Bunkers to Ballot-Boxes

Schwerter zu Plugscharen!

unter diesem Motto aus Mi 4,1–4 EU steht der Bericht meiner Langzeitwahlbeobachtung der albanischen Parlamentswahlen vom 25.06.2017. Er beinhaltet:

  1. Wahlmissionen der OSZE
  2. Albaniens politische Landschaft des Postkommunismus
  3. Die Wahlen
  4. Ausblick

Das witzigste an dem Land sind die Bunker. Über 200.000 sollten gezählt werden können. Man sieht sie am Strassenrand oder in jedem Garten, auf den Bergkuppen oder am Meerestrand. Die wenigstens waren jemals zu irgendwas nütze. Ein paar wenige sind als Marienkäfer verziehrt, oder wie dieser hier, begrünt. Die meisten stehen verlassen… “auf einem Bein,” tönt es aus dem Kinderzimmer…

Die griechisch-orthodoxe Kirche, von der aus dieses Panoramabild von Lezhe aufgenommen wurde, symbolisiert zweierlei: Zum einen glänzt sie mit ihrer ständigen Verschlossenheit. Die Lethargie der Menschen ist erstaunlich. Zum anderen zeichnet sie den Weg Griechenlands vor. Orthodoxie gibt´s nicht in Albanien, und wenn, dann wäre Albanien serbisch-orthodox und nicht griechisch. Dort verkaufte der europäische Kern Infrastrukturprojekte, die niemand braucht.

Regionalisieren: Westbalkan; Bildungsarbeit, Arbeiterbildungsvereine, das pan-/transeuropäische-regionale Eisenbahnnetzwerk, hobos g/locales

7 Comments

  1. Pingback: Asyl #vor Tourismus – Icke's Kollektiv

  2. Lieber R.,

    Hab mir das jetzt mal alles näher angeschaut und stimme mit Dir überein, dass die Kritik an der Wahlbeobachtung auf der Krim überzogen und deplatziert ist.

    Sicherlich können alle Aktivitäten des Russischen Staats als „illegal“ betrachtet werden, wenn man die Realitäten nicht anerkennt. Deshalb kann die Ukraine (und auch die EU?) sagen, dass jeder Besuch, der nicht von den Ukrainischen Behörden sanktioniert ist, illegal ist. Aber übrigens nicht die OSZE! Als Brückenbauer zwischen Ost und West während des Kalten Kriegs täte sie gut daran, nicht dem westlichen Mainstream Russland Bashing zu folgen. Deshalb, mein ich, kann es auch offiziell keine politische Entscheidung gewesen sein, keine OSZE Wahlbeobachter auf die Krim zu entsenden, sondern formal eine operative Entscheidung der Mission. (Bitte hier um faktengecheckte Bestätigung.)

    Wenn denn nun andere Strukturen in diese Presche springen, möge es für die Wahlbeobachtung und auch für die OSZE nur gut und billig sein. Denn für eine gesamtheitliche Beurteilung der Wahlen müssen diese natürlich im ganzen Gebiet beobachtet werden, in dem sie statt finden. Und weiter: Wahlen sind „proto-politisch“, womit ich sagen möchte, dass sie der Konstitution von politischen Institutionen (Parlament, Präsidentschaft…) vorgeschaltet sind und entsprechend über den politischen Differenzen stehen sollten.

    Die Kritik an dieser Wahlbeobachtung stellt also die Neutralität von Wahlbeobachtung in Frage. Es ist die EPDE, die behauptet, Wahlbeobachtung würde Wahlen Legitimität verleihen. Als Wahlbeobachter wollte ich mich eher dagegen erwehren, sonst könnte ich das in vielen Ländern bedauerlicher Weise nicht mehr machen.

    Schließlich sagt die EPDE auf ihrer Webseite, „the aim of the EPDE is to assist citizens´ election observation.“ Was kann sie denn dann gegen diese Wahlbeobachtung von diversen und erfahrenen Beobachter haben?

