Informazione
SERBIA: PICCHIATI DUE DIPLOMATICI CROATI
SERBIA: PICCHIATI DUE DIPLOMATICI CROATI, PROTESTE E SCUSE
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 26 GEN - Due diplomatici croati sono stati
aggrediti e picchiati a Belgrado, capitale della Serbia- Montenegro,
da uno sconosciuto, in un episodio che ha provocato l'immediata
protesta di Zagabria, seguita dalle scuse del governo serbo. L'attacco
e' avvenuto ieri sera nell'esclusivo quartiere residenziale di Dedinje
mentre i diplomatici erano in automobile fermi a un semaforo.
L'aggressore ha colpito attraverso un finestrino, ferendo in
particolare al volto uno dei due, secondo quanto ha denunciato
l'ambasciata croata e ha confermato lo stesso ministero dell'interno
di Belgrado. Altre tre persone nel frattempo ingiuriavano i
funzionari, riconoscibili per la targa diplomatica del loro Paese.
Zagabria ha chiesto indagini approfondite e severe, cosa che il
governo serbo ha promesso di fare, scusandosi senza indugi per
l'accaduto. I rapporti politici tra Serbia e Croazia, le maggiori
Repubbliche della ex Jugoslavia, sono in via di graduale miglioramento
e normalizzazione da alcuni anni. Restano tuttavia diffusi pregiudizi
e ostilita' reciproche, alimentate dal ricordo della sanguinosa guerra
degli anni '90, in taluni ambienti sociali di entrambi i Paesi. (ANSA). LR
26/01/2006 18:03
SERBIA: QUATTRO FERMI PER AGGRESSIONE A DIPLOMATICI CROATI
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 27 GEN - La polizia serba ha fermato nelle ultime
ore quattro persone accusate di aver aggredito mercoledi' sera a
Belgrado due diplomatici croati, ingiuriati e picchiati mentre erano
in un'automobile parcheggiata vicino a casa nell'esclusivo quartiere
residenziale di Dedinje. Lo ha annunciato il ministero dell'interno
precisando che due degli arrestati erano body guards in servizio
dinanzi a uno stabile della zona e gli altri due erano loro amici e
che tutti hanno un'eta' inferiore ai 25 anni. Il premier serbo
Vojislav Kostunica, impegnato in prima persona anni nella
normalizzazione dei rapporti con la vicina Croazia dopo le sanguinose
guerre postjugoslave degli anni '90, ha da parte sua telefonato
direttamente al collega croato Ivo Sanader per scusarsi per
l'accaduto. Durante la conversazione, stando all'emittente B-92,
Kostunica ha assicurato a Sanader che l'aggressione e' stata frutto di
un atto di teppismo isolato, senza sottofondo politico, ma anche che
il suo governo e' deciso a stroncare ogni rigurgito di ostilita'
etnica. (ANSA). LR
27/01/2006 19:00
SERBIA: PICCHIATI DUE DIPLOMATICI CROATI, PROTESTE E SCUSE
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 26 GEN - Due diplomatici croati sono stati
aggrediti e picchiati a Belgrado, capitale della Serbia- Montenegro,
da uno sconosciuto, in un episodio che ha provocato l'immediata
protesta di Zagabria, seguita dalle scuse del governo serbo. L'attacco
e' avvenuto ieri sera nell'esclusivo quartiere residenziale di Dedinje
mentre i diplomatici erano in automobile fermi a un semaforo.
L'aggressore ha colpito attraverso un finestrino, ferendo in
particolare al volto uno dei due, secondo quanto ha denunciato
l'ambasciata croata e ha confermato lo stesso ministero dell'interno
di Belgrado. Altre tre persone nel frattempo ingiuriavano i
funzionari, riconoscibili per la targa diplomatica del loro Paese.
Zagabria ha chiesto indagini approfondite e severe, cosa che il
governo serbo ha promesso di fare, scusandosi senza indugi per
l'accaduto. I rapporti politici tra Serbia e Croazia, le maggiori
Repubbliche della ex Jugoslavia, sono in via di graduale miglioramento
e normalizzazione da alcuni anni. Restano tuttavia diffusi pregiudizi
e ostilita' reciproche, alimentate dal ricordo della sanguinosa guerra
degli anni '90, in taluni ambienti sociali di entrambi i Paesi. (ANSA). LR
26/01/2006 18:03
SERBIA: QUATTRO FERMI PER AGGRESSIONE A DIPLOMATICI CROATI
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 27 GEN - La polizia serba ha fermato nelle ultime
ore quattro persone accusate di aver aggredito mercoledi' sera a
Belgrado due diplomatici croati, ingiuriati e picchiati mentre erano
in un'automobile parcheggiata vicino a casa nell'esclusivo quartiere
residenziale di Dedinje. Lo ha annunciato il ministero dell'interno
precisando che due degli arrestati erano body guards in servizio
dinanzi a uno stabile della zona e gli altri due erano loro amici e
che tutti hanno un'eta' inferiore ai 25 anni. Il premier serbo
Vojislav Kostunica, impegnato in prima persona anni nella
normalizzazione dei rapporti con la vicina Croazia dopo le sanguinose
guerre postjugoslave degli anni '90, ha da parte sua telefonato
direttamente al collega croato Ivo Sanader per scusarsi per
l'accaduto. Durante la conversazione, stando all'emittente B-92,
Kostunica ha assicurato a Sanader che l'aggressione e' stata frutto di
un atto di teppismo isolato, senza sottofondo politico, ma anche che
il suo governo e' deciso a stroncare ogni rigurgito di ostilita'
etnica. (ANSA). LR
27/01/2006 19:00
(fonte: http://www.ilmanifesto.it )
Il Manifesto, 10/02/2006
«Foibe, memoria dimezzata»
di Matteo Moder
Lo storico Galliano Fogar: «Ciampi dimentica la violenza fascista.
L'esodo e le foibe furono due tragedie, ma non sono paragonabili alla
Risiera di San Sabba»
Oggi a Trieste e in molti altre città italiane, si svolgeranno
cerimonie pubbliche - in apertura di campagna elettorale - per il
cosiddetto "giorno del ricordo", annunciato a senso unico dagli spot
in tv del governo Berlusconi come il giorno della «pulizia etnica
comunista». Questa interpretazione è stata accreditata mercoledì dal
presidente della repubblica Ciampi che nel suo discorso, prima di
premiare con la medaglia d'oro i parenti di alcune vittime
dichiaratamente fasciste, si è dimenticato di «ricordare», senza
alcuna indicazione di memoria condivisa, che la storia attribuisce una
responsabilità sanguinosa e primaria all'occupazione nazifascista
della Slovenia e dei Balcani durante la seconda guerra mondiale
(1940-1944). Su questo abbiamo posto alcune domande a Galliano Fogar,
storico dell'Istituto per la storia del Movimento di liberazione nel
Friuli Venezia Giulia.
Che pensa del discorso di Ciampi?
Il messaggio di Ciampi per la giornata del Ricordo dell'esodo
istriano, fiumano e dalmato, senza alcun cenno al fascismo e alle sue
colpe per quanto è poi avvenuto nella Venezia Giulia, può anche
indirettamente suffragare l'idea, tutta post-fascista, che su questi
confini si sono fronteggiati due totalitarismi, quello nazista e
quello comunista jugoslavo di stampo stalinista. Non è stato così. E
il fascismo dov'è? Io rispetto ciò che dice Ciampi per il fatto che
gli italiani dell'Istria, di Fiume e di Zara dovettero abbandonare le
terre perse, ma anche lui dimentica di ricordare che tutto ciò, anche
se è certamente da condannare sul piano umano e morale, ebbe il suo
terreno di coltura nella violenza fascista e nell'invasione e
disgregazione della Jugoslavia da parte italiana e tedesca. Senza
questo non si può discutere, non esiste una storia a metà.
Fini alla cerimonia con Ciampi ha dichiarato: «Basta buchi neri, basta
omissioni, basta pagine strappate...
Altro che buchi neri. Nelle terre di confine, in quella che fu la
Venezia Giulia il ventennio fascista imperversò, ancor prima
dell'invasione della Jugoslavia, con una violenta opera di
snazionalizzazione verso tutto ciò che non era «italiano» e perciò
«fascista». Io non mi rassegno al fatto che la storia venga
«dimezzata», che l'ignoranza e la disinformazione su quanto realmente
è avvenuto qui, in quella che fu la Venezia Giulia, la faccia da
padrone e che perfino gli eredi dell'ex Pci si appiattiscano sulle
tesi antistoriche di An, che fa nascere la storia - dal 1945,
dall'occupazione di Trieste da parte delle truppe di Tito.
Invece di una memoria condivisa siamo ad una storia dimezzata?
Sì, c'è la volontà di una storia dimezzata. Era quello che avrei
voluto dire il 6 febbraio di due anni fa a Fassino e Violante quando
vennero a Trieste per aderire alla proposta di Roberto Menia (An) di
istituire il 10 febbraio la giornata del ricordo dell'esodo e per
attribuire al Pci di allora colpe ed errori di valutazione. Come può
Fassino dire che il Pci sbaglio "perché l'aggressione fascista alla
Jugoslavia non poteva giustificare in nessun modo la perdita di
territori né l'esodo degli Italiani"? Ma è stata quella la causa
scatenante, l'Italia fascista è stata responsabile e corresponsabile
con la Germania di Hitler delle devastazioni e delle stragi che hanno
insanguinato l'Europa. A partire da queste terre con stragi perpetrate
dai militari italiani, rappresaglie delle camice nere contro le
popolazioni in Slovenia, i campi di concentramento come quello
famigerato di Arbe: decine e decine di migliaia furono le vittime
civili, non solo i partigiani. Che dovrebbero dire ebrei, polacchi,
russi, i milioni che sono stati sterminati?
C'è il tentativo di omologare la Resistenza alla tragica stagione
delle Fobie?
Dal processo della Risiera del 1976 non si contano più i tentativi di
equiparare la Resistenza alle Foibe, il comunismo jugoslavo al
nazifascismo. Poi si è passati al revisionismo storico, al voler
equiparare carnefici e vittime, a chiedere la pacificazione nazionale
servendosi dell'ignoranza della storia per cercare di cancellare i
valori della resistenza antifascista. Con una martellante campagna di
stampa sulla «vergogna della tragedia dimenticata» e sui processi da
fare per le foibe, dimenticando che già sotto il Governo militare
alleato erano stati celebrati a Trieste processi contro 72 infoibatori
o presunti tali con condanne fino all'ergastolo. E' deplorevole che
parte della grande stampa , la Rai, i politici democratici conoscano
assai poco le vicende internazionali - e non locali - di una regione,
la Venezia Giulia, che con la guerra fu coinvolta in pieno nel
conflitto dell'area danubiana-balcanica. Non è un caso che il 10
febbraio preso dalla destra come simbolo della tragedia (ma foibe ed
esodo sono due cose distinte) è la data della sigla del Trattato di
Pace di Parigi. Ma questi signori non spiegano che l'Italia era sul
banco degli imputati e che la gran parte dell'Istria e Fiume furono
perdute non certo per colpa dei partigiani ma per le precise colpe del
fascismo e della sua violenta opera snazionalizzatrice prima e per
l'invasione della Jugoslavia poi.
---
il manifesto
14 Febbraio 2006
La tragedia delle foibe e i crimini fascisti
La «memoria dimezzata» nel racconto dello storico Angelo Del Boca
TOMMASO DI FRANCESCO
ATrieste, in molte altre città italiane e a Palazzo Chigi la scorsa
settimana è stata celebrata la «giornata del ricordo» sulla tragedia
delle foibe e dell'esodo degli italiani dall'Istria. C'è bisogno di
una memoria condivisa, c'è bisogno reale di una pacificazione. La
celebrazione al contrario è stata fatto in aperto scontro con la
verità, dimezzando la memoria storica. Perfino il presidente della
repubblica Ciampi ha dimenticato di ricordare nel suo intervento il
ruolo determinante della violenza fascista in quelle terre. Cancellare
la verità e, peggio, costruire una unità nazionalista e patria contro
la «barbarie slava». Berlusconi e la destra post-fascista hanno fatto
di peggio. Hanno celebrato con un vero e proprio comizio, inscrivendo
le foibe dentro la campagna elettorale contro tutta la sinistra,
dichiarando «basta buchi neri, pagine strappate, omissioni». Così si è
costruita una grande omissione che è quella delle responsabilità prima
del nazifascismo, un «buco nero» che riguarda la cultura della
sinistra che vuole governare e che, di fronte a questo attacco - in tv
lo spot del governo diceva: «Pulizia etnica comunista» - non ha
reagito. Mentre Forza Italia apre le sue liste alle peggiori
formazioni e figure del neofascismo. Così approfondire, parlare di
foibe, esodo e storia coloniale del fascismo sul confine, vuol dire
rendere più attuale la consapevolezza che quelle atrocità non si
debbano ripetere. Enzo Collotti sulle pagine de il manifesto ha
scritto: «Ecco che cosa significa parlare delle foibe: chiamare in
causa il complesso di situazioni cumulatesi nell'arco di un ventennio
con l'esasperazione di violenza e di lacerazioni politiche, militari,
sociali concentratesi in particolare nella fase più acuta della
Seconda guerra mondiale». Su questi temi, in aperta ricerca di un
racconto che salvaguardi il rispetto di tutte le vittime ma anche
l'oggettività degli accadimenti, abbiamo posto alcune domande allo
storico Angelo Del Boca.
Come giudica la celebrazione istituzionale avvenuta in queste
settimane del cosiddetto «giorno del ricordo»?
Questo «giorno del ricordo», così come viene celebrato da un paio di
anni, è una sorta di triste compromesso che non ha alcun fondamento
storico. E ci stupisce che politici della statura di Fassino e di
Violante abbiano aderito all'iniziativa di Alleanza Nazionale quando
essi sanno benissimo che il presidente del consiglio Berlusconi
considera questa ricorrenza come il giorno della «pulizia etnica
comunista», dimenticando che le foibe e l'esodo dei giuliano-dalmati
costituiscono una diretta eredità del ventennio fascista e
dell'occupazione italiana dei Balcani durante la Seconda guerra mondiale.
