland police state apparatus GW Bush established and Obama hardened;
“a wider and constantly rising standard of living:” she’s for transforming America into a ruler/serf society.
Her claim about wanting to follow in the footsteps of Obama bringing America “back from the brink of Depression” ignored deepening hard times for millions, growing poverty, unemployment and underemployment, a potemkin economy, an unprecedented wealth disparity, and policymakers systematically thirdworldizing America to enrich privileged elites more than already.
She and husband Bill are two of America’s super-rich, profiting from influence-peddling. The Clinton Foundation got millions of dollars from foreign donors in return for $165 billion in arms sales when Hillary was Secretary of State.
American Jobs Alliance communications director Curtis Ellis explained “(i)f you want a favor from one of the Clintons, whether it be Bill or Hillary, in one of her positions as senator or secretary of state, what you do is you donate money to the Clinton Foundation.”
“I would describe this as a classic corrupt deal. This is conflict of interest at the highest levels.”
Poll numbers show her unfavorable ratings at a seven-year high. Perhaps most telling is trustworthiness.
A new CNN/ORC poll shows growing numbers don’t trust her – 57% up from 49% in March. Around half those polled say she doesn’t care about people or inspire confidence.
“In head-to-head match-ups against top Republicans, her margin is tighter than it has been at any point in CNN/ORC’s polling on the contest,” the news outlet said.
At the same time, no Republican aspirant so far emerged dominant. At least seven candidates are closely bunched in polls, including Jeb Bush.
Clinton’s support among Democrats and independents dropped nine points since April. Lots of issues dog her – including conducting official business as secretary of state through her personal email account on an unsecured server in her home.
False! Revelations of secretly using her personal email server for official state business alone exposed her. So did her claims about being instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Negotiators involved said she was nowhere to be seen. Her claim about leaving the White House in January 2001 dead broke, “struggl(ing)” to make ends meet, belies reality.
She and Bill began making millions straightaway. She was directly involved in the official coverup of the September 2012 US Benghazi, Libya diplomatic compound attack killing American ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, foreign service information management officer Sean Smith and two CIA operatives.
An Accountability Review Board concluded:
“Systemic failures and leadership management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”
As a 2008 presidential aspirant, Hillary lied about landing in Tuzla, Bosnia with daughter Chelsea under hostile sniper fire.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” she claimed. We “were told to run to our cars with our heads down.”
False! Western news outlets accompanying her had video footage showing no signs of danger when she arrived. She lied claiming otherwise.
As Secretary of State, one of her jobs was resetting relations with Russia. Last year, she outlandishly compared Putin to Hitler and Russia to Nazi Germany.
It bears repeating. She represents the worst of America’s dark side – imperial ruthlessness at home and abroad perhaps worse than ever if she’s elected president in November 2016.
Stephen Lendman, globalresearch.ca

Pentagon paying ISIS-linked ‘rebels’ $400 per month to ‘eventually’ fight Assad

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 26.06.2015 | 09:36
 
The Pentagon announced Monday that it has begun paying “moderate” Syrian rebels up to $400 per month to fight ISIS and eventually the Syrian government.
The program, deemed “critical” by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, aims to equip as many as 5,400 fighters within the next 12 months, reports USA Today.
According to Pentagon spokeswoman Elissa Smith, roughly 6,000 Syrians have already expressed interest in the program, with more than half preparing to be vetted.
The program has reportedly taken months to move forward due to a lack of fighters willing to “adhere to laws of war and pledge to conduct themselves properly.”
The announcement raises several red flags given recently declassified Pentagon documents confirming Western governments’ regional support of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization now deceptively labeled “moderate.”
In reality, as stated by USA Today, the alleged fight against ISIS, another group with documented ties to the West, is merely about creating an opposing force to bring down the Assad government.
“Their primary mission will be to protect their towns and villages from ISIL fighters,” USA Today states. “Eventually, they are also envisioned to become a viable opposition to the regime of President Bashar Assad.”
As admitted by retired four-star General Wesley Clark in 2007, the overthrow of Syria has been a goal of the Pentagon since at least 2001.
Clark’s comments dismantle the “civil war” talking point pushed by Western media, which alleges that so-called “rebels” spontaneously rose up against Assad without US influence.
Knowledge of this fact has even become a detriment to ISIS recruitment, as jihadists refuse to join the terror group due to its ties to the Obama administration and Western intelligence.
Desperate to keep radicals in the fight, the US recently accused Assad of supporting ISIS in the toppling of his own country, a major narrative shift which aims to shape public opinion.
infowars.com
 
Tags: Pentagon Iraq Syria US

The Failure of Obama Policy: A State of Middle East Anarchy 

There was much speculation and angst in Western capitals at the time that the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973 could trigger a direct US-USSR Super-Power confrontation in the desert of Sinai, leading to a Third World War, unimaginable in the nuclear age. For a moment, it looked as if that just might happen with America intervening to protect Israel and Russia intervening to strengthen its ally, Egypt. The Middle East today finds itself engulfed in a moment even more precarious and dangerous than those autumnal days forty two years ago... 

