Daniela, sorry that was a sarcastic comment, possibly more at home on the Russia Page.
However, it expressed my frustration at being no longer sure who or what to believe. For instance I am based in Geneva and the university I attend has strong links with the UN, WHO,Red Cross,etc. I have met a lot of people, who are seriously engaged in what they do and believe in what they do. Many work for a lot less renumeration, than they would get if they were in a more commercial sector. This may sound silly and naiv to all those UN-sceptics out there. I suppose what I am saying is that the UN is about more than Kofi Annan and his security councel. We risk losing alot of what is of value by throwing the "baby out with the bathwater".

Then there is Nato. As a European I feel that we are more beholden to the US than we should be. Unfortunately/or not depending where you stand, the EU has been created as a trade zone, not a defence zone. We are at the moment incapable of going it alone without Nato. The deception that this site has exposed (to me at least)is uncomfortable to the extreme. Mainly because there was no need for Nato to deceive us. If we had been told the truth, would it have made any difference?
If we believed in our reasons for the actions Nato took?

I disagree that we do not read anything from the Serbian side. We do here, regularly. Although I would be more interested in hearing what ordinary Serbians have to say. Not Gov. propaganda, and all the conspiracy theory/Nato bashing(at all costs,the truth and common sense be damned)sites. You might as well be listening to Shea.

Kim

Hi Dimitri, how's it going on the other side?

hey ya, Kim,
the other side, ehh? HELL, as usual; come and shhhhhhhhheck it out! :)))
Our mutual friend is taking pathetic attempts to change his identity. His way of escaping, I suppose..
Cheers ;

P.S Did you get my e-mail?

good morning, daniela...

one of the stories in this week's NEWSWEEK would appear to corroborate statements you made, or posted, quite awhile ago, about NATO bombing "success", or lack of same, in yugoslavia.
==
i didnt comment on our last exchange re: elian g. because the subject appeared to have changed.
but i wasnt speaking of where elian might choose to live when he was older. honestly, if (or is that _when_) elian returns to cuba, i wasnt aware he would have the option of choice.

see, my mother fell over dead in the kitchen one night when i was 12.
everything i say in regards to elian g. would be colored by what i experienced.
i dont believe he's realized the depth and breadth of watching his mother drown in front of him. but he'll get older, and he _will_ realize.

maybe his father is a good man who loves his son.
then may his father understand and help elian when the realization comes.
=========
mornin, mum!
please be careful and dont get hurt by (insert expletives) barufi on the russ page.

ps> daniela,

i'm not suggesting "corroboration" was necessarily
necessary [ha-that was deliberate!], but that the
story was now in the mainstream american press.

okay

Date: 2000-05-12
Country: FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SERBIA)
Person(s): David Godfro , Joel Finks, Miroslav Filipovic
Target(s): journalist(s)
Source: ANEM
Type(s) of violation(s): arrested

(ANEM/IFEX) - The following is an ANEM press release:

"SPECIAL SITUATION" DRAWS PLANNED REGIME RESPONSE

BELGRADE, May 10, 2000 - The Association of Independent
Electronic Media expresses the strongest protest and serious
concern at yesterday's arrest of several dozen citizens, including a
large number of journalists in Pozarevac, Novi Sad, Smederevo and
other Serbian cities.

Police detained activists and members of the student movement
Otpor and journalists from the independent media for questioning.

Following the arrest of Miroslav Filipovic, the Kraljevo correspondent
for Belgrade daily Danas, Dutch journalists David Godfro and Joel
Finks, together with their translator Dusko Tubic, were expelled from
Pozarevac later the same night despite having accreditation and
valid working documents.

Shortly after midnight, Beta agency's correspondent in Pozarevac,
Mile Veljkovic, was arrested. Police also detained Veljkovic's brother,
Momcilo, and Radojko Lukovic, Otpor activists who had been
released earlier on Monday after being arrested on May 2 over a
conflict in the town with members of the Yugoslav United Left. Also
detained were Danas journalists Natasa Bogovic and Bojan Toncic
who were in Veljkovic's house at the time.

Later on Tuesday another Danas journalist, Veljko Popovic, was
arrested, together with English journalist Gillian Sandford of the
Guardian, and photographers for Danas and the French agency
Gamma, Imre Szabo, Branko Belic and Dragoljub Zamurovic.