    LG, Mi

    @MiMaiMix.de
    under / beyond deconstruction

    From: R
    Subject: Fw: Aw: Untersuchung über Wahlbeachter auf der Krim/Stammtisch- Zif-Netzwerk

    Gesendet: Sonntag, 08. April 2018 um 11:24 Uhr
    Von: “R

    Habe noch was Interssantes zum Thema gefunden:

    Al netto degli errori dovuti alla fretta (sorry for the mistakes due to hurry)

    EPDE SEKRETARIAT
    Europäischer Austausch gGmbH
    Erkelenzdamm 59
    10999 Berline

    info@european-exchange.org

    To the kind attention of:

    Miss Stefanie Schiffer – CHAIR OF BOARD
    schiffer@european-exchange.org

    Mr Adam Busuleanu – PROJECT COORDINATOR
    busuleanu@european-exchange.org

    I write you about the ‘report’ that you have and mistakenly characterised as “Foreign observation of the illegitimate presidential election in Crimea in March 2018”, and released in your Internet Webiste:

    https://www.epde.org/en/news/details/foreign-observation-of-the-illegitimate-presidential-election-in-crimea-in-march-2018-1375.html

    I’m grateful for the attention that you reserved me, and to my recent visit to Crimea. I am honored by such attention, but I do not think I deserve it.

    You can characterise as ‘illegal’ the annexation of Crimea to Russia, but you can’t characterise as ‘illegal’ a privat visit to Crimea: it’s my right, as an individual, to go to Crimea to see what happens there. I’m a private citizen, I’m not meber of any political party, and I do not serve as public official actually; I am a private citizen interested in Crimea as researcher, journalist and writer.

    The inclusion of my name in your “proscribtion list” jeopardises my safety and that of these others who are also mentioned in your ‘report’. it is an irresponsible choice. Our safety is already put at serious risk by the inclusion of our names in the ‘Purgatory’ by the Myrotvorets Research Center (Миротворца) and our characterisation as ‘criminals’; we are wrongly and unjustly labeled as “enemies of Ukraine”: it is not so. The inclusion of my name in these proscription lists is an open violation of the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. And it constitues defamation.

    I undestard that, in drafiong your report, you mainly relied on biased opinions, not facts, published in Ukranian online media outlets, without traying to contact me/our in order to get our comment. Incomplete and partial information is not information. Disinformation, is not good information, and, hence, is not information. And, as I wrote, in this case it’s defamation.

    I do not consider the Ukrainians nor the government of the Ukrainian as my ‘enemies’. Nothwithstanding, the Myrotvorets Research Center charaterises me as a criminal (https://myrotvorets.center/criminal/marsili-marko). I complain about the decision to include my name in the ‘Purgatory’ (ЧИСТИЛИЩЕ), and I strongly reject the false accusations of: violation of the state border of Ukraine in order to penetrate the Russian-occupied Crimea; participation in outreach activities Russia (country-aggressor) against Ukraine; attempts to legalize the annexation of Crimea.

    All of these allegations are false, as they are not supported by any evidence. I limited myself to verifying, as an independent international expert, whether fundamental human rights and international standards were respected in the Crimea during the recent elections. I note, instead, that you have chosen to sow hatred and false information. This insinuates in me not a few doubts about the honesty and the bias of the EPDE and of the Myrotvorets Research Center.

    Before accepting the invitation to Crimea, I informed the Italian Embassy to Russia and the Italian consulate in Moscow – as well as the Portugese diplomatic Mission – and no objection was raised by anybody. Nobody complained. On the contrary, I was offered all the necessary assistance. I’m talking about European governments.