Matthew JAMISON | 24.06.2015

The Failure of Obama Policy: A State of Middle East Anarchy 

Matthew JAMISON | 24.06.2015 | 00:00
 
There was much speculation and angst in Western capitals at the time that the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973 could trigger a direct US-USSR Super-Power confrontation in the desert of Sinai, leading to a Third World War, unimaginable in the nuclear age. For a moment, it looked as if that just might happen with America intervening to protect Israel and Russia intervening to strengthen its ally, Egypt. The Middle East today finds itself engulfed in a moment even more precarious and dangerous than those autumnal days forty two years ago. 
The region resembles Europe circa 1914, a tinder keg waiting to explode. Who will history cast as the Middle East Archduke Ferdinand? The Obama administration bears a lot of the responsibility for the chaos we are witnessing in the Middle East today. President Obama's Middle East policy and geo-politico-security strategy is in tatters, a mess at best and an abject failure at worst. With the clock ticking in Washington DC on a Presidential transfer of power scheduled for January 2017, Mr. Obama has little time to arrest the decline in American authority, prestige and influence in the region's capitals. 
The spectacular shattering of American policy and leadership in the region has not been fully comprehended by European and North American commentators and analysts. This American unravelling in the sands of Arabia has created a sinister vacuum which radical, extremist forces such as ISIS have rushed in to fill. From the halcyon days in June 2009 of a newly elected, fresh, young and idealistic liberal Democrat President - and the United States first Government led by an African-American - President Barack Obama sought to chart a new course in relations with the Muslim and Arab world with his reformist and thoughtful 'Cairo' speech. No longer would the Bush neo-conservative doctrine of American exceptionalism, aggressive unilateralism and militarist agitation - pioneered by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - hold sway in the Obama White House. 
The Obama administration sought to work with local, organic actors in Middle East countries, actors viewed with suspicion by the previous Bush administration, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Obama Middle East plan was to attempt to moderate and co-opt the parties of political Islam into a democratic process, establish cooperative relations with such forces, expose them to American and internationalist pressures and leverage and see once marginalised but popular entities such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood encouraged into Government with democratic legitimacy, ultimately, hopefully to be integrated and tamed within the democratic and international system thus reformed and encouraged to be responsible, sensible, moderate regional power actors. That was the theory. 
Meanwhile, a central plank of then Senator Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign was his Democratic Party foreign policy platform built on his immediate 2002 opposition to the Iraq War and a pledge to end the war in Iraq and pull out the remaining US troops. He campaigned heavily on this issue as his symbol of a decisive, new foreign policy from the neoconservative and nationalist Bush years. His early opposition to the Iraq War was a major element which contributed to Senator Obama's surprise victory over former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, since he had been against the Iraq intervention of 2003 from the beginning he seemed more authentic on taking an anti-war stand. It also acted like a magnet attracting the support of young, idealistic college students disillusioned with the debacle in Iraq and a state of quasi never-ending war under George W. Bush. When it came to the Middle East and US foreign policy in general Mr. Obama used every speech and interview to lambast the Bush doctrine and neo-conservatism. 
Yet, assessing the state of the Middle East nearly seven years on from the start of the Obama Presidency, it is hard to say the security and political situation regionally has improved much since January 20th 2009. The US administration, White House foreign policy apparatus and National Security Council seem completely out of their depth when it comes to the Middle East. A frequent retort from Arab and Israeli alike is that the Obama national security team do not have great expertise or nuanced understanding of Middle Eastern affairs, contributing to an unstable and incoherent 'phantom zone' of serious and powerful security challenges; from the emergence of the barbaric and unconscionable ISIS beholden to a medieval ideology of hatred and the spread of an even more vicious, fanatical Islamist fundamentalist terrorism equipped with a sophisticated army and array of weaponry and money; to the gestating ISIS hybrid fundamentalist Islamic terrorist state of eastern Syria and northern Iraq, dissolving the sovereign border between the two nation-states; to the collapse of Iraq itself and the growth of Iranian influence in Baghdad and beyond; and Yemen with the proxy Sunni versus Shia battle led by the Sunni House of Saud against the Shia Mullahs in Tehran; the humiliating reversal and constant flip flop of US policy in Egypt and the continuing humanitarian nightmare in Assad's Syria alongside the impression of weakness, fecklessness and hesitation President Obama created for himself when he refused to enforce his own red lines against Damascus's chemical WMD usage. Indeed, it became clear how naïve and limited President Obama was over Syria policy in needing a life line from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to save him from his own policy mistakes. 
The National Security Advisor Susan Rice is an Africa specialist with little Middle East credentials while Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power is an academic with a background on genocide and humanitarian intervention. The Defence Secretary Ashton Carter likewise is not a Mid East specialist. There are no Cabinet level classically trained Arabists in the Obama administration.  
The Secretary of State John F. Kerry has been undermined and humiliated with his huge investment of time, energy, politico-diplomatic capital and commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, with little results to show for it. President Obama and his Secretary of State have managed to offend and irritate both the Israelis and Saudis at the same time over the same issue: an Iranian nuclear agreement. The power of the pro-Israel Likud lobby on Capitol Hill has been played skilfully by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Never before has it been so clear in the US-Israeli relationship that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog. 
The reversal over the Obama Syrian Chemical WMD 'red line' in September 2013 destroyed what little credibility President Obama had in the region. By not following through on his own self declared red lines, Obama signalled he was not a serious and iron willed leader, but rather a dither whose word the world could not take seriously. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said to George Bush snr after Saddam Hussein's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, 'This is no time to go wobbly George.' Unfortunately, no such British Prime Minister had the backbone to say this to President Obama and help stiffen his spine. The tangled web which is American Syrian policy was illuminated by the summer of 2014 as a disaster and nothing more than wishful, naïve thinking on the part of a very inexperienced President. 
ISIS forced President Obama to take action in Syria and once again in Iraq, doing what he baulked at doing back in September 2013. The arrival and explosion of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the headlines of the world, caught Obama off guard and made him look like another Democratic President blind sided by Middle Eastern geopolitics, such as when President Jimmy Carter was shocked to learn Iraq had launched an invasion of Iran in 1980. Again, Carter was caught by surprise when Afghanistan was penetrated in 1979. The United States military, by far still the overwhelming dominant and strongest armed forces super power on Earth; has since August 2014 being leading an international and Arab air campaign against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, with little success. 
The gains that ISIS have made in recent weeks in Iraq demonstrates American military policy is not working, and air strikes alone will not stop and halt the advance of Islamic State fighters. Only a large, professional, fierce Arab army could do that, such as the Egyptians. Meanwhile, the avowed US objective of regime change in Syria, with the hoped for expulsion of the Assad regime has still not come to fruition almost 4 years on from it's adoption by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The US lacks an overarching, grand strategy for dealing with Syria. 
So, we have a Middle East torn apart in two key, historic states in the heart of the Levant - Syria & Iraq; we have a simmering cauldron of tensions in Egypt with an upsurge of worrying Islamist inspired attacks in the Sinai peninsula; an open air prison in Gaza and humanitarian disaster occurring there; Shiite insurrection in Yemen played out as a proxy war between the allies of Sunni Islam led by Riyadh and the representatives of Shia Islam, embodied in the Shiite theocracy in Iran; a United States desperate to strike a nuclear bargain and grand deal with Iran while traditional US allies and friends like Israel and the Saudis are incandescent with anger at what they perceive to be an American attempt to re-balance the dynamics of regional relationships with a rebooted and reinvigorated new strategic partnership with a more moderate, restrained and globalised Iran.The Middle East has never been more unpredictable and threatening since the days of the Arab-Israeli wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973. In the age of globalisation this instability and danger could easily spread to all our shores. President Obama has presided over the growth of a security terrorist threat in the Middle East which will make al-Qaida and it's blowback look like a walk in the park compared to the discipline and ruthless, savage fighting talents of ISIS. 
Barack Obama will almost certainly leave office in January 2017 with no Palestinian state; no long term and durable Grand Bargain with Iran; no peace and stability in Syria with a continuing blood bath there and attendant carnage next-door in Iraq. An inter-regional war could be on the horizon but not one between Israel and the Arab states, one between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. He will leave to his predecessor an emboldened, confident Iran intervening regularly in Iraqi affairs vying ever more violently with Saudi Arabia for primacy in the Middle East. 
In many ways, President Obama's positions vis a vis the Middle East is redolent of President Lyndon Johnson's stewardship of the Vietnam War. LBJ left to his successor Richard Nixon a huge albatross in the form of US military involvement on the side of the South Vietnamese government. It took President Nixon and his erstwhile Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to extract American forces, blood and treasure from drainage in the swamps of Vietnam.This time however, Mr.Obama could very well hand over a basket case of a Middle East to a Presidential successor from his own party: his onetime rival and fiercest critic turned loyal foreign policy chief and Secretary of State following on from Dr. Kissinger; Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton. Or his failures in the Middle East could become to his party, what Vietnam became for the Democrats. Imagine if ISIS fighters successful breach American homeland defences and cause another 9/11 style terror attack? As Harold Macmillan used to quip, 'Events, dear boy, events'.