Novi Sad police detained four journalists and 25 activists for
opposition party youth branches and Otpor. These were arrested
while staging a protest under the slogan "Death to Fascism + Down
with Milosevic = Freedom for the Nation". The activists and journalists
reporting on the protest were detained for several hours in the Novi
Sad police headquarters without explanation. Those detained
included Television Montenegro cameraman Bojan Erdeljanovic, two
journalists from Novi Sad's Radio 021, Dragan Gmizic and Zarko
Bogosavljevic, Radio In journalist Jovan Djeric and Radio Free
Europe correspondent Marina Fratucan. The journalists were
arrested for the sole reason that they were doing their job, with no
other explanation from police.

In Smederevo, police arrested a cameraman from RTV Pancevo,
Sergej Bibic and a whole television crew from the Mladenovac offices
of Studio B, Editor-in-Chief Milos Maslaric, journalist Jelena Petrovic,
cameraman Novica Dabic and driver Pavle Jesic. In total, 22
journalists and other media workers were arrested within two days.

ANEM warns the public that yesterday's operation was a planned
response of the regime for dealing with extraordinary situations. In
addition to those arrested, a large number of other journalists were
unable to reach Pozarevac, and in some instances video tape
footage was confiscated. This is tantamount to banning the reporting
of events from the town.

The signals of both Studio B and Radio B2-92 were so heavily
jammed that it was not possible to follow them and problems occurred
on the FreeB92 web site and with mobile telephones. Foreign
correspondents found themselves, for unexplained "technical
reasons", unable to use the editing and transmission facilities of
Radio Television Serbia, which is normal practice.

It is clear that the goal was to allow as little information as possible to
reach the local and international public from media not under the
control of the regime.

ANEM emphasises that it is essential that all independent media and
other democratically oriented forces pool and coordinate their efforts
in order to successfully combat this kind of regime activity because it
is completely clear that similar or worse operations will ensue in any
situation which the authorities regard as critical.

More Information

For further information, contact Veran Matic, Chairperson, or Marija
Milosavljevic at ANEM, Masarikova 5/XVII, 11000 Belgrade, FR
Yugoslavia, tel: +381 361 9228, fax: +381 361 9428, e-mail:
veran.matic@opennet.org, marija@opennet.org, alternate e-mail:
juliab92@xs4all.nl, Internet: http://www.freeb92.net ,
http://www.anem.opennet.org

http://www.ifex.org/alerts/view.html?id=6673

Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM)

Founded in 1993 in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Association of
Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) has been actively engaged in the defence of
the freedom of expression in the country. ANEM's membership criteria is that any
station that expresses interest in joining it and proves that its editorial policy is
independent may join as an affiliate member. Affiliate members will gain the
fully-fledged status after the political, ownership and legal circumstances in the
country improve. In the meanwhile, the mechanism to provide the greatest possible
level of protection against governmental influence, fully-fledged membership of the
association remains at three -- ANEM's founding members Radio B92, Radio Boom
93 and Radio Television Bajina Basta.

ANEM is funded from donations. Some of its most prominent supporters are the
Fund for an Open Society, Yugoslavia, the Open Society Institute, Budapest/New
York, USAID, the European Commission, Brussels, Press Now, Amsterdam, The
British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, IREX, Balkan Committee Dordrecht,
Friedrich-Neuman Stiftung, the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, the
Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Reporters Sans Frontiers, the Westminster
Foundation for Democracy, the Fund for Central and East European Book Projects,
Amsterdam, UNHCR, SIDA, Sweden.

While ANEM's site at home is banned, more details on Radio B92 and ANEM's
activities and campaigns for freedom of expression are available at
http://helpb92.xs4all.nl , or http://www.freeb92.net .

ANEM also belongs to the Committee to Protect Independent Media in FR
Yugoslavia -- Free 2000. More info can be found at
http://www.free2000.opennet.org .

Contact:


Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM)
Masarikova 5/XVII
11000 Belgrade
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Phone/fax: ++381 361 9228 / 361 9428
E-mail: veran.matic@opennet.org, marija@opennet.org,
WWW: http://www.anem.opennet.org , or http://www.freeb92.net


http://www.ifex.org/members/anem/
http://www.ifex.org/about/
http://www.ifex.org/