Ne viene fuori una memoria dimezzata, nella quale la violenza fascista
in quelle terre è cancellata. Qual è il contesto storico che produce
la tragedia delle foibe?
Non c'è alcun dubbio. Ne esce una memoria dimezzata. Con il risultato
non di colmare una lacuna storica, con una legittima revisione, ma di
rendere ancora più confusa, inestricabile, la storia della nostra
presenza sul confine orientale. Non si può capire l'estrema,
condannabile, violenza del regime di Tito, che ha generato le foibe e
l'esodo di centinaia di migliaia di italiani, se non si ripercorre la
storia del Novecento. Quando l'Italia, vincitrice nella Prima guerra
mondiale, ingloba nel proprio territorio 327 mila sloveni e 152 mila
croati, anziché scegliere la strada del rispetto per le minoranze,
suggerito da Wilson, sceglie invece quella dell'assimilazione forzata
e brutale. E' con l'incendio, il 13 luglio 1920, del Darodni Dom, la
sede delle principali organizzazioni slave di Trieste, che ha inizio
la grande campagna di snazionalizzazione della Venezia Giulia.
Se si leggono i rapporti dei prefetti e dei gerarchi fascisti, questa
campagna viene descritta con differenti locuzioni: «assimilazione»,
«italianizzazione», «nazionalizzazione», «bonifica etnica»,
«epurazione etnica». Ma il significato è lo stesso: annientamento di
un popolo. Come hanno scritto i quattordici storici italiani e sloveni
della Commissione mista, in quel loro documento purtroppo dimenticato,
«il fascismo cercò di realizzare nella Venezia Giulia un vero e
proprio programma di distruzione integrale dell'identità nazionale
slovena e croata». Programma che l'Italia fascista cercò di completare
nel 1941, quando incorporò nel proprio territorio la parte meridionale
della Slovenia. Adesso non erano più le squadracce di Francesco Giunta
a usare violenze sulle minoranze slave, ma l'esercito italiano, il
quale, in base alla famigerata circolare 3C, emessa il 1° marzo 1942
dal generale Roatta, potevano impiegare ogni mezzo per piegare la
resistenza degli sloveni. I risultati di questa condotta sono
tristemente noti: 13 mila uccisi, fra partigiani e civili; 26 mila
deportati in campi di concentramento; 83 condanne a morte, 434
ergastoli, 2695 pene detentive per un totale di 25.459 anni.
Tutto questo può bastare per scatenare odi e desiderio di vendetta?
Basta per spiegare le foibe, anche se nelle foibe sono finiti degli
innocenti e non il generale Roatta?
Come giudica il fatto che si parli delle foibe contro gli italiani e
invece per i crimini fascisti e nazisti commessi in Jugoslavia i
processi e la verità sono stati respinti ripetutamente dai governi
italiani del dopoguerra?
Non uno solo dei generali italiani che hanno operato nei Balcani, tra
il 1941 e il 1943, ha pagato per i suoi crimini. Così come nessun
generale o gerarca fascista ha pagato per le stragi, le deportazioni,
l'uso dei gas in Etiopia e in Libia. Alcuni di costoro, anzi, hanno
avuto incarichi ed onori dagli stessi governi della Repubblica, nata
dalla Resistenza. Chi sperava, come l'imperatore Hailè Selassiè, in
una «Norimberga italiana», è rimasto deluso. Avendo assunto la
deprecabile decisione di non consegnare a paesi stranieri criminali di
guerra (soltanto Belgrado ne aveva richiesti 750), Roma rinunciava
anche, salvo per una dozzina di personaggi, a chiedere alla Germania
la consegna dei nazisti che si erano macchiati in Italia, tra il 1943
e il 1945, di un numero infinito di stragi (non meno di 10 mila uccisi
fra i civili).
Lo storico Filippo Focardi ha chiesto dalle pagine della rivista
«Contemporanea» - che sul tema ha dedicato un dossier nel numero 2 del
2005 - al presidente Ciampi di andare a visitare Arbe. E' giusto
insistere?
Nel suo articolo, ricordando come il presidente della Repubblica
Ciampi avesse fatto visita alle foibe di Basovizza, Filippo Focardi lo
invitava, per poter realizzare «una memoria intera», a visitare anche
l'isola di Arbe, sede del principale campo di concentramento italiano
per civili jugoslavi. Il tasso di mortalità ad Arbe era del 19 per
cento, ossia da campo di sterminio. Secondo fonti slovene, infatti, le
vittime furono tra le 3 e le 4 mila. E' un vero peccato che la
prossima scadenza del mandato impedisca al capo dello Stato di
raccogliere l'invito di Focardi. «Sarebbe un gesto simbolico
importante - scriveva lo storico - paragonabile alla visita compiuta
tre anni fa dal presidente tedesco Johannes Rau a Marzabotto. Ciampi
apprezzò molto quella visita».
Nella cerimonia a Palazzo Chigi sia Berlusconi che Fini hanno inserito
la questione delle foibe dentro la campagna elettorale, mentre aprono
le liste a Fiamma tricolore e a Forza Nuova.
Non mi stupisce il fatto che Berlusconi e Fini abbiano inserito la
questione delle foibe nella loro campagna elettorale, tesi come sono a
denunciare, in forma ossessiva, il pericolo comunista, di ieri e di
oggi. Ciò che mi stupisce, invece, è che Fini accetti che le liste
della Casa delle libertà siano aperte a formazioni di estrema destra,
come il Msi-Fiamma Tricolore di Pino Rauti e il Nuovo Msi-Destra
Nazionale di Gaetano Saya. Se questa operazione va in porto, perdono
di credibilità la svolta di Fiuggi, i viaggi propiziatori in Israele,
il giudizio sostanzialmente negativo sul fascismo. Tutto per un pugno
di voti?
Il Manifesto, 10/02/2006
«Foibe, memoria dimezzata»
di Matteo Moder
Lo storico Galliano Fogar: «Ciampi dimentica la violenza fascista.
L'esodo e le foibe furono due tragedie, ma non sono paragonabili alla
Risiera di San Sabba»
Oggi a Trieste e in molti altre città italiane, si svolgeranno
cerimonie pubbliche - in apertura di campagna elettorale - per il
cosiddetto "giorno del ricordo", annunciato a senso unico dagli spot
in tv del governo Berlusconi come il giorno della «pulizia etnica
comunista». Questa interpretazione è stata accreditata mercoledì dal
presidente della repubblica Ciampi che nel suo discorso, prima di
premiare con la medaglia d'oro i parenti di alcune vittime
dichiaratamente fasciste, si è dimenticato di «ricordare», senza
alcuna indicazione di memoria condivisa, che la storia attribuisce una
responsabilità sanguinosa e primaria all'occupazione nazifascista
della Slovenia e dei Balcani durante la seconda guerra mondiale
(1940-1944). Su questo abbiamo posto alcune domande a Galliano Fogar,
storico dell'Istituto per la storia del Movimento di liberazione nel
Friuli Venezia Giulia.
Che pensa del discorso di Ciampi?
Il messaggio di Ciampi per la giornata del Ricordo dell'esodo
istriano, fiumano e dalmato, senza alcun cenno al fascismo e alle sue
colpe per quanto è poi avvenuto nella Venezia Giulia, può anche
indirettamente suffragare l'idea, tutta post-fascista, che su questi
confini si sono fronteggiati due totalitarismi, quello nazista e
quello comunista jugoslavo di stampo stalinista. Non è stato così. E
il fascismo dov'è? Io rispetto ciò che dice Ciampi per il fatto che
gli italiani dell'Istria, di Fiume e di Zara dovettero abbandonare le
terre perse, ma anche lui dimentica di ricordare che tutto ciò, anche
se è certamente da condannare sul piano umano e morale, ebbe il suo
terreno di coltura nella violenza fascista e nell'invasione e
disgregazione della Jugoslavia da parte italiana e tedesca. Senza
questo non si può discutere, non esiste una storia a metà.
Fini alla cerimonia con Ciampi ha dichiarato: «Basta buchi neri, basta
omissioni, basta pagine strappate...
Altro che buchi neri. Nelle terre di confine, in quella che fu la
Venezia Giulia il ventennio fascista imperversò, ancor prima
dell'invasione della Jugoslavia, con una violenta opera di
snazionalizzazione verso tutto ciò che non era «italiano» e perciò
«fascista». Io non mi rassegno al fatto che la storia venga
«dimezzata», che l'ignoranza e la disinformazione su quanto realmente
è avvenuto qui, in quella che fu la Venezia Giulia, la faccia da
padrone e che perfino gli eredi dell'ex Pci si appiattiscano sulle
tesi antistoriche di An, che fa nascere la storia - dal 1945,
dall'occupazione di Trieste da parte delle truppe di Tito.
Invece di una memoria condivisa siamo ad una storia dimezzata?
Sì, c'è la volontà di una storia dimezzata. Era quello che avrei
voluto dire il 6 febbraio di due anni fa a Fassino e Violante quando
vennero a Trieste per aderire alla proposta di Roberto Menia (An) di
istituire il 10 febbraio la giornata del ricordo dell'esodo e per
attribuire al Pci di allora colpe ed errori di valutazione. Come può
Fassino dire che il Pci sbaglio "perché l'aggressione fascista alla
Jugoslavia non poteva giustificare in nessun modo la perdita di
territori né l'esodo degli Italiani"? Ma è stata quella la causa
scatenante, l'Italia fascista è stata responsabile e corresponsabile
con la Germania di Hitler delle devastazioni e delle stragi che hanno
insanguinato l'Europa. A partire da queste terre con stragi perpetrate
dai militari italiani, rappresaglie delle camice nere contro le
popolazioni in Slovenia, i campi di concentramento come quello
famigerato di Arbe: decine e decine di migliaia furono le vittime
civili, non solo i partigiani. Che dovrebbero dire ebrei, polacchi,
russi, i milioni che sono stati sterminati?
C'è il tentativo di omologare la Resistenza alla tragica stagione
delle Fobie?
Dal processo della Risiera del 1976 non si contano più i tentativi di
equiparare la Resistenza alle Foibe, il comunismo jugoslavo al
nazifascismo. Poi si è passati al revisionismo storico, al voler
equiparare carnefici e vittime, a chiedere la pacificazione nazionale
servendosi dell'ignoranza della storia per cercare di cancellare i
valori della resistenza antifascista. Con una martellante campagna di
stampa sulla «vergogna della tragedia dimenticata» e sui processi da
fare per le foibe, dimenticando che già sotto il Governo militare
alleato erano stati celebrati a Trieste processi contro 72 infoibatori
o presunti tali con condanne fino all'ergastolo. E' deplorevole che
parte della grande stampa , la Rai, i politici democratici conoscano
assai poco le vicende internazionali - e non locali - di una regione,
la Venezia Giulia, che con la guerra fu coinvolta in pieno nel
conflitto dell'area danubiana-balcanica. Non è un caso che il 10
febbraio preso dalla destra come simbolo della tragedia (ma foibe ed
esodo sono due cose distinte) è la data della sigla del Trattato di
Pace di Parigi. Ma questi signori non spiegano che l'Italia era sul
banco degli imputati e che la gran parte dell'Istria e Fiume furono
perdute non certo per colpa dei partigiani ma per le precise colpe del
fascismo e della sua violenta opera snazionalizzatrice prima e per
l'invasione della Jugoslavia poi.
---
il manifesto
14 Febbraio 2006
La tragedia delle foibe e i crimini fascisti
La «memoria dimezzata» nel racconto dello storico Angelo Del Boca
TOMMASO DI FRANCESCO
ATrieste, in molte altre città italiane e a Palazzo Chigi la scorsa
settimana è stata celebrata la «giornata del ricordo» sulla tragedia
delle foibe e dell'esodo degli italiani dall'Istria. C'è bisogno di
una memoria condivisa, c'è bisogno reale di una pacificazione. La
celebrazione al contrario è stata fatto in aperto scontro con la
verità, dimezzando la memoria storica. Perfino il presidente della
repubblica Ciampi ha dimenticato di ricordare nel suo intervento il
ruolo determinante della violenza fascista in quelle terre. Cancellare
la verità e, peggio, costruire una unità nazionalista e patria contro
la «barbarie slava». Berlusconi e la destra post-fascista hanno fatto
di peggio. Hanno celebrato con un vero e proprio comizio, inscrivendo
le foibe dentro la campagna elettorale contro tutta la sinistra,
dichiarando «basta buchi neri, pagine strappate, omissioni». Così si è
costruita una grande omissione che è quella delle responsabilità prima
del nazifascismo, un «buco nero» che riguarda la cultura della
sinistra che vuole governare e che, di fronte a questo attacco - in tv
lo spot del governo diceva: «Pulizia etnica comunista» - non ha
reagito. Mentre Forza Italia apre le sue liste alle peggiori
formazioni e figure del neofascismo. Così approfondire, parlare di
foibe, esodo e storia coloniale del fascismo sul confine, vuol dire
rendere più attuale la consapevolezza che quelle atrocità non si
debbano ripetere. Enzo Collotti sulle pagine de il manifesto ha
scritto: «Ecco che cosa significa parlare delle foibe: chiamare in
causa il complesso di situazioni cumulatesi nell'arco di un ventennio
con l'esasperazione di violenza e di lacerazioni politiche, militari,
sociali concentratesi in particolare nella fase più acuta della
Seconda guerra mondiale». Su questi temi, in aperta ricerca di un
racconto che salvaguardi il rispetto di tutte le vittime ma anche
l'oggettività degli accadimenti, abbiamo posto alcune domande allo
storico Angelo Del Boca.
Come giudica la celebrazione istituzionale avvenuta in queste
settimane del cosiddetto «giorno del ricordo»?
Questo «giorno del ricordo», così come viene celebrato da un paio di
anni, è una sorta di triste compromesso che non ha alcun fondamento
storico. E ci stupisce che politici della statura di Fassino e di
Violante abbiano aderito all'iniziativa di Alleanza Nazionale quando
essi sanno benissimo che il presidente del consiglio Berlusconi
considera questa ricorrenza come il giorno della «pulizia etnica
comunista», dimenticando che le foibe e l'esodo dei giuliano-dalmati
costituiscono una diretta eredità del ventennio fascista e
dell'occupazione italiana dei Balcani durante la Seconda guerra mondiale.