Is this the author of article above????

Matthew Jamison

Position: Consultant Fellow, Business Development
Matthew Jamison is a Consultant Fellow at RUSI.  Prior to that he was a RUSI Associate Fellow specialising in the Middle East.  He was a Founding Director of the foreign policy and human rights think tank, The Henry Jackson Society (HJS). He was educated at Peterhouse, the oldest college of the University of Cambridge, obtaining his BA Hons in History and M.Phil in International Relations specialising in Anglo-American foreign policy and diplomatic history, the British Empire and Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Whilst at Cambridge he was one of the original founding members of HJS serving on the Organising Committee which launched the society and serving as a Founding Director overseeing the creation of the 'Britain in the World' department at HJS. He is part of the Brookings Institution/European Council on Foreign Relations research team which produces the European Foreign Policy Scorecard. His research has been cited in written evidence presented to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on US-UK relations and in academic journals such as the British Journal of Politics and International Relations. He has written extensively on Anglo-American foreign, defence and security policy and has been a contributing author for Humanitarian Intervention: A History published by Cambridge University Press and The British Moment: The Case for Democratic Geo-Politics in the 21st Century published by the Social Affairs Unit.

RUSI articles and analysis by this author

Clinton in AsiaHead of State: Hillary Rodham Clinton's Foreign Policy Legacy 29 Jan 2013
ving dominated American and international politics over the last twenty years and become one of the most famous and powerful women in the world, what is Hillary Rodham Clinton's legacy as Secretary of State as she departs the world stage, for now?
Mitt RomneyHow will Mitt Romney Challenge President Obama on Foreign Policy? 23 Aug 2012
Having secured the Republican Presidential nomination and selected Congressman Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential running mate, Mitt Romney has been sharpening his foreign policy argument against President Barack Obama, setting out a hawkish national security agenda. Yet apart from a difference of style, there seems to be no major difference between the two contenders. 

Turkey and Crimea: the politicised results of a single mission

Alexander GRIGORIEV | 26.06.2015 | 00:00

Zafer Üskül, the head of the unofficial Turkish delegation that visited the Republic of Crimea at the end of April, has shared some of his thoughts with the Anadolu Agency. The Turkish professor’s report contained a number of harsh accusations against the Russian authorities, which he believes are systematically violating the rights of those living on the peninsula. This refers to an alleged violation of citizens’ language, property and personal rights. The findings have apparently been made on the basis of discussions with a wide range of people, and the text produced as a result of the visit was handed to Vladimir Putin by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during a recent meeting between the Russian and Turkish presidents in Baku.
The contents of this document will most likely be widely publicised and creatively developed during the II World Congress of Crimean Tatars set to take place in Ankara between 31 July and 2 August. The decision to hold the congress was made at the beginning of April following a meeting of Crimean Tatar organisations in Turkey unable to ignore the views of their host country’s authorities.
As you know, attempts by Kiev, as well as the US and the European Union, to play the Crimean Tatar card has a fairly long history, but has not yet produced the desired result. All the same, during his visit to Ukraine in March, President Erdogan stated the need for the Crimean Tatar’s situation to be constantly monitored and the willingness of Ankara to continue including the issue on their agenda not just within the framework of bilateral contacts, but in any international format.
In the same month, a Turkish delegation visited Crimea that included the deputy mayors of a number of cities, as well as business and community leaders: the first guests representing the official authorities of a foreign state to visit Russian Crimea. Recently, however, statements by Turkish leaders have been sailing close to the wind. Commenting on Vladimir Putin’s visit to Yerevan on 24 April 2015, for example, Mr. Erdogan sharply criticised Russia’s policy in Ukraine and Crimea, going so far as to compare it with the actions of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Kuwait.
Nevertheless, with a desire to develop friendly and good-neighbourly relations with Turkey based on the utmost respect for the interests of its partner, Russia cooperated with the requests of its southern neighbour interested in the situation on the peninsula. The request for a monitoring mission to visit Crimea was granted, and granted without any kind of trade-off such as a request for a similar Russian group to visit the unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan, Diyarbakır. The unofficial (and this word is worth emphasising) Turkish delegation made up of scientists, human rights activists, retired deputies from the Justice and Development Party and academics from several universities, the declared aim of which was to monitor the situation of the Crimean Tatars in Crimea, travelled from Kiev to Simferopol through Moscow on 27 April and stayed on the peninsula until 30 April.
During their three-day stay in the autonomous region, members of the delegation held meetings with public authorities, including the leaders of the Qirim movement and the Mufti of Crimea. Naturally they also had to have dinner with representatives of the so-called Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. The head of this de jure non-existent organisation, Refat Chubarov, stated that «the Turkish government agreed the international and legal aspects of the visit beforehand with the president of Ukraine» and «the possibility of sending a Turkish delegation, the goals, objectives and reporting of its work was discussed with the national leader of the Crimean Tatar people, Mustafa Dzhemilev, and the chairman of the Mejlis». According to the first deputy chairman of the Mejlis, Nariman Dzhelyal, the Turkish delegation was told about human rights violations in Crimea, including the infringement of the rights of Crimean Tatars. After commenting that «for someone visiting Crimea and walking around the streets of Crimea’s towns and cities, it would seem on the surface that everything is normal, people are working, there are Crimean Tatars running businesses and so on», Dzhelyal countered this with some vague fears and concerns. All of this was repeated in full to the head of the monitoring mission, who also complained that he had allegedly been pressured.