Yugoslavia Freedom of the press has been under attack in Yugoslavia since the
adoption of a new Law on Public Information in October 1998, which introduced the
supposition of guilt of any media charged with ill-defined ?misdemeanors;? bans the
rebroadcast of foreign transmissions in Serbian and minority languages; requires
prior permission of any person whose voice, name, or image is used in a report;
introduces exorbitant fines against media convicted of misdemeanors; and disallows
adequate opportunity for media to defend themselves against charges. If a media
outlet fails to pay a fine levied against it, the fine may be replaced with a jail
sentence of up to 60 days. Since the law passed, more than 30 separate charges against
media outlets have been filed, leading to fines totaling nearly two million dollars. At
least three independent newspapers and ten radio and television stations have been
forced to close. The independent media were further curtailed by the Kosovo conflict,
which the Milosevic government used as an excuse to continue the crackdown. Most
foreign media were expelled from Kosovo in March, leaving few independent
observers to the conflict. On the day before the NATO bombing campaign began, the
independent Belgrade B-92 radio station was seized and shut down by government
forces. About a month later, it reopened under pro-Milosevic management. The
original B-92 staff returned to the airwaves three months later as B2 92. On April
11, Slavko Curuvija, the publisher of the opposition Dnevni Telegraf, was gunned
down outside his Belgrade apartment after a series of threats and incidents of
harassment by authorities. Several prominent independent journalists were the
victims of assassination attempts. Owners of printing companies have been fined and
prosecuted as well. In Kosovo, the Albanian journalists Baton Haxhiu and Veton
Surroi were implicitly threatened with death in a KLA publication after decrying
Albanian attacks against the Serb population.
13 14 8 5 81
13 12 11 5 NF

http://www.freedomhouse.org/pfs2000/reports.html #top
http://www.freedomhouse.org/pfs2000/
Freedom of Press survey 2000

I have no idea "press freedom" in Yugoslavia has anything to do with the bombing of the named country ? Kim, is that why NATO bombed those civilians ?
What is your point?
That the state press is wrong, but NATO financed one isn't?
Do you have any idea how much one can earn working for the UN,
plus, not to pay tax on it.

p.s. Geneva as a part of Switzerland is not in EU, right?

I forgot to ask you, Kim, or should I assume that you are familiar
with the whole "Rambouillet deal" (which was the main reason of the
attack on the civillian targets in Serbia )?

Which posts on this board are from the Serbian government sources ?!

Hum, Daniela so many questions.

The Nato financed press? What's that?
You have previously stated that CNN are "run by the US army". I am in the process of questioning who and what to believe.
I thought an international survey based on fact not speculation might interest someone here.
That article was written by journalists from Serbia, not the western press.

Access to Web sites in Serbia is controlled by the Gov. But I was thinking in particular of sites like "Welcome to Serbia"- with which we have been plagued on the Russia board.

I am familiar with the Rambouillet deal, I believe there is an extensive post somewhere above on the subject- not sure of your reasoning that it was "the main reason for bombing civilians".
Civilians dying didn't seem to bother anyone in the Yugoslav gov. before Nato got there. That the bombing campaign was a fiasco we know. I not sure the intentions behind it were so misplaced. I also question the intentions of those who placing a self-intersted,Dictator, who incited hatred against non-Serbs from the safety of Belgrade, while his henchmen did the dirty work elsewhere on a pedestal. Is this the best way to change the institutions they are attacking?

Working for the UN is not so well payed as you might think- I'm not sure what you are getting at re Switzerland not being in the EU. To avoid further confusion - I study at Geneva Uni, but live just over the border in France.(Residence permits are difficult to come by in Switzerland)
However who do you think Switzerland's main trading partners are? And we in Europe still do not have a viable alternative to Nato.

International civil servants pay income tax


Contrary to popular belief, all international civil servants working in UN organizations pay a
tax on their income which is called staff assessment. It simply goes under another name and is
deducted at source. Since the levy is directly comparable to a national income tax, FICSA proposes that
it be renamed 'UN income tax'.

The tale, however, does have another twist. Despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly's
decision that international civil servants should not pay tax to any national government, some countries
still tax the salaries of their nationals working in the UN common system. As a countermeasure, staff
assessment is paid into a special fund that is used to reimburse staff members who pay national income
tax; the balance remaining is credited to Member States in proportion to their contribution to the budget
of the UN organizations. Staff assessment ensures that the net salary of staff members liable to pay
national tax is the same as the net salary of those not liable.

For the biennium 1996-1997, it is estimated that some $800 million in staff assessment funds was
credited to Member States.

compuserve.com/homepages/FICSA_Secretariat_Geneva/

FICSA NEWSLETTER OCTOBER 1997 Page 1


An Open Letter to the United Nations General Assembly


Dear Member States,

As you have indicated, the process of reform of the United Nations is a unique opportunity to prepare
the organization for the task of confronting current and future challenges more effectively. It offers an
opportunity to reflect upon and determine the type of United Nations that humankind will need
tomorrow. The choices that you are asked to make in this context will have an important impact on the
way in which the new instruments adopted within the framework of reform will be applied. They will
have an equally significant impact on those who will be responsible for putting those instruments into
effect: the civil servants of the UN system. It is thus indispensable that they too be able to participate
in that ongoing reflection and make their contribution. The success of reform will depend equally on
the degree of involvement by staff. This is the source of staff's concerns and it has led to the
suggestions that follow.