Ne viene fuori una memoria dimezzata, nella quale la violenza fascista
in quelle terre è cancellata. Qual è il contesto storico che produce
la tragedia delle foibe?
Non c'è alcun dubbio. Ne esce una memoria dimezzata. Con il risultato
non di colmare una lacuna storica, con una legittima revisione, ma di
rendere ancora più confusa, inestricabile, la storia della nostra
presenza sul confine orientale. Non si può capire l'estrema,
condannabile, violenza del regime di Tito, che ha generato le foibe e
l'esodo di centinaia di migliaia di italiani, se non si ripercorre la
storia del Novecento. Quando l'Italia, vincitrice nella Prima guerra
mondiale, ingloba nel proprio territorio 327 mila sloveni e 152 mila
croati, anziché scegliere la strada del rispetto per le minoranze,
suggerito da Wilson, sceglie invece quella dell'assimilazione forzata
e brutale. E' con l'incendio, il 13 luglio 1920, del Darodni Dom, la
sede delle principali organizzazioni slave di Trieste, che ha inizio
la grande campagna di snazionalizzazione della Venezia Giulia.
Se si leggono i rapporti dei prefetti e dei gerarchi fascisti, questa
campagna viene descritta con differenti locuzioni: «assimilazione»,
«italianizzazione», «nazionalizzazione», «bonifica etnica»,
«epurazione etnica». Ma il significato è lo stesso: annientamento di
un popolo. Come hanno scritto i quattordici storici italiani e sloveni
della Commissione mista, in quel loro documento purtroppo dimenticato,
«il fascismo cercò di realizzare nella Venezia Giulia un vero e
proprio programma di distruzione integrale dell'identità nazionale
slovena e croata». Programma che l'Italia fascista cercò di completare
nel 1941, quando incorporò nel proprio territorio la parte meridionale
della Slovenia. Adesso non erano più le squadracce di Francesco Giunta
a usare violenze sulle minoranze slave, ma l'esercito italiano, il
quale, in base alla famigerata circolare 3C, emessa il 1° marzo 1942
dal generale Roatta, potevano impiegare ogni mezzo per piegare la
resistenza degli sloveni. I risultati di questa condotta sono
tristemente noti: 13 mila uccisi, fra partigiani e civili; 26 mila
deportati in campi di concentramento; 83 condanne a morte, 434
ergastoli, 2695 pene detentive per un totale di 25.459 anni.
Tutto questo può bastare per scatenare odi e desiderio di vendetta?
Basta per spiegare le foibe, anche se nelle foibe sono finiti degli
innocenti e non il generale Roatta?
Come giudica il fatto che si parli delle foibe contro gli italiani e
invece per i crimini fascisti e nazisti commessi in Jugoslavia i
processi e la verità sono stati respinti ripetutamente dai governi
italiani del dopoguerra?
Non uno solo dei generali italiani che hanno operato nei Balcani, tra
il 1941 e il 1943, ha pagato per i suoi crimini. Così come nessun
generale o gerarca fascista ha pagato per le stragi, le deportazioni,
l'uso dei gas in Etiopia e in Libia. Alcuni di costoro, anzi, hanno
avuto incarichi ed onori dagli stessi governi della Repubblica, nata
dalla Resistenza. Chi sperava, come l'imperatore Hailè Selassiè, in
una «Norimberga italiana», è rimasto deluso. Avendo assunto la
deprecabile decisione di non consegnare a paesi stranieri criminali di
guerra (soltanto Belgrado ne aveva richiesti 750), Roma rinunciava
anche, salvo per una dozzina di personaggi, a chiedere alla Germania
la consegna dei nazisti che si erano macchiati in Italia, tra il 1943
e il 1945, di un numero infinito di stragi (non meno di 10 mila uccisi
fra i civili).
Lo storico Filippo Focardi ha chiesto dalle pagine della rivista
«Contemporanea» - che sul tema ha dedicato un dossier nel numero 2 del
2005 - al presidente Ciampi di andare a visitare Arbe. E' giusto
insistere?
Nel suo articolo, ricordando come il presidente della Repubblica
Ciampi avesse fatto visita alle foibe di Basovizza, Filippo Focardi lo
invitava, per poter realizzare «una memoria intera», a visitare anche
l'isola di Arbe, sede del principale campo di concentramento italiano
per civili jugoslavi. Il tasso di mortalità ad Arbe era del 19 per
cento, ossia da campo di sterminio. Secondo fonti slovene, infatti, le
vittime furono tra le 3 e le 4 mila. E' un vero peccato che la
prossima scadenza del mandato impedisca al capo dello Stato di
raccogliere l'invito di Focardi. «Sarebbe un gesto simbolico
importante - scriveva lo storico - paragonabile alla visita compiuta
tre anni fa dal presidente tedesco Johannes Rau a Marzabotto. Ciampi
apprezzò molto quella visita».
Nella cerimonia a Palazzo Chigi sia Berlusconi che Fini hanno inserito
la questione delle foibe dentro la campagna elettorale, mentre aprono
le liste a Fiamma tricolore e a Forza Nuova.
Non mi stupisce il fatto che Berlusconi e Fini abbiano inserito la
questione delle foibe nella loro campagna elettorale, tesi come sono a
denunciare, in forma ossessiva, il pericolo comunista, di ieri e di
oggi. Ciò che mi stupisce, invece, è che Fini accetti che le liste
della Casa delle libertà siano aperte a formazioni di estrema destra,
come il Msi-Fiamma Tricolore di Pino Rauti e il Nuovo Msi-Destra
Nazionale di Gaetano Saya. Se questa operazione va in porto, perdono
di credibilità la svolta di Fiuggi, i viaggi propiziatori in Israele,
il giudizio sostanzialmente negativo sul fascismo. Tutto per un pugno
di voti?
--- In icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com, <icdsm-italia@l...> ha scritto:
(Le straordinarie parole di Slobodan Milosevic nell'aula
dell'Aia, lo scorso 29 Novembre - Festa Nazionale per tutti
gli jugoslavi e le jugoslave -, naturalmente censurate dai
media dei paesi "liberi". Le riportiamo oggi, nella
ricorrenza del quarto anno dall'inizio della infame e
criminale farsa inscenata dalla NATO e dai suoi servi
in Olanda. ICDSM)
---------- Initial Header -----------
From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:11:28 +0100
Subject : ICDSM: Truth vs. Crime - The 4th Anniversary
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee),
Tiphaine Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
**************************************************************
12 February 2006
Special Circular
**************************************************************
TRUTH vs. CRIME: THE 4th ANNIVERSARY
On 12 December 2005, President Milosevic requested to
be provisionally released in order to obtain medical
treatment in Bakulev Scientific Institute in Moscow, headed
by Professor Leo Bockeria, Main Cardiosurgeon of
the Russian Federation. On the basis of President
Milosevic's request and opinions of leading international
medical specialists, including Professor Bockeria himself,
the Government of the Russian Federation issued appropriate
state guarantees to the Hague Tribunal on 17 January 2006.
Decision of the Trial Chamber is still pending.
What preceded was a dramatic warning about the state of
President Milosevic's health, made by an international
doctor's consilium on 4 November 2005, recommending urgent
break in the proceedings, six weeks of total rest and
additional examinations and treatment in a specialized
medical institution. That warning was echoed by the ICDSM
in its special session in Belgrade on 12 November, when an
urgent public appeal was signed by ICDSM co-chairs
Ramsey Clark and Velko Valkanov and Vice-President of the
Russian State Duma Sergei Baburin. Subsequently, groups of
medical specialists from Serbia and Germany also went
public with their own appeals. Sloboda collected in
only two days 25000 signatures to put the issue on agenda
of the Serbian Parliament (something that never happened,
in spite of the Serbian Constitution). Russian Duma
unanimously adopted a resolution expressing
serious concern about the President Milosevic's health.
The tribunal is acting slowly, bureaucratically
and hypocritically. Six weeks of urgently necessary
rest were granted to President Milosevic (who in
the meantime almost collapsed in the court room) only
in connection to usual court Christmas recess. And in
spite of all medical arguments and state guarantees
presented, the decision on provisional release has not
been made yet. All this in confirmation of Moscow Mayor
Yuri Luzhkov, who, welcoming the possibility that
President Milosevic comes to Moscow, stated on 21
January that President Milosevic's situation "is a
disgrace for a European court, which instituted legal
proceedings against him without sufficient reasons, kept
him under arrest for several years and now does not
know what to do. All their accusations fell apart, and
now they are trying to put a good face on the matter.
They do not want to apologize to Milosevic for several
years that have been crossed out of his life", adding
that there should be a rule in the judicial practices,
under which the judges who made a mistake should be kept
in custody as much time as the person, who was
illegally arrested through their fault.
But the most precise summary of what the four years of
the Hague proceedings represent was made by President
Milosevic himself in one of his most powerful addresses
in this process (of course, totally bypassed by the
Western media) - on 29 November (by chance, the National
Day of Yugoslavia) 2005, when he was, ill, forced to smash
(with the help of legal arguments of ICDSM and other
international lawyers) the attempt of the Tribunal to
severe three indictments against him (united before the
beginning of the process).
President Milosevic (don't miss to read the full transcript
of his remarks further below) told the judges:
"The present situation is the direct result of a
megalomaniac ambition by the other side and most
probably by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and evidence
against me. Quantity over quality. Because you cannot
have evidence and valid proof for untruths. And
you have supported the other side through your
tolerant relationship with them, and asking them to
be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been bombed by various
documents, material witnesses, and so on, that the
opposite side has been allowed to present with the
go-ahead from you. I think that this is a form of
torture and a form of cynicism to put that burden
of responsibility upon me, all the more so if this
is linked to my health situation, which has been
significantly impaired because of the torture I have
been exposed to.
"And what is this phantom of a joint criminal enterprise
that is being discussed here? And what is it that
is exactly being alleged? People who are sitting here,
including me, including you, on the one hand, simply
cannot know all the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served - a million pages,
no less - and no one knows what the Prosecutor is
prosecuting, including the Prosecutor herself. She
doesn't know it either. I think that even Franz Kafka
would feel that he did not have great imagination
compared to this.
"This entire Court was envisaged as an instrument
of war against my country. It was founded illegally
on the basis of an illegal decision and carried
through by the forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is true here:
It is true that there is a joint criminal enterprise,
but not in Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its center,
but those, who, in a war that was waged in Yugoslavia
from 1991 onwards, destroyed Yugoslavia.
"Do you want to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a salary from the
United Nations? Who finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my country, Mr. Bonomy?
Your country. And who am I asking to come in
to testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
"Yugoslavia did not disintegrate or disappear in
some manner, but it was destroyed in a planned manner,
forcefully, through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one of the
instruments of this war is your illegal Tribunal.
"Let me say straight away, as far as your judgements
are concerned and rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because if you judge
according to the law and the truth, then there would
never have been this trial in the first place. But
as we do have a trial, it can end only in one way:
A decision on the non-existence of culpability. And
if you don't rule based on justice and truth, then
your ruling will disintegrate and will burst like a
bubble of soap, because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is stronger than any
other court. It is up to each one of us, and each
one of you gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court of history,
and what its decision will be. So don't harbour any
illusions on that score.
"Let us hear what the truth is, and let the actual
perpetrators of what happened in Yugoslavia actually
be exposed, although you said yourself, Mr. Robinson,
at one point in time, that you are not in charge of
trying NATO for what they did, although you know what
they did and you know that the basic tenet of any
law in the world is that the law that does not apply to
one and all is not law at all."
*********************************************************
FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S 29 NOVEMBER REMARKS
*********************************************************
Tuesday, 29 November 2005
[Motion Hearing]
[Open session]
--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber scheduled
a hearing this morning to hear
submissions from the parties on the
question of severing the Kosovo
indictment and concluding that part
of the trial. We'll hear first from the
Prosecutor.
MR. NICE: We filed a paper late
yesterday afternoon. I don't know if the
Chamber has had an opportunity to consider it. (.)
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, we'll hear from
the accused before you.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I shall
take up far less time than Mr. Nice did.
I addressed you two weeks ago with a
request that you respect the position
of the team of doctors from Russia,
France, and Serbia to allow me a period
of rest, because that was observed on
the basis of their findings that my
health had not been stabilised, that
the possibility of complications
existed, and that a period of rest
was indicated for at least a period of
six weeks.
You asked to hear the views of the
Dutch physicians in that regard, and now
what is the state of that? What have
they found? You have that in the
report. Dr. van Dijkman, who is a
cardiologist, a specialist, one that you
selected here, in his report, wrote,
among other things, the following: "[In
English] I strongly advise provision
for sufficient rest."
[Interpretation] And he added:
"[In English] And it seemed to me that the
six-week rest period is somewhat too
much." [Interpretation] So the
cardiologist selected by you has
confirmed the need for rest. The only
question is whether six weeks is
somewhat too much. So that is one fact and
one point I wish to address.
Not a single one of the doctors who
considered the report that you supplied
them with questioned the findings
of the consilium of physicians from
Russia, France, and Serbia.
Otherwise, on the 15th of November --
and Mr. Nice here noted that I
strolled in, and he said that I wasn't
able to work. I know exactly what I
said: I said that I wasn't feeling
well, and that was the first time that I
did so in the past four years, the
first time I said that in a four-year
period, the first time I asked the
session to be interrupted because I
really didn't feel well. And even
then this request of mine was met on your
part by keeping me in that small
room on this floor an hour and a half while
your physician examined me.
Now, all the time that you have
been questioning the positions taken by the
consilium, which has now been confirmed
by your own doctors, the doctor at
the prison forbid me to come into court,
first of all on the 12th of
November and then on a second occasion
on the 21st of November. I had
prepared myself to come in here to
court. I had put on my shirt and tie, and
then I was told there would be no
transport and I wasn't able to come. So
when Mr. Bonomy says that I didn't
come, I didn't come because it was your
own doctor who forbid me to come.