Mr. Üskül’s public statements have not been ignored by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which has consistently been working on strengthening relations between Russia and Turkey. However, it seems that not every representative of Turkey’s political elite understands that any dialogue is a two-way street. «The opinions expressed by the head of the delegation cannot but cause regret and disappointment. An emphasis was placed on negative aspects alone that are untrue and based on information obtained from private conversations with persons who can hardly voice the opinion of the majority of Crimean Tatars», noted the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department. «We are surprised that after visiting the peninsula, the delegation members still failed to see anything positive. It is absolutely clear that the head of the delegation offered a lopsided presentation of the facts, which was evidently performed as a result of external pressure», said the Russian Foreign Ministry.
However, this «lopsided presentation» is completely understandable if you fully appreciate the destructive position of the kind of people Mr. Üskül spoke to such as the leaders of the self-proclaimed Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, which has absolutely no kind of legal political status. It should be remembered that long-standing problems of the Crimean Tatars like the land issue were never resolved in the many years that Crimea was part of Ukraine in favour of short-term ambitions and self-serving interests. More importantly, attempts by Mustafa Dzhemilev and Refat Chubarov, frequent guests not just in Washington and Europe but Ankara as well, to drag the Crimean Tatars into their extremely dangerous political games fraught with interethnic conflicts have alienated the vast majority of their own people. Attempted acts of provocation on Crimea’s borders have finally placed the Mejlis’ activities beyond the reach of Russian legislation. The display of self-exposure was completed by the public joy in connection with Kiev’s attempts to organise energy, water and other blockades against Crimea (including the Tatar population, of course, the object of Kiev’s demagogic ‘concern’). Incidentally, for some reason Kiev’s closure of the North Crimean Canal, which affected a large number of Crimean Tatar farmers, did not give rise to any angry statements from the Turkish Foreign Ministry...
At present, despite illegal sanctions and systemic financial and economic pressure, the Crimean government is taking steps aimed at creating a safe environment for conducting business, including by Turkish businessmen. Issues such as the preservation of national culture and language are gradually being resolved. This is in keeping with the aim of strengthening bilateral relations between Russia and Turkey in trade, economic and humanitarian spheres, although the specific interest in «human rights violations» in Crimea is hindering this constructive work. By a strange coincidence, it acquired new dimensions right after the national and government status of the autonomy changed following the results of the national referendum held on 16 March 2014 in full accordance with international law.
It should be noted here that the practice of holding referendums is not something unknown, including in the history of the Turkish Republic. On 2 September 1939, for example, the national assembly of the Sanjak of Alexandretta, located within what was the French Mandate of Syria, proclaimed the independent Republic of Hatay. Sometime later, following a national referendum, Hatay became a Turkish vilayet, resulting in the exodus of many Arabs and Armenians (and it should be noted in brackets that these numbered far more than the amount of Crimean Tatars who resettled in Ukraine after March 2014). 
The threat (explicit or imaginary) to the Turkish minority in Cyprus laid the foundations for the occupation of a significant proportion of the island by Turkish forces, resulting in numerous casualties, flows of refugees and the start of a long-standing conflict that is still going on today. And what Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, either at the suggestion of his friends from NATO or the leaders of the Mejlis, refers to as «the annexation of Crimea» also passed peacefully, if you don’t count those Crimeans who became the victims of Maidan militants near the Korsun Cherkasy region and the victims of several acts of provocation directly within the autonomy itself...
But let us leave aside the peculiar nuances of each specific case and look more closely at the unmistakable harm being caused by the use of double standards when it comes to establishing genuine good-neighbourly relations. As you know, the «zero problems with neighbours» policy announced by Ahmet Davutoğlu has failed in recent years. Clearly a Russian-Turkish dialogue, which will almost certainly continue to be subjected to systemic pressure linked to the desire of the authorities of the neighbouring state to develop comprehensive ties with the Russian Black Sea regions (by no means as much as with Crimea) will be rather complex.
Moscow understands the complexity of the dilemma facing Turkish politicians, although everyone needs to resolve their own problems based on their own understanding of their national interests. Pragmatic and responsible partners have to choose what is more important to them: the irresponsible escapades of self-proclaimed «national leaders» (even if they do have a kindred language and Turkish medals in parade photographs) or the stable and progressive development of relations with a country like Russia.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/06/26/turkey-crimea-politicised-results-single-mission.html
Tags: Crimea Russia Turkey Dzhemilev