    As reported, in those days visited the Crimea also Italian politicians, as well as politicians from other European countries. The two Italian politicians that you mention in your ‘report’, Roberto Ciambetti and Stefano Valdegamberi, are respectively the President of the Regional Council of the Veneto – the regional parliament of the Veneto – and a regional councilor of Veneto (member of the Regional Council/Regional Parliament). Both are members of the Northern League, a center-right majority party that is preparing to form the new government, and whose declared intention is to lift sanctions against Russia.

    I accepted the invitation of an NGO to observe the Russian presidential elections in Crimea, for the reasons I will now explain.

    As you probably know, I am a university researcher, as well as a writer and a journalist.

    My academic research, in the last 4 years, has focused on the impact of counter-terrorism measures on fundamental human rights. This interest is in line with my previous studies on freedom of expression, on which I published a book, which, in fact, was my second bachelor’s thesis. Furthermore, in 2017, I published a scientific article on the legacy frozen conflicts in the area of the former USSR: “The Birth of a (Fake?) Nation at the Aftermath of the Decomposition of USSR. The Unsolved Issue of Post-Soviet ‘Frozen Conflicts’”, Proelium, 1, Serie X (10), pp. 155-172. In this article I addressed also the issue of the annexation of Crimea to Russia.

    It is therefore easy to infer that I have a strong interest in checking if and to what extent fundamental human rights and freedom of expression are guaranteed in Crimea. The opportunity that had been offered to observe the eletion conduct in Crimea, therefore, was well reconciled with the interests of my academic research.

    That said, I’d like to address my conduct in observing recent elections in Crimea.

    I want clarify that I have not participated in any Russian ‘propaganda activity’, nor I attempted to legalize the annexation of Crimea during my stay. It was not my purpose to characterise my observation in a political way, nor to be involved in any political activity carried out by any government, authority, parties or canddates. Observing means, in fact, to strictly limit the activity to observation, without taking part in any activity, as required by international standards. I always strictly adhere to these rules when I serve in an independent observation mission.

    I decided to accept the invitation to observe the conduct of the eletions in Crimea as I believe in the principles embodied in major UN documents[1] as well as other regional charters, and the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    In the interviews I gave to the press, as well as during the meetings with the de facto local authorities, I have never made any reference, neither direct nor indirect to the government of Ukraine or to the government Russia, nor to any local government. I have always limited myself to talking about the people of Crimea and Crimea as a geographical expression. The purpose of my observation was not to legitimize the position of one or the other party, but only to observe and verify the conduct of the elections in terms of international standards. My particular concern was to verify whether Crimean people were free to express its will without any kind of intimidation, coercion, interference or pressure, and whether the rights of the minorities – Tartars and Ukrainians – were respected. That’s why I welcomed the decison of the de facto authorities to release information material in three languages, to grant equal rights to all minoritis, especially the Tartars and the Ukranias. I have also welcomed the participation of the civil society, gathered in the Public Chamber, and the wide coverage provided by media outlets.

    The purpose of the mission was not, therefore, to make an assessment of the legitimacy of the Russian presidential elections in Crimea – which, in fact, would have been carried out in any way, as they were – but to observe their conduct. It was not even the task of this observation to assess the Russian legislative framework on elections or the regulatory framework on media, over which I’m very critical.

    My observation took place on an voluntary basis, without any kind of remuneration. Through accreditation at the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, I have been granted the capacity to carry out my observation without any limitation, free of any external conditioning, pressure or interference, and with absolute freedom of movement. For this reasons, I have accepted the invitation to observe the conduct of these elections. I carried out my task without bias, in an impartial and neutral manner.

    That said, I observed that no limitation or discrimination has been put in place. The people of Crimea expressed its will on a non-discriminatory basis, without any kind of intimidation, coercion, interference or pressure. Party representatives and candidates’ proxies, as well as domestic NGOs’ observers, have been allowed to follow the voting proceedings inside the polling stations. The vote was trasparent.