I would like to make that quite clear.
Now, finally, this question that I
complained about on the 15th and waited
patiently for two months, with growing
problems, health problems, that
needed to be addressed, the question of
my very serious symptoms, very high
pressure that I feel in my ears and
oversensitivity to sound in general, at
the medical centre of the Leiden
University, Dr. Dalal examined me fully and
wrote an objective finding. When I say
"objective," I'm referring to the
finding that was written without the
active part of the patient, so it was
only the passive participation of
the patient, since the findings are based
on long-term electronic examination,
and he told me that those objective
findings of his fully confirmed the
symptoms that I complain of and the
problems -- health problems that I complain of.
Therefore, the physicians of my own
choice who came here because my state
had not improved at all during those
two months, and also the doctors you
selected yourselves, have come to the
same conclusions, to all intents and
purposes. Your prison doctor told me
that, over the past few days, he
supposed that I had managed to amass
enough energy to deal with the pressure
that I have in my ears because he
told me that Dr. Dalal, who is a very
highly placed professional in the area,
is preparing some sort of solution
which will make it easier for me to deal
with my health situation or do away
with the symptoms at all. So that is a
very interesting standpoint from the
medical point of view, but I'm not
going to comment on it now.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have
not had the benefit of seeing Dr.
Dalal's report. You have been referring
to it, so I just wanted you to know that.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, I have not seen it
myself either, but I do know what he
told me, after having examined me. I
was at the medical center of the
university in Leiden, I underwent a lengthy
examination there. It was with the
help of electronic instruments. It lasts
a long time. The patient has to lie
down. There are no questions and answers
or anything of that kind. It is
electronic sounding, using electronic
instruments. And then he told me after
that examination that his objective
findings confirmed the symptoms that I
complain of. That's what he told me,
and I assume he wrote that in his report.
Dr. Falke came and told me that he
has good news for me, that Dr. Dalal
considers that he's going to be able
to mitigate those symptoms or put them
right. I asked him a logical question:
When? And he said, Well, in the next
few days. We'll do our best to hurry
up. So how am I expected to work in the
meantime? Well, I -- he said, well,
I assume you have accumulated enough
strength to persevere, you've lasted
that long, and things along those
lines. I was in Bronovo Hospital in
September for the magnetic resonance
test, and before that an ENT specialist
saw me. That's been going on for
months, for three months, and the
situation became worse and worse as time
progressed.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I just
wanted to clarify that we did not
have the report to which you have
been referring. Proceed with your
submissions on the question --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I don't have it either. Yes, I'll get
to that, but it's all linked up. As
I was saying, I assume you do have the
Dr. van Dijkman's report, do you?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have Dr.
van Dijkman's report.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
And it says here -- very well. "[In
English] We strongly advise provision
for sufficient rest." [Interpretation]
That's what it says in his report.
JUDGE ROBINSON: But as you noted, he
went on to say that he did not
consider a period of six weeks to be required.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: "Somewhat too much."
[Interpretation] That's what he said.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] And
I pointed that out. I didn't want
to quote it one-sidedly, quote what
he said one-sidedly. Therefore,
gentlemen, it is my right to demand of
you to enable me to have the right to
protect my own health, and I think it
is your duty to protect that right and
support it. And that right is over and
above all the other preoccupations
for which you have convened these
proceedings here this morning. So my
request is this - I hope it is sufficiently
clear - and I request that you
enable me to have a pause, that is
to say, a period of rest in which to
recuperate. I understand that your
basic preoccupation ...
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes,
I was waiting for you to finish your discussion.
Mr. Nice, among other things, mentioned
the question of whether I was
taking my medicaments or not. That
can only be said by somebody who doesn't
know what prison procedure is like.
You have to take your pills in front of
the guards in prison. That does not
only apply to me, it applies to
everyone. And then the time at which
you took your medications is recorded
into a log book.
I myself requested Falke to carry
out a laboratory analysis to see how my
medicines were working, within the
context of all my general efforts to help
myself. And I should like to mention
the doctors that I invited came more
than two months after I put in a
request to Falke and from the time they
sent me for my first examination. So
all this was organised without
upsetting any of your plans.
So let's make each other understood
there, let's be clear on that point. I
don't want to hear any more of the
nonsensical kinds of things that Mr. Nice
has been saying.
Gentlemen, your principal preoccupation
is time, and you have been devoting
such great effort to the question of
time that when you speak of my health
state, you are looking at it exclusively,
as it says in paragraph 6 of your
guidelines, the state of factors that
upset these proceedings, the time
factors upsetting these proceedings,
in your order. So that I think that the
protection of health and the measure
to which this megalomaniac procedure,
with your permission, has been pursued
by the opposite side is upsetting my
health, that, judging by all factors,
doesn't seem to be important to you.
I would like to remind you gentlemen
of the following: In paragraph 4 of
your order, which we have here before
us on the table, you put forward the
chronology of your efforts to ensure
expediency of this trial. I'm not going
to quote those passages because you have
them in front of you. However, it
is interesting to note, and also indicative,
that that chronology of
events - that is to say, that enormous
wish to have expediency - begins in
July 2004, and that is what your chronology
shows, which is a point in time
when it is up to me to present my Defence
case. And the time I was given by
you was 150 days, and you said that that
was the same as the 300 days
allocated to the other side. Several weeks
ago, I mentioned here that the
number of hours which I was given by the
opposite side shows the sum of --
which is lacking in 72 days. You didn't
allow me to continue along those
lines, so I stopped, and I'm not going
to talk about that now either, but
I'd just like to say that that remains
as a fact.
So your concerns over expediency and
efficiency started when my half time
began, and to my detriment. And the
speed at which the proceedings have been
evolving became important when it came
to my presentation of facts, and took
precedence over those facts and
precedence over my state of health as well.
Now, had you expressed such concern
over expediency during the time of
Nice's and Del Ponte's Prosecution case,
then you would not have allowed
different witnesses to appear.
Mr. Robinson, Mr. Kwon, you will remember
full well that we had witnesses here
such some institute established in
haste in the space of a few days, right
near here in Amsterdam, and they
held a report about genocide against
the Armenians in Turkey and the
genocide in Rwanda and some other third
place, I can't remember which now,
and that Dutchman talked about that
at length, and you would never have
allowed things like that even to be
presented here at a place like this,
including many other irrelevant witnesses.
So we heard about the Armenians,
but we didn't hear about examples
which the Dutch institute and the only
Dutch word that everybody knows in
the world, the word "apartheid," how that
came into being. They didn't deal
with the question of apartheid, but they
did deal with the Armenians in Turkey
and Turks. So that was part of his
procedure, let alone other witnesses
who came to waste time here and talk
about minor issues.
So you showed an enormous amount
of understanding for the megalomaniac
ambitions of the opposite side to
-- Yes, Mr. Robinson.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You are now wasting
our time. We are here to consider two
issues: The question of severance and
the medical -- and your medical
condition. Confine your submissions to
those two issues.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Well, Mr. Robinson, you did not
interrupt Mr. Nice when he was making
the most absurd claims here, and I
think that these absurd claims of his
can be responded to --
JUDGE ROBINSON: If you're going to
continue like this, I will stop.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
All right.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You told us you wish
to make submissions. If I did not
interrupt Mr. Nice, it was because
there was no reason to interrupt him. Let
us proceed.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Let us proceed. I'm referring to what
it says here in your own decision
concerning the order that we're discussing
today. So the time lost, you say, due
to my health, in the period when you
started expressing this intense interest
in the expeditiousness of the trial.
I want to draw your attention to the
fact that this time that you call lost
or wasted is much shorter than time
wasted due to another matter, and that
is when you unlawfully took away my
right to self-representation last year.
Because of what you did, some of the
deadlines that you had set yourselves
and that you mention in this chronology
were simply not met at the moment
when my Defence case finally started
after the decision made by that Appeals
Chamber of yours. So, gentlemen, do not
blame my health - and I'm not to be
blamed for the state of my health - for
time wasted, when you're the ones
who wasted the time. As for all the
time that's been taken up, and in terms
of my health, the other side there is
also to be blamed, because of the
torture that they have been exposing
me to due to their megalomaniac
designs. And you never oppose that.
In paragraph 5 from the end of your
order, your scheduling order for this
hearing, today's hearing, you deal
with the positions taken by the Appeals
Chamber. I think that, due to the
importance of what you note here, it is
necessary to see what it says there
in paragraph 26. It says that: "[In
English] If the prosecution fails to
discharge this responsibility, the
Trial Chamber has sufficient powers
under the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence to order the prosecution to
reduce its list of witnesses to ensure
that the trial remains as manageable as possible.
Finally, if with the benefit of hindsight
it becomes apparent to the Trial
Chamber that the trial has developed
in such a way as to become
unmanageable - especially if, for
example, the prosecution is either
incapable or unwilling to exercise
the responsibility which it bears to
exercise restraint in relation to
the evidence it produces - it will still
be open to the Trial Chamber at that
stage -" [Interpretation] I emphasise
that - "at that stage," just like I
pointed out the Prosecution a moment
ago - "[In English] to order a
severance of the charges arising out of one
or more of the three areas in the former Yugoslavia."
[Interpretation] So what is referred
to here are the resources that you
have available if the other side, and
that is what is emphasised, does not
act in accordance with its obligation
in paragraph 25, where it says that
the Prosecution has a great responsibility
to prevent the trial from being
unmanageable due to an overabundance of
material, et cetera, et cetera. So
your very own Chamber here says that:
"The prosecution will bear a heavy
responsibility to ensure that the
single trial ..." et cetera, et cetera,
that the trial is manageable.
It's not only that example, but also
the systematic interpretation of what
the Appeals Chamber said in the context
where the severance of trials is
discussed. Obviously, they took into
account the situation that came to pass
a long time ago because of the megalomaniac
ambitions of the Prosecution in
these proceedings that you call a trial.
I also want to note here that the
Appeals Chamber did not look at my health
at all, and I don't think that they
needed to look at it at all, at that
time, that is. But not even bearing
that in mind, they emphasised need to
rest. Please, in paragraph 27, it says:
"[In English] As has been shown to
be necessary in all long trials before
this Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will
from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable
the parties to marshal their forces and,
if need be, for the unrepresented
accused to rest from the work involved."
[Interpretation] So, gentlemen, the
only effect that my health can have on
these proceedings is the fact that breaks
are taken if my health gets worse,
or, with any luck, to have proper short
rest periods so that any worsening
of my health is prevented. However,
I am quoting your own decision when you
say that these are factors that
constantly impede the trial. And I have read
out paragraph 26 to you, and you say --
you quote paragraph 26 when you say
that the trial becomes unmanageable,
but it is the other way around. I have
quoted paragraph 26 to you, and the
Appeals Chamber has instructed you how
to make the trial more manageable:
To give breaks from time to time, and so
on and so forth.
Now, gentlemen, do you really think
that somebody would be crazy enough to
believe that the Appeals Chamber would,
in paragraph 26, instruct measures
to be taken that would be in
contravention of paragraph 26 of their own
decision? Do you think that your colleagues
are that unreasonable that they
call for pauses in the trial, breaks
in the trial, and that that is
counter-productive? That's the way
it should be, according to what Mr. Nice
said here too. Of course, that's wrong.
The right way of interpreting it is
that by severing the trial, you are
actually acting against the decision of
the Appeals Chamber and you are
incorrectly interpreting their words. So
that would be an abuse of a document
in order to violate that same document,
which is quite unbelievable. It is
illogical and unlawful acrobatics. Also,
for years, you have been violating --
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, what you
ignore entirely in that submission is
that these words of the Appeal Chamber
were pronounced when this trial could
sit five days a week, and elaborate
arrangements have been made to give you
rest throughout the period since 2003.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
When was it that you gave me a break,
a rest? Just remind me, please.
JUDGE BONOMY: Every week you get a rest,
because you can only do three days
a week.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
No one works five days a week here,
especially for such a long period of time,
so please don't count on me --
please, in Dr. Van Dijkman's report,
in a part that I did not quote, in the
paragraph that precedes the one that
I quoted, it says: "In view of the
current work schedule [In English]
it is understandable -- In view of the
current work schedule, it is understandable
that the patient feels fatigued.
He has three court sessions per week
and spends the rest of the time
preparing for them, including
interviewing witnesses."
[Interpretation] So how is it that you
think that I can interview witnesses
during these remaining days if I'm supposed
to get some rest then?
JUDGE ROBINSON: You can get the rest --
you could get the rest if you
utilised the services that are available
to you. You do not have to
interview witnesses. That could be
done by assigned counsel. You have chosen
to do that.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I have seen how the assigned counsel
work with witnesses when you made it
possible for them to question
witnesses, by force, and I concluded
that it was absolutely inadequate.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what
comes to mind -- what comes to my mind
are the words of Marc Antony in his
funeral oration for Julius Caesar:
"Ingratitude, more strong than traitors'
arms ..." You are an ingrate in
relation to the work of the assigned
counsel and the help they have given
you. It does you no credit for taking
that approach to assigned counsel.
Continue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I do not wish to insult Ms. Higgins
or Mr. Kay, not in the least bit. But
they know full well that they know
very little about the situation in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia,
especially regarding issues that I am
being indicted for here by Mr. Nice
and this entire side that he represents.
Mr. Nice made absurd assertions
here, allegations regarding my alleged
participation in various things in
Bosnia, and during the presentation
of his case, he did not give a shred of
evidence about my alleged crimes in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. He talked about
events that occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But, on the other hand, there is
ample evidence that my greatest efforts
over all those years was to attain
peace, and I was given credit for that
by all sorts of Western leaders as
the person who gave the greatest
contribution to that and --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
stopped you. I want submissions on
the two issues before us: Severance
and, to the extent relevant, your
health. We'll take an adjournment for 20 minutes.
--- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.