Turkey’s Troubling War on Syria

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 26.06.2015 | 09:40

The June 7 parliamentary election in Turkey could have a huge impact on the conflict in Syria. The invincible image of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been cracked. There is a real chance that the election might lead to substantive change in Turkish foreign policy promoting the war in Syria.
Even though Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the most votes, they lost their majority in parliament and must now find a coalition partner, as Turkey’s new parliament was seated for the first time on June 23. Now begins the political bargaining and negotiations to form a governing coalition.
Depending on the outcome, Turkey may stop or seriously restrict the flow of weapons and foreign fighters through its territory into Syria. If Turkey does this, it would offer a real prospect for movement toward negotiations and away from war in Syria. Why? The Syrian war continues because Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the U.S., France, the UK and others are spending billions of dollars annually to fund the armed opposition and sustain the war in violation of the UN Charter and international law.
Closely allied with Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey has been the primary path for weapons and foreign fighters in Syria. ISIS has depended on export of oil and import of weapons and fighters through Turkey.  Al Qaeda’s Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and other armed opposition groups have depended on weapons and foreign fighters coming in via Turkey for attacks on northern Syria including Syria’s largest city, Aleppo.
The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:
–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video “Syria: Wolves of the Valley”: “Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary.”
–Turkey’s intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.
–Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.
–Turkey’s foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recordedplotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.
–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.
–Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This has led to the recent assaults by thousands of foreign fighters on Idlib and Jisr al Shugour in northern Syria. Armed with advanced weaponry including TOW missiles, and using suicide bomb vehicles, the armed groups overran Syrian armed forces defending both cities. The assaults were facilitated by Turkey jamming and disrupting Syrian radio communications.
–Turkey has facilitated travel into northern Syria by extremist mercenaries from all parts of the globe including Chechen Russians, Uyghur Chinese, Europeans, North Africans, South Asians including Indonesians and Malaysians. The assault on Jisr al Shugour was spearheaded byChinese Uyghur fighters and suicide bombers crossing over from Turkey with tanks and heavy artillery.
–Turkey itself has provided steady supply of recruits to the Islamic State. Like other countries which have had citizens indoctrinated with Wahhabi fanaticism, they have done little or nothing to limit the indoctrination or restrict emigration for ‘jihad’.
–Finally, Turkey has permitted the supply of huge quantities of car bomb ingredients (ammonium nitrate fertilizer) to the Islamic State. On May 4, the New York Times reportedthese shipments at the Turkish border. Sixteen days later ISIS overran Ramadi in an assault that began with 30 car bombs with ten reportedly the size of the Oklahoma City bombing.
–As part of its continuing effort to draw the U.S. and NATO into direct participation in the war on Syria, Turkey is an active player in various propaganda campaigns. For example, the “White Helmets” or “Syrian Civil Defence” are trained and supplied in Turkey. Some of the videos purportedly from Syria are likely filmed in Turkey at their training site. White Helmets and Syrian Civil Defence are both creations of the West and join with Turkey in calling for a “No Fly Zone.”
Turkish Repression
The AKP government has vigorously tried to suppress information about the extent of Turkey’s support of the war on Syria. They have resorted to repression and intimidation such as:
–Turkish authorities have charged four regional prosecutors with attempting to topple the government. Their “crime” was to insist on the inspection of four trucks headed from Turkey to Syria. The trucks contained weapons and ammunition in violation of Turkish law. The trial of the four prosecutors is ongoing, 18 months after the inspection.
–Turkish authorities arrrested seven high ranking military officers over the inspection of trucks taking weapons and fighters to Syria.
–Turkish authorities banned social media and news outlets from reporting on arms shipments through Turkey to Syria. Twitter and Facebook accounts that talked about the shipments where shut down. Erdogan went on to threaten to “eradicate” Twitter.
–Turkish President Erdogan threatened two life-term sentences for the editor of Hurriyet daily newspaper for publicizing support of the armed opposition in Syria by Turkey’s intelligence agency MIT.
–A whistle-blowing MIT (intelligence agency) officer who opposed the agency’s collusion with terrorism in Syria was arrested, convicted and imprisoned. After two years he managed to escape and tell his story. The blockbuster account was broadcast on Turkey’s OdaTV and later translated into English and published here.
Was an American Journalist Murdered?
As seen in the examples above, Turkish AKP authorities have aggressively tried to suppress information on the involvement in Syria. If they have been that aggressive with Turkish journalists, prosecutors and military officers, how far might they go against a foreign journalist working for Iran’s Press TV?
The American-born journalist Serena Shim died just days after she documented the use ofWorld Food Program trucks to transport foreign fighters to the border with Syria and into ISIS territory. After learning that Turkish intelligence was looking for her, Serena Shim was so concerned that she expressed her fear on television.