Until recently, reform was primarily presented as a means of securing economies and achieving
reductions of many different kinds (budgets, posts, etc.). While reform is an opportunity for the
international community to equip itself with the instruments it needs to deal with current and future
challenges, it also offers a unique opportunity to conduct a fundamental review of mechanisms that
were originally geared towards achieving other objectives, to introduce concepts better suited to our
times and to improve efficiency and effectiveness. It is clear that the reform of the system cannot lead
to its weakening; that would lead to drastic cuts in development programmes and in turn to an increase
in tension and conflict throughout the world. If it is to carry out its role fully and effectively at the
global level, the United Nations needs to be reinforced. This means strengthening human resources and
endowing the organization with a sufficient number of staff who are highly qualified and motivated,
capable of bringing the support required to those in need.

What are the stakes at the end of this century and the beginning of the next millennium? The Human
Development Report (1997) is explicit in this regard:

"... a quarter of the world's people remain in severe poverty. In a global economy of $25 trillion,
this is a scandal - reflecting shameful inequalities and inexcusable failures of national and
international policy.
(...) Reducing poverty and inequality would help avert many conflicts."

Eradication of absolute poverty and the economic, social, cultural, industrial and other forms of
development across vast regions of the planet are undoubtedly the main challenges. For humankind
will find itself in great peril if it is not capable of re-establishing the essential equilibrium in terms of
food, the environment and human development, of making a united response to the problems inherent
in globalization, and of fighting to the extent possible against structural imbalances and unacceptable
inequalities, all of which are factors that threaten world peace.

The United Nations system, whose most valuable trump cards are its neutrality, its moral authority
and uncontested legitimacy, constitutes an irreplaceable instrument for making these responses. It
cannot be permitted to ignore this occasion to affirm its vocation to aid development. Yes, the task is
enormous but it is equal to the measure of the planet we want to bequeath to future generations. For
nothing imposes fatalism - whether the idea that the poor, or the victims of conflict, are necessary, or
the conviction that progress is inevitable - because we discover new approaches to new problems only
with a realistic, visionary and responsible attitude, the same attitude that must be used to reform the
UN system.

Seen in that context certain reform proposals are aimed in the right direction. Others, however, are
cause of great concern to staff who are deeply convinced of the need to reform the system but to make
it of even greater service to humankind - not to a particular Member State or private interests.

compuserve.com/homepages/FICSA_Secretariat_Geneva/

An Open Letter to the United Nations General Assembly
(cont'd)


First and foremost it is an issue of principles, rights and values. Reform should be synonymous with
improvement and progress, not with regression. Yet how is the illegitimate new Code of Conduct that
is being imposed on UN staff in the framework of reform to be understood, if not as a sign of
returning to a long-lost past when the most fundamental rights were flouted? Can this repressive Code
of Conduct, which violates freedom of expression and association and the right to privacy, be called
progress? The proposed new Code of Conduct is even more incomprehensible at a time when measures
are being proposed to assure the respect of human rights. Staff find it quite inconceivable that the
Community of Nations could adopt a Code of Conduct violating the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (whose 50th anniversary will be celebrated next year) that reflects the values on which our
civilization is founded.

Another major issue concerns human resources in the UN system. To achieve its objectives, the UN
system has always relied on highly qualified, efficient and devoted staff. Unfortunately, for several
years now, the system has progressively lost its capacity to recruit, and retain, highly qualified staff,
owing to the lack of competitivity determining the conditions of service. At the same time, lack of job
security within the system (suppression of posts, a greater number of temporary appointments and
similar developments) has considerably increased. In the medium term, this trend will contribute to
diminishing the institutional capabilities of the UN system in areas in which it has made some
remarkable achievements. Skills and capabilities have permitted humanity to make fundamental
progress in many areas: combating poverty and disease, promoting peace and human rights, furthering
culture and education, industry, telecommunications, agriculture and science. Only the adoption of
measures aimed at ensuring jobs and the competitivity of conditions of service for UN system staff,
and not the opposite, will permit the system to preserve and strengthen its major assets.