(1/2 - continues)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
(Le straordinarie parole di Slobodan Milosevic nell'aula
dell'Aia, lo scorso 29 Novembre - Festa Nazionale per tutti
gli jugoslavi e le jugoslave -, naturalmente censurate dai
media dei paesi "liberi". Le riportiamo oggi, nella
ricorrenza del quarto anno dall'inizio della infame e
criminale farsa inscenata dalla NATO e dai suoi servi
in Olanda. ICDSM)
---------- Initial Header -----------
From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:11:28 +0100
Subject : ICDSM: Truth vs. Crime - The 4th Anniversary
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee),
Tiphaine Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
**************************************************************
12 February 2006
Special Circular
**************************************************************
TRUTH vs. CRIME: THE 4th ANNIVERSARY
On 12 December 2005, President Milosevic requested to
be provisionally released in order to obtain medical
treatment in Bakulev Scientific Institute in Moscow, headed
by Professor Leo Bockeria, Main Cardiosurgeon of
the Russian Federation. On the basis of President
Milosevic's request and opinions of leading international
medical specialists, including Professor Bockeria himself,
the Government of the Russian Federation issued appropriate
state guarantees to the Hague Tribunal on 17 January 2006.
Decision of the Trial Chamber is still pending.
What preceded was a dramatic warning about the state of
President Milosevic's health, made by an international
doctor's consilium on 4 November 2005, recommending urgent
break in the proceedings, six weeks of total rest and
additional examinations and treatment in a specialized
medical institution. That warning was echoed by the ICDSM
in its special session in Belgrade on 12 November, when an
urgent public appeal was signed by ICDSM co-chairs
Ramsey Clark and Velko Valkanov and Vice-President of the
Russian State Duma Sergei Baburin. Subsequently, groups of
medical specialists from Serbia and Germany also went
public with their own appeals. Sloboda collected in
only two days 25000 signatures to put the issue on agenda
of the Serbian Parliament (something that never happened,
in spite of the Serbian Constitution). Russian Duma
unanimously adopted a resolution expressing
serious concern about the President Milosevic's health.
The tribunal is acting slowly, bureaucratically
and hypocritically. Six weeks of urgently necessary
rest were granted to President Milosevic (who in
the meantime almost collapsed in the court room) only
in connection to usual court Christmas recess. And in
spite of all medical arguments and state guarantees
presented, the decision on provisional release has not
been made yet. All this in confirmation of Moscow Mayor
Yuri Luzhkov, who, welcoming the possibility that
President Milosevic comes to Moscow, stated on 21
January that President Milosevic's situation "is a
disgrace for a European court, which instituted legal
proceedings against him without sufficient reasons, kept
him under arrest for several years and now does not
know what to do. All their accusations fell apart, and
now they are trying to put a good face on the matter.
They do not want to apologize to Milosevic for several
years that have been crossed out of his life", adding
that there should be a rule in the judicial practices,
under which the judges who made a mistake should be kept
in custody as much time as the person, who was
illegally arrested through their fault.
But the most precise summary of what the four years of
the Hague proceedings represent was made by President
Milosevic himself in one of his most powerful addresses
in this process (of course, totally bypassed by the
Western media) - on 29 November (by chance, the National
Day of Yugoslavia) 2005, when he was, ill, forced to smash
(with the help of legal arguments of ICDSM and other
international lawyers) the attempt of the Tribunal to
severe three indictments against him (united before the
beginning of the process).
President Milosevic (don't miss to read the full transcript
of his remarks further below) told the judges:
"The present situation is the direct result of a
megalomaniac ambition by the other side and most
probably by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and evidence
against me. Quantity over quality. Because you cannot
have evidence and valid proof for untruths. And
you have supported the other side through your
tolerant relationship with them, and asking them to
be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been bombed by various
documents, material witnesses, and so on, that the
opposite side has been allowed to present with the
go-ahead from you. I think that this is a form of
torture and a form of cynicism to put that burden
of responsibility upon me, all the more so if this
is linked to my health situation, which has been
significantly impaired because of the torture I have
been exposed to.
"And what is this phantom of a joint criminal enterprise
that is being discussed here? And what is it that
is exactly being alleged? People who are sitting here,
including me, including you, on the one hand, simply
cannot know all the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served - a million pages,
no less - and no one knows what the Prosecutor is
prosecuting, including the Prosecutor herself. She
doesn't know it either. I think that even Franz Kafka
would feel that he did not have great imagination
compared to this.
"This entire Court was envisaged as an instrument
of war against my country. It was founded illegally
on the basis of an illegal decision and carried
through by the forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is true here:
It is true that there is a joint criminal enterprise,
but not in Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its center,
but those, who, in a war that was waged in Yugoslavia
from 1991 onwards, destroyed Yugoslavia.
"Do you want to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a salary from the
United Nations? Who finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my country, Mr. Bonomy?
Your country. And who am I asking to come in
to testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
"Yugoslavia did not disintegrate or disappear in
some manner, but it was destroyed in a planned manner,
forcefully, through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one of the
instruments of this war is your illegal Tribunal.
"Let me say straight away, as far as your judgements
are concerned and rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because if you judge
according to the law and the truth, then there would
never have been this trial in the first place. But
as we do have a trial, it can end only in one way:
A decision on the non-existence of culpability. And
if you don't rule based on justice and truth, then
your ruling will disintegrate and will burst like a
bubble of soap, because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is stronger than any
other court. It is up to each one of us, and each
one of you gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court of history,
and what its decision will be. So don't harbour any
illusions on that score.
"Let us hear what the truth is, and let the actual
perpetrators of what happened in Yugoslavia actually
be exposed, although you said yourself, Mr. Robinson,
at one point in time, that you are not in charge of
trying NATO for what they did, although you know what
they did and you know that the basic tenet of any
law in the world is that the law that does not apply to
one and all is not law at all."
*********************************************************
FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S 29 NOVEMBER REMARKS
*********************************************************
Tuesday, 29 November 2005
[Motion Hearing]
[Open session]
--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber scheduled
a hearing this morning to hear
submissions from the parties on the
question of severing the Kosovo
indictment and concluding that part
of the trial. We'll hear first from the
Prosecutor.
MR. NICE: We filed a paper late
yesterday afternoon. I don't know if the
Chamber has had an opportunity to consider it. (.)
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, we'll hear from
the accused before you.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I shall
take up far less time than Mr. Nice did.
I addressed you two weeks ago with a
request that you respect the position
of the team of doctors from Russia,
France, and Serbia to allow me a period
of rest, because that was observed on
the basis of their findings that my
health had not been stabilised, that
the possibility of complications
existed, and that a period of rest
was indicated for at least a period of
six weeks.
You asked to hear the views of the
Dutch physicians in that regard, and now
what is the state of that? What have
they found? You have that in the
report. Dr. van Dijkman, who is a
cardiologist, a specialist, one that you
selected here, in his report, wrote,
among other things, the following: "[In
English] I strongly advise provision
for sufficient rest."
[Interpretation] And he added:
"[In English] And it seemed to me that the
six-week rest period is somewhat too
much." [Interpretation] So the
cardiologist selected by you has
confirmed the need for rest. The only
question is whether six weeks is
somewhat too much. So that is one fact and
one point I wish to address.
Not a single one of the doctors who
considered the report that you supplied
them with questioned the findings
of the consilium of physicians from
Russia, France, and Serbia.
Otherwise, on the 15th of November --
and Mr. Nice here noted that I
strolled in, and he said that I wasn't
able to work. I know exactly what I
said: I said that I wasn't feeling
well, and that was the first time that I
did so in the past four years, the
first time I said that in a four-year
period, the first time I asked the
session to be interrupted because I
really didn't feel well. And even
then this request of mine was met on your
part by keeping me in that small
room on this floor an hour and a half while
your physician examined me.
Now, all the time that you have
been questioning the positions taken by the
consilium, which has now been confirmed
by your own doctors, the doctor at
the prison forbid me to come into court,
first of all on the 12th of
November and then on a second occasion
on the 21st of November. I had
prepared myself to come in here to
court. I had put on my shirt and tie, and
then I was told there would be no
transport and I wasn't able to come. So
when Mr. Bonomy says that I didn't
come, I didn't come because it was your
own doctor who forbid me to come.
I would like to make that quite clear.
Now, finally, this question that I
complained about on the 15th and waited
patiently for two months, with growing
problems, health problems, that
needed to be addressed, the question of
my very serious symptoms, very high
pressure that I feel in my ears and
oversensitivity to sound in general, at
the medical centre of the Leiden
University, Dr. Dalal examined me fully and
wrote an objective finding. When I say
"objective," I'm referring to the
finding that was written without the
active part of the patient, so it was
only the passive participation of
the patient, since the findings are based
on long-term electronic examination,
and he told me that those objective
findings of his fully confirmed the
symptoms that I complain of and the
problems -- health problems that I complain of.
Therefore, the physicians of my own
choice who came here because my state
had not improved at all during those
two months, and also the doctors you
selected yourselves, have come to the
same conclusions, to all intents and
purposes. Your prison doctor told me
that, over the past few days, he
supposed that I had managed to amass
enough energy to deal with the pressure
that I have in my ears because he
told me that Dr. Dalal, who is a very
highly placed professional in the area,
is preparing some sort of solution
which will make it easier for me to deal
with my health situation or do away
with the symptoms at all. So that is a
very interesting standpoint from the
medical point of view, but I'm not
going to comment on it now.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have
not had the benefit of seeing Dr.
Dalal's report. You have been referring
to it, so I just wanted you to know that.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, I have not seen it
myself either, but I do know what he
told me, after having examined me. I
was at the medical center of the
university in Leiden, I underwent a lengthy
examination there. It was with the
help of electronic instruments. It lasts
a long time. The patient has to lie
down. There are no questions and answers
or anything of that kind. It is
electronic sounding, using electronic
instruments. And then he told me after
that examination that his objective
findings confirmed the symptoms that I
complain of. That's what he told me,
and I assume he wrote that in his report.
Dr. Falke came and told me that he
has good news for me, that Dr. Dalal
considers that he's going to be able
to mitigate those symptoms or put them
right. I asked him a logical question:
When? And he said, Well, in the next
few days. We'll do our best to hurry
up. So how am I expected to work in the
meantime? Well, I -- he said, well,
I assume you have accumulated enough
strength to persevere, you've lasted
that long, and things along those
lines. I was in Bronovo Hospital in
September for the magnetic resonance
test, and before that an ENT specialist
saw me. That's been going on for
months, for three months, and the
situation became worse and worse as time
progressed.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I just
wanted to clarify that we did not
have the report to which you have
been referring. Proceed with your
submissions on the question --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I don't have it either. Yes, I'll get
to that, but it's all linked up. As
I was saying, I assume you do have the
Dr. van Dijkman's report, do you?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have Dr.
van Dijkman's report.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
And it says here -- very well. "[In
English] We strongly advise provision
for sufficient rest." [Interpretation]
That's what it says in his report.
JUDGE ROBINSON: But as you noted, he
went on to say that he did not
consider a period of six weeks to be required.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: "Somewhat too much."
[Interpretation] That's what he said.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] And
I pointed that out. I didn't want
to quote it one-sidedly, quote what
he said one-sidedly. Therefore,
gentlemen, it is my right to demand of
you to enable me to have the right to
protect my own health, and I think it
is your duty to protect that right and
support it. And that right is over and
above all the other preoccupations
for which you have convened these
proceedings here this morning. So my
request is this - I hope it is sufficiently
clear - and I request that you
enable me to have a pause, that is
to say, a period of rest in which to
recuperate. I understand that your
basic preoccupation ...
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes,
I was waiting for you to finish your discussion.
Mr. Nice, among other things, mentioned
the question of whether I was
taking my medicaments or not. That
can only be said by somebody who doesn't
know what prison procedure is like.
You have to take your pills in front of
the guards in prison. That does not
only apply to me, it applies to
everyone. And then the time at which
you took your medications is recorded
into a log book.
I myself requested Falke to carry
out a laboratory analysis to see how my
medicines were working, within the
context of all my general efforts to help
myself. And I should like to mention
the doctors that I invited came more
than two months after I put in a
request to Falke and from the time they
sent me for my first examination. So
all this was organised without
upsetting any of your plans.
So let's make each other understood
there, let's be clear on that point. I
don't want to hear any more of the
nonsensical kinds of things that Mr. Nice
has been saying.
Gentlemen, your principal preoccupation
is time, and you have been devoting
such great effort to the question of
time that when you speak of my health
state, you are looking at it exclusively,
as it says in paragraph 6 of your
guidelines, the state of factors that
upset these proceedings, the time
factors upsetting these proceedings,
in your order. So that I think that the
protection of health and the measure
to which this megalomaniac procedure,
with your permission, has been pursued
by the opposite side is upsetting my
health, that, judging by all factors,
doesn't seem to be important to you.
I would like to remind you gentlemen
of the following: In paragraph 4 of
your order, which we have here before
us on the table, you put forward the
chronology of your efforts to ensure
expediency of this trial. I'm not going
to quote those passages because you have
them in front of you. However, it
is interesting to note, and also indicative,
that that chronology of
events - that is to say, that enormous
wish to have expediency - begins in
July 2004, and that is what your chronology
shows, which is a point in time
when it is up to me to present my Defence
case. And the time I was given by
you was 150 days, and you said that that
was the same as the 300 days
allocated to the other side. Several weeks
ago, I mentioned here that the
number of hours which I was given by the
opposite side shows the sum of --
which is lacking in 72 days. You didn't
allow me to continue along those
lines, so I stopped, and I'm not going
to talk about that now either, but
I'd just like to say that that remains
as a fact.
So your concerns over expediency and
efficiency started when my half time
began, and to my detriment. And the
speed at which the proceedings have been
evolving became important when it came
to my presentation of facts, and took
precedence over those facts and
precedence over my state of health as well.
Now, had you expressed such concern
over expediency during the time of
Nice's and Del Ponte's Prosecution case,
then you would not have allowed
different witnesses to appear.
Mr. Robinson, Mr. Kwon, you will remember
full well that we had witnesses here
such some institute established in
haste in the space of a few days, right
near here in Amsterdam, and they
held a report about genocide against
the Armenians in Turkey and the
genocide in Rwanda and some other third
place, I can't remember which now,
and that Dutchman talked about that
at length, and you would never have
allowed things like that even to be
presented here at a place like this,
including many other irrelevant witnesses.