Two days later, Serena Shim’s car was hit head-on by a cement truck. The driver of the cement truck disappeared but was later found. There are many discrepancies about what happened. The first reports indicated the truck and driver left without stopping. Then the driver and truck were located, and then photos appeared showing a collision.
While some Turkish security services have preemptively exonerated the driver of the cement truck, the local prosecutor has filed charges against the driver, accusing him of causing death through negligence. There are many suspicious aspects, not least is the fact that the cement truck’s wheels are angled toward the car, not away as one would expect with a vehicle trying to avoid collision.
The death of American journalist Serena Shim, and her factual investigative reporting on Syria and Turkey, stands in sharp contrast with the sensational media accounts about the “kidnapping” of NBC reporter Richard Engel. That event turned out to be a hoax contrived by “rebels” to manipulate American political opinion.
With the complicity of individual reporters and mainstream media, the fraud was successful. The bias in mainstream western media is further demonstrated by the almost complete media silence about the death of Serena Shim and her important journalistic work.
Turkey’s Election
For the past 13 years, Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) has had majority control of Turkey’s parliament. In the recent election, AKP’s share of the popular voted plummeted 10 percent and they lost their parliamentary majority. The results are a clear rebuff to Erdogan and AKP policies.
Sixty percent of voters went against AKP, splitting the vote among the three alternative parties. The pro-Kurdish and Leftist People’s Democratic Party (HDP) burst onto the scene capturing 13 percent of the votes and equaling the number of parliamentary seats captured by the rightist and anti-Kurdish National Movement Party (MHP). The main opposition party is the social democratic Republican Peoples Party (CHP) with 26 percent of the vote.
Over the coming weeks, AKP will try to form a coalition government with one or more of the alternate parties.  However it won’t be easy. The natural bedfellow would be the anti-Kurdish and rightist MHP but they are demanding the resumption of a corruption trial against AKP leaders including Erdogan’s son Bilal. That trial would probably lead back to President Erdoganhimself so it seems unlikely AKP will ally with MHP.
The three alternative parties could form a coalition to govern without AKP, but it’s hard to imagine the staunchly anti-Kurdish MHP allying with the pro-Kurdish HDP. If a majority coalition cannot be formed within 45 days, the Turkish constitution requires a rerun of the election.
Even with severe repression and intimidation, the Turkish public is aware of Turkey’s policy supporting war on Syria. One consequence of the war has been almost 2 million immigrant refugees with the dispersal of many throughout Turkey, providing cheap labor and adding significantly to the unemployment problem.
In addition, there have been terrorist attacks in the border region and an escalation of corruption and repression as external money and weapons have flooded the area en route to Syria. The war against Syria has been widely unpopular and played a significant role in the election.
–All the opposition parties called for change in Turkey’s foreign policy.
–Criticism of Erdogan and Davutoglu’s policy even comes from within the AKP membership: “Many believe that one reason for the AKP’s dismal showing in the 2015 elections is its policy on Syria.”
–The head of the main opposition party (CHP) says Turkey will start controlling the border and stop the flood of arms and fighters into Syria.
The coming weeks will indicate how Turkey moves forward: Will AKP manage to form a coalition government with one of the opposition parties? Or will there be another election?
Will Turkey start enforcing the border and stop shipments of arms to the armed opposition as demanded by the leader of the main opposition party? This would be a huge change in the dynamics within Syria. Without a rear base of constant and steady support, the armed opposition would be forced to rely on its own resources rather than those of foreign governments. This armed opposition would quickly wither since they have very little support base within Syria.
Since the election, there are already signs of a shift in the balance. Kurdish forces recently captured ISIS’ important border crossing at Tal Abyad. This has been the main route of weapons, fighters and supplies between Turkey and the Islamic State’s ‘capital’ at Raqqa in eastern Syria.
Past Year and the Future
Thirteen months ago, it looked like the war in Syria was starting to move toward resolution. The last remaining armed opposition in the “capital of the revolution” Homs reached reconciliation and withdrew from the Old City of Homs in May 2014. On June 3, 2014, the election in Syria confirmed substantial support for the government.
Since then, we have seen dramatic changes. On June 10, 2014, ISIS surged through western Iraq and captured the city of Mosul and huge quantities of American armaments including tanks, rockets, humvees, etc. That led to the creation of the “Islamic State” and expansion in eastern Syria including Tabqa Air Base where hundreds of Syrian soldiers and ISIS fighters died.
This past spring saw the coalescing of numerous foreign and Islamist groups into the Jaish al Fatah (Army of Conquest) supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. With high-powered TOW anti-tank missiles and thousands of shock troops they were able to overtake both Idlib and Jisr al Shugour near the Turkish border.
ISIS and the Army of Conquest are both dependent on the Turkish supply line. If that is closed off or seriously restricted, it will dramatically change the situation. With the prospect of losing the base of support in Turkey, will the opposition try something desperate to draw the U.S. and NATO into the conflict directly?
The Turkish people have indicated they want to stop their government’s war on Syria. If their will is respected, it should lead to restricting and stopping the foreign funding and promotion of the conflict. If Turkey stops the flood of weapons and foreign fighters into northern Syria, it will be following instead of violating international law. This will give peace a chance in Syria.
Tags: Middle East Syria Turkey