    It is my opinion that the elections have been overall conducted in compliance with international standards, and that they were free and fair. I remind that I do not wanna charaterise in any way my observation in a political way. In this context, I do not address the legitimacy of the elecions in Crimea, nor the legality of the annexation of Crimea to Russia. These topics are among my research objectives, but were not the purpose of this observation, as I’ve already widely spelled out.

    Of course, I can only speak for myself, not for the other obserbers invited by the same NGO, nor by the other observers invited by other organizations. I can not be held responsible for their conduct or remarks, as I am not associated with them; I was invited to observe the elections in Cirmea as an independent international (foreigner) observer.

    I shoud add that I encountered some critical issues related to electronic voting, which I pubicly said would undermines the secrecy of vote, whose confidentiality must be safeguarded as the core value of the whole process. I’ve also complained that the population was not aware on how to cast properly the ballot, which might further jeopardize the secrecy of the vote.

    I thank again the inviting NGO for the opportunity that was given to me, and to my colleagues, to experience the wonderful land that is Crema, and its population, to which I have wish all the best for a peaceful and prosperous life during my remarks at the press meeting held in Semferopol on the 19 March. Governments pass, even states, but people remain.

    I find shameful that you publish this kind of ‘reports’ on a site funded, among the others, by the European Commission, some Europen Governments, the U.S. Government, and the Open Russia Foundation, that is well known to be the ‘armed financial wing’ of the notorious George Soros.

    I can assure you that the Italian Government and Italian Parliament will soon take action againts your ‘report’ and your organisation, both at the national level and at the European level.

    In any case, I reserve the right to undertake the legal actions that I consider most appropriate to protect my good name.

    I hope you will consider this letter with the utmost attention.

    Best regards,

    Dr. Marco Marsili

    [1] See, e.g.: Declaration of Principles of the Atlantic Charter of 14 August 1941,[1] restated in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942,[1] in the Moscow Declaration of 1943,[1] and ultimately incorporated into the UN Charter; Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

    Gesendet: Sonntag, 08. April 2018 um 08:37 Uhr
    Von: “P
    Betreff: Untersuchung über Wahlbeachter auf der Krim/Stammtisch- Zif-Netzwerk
    Liebe KollegInnen,
    die European Platform for Democratic Elections (Berlin) vereint osteuropäische Organisationen nationaler WahlbeobachterInnen. Deren Bericht über Wahlbeobachter auf der Krim zu den Russland-Wahlen fabd ich
    interessant – auch weil man auf Leute stößt, die sonst in OSZE-Missionen unterwegs sind… Hier der Link

    https://www.epde.org/en/news/details/foreign-observation-of-the-illegitimate-presidential-election-in-crimea-in-march-2018-1375.html

  3. politische Bildung zur persönlichen Entwicklung.
    CEP Personaldienstleister des hobos glocales e.V.
    kollektives Unternehmen

    • Qualifizierungsstufe (Klasse 11)
    • Praktikumsvermittlung
    • Berufsschul-Tutoring&Mentoring
    • Integration & Rehabilitation
    • Selbstorganisation
    • Kunsterziehung
    • Further Maths
    • Sports

    MIckeSoft Ltd.
    Berlin – Kathmandu

    FAU-Betriebsgruppe (Kurierdienst): Arbeitslosenversicherung (Einkommenslosenversicherung), Rentenversicherung (Betriebs-/Sektorenrente), Krankenversicherung (Berlin-Brandenburg / Hanse Berlin)

  4. ein unterbeleuchteter Problemoid einer ausgeweiteten Videoüberwachung ist die bloße Existenz der erhobenen Daten. Demnach besteht die Gefahr weniger im Missbrauch durch den Staat. Der ist garnicht fähig, die vorhandenen Informationen und Daten zu verwerten – ganz einfach, weil er dazu nicht da ist. Vielmehr erheben hier wie anderswo letztlich Privatinteressen diese Daten, um Realitäten zu schaffen und diese bei Gelegenheit zu nutzen.

Schreibe einen Kommentar