So we heard about the Armenians,
but we didn't hear about examples
which the Dutch institute and the only
Dutch word that everybody knows in
the world, the word "apartheid," how that
came into being. They didn't deal
with the question of apartheid, but they
did deal with the Armenians in Turkey
and Turks. So that was part of his
procedure, let alone other witnesses
who came to waste time here and talk
about minor issues.
So you showed an enormous amount
of understanding for the megalomaniac
ambitions of the opposite side to
-- Yes, Mr. Robinson.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You are now wasting
our time. We are here to consider two
issues: The question of severance and
the medical -- and your medical
condition. Confine your submissions to
those two issues.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Well, Mr. Robinson, you did not
interrupt Mr. Nice when he was making
the most absurd claims here, and I
think that these absurd claims of his
can be responded to --
JUDGE ROBINSON: If you're going to
continue like this, I will stop.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
All right.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You told us you wish
to make submissions. If I did not
interrupt Mr. Nice, it was because
there was no reason to interrupt him. Let
us proceed.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Let us proceed. I'm referring to what
it says here in your own decision
concerning the order that we're discussing
today. So the time lost, you say, due
to my health, in the period when you
started expressing this intense interest
in the expeditiousness of the trial.
I want to draw your attention to the
fact that this time that you call lost
or wasted is much shorter than time
wasted due to another matter, and that
is when you unlawfully took away my
right to self-representation last year.
Because of what you did, some of the
deadlines that you had set yourselves
and that you mention in this chronology
were simply not met at the moment
when my Defence case finally started
after the decision made by that Appeals
Chamber of yours. So, gentlemen, do not
blame my health - and I'm not to be
blamed for the state of my health - for
time wasted, when you're the ones
who wasted the time. As for all the
time that's been taken up, and in terms
of my health, the other side there is
also to be blamed, because of the
torture that they have been exposing
me to due to their megalomaniac
designs. And you never oppose that.
In paragraph 5 from the end of your
order, your scheduling order for this
hearing, today's hearing, you deal
with the positions taken by the Appeals
Chamber. I think that, due to the
importance of what you note here, it is
necessary to see what it says there
in paragraph 26. It says that: "[In
English] If the prosecution fails to
discharge this responsibility, the
Trial Chamber has sufficient powers
under the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence to order the prosecution to
reduce its list of witnesses to ensure
that the trial remains as manageable as possible.
Finally, if with the benefit of hindsight
it becomes apparent to the Trial
Chamber that the trial has developed
in such a way as to become
unmanageable - especially if, for
example, the prosecution is either
incapable or unwilling to exercise
the responsibility which it bears to
exercise restraint in relation to
the evidence it produces - it will still
be open to the Trial Chamber at that
stage -" [Interpretation] I emphasise
that - "at that stage," just like I
pointed out the Prosecution a moment
ago - "[In English] to order a
severance of the charges arising out of one
or more of the three areas in the former Yugoslavia."
[Interpretation] So what is referred
to here are the resources that you
have available if the other side, and
that is what is emphasised, does not
act in accordance with its obligation
in paragraph 25, where it says that
the Prosecution has a great responsibility
to prevent the trial from being
unmanageable due to an overabundance of
material, et cetera, et cetera. So
your very own Chamber here says that:
"The prosecution will bear a heavy
responsibility to ensure that the
single trial ..." et cetera, et cetera,
that the trial is manageable.
It's not only that example, but also
the systematic interpretation of what
the Appeals Chamber said in the context
where the severance of trials is
discussed. Obviously, they took into
account the situation that came to pass
a long time ago because of the megalomaniac
ambitions of the Prosecution in
these proceedings that you call a trial.
I also want to note here that the
Appeals Chamber did not look at my health
at all, and I don't think that they
needed to look at it at all, at that
time, that is. But not even bearing
that in mind, they emphasised need to
rest. Please, in paragraph 27, it says:
"[In English] As has been shown to
be necessary in all long trials before
this Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will
from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable
the parties to marshal their forces and,
if need be, for the unrepresented
accused to rest from the work involved."
[Interpretation] So, gentlemen, the
only effect that my health can have on
these proceedings is the fact that breaks
are taken if my health gets worse,
or, with any luck, to have proper short
rest periods so that any worsening
of my health is prevented. However,
I am quoting your own decision when you
say that these are factors that
constantly impede the trial. And I have read
out paragraph 26 to you, and you say --
you quote paragraph 26 when you say
that the trial becomes unmanageable,
but it is the other way around. I have
quoted paragraph 26 to you, and the
Appeals Chamber has instructed you how
to make the trial more manageable:
To give breaks from time to time, and so
on and so forth.
Now, gentlemen, do you really think
that somebody would be crazy enough to
believe that the Appeals Chamber would,
in paragraph 26, instruct measures
to be taken that would be in
contravention of paragraph 26 of their own
decision? Do you think that your colleagues
are that unreasonable that they
call for pauses in the trial, breaks
in the trial, and that that is
counter-productive? That's the way
it should be, according to what Mr. Nice
said here too. Of course, that's wrong.
The right way of interpreting it is
that by severing the trial, you are
actually acting against the decision of
the Appeals Chamber and you are
incorrectly interpreting their words. So
that would be an abuse of a document
in order to violate that same document,
which is quite unbelievable. It is
illogical and unlawful acrobatics. Also,
for years, you have been violating --
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, what you
ignore entirely in that submission is
that these words of the Appeal Chamber
were pronounced when this trial could
sit five days a week, and elaborate
arrangements have been made to give you
rest throughout the period since 2003.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
When was it that you gave me a break,
a rest? Just remind me, please.
JUDGE BONOMY: Every week you get a rest,
because you can only do three days
a week.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
No one works five days a week here,
especially for such a long period of time,
so please don't count on me --
please, in Dr. Van Dijkman's report,
in a part that I did not quote, in the
paragraph that precedes the one that
I quoted, it says: "In view of the
current work schedule [In English]
it is understandable -- In view of the
current work schedule, it is understandable
that the patient feels fatigued.
He has three court sessions per week
and spends the rest of the time
preparing for them, including
interviewing witnesses."
[Interpretation] So how is it that you
think that I can interview witnesses
during these remaining days if I'm supposed
to get some rest then?
JUDGE ROBINSON: You can get the rest --
you could get the rest if you
utilised the services that are available
to you. You do not have to
interview witnesses. That could be
done by assigned counsel. You have chosen
to do that.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I have seen how the assigned counsel
work with witnesses when you made it
possible for them to question
witnesses, by force, and I concluded
that it was absolutely inadequate.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what
comes to mind -- what comes to my mind
are the words of Marc Antony in his
funeral oration for Julius Caesar:
"Ingratitude, more strong than traitors'
arms ..." You are an ingrate in
relation to the work of the assigned
counsel and the help they have given
you. It does you no credit for taking
that approach to assigned counsel.
Continue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I do not wish to insult Ms. Higgins
or Mr. Kay, not in the least bit. But
they know full well that they know
very little about the situation in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia,
especially regarding issues that I am
being indicted for here by Mr. Nice
and this entire side that he represents.
Mr. Nice made absurd assertions
here, allegations regarding my alleged
participation in various things in
Bosnia, and during the presentation
of his case, he did not give a shred of
evidence about my alleged crimes in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. He talked about
events that occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But, on the other hand, there is
ample evidence that my greatest efforts
over all those years was to attain
peace, and I was given credit for that
by all sorts of Western leaders as
the person who gave the greatest
contribution to that and --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
stopped you. I want submissions on
the two issues before us: Severance
and, to the extent relevant, your
health. We'll take an adjournment for 20 minutes.
--- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.
(1/2 - continues)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., <icdsm-italia@l...> ha scritto:
(second and last part)
--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to make sure that
the transcript is correct in
relation to my reference to Marc Antony,
it's: "Ingratitude, more strong
than traitors' arms ..." You can at
least get it correct in the English.
Mr. Milosevic, there's a matter in
which I think you can help us. You have
37 or 45 witnesses outstanding for
Kosovo. How, in the light of the
remaining days left for your case,
do you plan to manage your case so as to
complete Kosovo as well as Bosnia and
Croatia? And, please, I don't want to
hear the refrain that this merely
shows how little time or how inadequate is
the time that has been allocated to you.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The microphone wasn't switched on.
What I was saying was this: Mr. Robinson,
the question of time you seem to
be placing in first place, so I assume
you won't have anything against me
having comments to make with respect
to that issue.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Robinson,
that a certain amount of time
ago, I did indicate the need to give
me adequate time. Had you personally --
and that you personally said at the
time that it was too early to discuss
the matter, that is to say, to give
me adequate time. Now, to carry on from
where you interrupted with your comment
that I should use imposed counsel,
let me present my position and you do
with it what you will and make your
own conclusions as you desire. But
I don't think you'll be able to topple
that position.
It is my right to represent myself,
and that right emanates from
international law and is contained in
your Statute as well. Therefore, you
are duty-bound to enable me to make
effective use of that right. That right
cannot be made up for by some sort of
assigned or imposed counsel.
It is my right to be able to present
my own Defence, and it is grounded in
the documents that are well known to you all.
So it is your duty to enable
me to use that right effectively
and not some fictitious right which is
accorded me in formal terms whereas
it is withheld in realistic terms. If I
have that right, then you must enable
me to use it effectively and to avail
myself of that right.
And the comment that I don't have to
proof witnesses myself is the same as
saying that I don't have to avail
myself of the right accorded me and that I
have chosen to use my right to my own
detriment. So the substance of the
matter is that I should be allowed
to use that right effectively.
Now, with regard to the question of
time, once again, Mr. Nice quoted
different documents and so you'll allow
me to do the same, to quote from
various documents. And I have
sufficient examples for you, although in
Serbian because it is a Serbian
translation, it is a statement by a group of
members of the Russian Association
of International Law for Monitoring the
Process of the Prosecutor versus
Slobodan Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
which a few days ago was published by
the Moscow Journal of International Law
and it was translated from that
Moscow Journal. It is the largest and
most important forum of that nature in
Russia, and the most important journal
for international law in Russia as well.
Among others, in point 1, which they
discuss, it is the right of the
accused to have sufficient time. Now,
this term "sufficient time" means for
the preparation of his Defence. That
has been extracted from "international
documents," and this is what it says:
"After the signing of the first
indictment raised against S. Milosevic by
the Prosecutor up until the start of
the Prosecution case, two years elapsed
and eight months. Throughout that time,
time was used to prepare the
indictment. Preparations of the
indictment went on eight months after the
accused was in prison. Now, for the
preparation of the Defence case,
Slobodan Milosevic was given three months."
And then they go on to quote your
order concerning the preparation and
presentation of the Defence case of
September 17th, 2003. "After an
extension of the time limit with
respect to the accused's health, the
Defence case, as a whole, amounted to
six months, but that extended time was
not used to prepare the Defence because
the Registry of the Tribunal denied
Milosevic the right to meet with
witnesses in connection with his health. It
is quite clear that the time for the
preparation of the Defence case in the
most complex international crimes
contained in 66 charges and 1.000 events
in prison conditions is inadequate.
In keeping with the principle of fair
play and equality of arms, the accused
must be accorded at least as much
time for his Defence case as the
Prosecution had for the Prosecution case
from the time the indictment was
signed until the case went to trial. In
conformity with giving the accused
sufficient time for preparation of his
Defence case, and taking into consideration
the complexity of the case
itself, S. Milosevic must be given
adequate time, and six months cannot be
termed adequate time. The request by
the accused to be granted more time was
turned down by the Appeals Chamber
as well, who said that, 'choosing to
represent himself, the accused has
given up the right of enjoying the
benefits of the Defence team set up
for him,' and that he himself, 'will
bear the brunt of not accepting the
services of assigned counsel.'"
That is the decision of January 2004.
In this connection, the Appeals
Chamber referred to four decisions
made by national courts, but it forgot to
refer to the norms of international
law which are in force, and the most
senior Chamber of the Tribunal, which
was duty-bound to protect the rights
of the accused, confirmed the unlawful
decision by the Trial Chamber to the
detriment of the accused for having
opted to represent himself without
providing legal arguments in sufficient scope.
"Apart from that, this right is part
of the rights that do not have a time
limit," and it says, "see Article 3
of international -- covenant of
international laws where everybody has
the right, as a minimum, to the
following guarantees and conditions."
And the conclusion is, of this group,
that is to say, the group of the
Russian International Law Association, is
that: "The Tribunal has violated the
rights of the accused to be given
sufficient time to prepare his defence case."
I won't continue quoting. I will ask
you to take up this decision, and I'm
sure your translators will be able to
translate it into English for you.
They contain many other points, but
I think it would be beneficial for you
to read it.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Did I understand you
correctly to read from the Journal of
International Lawyers that this right
is part of the rights that do not have
a time limit? Is that what you read?
THE INTERPRETER: Statute of limitations,
interpreter's note.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I read what it says exactly in that
statement. I'll go back to that.
Let me just see.
JUDGE ROBINSON: What right are they
referring to? Is it the right to a
defence? Is it the right of an accused
to put up his defence?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The right of the accused, and then
they quote "to have sufficient time
and possibility for preparation of his
defence." That is point 1, which I quoted.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And is that the right
which they say is without a time
limit? I'm trying to understand
what you just read.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Well, Mr. Robinson, they don't say
that it has a time limit. What they
say is, the amount of time that was
necessary and accorded to the opposite
side for writing the indictment, and
claim that I must be given that same
amount of time. And they quoted exactly
when the indictment was signed and how
long it took them to prepare for the
Prosecution case to go ahead with the
trial. So it's no fluid category that
we're dealing with here, without
boundaries. They are talking and comparing
the time that the other side had at
its disposal and the time accorded to me
by you. And those six months, or barely
six months, cannot be compared to a
period of three years, let alone
compared to the fact that I am managing my
Defence myself, whereas Del Ponte and
Nice have an enormous machinery at
their disposal, including all their
services and experts and so on and so forth.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
And when I mentioned -- Mr. Robinson,
when I mentioned the NATO pact officers,
let me remind you, since Mr. Nice
is talking about proof and evidence,
I would like to remind you that their
military expert, Mr. Theunens, said
here on behalf of the whole group
working on the subject matter, that
they studied thousands of documents, and
I asked him here, "Do you have any
document of mine?" if you remember, Mr.