Autor Alexander Dorin verschwunden - Umständen des Eindringens in Baseler Wohnung ungeklärt

Am 17.06.2015 ist der unerschrockene Srebrenica Autor Alexander Dorin in Basel verhaftet resp. verschwunden
  
Alexander Dorin hat sich der undankbaren Aufgabe verschrieben, all jene brisanten Fakten zusammenzutragen und zu veröffentlichen, die ein völlig anderes Licht auf die Geschehnisse in und um Srebrenica werfen. Mit weitgehend von den Monopolmedien verschwiegenen Aussagen moslemischer Politiker, Beamten und Kriegsveteranen aus Srebrenica zeigt Dorin in seinen Veröffentlichungen eine unbekannte schockierende Perspektive der damaligen Ereignisse auf. Er liefert detaillierte Fakten und brisante Dokumente, wie z.B. als vertraulich eingestufte interne Berichte der bosnisch-moslemischen Armee, die durch verschiedene Wege an die Öffentlichkeit gelangten. Diese zeigen auf, dass jene Männer, die angeblich nach dem 11. Juli 1995 hingerichtet worden sein sollen, die Stadt Srebrenica schon bereits ab dem 10. Juli 1995, vor Eintreffen serbischer Einheiten verlassen haben. Diese Aktion ist ein Hauptakt in dem bitterbösen Theaterstück im Bosnienkrieg und diente der geplanten Inszenierung des propagierten Srebrenica-„Hinrichtungs-Massakers“ – eine Idee aus den USA. Zudem bietet Dorin ein großes Quellenverzeichnis über verschiedene Studien zahlreicher internationaler Journalisten und Autoren. Ebenfalls geht er auf die dubiose und alles andere als rechtstaatliche Rolle des UN-Tribunals  (ICTY- Internationaler Strafgerichtshof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien) ein, sowie auf die gleichermaßen zweifelhafte, von Bill Clinton gegründete Institution ICMP (Internationale Kommission für Vermisste Personen).  (Helga Fuchs)