At the same time, UN system staff should benefit from equitable conditions of employment and
should have the right to negotiate those conditions directly, similar to the rights enjoyed in nearly
every country of the world. As incomprehensible as it may seem, UN staff have always been refused
this right, despite the fact that it is recognized in international labour conventions. Does this mean that
United Nations' workers should not have the same rights as other workers throughout the world? That
human and labour rights shall not apply to them? Isn't it strange to adhere to practices in the UN
system that have long been eliminated in almost all Member States? Reform should also provide an
opportunity for the system to rid itself of obsolete concepts and methods that no longer reflect
contemporary thinking. Recognition of the right to negotiate their conditions of service is more than a
moral imperative for international civil servants.

At present, the conditions of service of UN system staff are determined by the International Civil
Service Commission (ICSC). The Commission is increasingly questioned within the system, by staff
and administrations alike, because it violates systematically the most elementary rules of consultation,
not hesitating to misrepresent reality and manipulate information. As a result, decisions based on
political, not technical, considerations are taken much to the detriment of the effectiveness of the
system. In his report on reform, the United Nations Secretary-General recalls the importance of
Article 101 (3) of the Charter of the United Nations and stresses that it is "essential that the staff of
the United Nations be fairly compensated and that their conditions be determined in an objective
manner". To this end, he has recommended a "re-examination of the composition, mandate and
functioning of the Commission to contribute to the success of reform measures being undertaken by
the organizations of the common system".

It is clear that the improvement of the effectiveness of the United Nations system requires an in-depth
reform of ICSC. The establishment of a mechanism that is more transparent, democratic, equitable
and responsible is called for. Above all else, it must represent and take fully into consideration the
interests of all parties - Member States, organizations and staff. Moreover, this will put the United
Nations on the side of the law: laws which it itself has adopted on labour and collective bargaining.

Reform should also provide an opportunity to fill in the gaps: one of the most shocking being the
system's failure to evacuate local staff in the event of a major conflict.

In the field, UN system staff, whose remarkable accomplishments benefit the Member States'
populations, are increasingly exposed to the risks arising from conflict and insecure situations.
Unfortunately, during serious conflicts that affect an entire country, the system refuses to evacuate
local staff, often under the pretext that evacuation on that scale would use up important financial
resources. This attitude has already cost the lives of many staff members and their families, notably in
Rwanda. It is unacceptable that the system applies two sets of rules when the lives of its staff are
endangered.

It is incumbent upon us to honour the memory of and pay tribute to staff who have lost their lives in
the service of the United Nations. However many thousand times more preferable would it be if the
organization did not have to render this kind of tribute. The solution lies in adopting measures and
equipping the system with the necessary means to ensure the security of all staff in the field, including
local staff. It is time that the United Nations stopped giving the impression in the field of an
organization on two tracks with double standards. It must agree to evacuate local staff when the
situation calls for it.

Staff are also concerned by the strengthening of ties between the UN system and the private sector,
which generally has neither the same vocation nor the same goals as the UN. The participation of the
private sector is doubtless important. It is also desirable provided it is transparent and defined within a
clearly established conceptual framework, otherwise it risks creating serious problems. In the era of
globalization, the large multinational corporations, whose only goal is profit are extending their
empire in every sector of the global economy. Giving them free rein in the UN system, whose major
objective should be aid to development more than ever before, could prove counterproductive not only
for the system but also, and especially, for the populations of the poorest countries.

In other respects, strengthening cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions, while being highly
desirable, should be predicated on their initiating in-depth reform. All too often their procedures and
programmes which are directly linked to the economic and social difficulties encountered by
developing countries, create a tarnished image for the United Nations.

In the era of globalization, the United Nations system is the only body capable of facing the growing
challenges confronting humankind, of defending the weakest from those who do not subscribe to
humanitarian, ethical or moral ideals for whom only the bottom line counts. This is why the staff of
the UN system fully support Member States' efforts to reform the system. The concerns expressed
above should be seen as a constructive contribution to the ongoing reflection, so that the opinions of
all concerned can be considered, thus strengthening the reform efforts.

Staff are proud to serve in a system that has brought so much to humankind. They urge most sincerely
the success of reform in a visionary perspective, so that further down the road, it will not be necessary
to reverse decisions taken today. The Community of Nations cannot allow itself the luxury of making
the wrong choices at such a pivotal moment in the history of humankind.

Walter P. Scherzer, FICSA President

Alvaro Durao, FICSA General Secretary

compuserve.com/homepages/FICSA_Secretariat_Geneva/

mornin', mum!

egads, so much to read....
i'll need more coffee.

well, i'll need the coffee _anyway_, but...

Mornin' Hon,

Sorry those links didn't come up right:
http://www.ficsa.org/

Surely you've learned to Skim read after how long at DMS????:0)
Will limit length in future(Until you're on your fifth cup.)

Kim