Robinson, and he said, "Yes, I do."
And I asked him to place it on the
overhead projector.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Do you remember that?
JUDGE ROBINSON: -- I can understand
the submission that an accused person
is entitled to sufficient time, but I
do not accept a submission that there
is no time limit for putting a defence.
You're entitled to a reasonable
time. If your Russian association of
lawyers said that there is no time
limit in putting a defence, and if
by that they meant that an accused person
would be entitled to put a defence
ad infinitum, I utterly reject that.
You're entitled to a reasonable time
to put your Defence. Continue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, in responding to your
question, I precisely said that that
is not what they claim, that the
accused has limitless rights. All
they claim is that the accused must be
given the same amount of time as given
to the Prosecution for preparing the
indictment. And they were able to
establish that time in quite exact terms
by comparing the date in which the
indictment was raised and the date when
the trial started here, and that was
a period of time that was exactly
established, let alone the fact that
before they actually wrote the
indictment, they had to have done
some preparatory work as well.
So you did not understand the explanation
and quotation that I read out to
you properly, so I suggest that you
take this report and read it for
yourself, because I think that they
are leading international lawyers who
took part in writing it, and I wish
to add to this that we are not only
speaking -- although this is a statement
by the International Russian
Federation legal minds, but of course
there is a series of broad circles of
experts for international law from
other countries, including those
countries who wrote the petition to
Kofi Annan with respect to your conduct
towards me from some 30-odd countries
that signed it and went to visit the
Secretary-General of the Security Council.
So this is a position that is
widespread in the world, and it would
suffice, if I were in your place, if I
were to read this position elaborated
by the experts from the Russian
Federation that rank among the top
professionals in the world in their
field. As I was saying - let me continue -
the present situation is the
direct result of a megalomaniac ambition
by the other side and most probably
by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and
evidence against me. Quantity over quality.
Because you cannot have evidence
and valid proof for untruths. And you
have supported the other side through
your tolerant relationship with them,
and asking them to be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been
bombed by various documents, material
witnesses, and so on, that the opposite
side has been allowed to present
with the go-ahead from you. I think that
this is a form of torture and a
form of cynicism to put that burden of
responsibility upon me, all the more
so if this is linked to my health
situation, which has been significantly
impaired because of the torture I
have been exposed to.
And I would like to remind you that
when General Stevanovic testified here,
in some context or other - it's not
important now; we can look at the
transcript if we want to see the
exact context - I said that the opposite
side served over a million pages of
material on me. Mr. Nice intervened at
that point and said it was only 600.000,
and with respect to the others it
was copies supplied twice.
Now, without entering into whether
I was served double copies, and would
have to read through all the material
to see whether that was true, and
there's no justification for that
either, but nonetheless it's an enormous
amount of material. And that every
participant in this trial had to read 500
to 1.000 pages per day every day over
the space of three and a half years,
without exception and without all
their other obligations. And a normal
human being is quite certainly not
able to read even a small portion of
that. And as I believe that nobody
could claim to be a superpowerful human
in any sense here, then we come to the
conclusion that the situation is
quite unrealistic and in this hall
for three and a half years we have had a
group of people taking part in something
that we can call or is called a
trial, whereas none of the participants
in the proceedings knows what it
says in the files on the basis of which
the discussions are being held here.
Please, to a certain extent, it is
not only that that people don't know
about; they don't know what the other
side is prosecuting me for. I would
particularly like to highlight the
issue of a Greater Serbia in that
context. This was represented by the
other side four years ago when they
asked for a joinder of trials, that
that was the red thread bringing all
parts of the case together, and the
Trial Chamber agreed to that. So then
you cannot talk about severing the
case without dealing with the destiny of
that particular issue.
On the 25th of August this year,
Mr. Nice, after three and a half years of
trial, said that he was not prosecuting
me on account of a Greater Serbia,
and he ascribed that idea to me from
the very outset, from his introductory
remarks and then through the testimony
of almost half or even more than half
of his witnesses who -- his witnesses,
who spoke of a Greater Serbia as my
objective and answered questions put
by him to them in that context.
So how can you talk about severance,
then, before giving answers to certain
questions? What is the fate of these
proceedings that have been going on for
over three years where you and I,
and probably the other side, thought that
I was being tried for a Greater Serbia,
which was the objective of some kind
of alleged joint criminal enterprise.
So that was what we tried to deal with
when putting questions to the witnesses
and in dealing with all the
evidence, because that is what Mr. Nice
was alleging through his witnesses.
So, then, what is the legal validity
of that part of the proceedings, when
we were all being deluded into believing
that this was the main objective of
the Prosecution? So what's the point
of all these witnesses who talked about
a Greater Serbia as my primary goal here?
Are you going to take that out of
the evidence, the body of evidence,
or are you going to let me examine them
further?
Also, what about this joint criminal
enterprise? And what would its
objective be after this change? And
what is this phantom of a joint criminal
enterprise that is being discussed here?
And what is it that is exactly
being alleged? People who are sitting
here, including me, including you, on
the one hand, simply cannot know all
the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served -
a million pages, no less - and no one
knows what the Prosecutor is prosecuting,
including the Prosecutor herself.
She doesn't know it either. I think
that even Franz Kafka would feel that he
did not have great imagination compared to this.
So now, gentlemen, after almost four
years of a joined trial, after
omitting to exercise your own
responsibilities and duties and to bridle the
other side, as instructed by the Appeals
Chamber, so perhaps you could have
even severed the trial at some point
earlier on, but now you want to do it
four years later. Four years later. And
during those four years, this was a
whole, an entity, not only from the
point of view of process, but also from
the material point of view, where the
other side presented its own body of
evidence as a whole and then I based
my Defence case on that single entity.
And since there is this time pressure
that you've been insisting upon all
the time, the crossover that you say,
witnesses that testify about Kosovo
and Bosnia and Croatia, now I have to
make a selection, it appears, with a
great deal of effort, I must say.
Immediately, there is another question
that comes to mind: As for these
witnesses that, for the most part, pertain
to Kosovo, but some of them also
have to do with Bosnia and Croatia, include
witnesses that I asked you to
call: Clinton, Clark. And during his
testimony here, you did not allow me to
put questions in relation to the war
that he commanded and the book that he
wrote about it. And these are key witnesses.
For over a year, you've been in
correspondence with them. It is high
time for you to understand that they
will not come here without your order.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that,
again, is a matter in relation to
which you owe a great debt of gratitude
to assigned counsel. Through their
action, through their professionalism,
we are considering now a motion to
subpoena certain witnesses, and without
their intervention, without their
help, we would not have been considering this.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Yes, I know about that. I know about
that, Mr. Robinson.
So severance would create the following
situation: That they prosecute me
for one thing, and halfway, I start
defending myself from other things that
I'm being accused of. I have to defend
myself a bit from one and a bit from
the other, and then what I do here, when
presenting the truth, is being
sabotaged in practical terms; it is being
truncated. And the effect of the
fact that Mr. Nice changes his position
with regard to a Greater Serbia
halfway multiplies the effort involved.
What he said is true, that, as regards
Kosovo, then, you would be in a
position to decide, under the impression
of many years of having heard
senseless and totally baseless accusations
related to Bosnia and Croatia. He
talks about victims here. Let me see
one single victim of mine here. He
never established any link whatsoever
between what he presented and the
charges that he's bringing against me.
These victims do not deserve this.
They do not deserve having the wrong
people being accused of things done
against them.
Mr. Nice mentioned Annex B. I don't have
time to read it, but let's have a
look at it. The first witness here,
Stjepan Mesic, the current president of
Croatia, who testified here, the first
person mentioned in Annex B, the
famous Stjepan Mesic, who did his
very best to break up Yugoslavia, who
stated himself that he carried out his
job, that Yugoslavia was no more. And
he says here "[In English] ... where
he said ..." [Interpretation] and so on
and so forth, and so on and so forth.
Nonsense, sheer nonsense. And this
Mesic got that from this distorted and
forged BBC TV show which seems to be
Mr. Nice's lodestar.
Indictments should be based on facts,
not on comic books, TV shows, what
have you not. So this is kitsch, really,
the entire Prosecution case, both
in terms of the vehicles used and the
witnesses called. Kitsch.
So now, if you wanted to check this,
it would be as if somebody were
playing a game of football for 50 minutes,
and then in the second half he
starts playing basketball. It's even
worse, because the adverse effects are
only on my side. It is only the Defence
that has to deal with the negative
effects. So it becomes even more senseless
because the change of the terms
and conditions is only to my detriment.
And I wish to say --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
So the proposal to sever the trial is
so pointless, but I think that you
yourselves show the senselessness through
your own words: "[In English] ... for
the Trial Chamber to sever the Kosovo
Indictment, conclude that part of the
trial and render its Judgement thereon..."
Gentlemen, "part of the trial" are the
words that you clearly use here, so
the objective should be to conclude part
of the trial. But parts of the
trial cannot be concluded. Parts cannot
be concluded. Parts of the trial
cannot be concluded. Trials have a
Prosecution case and a Defence case and
then they can be concluded, but to
conclude part of a trial is basically an
abuse of trial. Or what would that mean,
to conclude part of a trial? [In
English] A mistrial.
[Interpretation] I think that this
Kafkaesque situation that I just
described, if there were to be a
severance, would make the entire situation
even more absurd and more incredible.
Of course, again, you're going to
decide as you wish, and then you won't
understand why, throughout the world,
this trial of yours is being treated
as an ordinary farce.
So, gentlemen, I'm opposed to your
order, and the first thing I ask you to
do is to return to me my right to
health, to make it possible for me to have
a break to recuperate.
And in relation to what Mr. Bonomy
said when he expressed his astonishment
when Mr. Nice was referring to what
the public was talking about, I wish to
remind you of the following: In all
the paragraphs of the Kosovo indictment
where alleged crimes are referred to
over the allegedly unarmed Albanians,
it says: "The forces of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic
of Serbia" did such and such a thing.
In all paragraphs, without exception.
All of Serbia, and everyone in the
international public knows that the
forces of the FRY of Serbia were
protecting, defending the country from
terrorism and foreign aggression.
That is what is perfectly clear.
Now, this phrase which is used in
every paragraph pertaining to the alleged
crimes, "the forces of the FRY and
Serbia," you are supposed to make a
judgement, when lo and behold, the
negotiations on the final status of
Kosovo and Metohija are about to
start, not to mention the fact that as a
precondition for bringing the war to
an end, we got the firmest possible
international guarantees for the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of
the country. So what a coincidence.
Is there anyone that you can dissuade
that that is not the aim of those that
you receive orders from, that it is
the forces of the FRY and Serbia that
have to be found guilty for defending
their own territory so that those who
really did this would not stand
accused but rather achieve their
geopolitical objectives.
So that is quite clearly present in
the public opinion. And this is a
coincidence that everybody noticed
immediately. It was not necessary for
anyone to explain it to them.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, I wonder
if you can help me and tell me how
these instructions are conveyed to me,
because I'm obviously missing some
part of the information that you seem
to consider as essential to my
judgement of this matter. How is it
I get my orders? Where do they come
from? You who so proudly denies the
allegations against you about conveying
orders to others on the basis of no
information, on no evidence, what is the
evidence you suggest indicates that
I receive orders from somewhere?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Bonomy, this entire Court was
envisaged as an instrument of war
against my country. It was founded
illegally on the basis of an illegal
decision and carried through by the
forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is
true here: It is true that there is a
joint criminal enterprise, but not in
Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its
center, but those, who, in a war that was
waged in Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards,
destroyed Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia did not disintegrate by --
JUDGE BONOMY: You fail to answer my
question. Please answer the question
rather than embark on a political diatribe.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson -- or, rather, Mr.
Bonomy, I'm not making political
speeches here at all. I think that you are
in the service of those who committed
crimes against my country and against
my people, and you're receiving a salary from them.
JUDGE BONOMY: You're refusing to answer
the question, are you?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
No, no, I'm not refusing. Do you want
to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a
salary from the United Nations? Who
finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy? Who
established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my
country, Mr. Bonomy? Your country.
And who am I asking to come in to
testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
JUDGE BONOMY: Are you suggesting
I am not paid by the United Nations?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I claim that, Mr. Bonomy, because the
United Nations are -- finance this
illegal Tribunal of yours. It's financed
from all manner of sources. I have
enumerated some of them.
Now, whether you, in formal terms,
whether you, in formal terms, receive a
salary via this institution which calls
itself a United Nations Tribunal is
quite immaterial as far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE BONOMY: Well, now you move on
to another issue when you're proved to
be wrong. So let's concentrate on the
issue that you're addressing; the
question of severance.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Therefore, gentlemen, as I've already
told you, I am opposed to severance
because I would say that was -- that was
a war, it was one war. I said Yugoslavia
did not disintegrate or disappear
in some manner, but it was destroyed
in a planned manner, forcefully,
through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one
of the instruments of this war is your
illegal Tribunal.
Let me say straight away, as far as
your judgements are concerned and
rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because
if you judge according to the law and
the truth, then there would never have
been this trial in the first place.
But as we do have a trial, it can end
only in one way: A decision on the
non-existence of culpability. And if you
don't rule based on justice and truth,
then your ruling will disintegrate
and will burst like a bubble of soap,
because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is
stronger than any other court. It is up to
each one of us, and each one of you
gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court
of history, and what its decision will
be. So don't harbour any illusions on
that score.
Therefore, as I said, I am opposed
to severance. I demand that I be given a
rest period to recuperate. I stress
that today, too, I came in in a very
poor state of health, extremely poor,
but I did come in so that we can
continue the proceedings. Therefore,
I demand that you consider my request
to give me a break, a period of rest.
And as for severance or non-severance,
I've stated my views on that matter, too.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. (.)