Wie wir in unserem Mail vom 19.06.2015 informierten, wurden mit Naser Oric und Ramush Haradinaj zwei Verbrecher der Bosnien- und Kosovokriege in der Schweiz und in Slowenien in Auslieferungshaft genommen. Dass sie je an Belgrad ausgeliefert werden ist eher unwahrscheinlich, ihre rechtmässige Verurteilung würde die ganzen Erzählungen des Westens über Jugoslawien auf den Kopf stellen. 
Wie gerade bekannt wurde, wird Naser Oric von der Schweiz an Sarajewo ausgeliefert, wo er nichts zu befürchten hat.

Nun ist bekannt geworden, dass am 17. 06.2015 der unerschrockene Srebrenica Autor Alexander Dorin in Basel verhaftet resp. verschwunden ist!


Wo ist Alexander Dorin?:



Die junge Welt wurde in dieser Sache am 25.06.15 ebenfalls informiert:

Sehr geehrter Herr Schölzel - oder stellvertretende Damen und Herren, 
  
mein Name ist Helga Fuchs. Ich war im April 2001 als Menschenrechtsaktivistin im Kosovo. Mein Engagement galt den Männern der Djakovicagruppe. Seit vier Jahren engagiere ich mich für die Wahrnehmung der wirklichen Ereignisse in Srebrenica und war auch vor Ort. Die Veröffentlichungen von Alexander Dorin haben mich alarmiert. 
  
Am 17.6.2015 wurde der Autor Alexander Dorin unter noch ungeklärten Umständen von Beamten aus seiner Wohnung in Basel geholt. Die Wohnung wurde verwüstet, Parkettböden und Türzargen herausgerissen. Das Schweigen der Presse und die Zurückhaltung der Behörden auf Anfragen von Journalisten und Verleger sind beunruhigend. Sowohl der juristische Vorwand seiner Verhaftung, als auch sein Aufenthaltsort sind weiterhin unklar. Er habe auch keinen Kontakt zu Anwälten. Dorin ist gebürtiger Serbe mit Namen Boris Krljic und besitzt die Schweizer Staatsbürgerschaft. 
  
Auf Anfrage des serbischen Senders Sputnik, erklärte der Sprecher des Schweizer Justizministeriums Folco Galli, dass das Justizministerium nicht in die Verhaftung involviert sei, er jedoch nicht weiß, ob eine andere Polizeiinstanz diesen Einsatz durchgeführt hat. Sputnik wirft den Verdacht auf, dass hier eine unrechtmäßige Aktion stattgefunden hat. 
  

  
In der insgesamt elfteiligen Interview-Reihe mit Alexander Dorin zum Thema “verschwiegene Srebrenica-Wahrheit”, die unlängst das Online-Magazin Pârse & Pârse veröffentlichte, nennt der Autor, der ständig Diffamierungen und Morddrohungen ausgesetzt ist, die wichtigsten Aspekte, die die Srebrenica-Hinrichtungsversion als Massenlüge entlarvt. 
  
Im Januar 2014 veröffentlichte das serbische Online-Portal Vesti Dorins sensationelle Behauptung, dass zwischen 3.000 und 4.000 Muslimen im Juli 1995 nach Serbien geflohen sind. Danach, so erklärte er dem Magazin, hatten sich die Morddrohungen gegen ihn verdoppelt. http://www.vesti-online.com/Vesti/Ex-YU/373784/Istinu-o-Srebrenici--platio-zivotom Der Co-Autor Zoran Jovanovic sollte im Juli 2013 auf seiner Reise nach Serbien Videos empfangen, die diese Flucht zeigten. Dorin hatte Auszüge der Aufnahmen erhalten und deshalb dem Kauf zugestimmt. Zoran starb in der Nacht vom 12. auf den 13. Juli 2013 – die Videos befanden sich nicht bei ihm. 
  
Es ist durchaus möglich, dass Dorin inzwischen an diese Aufnahmen gelangt ist. Auch ist es verwunderlich, dass nur etwa eine Woche vorher der ehemalige moslemische Kommandant Naser Oric, der für zahlreiche Massenverbrechen an der serbischen Bevölkerung verantwortlich ist, in der Schweiz verhaftet wurde. Dazu kommt die von Großbritannien vorbereitete UNO-Resolution zur Verurteilung des Völkermords von Srebrenica. 
  
  
Ich bitte Sie dringend, sich um Aufklärung zu bemühen, denn die Besorgnis um Alexander Dorin wächst.
  
Über eine schnelle Antwort wäre ich Ihnen sehr dankbar! 
  
Mit freundlichen Grüßen 
  
Helga Fuchs