JUDGE ROBINSON: There are several issues
arising from the matters that we
have considered today. I wish to note --
Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Will I get an opportunity to say a
few words with regard to these questions
that Mr. Nice raised?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you've already
spoken, and we have heard you. Do you
have something that could be said very briefly?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
We heard him before me and now he
spoke, well, for a considerable amount
of time yet again.
JUDGE ROBINSON: That was a response to you.
That's traditional in these
matters. If you have something to say,
I'll hear it, briefly.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Before I speak in connection with
what Mr. Nice said, and he repeated
lots of nonsense that we have occasion
to hear from him here, I just wish to
provide a piece of information to Mr.
Bonomy because he asked me about this.
So, Mr. Bonomy, in relation to the
financing of this illegal Tribunal of
yours, according to your own Article 32
of your own Statute, the expenses
are covered from the regular budget
of the UN. However, they arrive from
very murky sources; the Soros Foundation,
various foundations from the
Islamic countries, with NATO being the
major financier.
On the 17th of May, 1999, Jamie Shea,
the spokesperson of NATO, said: "NATO
countries are those [In English] ...
the finest to set up Tribunal. We are
amongst the majority financiers.
We want to see war criminals brought to
justice. I'm certain that when Justice
Arbour goes to Kosovo and looks at
the facts, she will be indicting
people of Yugoslavian nationality, and I
don't anticipate any others at this stage."
[Interpretation] So the main financier
is NATO, and the others are the
Soros Foundation and foundations from
Islamic countries, and so on and so
forth. So that is perfectly clear.
And on page 35550 from these proceedings
here, I'm just going to quote Mr.
Nice, who talks about a witness, and
says: "[In English] If we go to page 2
of 11, halfway down the page we can see
that this is by no means written by
people who are friends of the ICTY or
any Western conspiracy, because the
author describes NATO's intervention
as the recent 'brutal, illegal, and
illegitimate intervention of the NATO
forces against the country.'
"So you would accept that this is a
Serb without any particular leaning
towards the forces and powers that
established this Tribunal ..." et cetera.
[Interpretation] So, Mr. Bonomy, for
Mr. Nice, obviously there is no
dilemma, the kind of dilemma you have.
So you can clarify it with him, what
he meant to say then. Since you say that
you don't know about this, I hereby
inform you of this. And I believe that,
as an honourable man, once you've
found out, and I can give you further
evidence, you can leave this story
that you got into without realising
what you got yourself into. And now as
for Mr. Nice and what he said, he said
the most senseless thing possible
about a Greater Serbia --
JUDGE BONOMY: I have to say I haven't
the remotest idea what you're talking
about now in relation to this. In fact,
the more I read it, the less
comprehensible it becomes.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
to say to you that you are not at
large here. I am giving you a chance
to comment on some issues if you
consider them to be issues of importance.
Although the Prosecutor did not
file a motion, I asked the Prosecutor
to begin. So in accordance with the
tradition in adversarial systems,
I allowed him to reply. In these
circumstances, I don't see you as
having any right to reply, but you
obviously have an interest, a
fundamental interest, in the outcome of these
matters, and it is for that reason
that I'm allowing you to say something at
this stage. But please don't abuse it.
Proceed, bearing in mind that we
are now almost seven minutes to two.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
As for what Mr. Nice said that
pertains to one of the key issues,
as for Greater Serbia, he explained just
now that I did not utter that word,
but I assume that he's trying to say
that there is something that was done.
I also think that deeds have to be
looked into first and foremost, and
the deed is the following, Mr. Robinson
and gentlemen: In this entire period,
from 1991 onwards, no one was expelled
from Serbia on account of ethnic
affiliation. There was no discrimination
whatsoever. No one from Serbia and no
one from the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was discriminated against
on account of his religion, race, or
beliefs. That is a fact, gentlemen.
And at that time that you are interested
in, I was president of Serbia and president
of Yugoslavia, and no one was
ever expelled from there. That is a fact.
Now, what Mr. Nice is trying to ascribe to me --
JUDGE ROBINSON: [B/C/S spoken on English
channel] I want to make it clear
I'm not interested in this. I'm interested
in the question of severance. I
am not clear. We are back to English now.
Did you hear what I said? I said
I'm not interested in a general discussion
on Greater Serbia. If you have
something to say about Greater Serbia
because it impacts on the question of
severance, then I'll allow you to say it.
But don't regurgitate the
arguments which we've heard ad nauseam
about this issue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, the question of time is
being raised here, and Mr. Nice devoted
due attention to that in the speech
he just made. According to Mr. Nice,
the best thing would be not to have
anyone testify in public but to do
all of it in writing, and Mr. Nice is
explaining to you how they abided by
that, that they were very economical,
very expeditious. And in spite of all
these heaps of paper and all these 92
bis and 89(F) testimonies, he used up
300 days. So please do not take into
account these things that are in
contravention of pure mathematics.
I was not saying that no one worked
for five days. I was just trying to say
that no one sat for five days. Of course
I work for more than five days,
although we sit here only for three
days. And after all, Dr. van Dijkman
wrote that three days is what I do
here, and as for the rest of my time, I
have to prepare myself for here,
including the proofing of witnesses. And
that is what he knows full well and
that is what you know full well, so that
is an argument that cannot be used at all.
Mr. Nice's advice is that I collect
written statements from witnesses. The
basic aim of public testimony is to
hear the truth, because if we were to
stop at what Mr. Nice wrote, together
with his associates, that would be a
monstrous lie. So in order to have the
truth heard, there is a great
interest involved, a historical interest,
I should say, of my people, of my
country. But not only of my people
and of my country, of mankind in general
and of the times in general. Let us
hear what the truth is, and let the
actual perpetrators of what happened
in Yugoslavia actually be exposed,
although you said yourself, Mr.
Robinson, at one point in time, that you are
not in charge of trying NATO for what
they did, although you know what they
did and you know that the basic tenet
of any law in the world is that the
law that does not apply to one and
all is not law at all.
Therefore, I ask for adequate time to
be given to me.
JUDGE BONOMY: I, again, have to say
I don't understand this submission.
Because something is in writing does
not mean it is not in public.
Everything in writing here, submitted
in writing that's not confidential,
becomes public. And at this stage,
it's not, as you would see it, lies that
we're suggesting ought to be presented
in writing, it's what you claim to be
the truth, because it is you that would
be presenting the written material,
and you turn the argument on its head
and undermine your whole case. It is
the way forward if you want to submit
material in addition to the period
that's been allocated to you to complete the case.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I think, Mr. Bonomy, that you're the
one who's turned things upside down.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you finished now,
Mr. Milosevic?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Nice presented a great many other
things here too, that this will show
how I systematically did not observe
any laws, which is a lie. He has not
presented a shred of evidence to that
effect. That my role with the
paramilitaries will be shown. My only role
with the paramilitaries was to have
them arrested.
There was no other evidence to that effect.
So he is manipulating here --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, all of this
-- this is irrelevant to the
issue. If you do not have anything more
to say on the question of severance,
we'll stop now. We are 15 minutes beyond --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I'm talking about what he talked about.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And you don't have a
right to do that. I explained to you
the circumstances in which I have
allowed you to speak, and I explained why
Mr. Nice had a right to reply, because
he started. Do you have anything that
is pertinent to say, anything more? I'm
not interested in general issues. If
you don't, I'm going to adjourn.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I have presented what I consider to be relevant.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
I want to say that many issues arise
for consideration and decision by the
Trial Chamber in relation to this matter.
We still have outstanding a report
which we expect today from Dr. Dalal,
and also there is to be an examination
and a report by a neuroradiologist.
The Chamber would like to have all these
reports before it before it makes a
decision on these matters. So we'll give
a decision once we have all the reports before us.
******************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
President Milosevic has the truth and
law on his side. In order to use that
advantage to achieve his freedom, we
must fight this totally discredited
tribunal and its patrons through
professionally conducted actions.
The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only to cover the expenses of the stay and
work of President Milosevic's legal
associates at The Hague (one at the time).
After the unlawful attack of the German
financial authorities on the ICDSM
fundraising in Germany, that lead
to freezing of the ICDSM account in
Germany, the similar thing took place
recently in Austria, where the
account of the Yugoslav-Austrian
Solidarity was frozen. These unlawful acts,
aiming to undermine the President Milosevic's
defence, will be fought back legally.
***********************************************************
To carry on the normal defence work -
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Please send your donations to the following account:
Committee Intersol
Bank: 'Postbank', Amsterdam, Netherlands
Accountnumber 4766774
IBAN NL07 PSTB 0004766774
BIC PSTBNL21
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
(second and last part)
--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to make sure that
the transcript is correct in
relation to my reference to Marc Antony,
it's: "Ingratitude, more strong
than traitors' arms ..." You can at
least get it correct in the English.
Mr. Milosevic, there's a matter in
which I think you can help us. You have
37 or 45 witnesses outstanding for
Kosovo. How, in the light of the
remaining days left for your case,
do you plan to manage your case so as to
complete Kosovo as well as Bosnia and
Croatia? And, please, I don't want to
hear the refrain that this merely
shows how little time or how inadequate is
the time that has been allocated to you.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The microphone wasn't switched on.
What I was saying was this: Mr. Robinson,
the question of time you seem to
be placing in first place, so I assume
you won't have anything against me
having comments to make with respect
to that issue.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Robinson,
that a certain amount of time
ago, I did indicate the need to give
me adequate time. Had you personally --
and that you personally said at the
time that it was too early to discuss
the matter, that is to say, to give
me adequate time. Now, to carry on from
where you interrupted with your comment
that I should use imposed counsel,
let me present my position and you do
with it what you will and make your
own conclusions as you desire. But
I don't think you'll be able to topple
that position.
It is my right to represent myself,
and that right emanates from
international law and is contained in
your Statute as well. Therefore, you
are duty-bound to enable me to make
effective use of that right. That right
cannot be made up for by some sort of
assigned or imposed counsel.
It is my right to be able to present
my own Defence, and it is grounded in
the documents that are well known to you all.
So it is your duty to enable
me to use that right effectively
and not some fictitious right which is
accorded me in formal terms whereas
it is withheld in realistic terms. If I
have that right, then you must enable
me to use it effectively and to avail
myself of that right.
And the comment that I don't have to
proof witnesses myself is the same as
saying that I don't have to avail
myself of the right accorded me and that I
have chosen to use my right to my own
detriment. So the substance of the
matter is that I should be allowed
to use that right effectively.
Now, with regard to the question of
time, once again, Mr. Nice quoted
different documents and so you'll allow
me to do the same, to quote from
various documents. And I have
sufficient examples for you, although in
Serbian because it is a Serbian
translation, it is a statement by a group of
members of the Russian Association
of International Law for Monitoring the
Process of the Prosecutor versus
Slobodan Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
which a few days ago was published by
the Moscow Journal of International Law
and it was translated from that
Moscow Journal. It is the largest and
most important forum of that nature in
Russia, and the most important journal
for international law in Russia as well.
Among others, in point 1, which they
discuss, it is the right of the
accused to have sufficient time. Now,
this term "sufficient time" means for
the preparation of his Defence. That
has been extracted from "international
documents," and this is what it says:
"After the signing of the first
indictment raised against S. Milosevic by
the Prosecutor up until the start of
the Prosecution case, two years elapsed
and eight months. Throughout that time,
time was used to prepare the
indictment. Preparations of the
indictment went on eight months after the
accused was in prison. Now, for the
preparation of the Defence case,
Slobodan Milosevic was given three months."
And then they go on to quote your
order concerning the preparation and
presentation of the Defence case of
September 17th, 2003. "After an
extension of the time limit with
respect to the accused's health, the
Defence case, as a whole, amounted to
six months, but that extended time was
not used to prepare the Defence because
the Registry of the Tribunal denied
Milosevic the right to meet with
witnesses in connection with his health. It
is quite clear that the time for the
preparation of the Defence case in the
most complex international crimes
contained in 66 charges and 1.000 events
in prison conditions is inadequate.
In keeping with the principle of fair
play and equality of arms, the accused
must be accorded at least as much
time for his Defence case as the
Prosecution had for the Prosecution case
from the time the indictment was
signed until the case went to trial. In
conformity with giving the accused
sufficient time for preparation of his
Defence case, and taking into consideration
the complexity of the case
itself, S. Milosevic must be given
adequate time, and six months cannot be
termed adequate time. The request by
the accused to be granted more time was
turned down by the Appeals Chamber
as well, who said that, 'choosing to
represent himself, the accused has
given up the right of enjoying the
benefits of the Defence team set up
for him,' and that he himself, 'will
bear the brunt of not accepting the
services of assigned counsel.'"
That is the decision of January 2004.
In this connection, the Appeals
Chamber referred to four decisions
made by national courts, but it forgot to
refer to the norms of international
law which are in force, and the most
senior Chamber of the Tribunal, which
was duty-bound to protect the rights
of the accused, confirmed the unlawful
decision by the Trial Chamber to the
detriment of the accused for having
opted to represent himself without
providing legal arguments in sufficient scope.
"Apart from that, this right is part
of the rights that do not have a time
limit," and it says, "see Article 3
of international -- covenant of
international laws where everybody has
the right, as a minimum, to the
following guarantees and conditions."
And the conclusion is, of this group,
that is to say, the group of the
Russian International Law Association, is
that: "The Tribunal has violated the
rights of the accused to be given
sufficient time to prepare his defence case."
I won't continue quoting. I will ask
you to take up this decision, and I'm
sure your translators will be able to
translate it into English for you.
They contain many other points, but
I think it would be beneficial for you
to read it.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Did I understand you
correctly to read from the Journal of
International Lawyers that this right
is part of the rights that do not have
a time limit? Is that what you read?
THE INTERPRETER: Statute of limitations,
interpreter's note.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I read what it says exactly in that
statement. I'll go back to that.
Let me just see.
JUDGE ROBINSON: What right are they
referring to? Is it the right to a
defence? Is it the right of an accused
to put up his defence?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The right of the accused, and then
they quote "to have sufficient time
and possibility for preparation of his
defence." That is point 1, which I quoted.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And is that the right
which they say is without a time
limit? I'm trying to understand
what you just read.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Well, Mr. Robinson, they don't say
that it has a time limit. What they
say is, the amount of time that was
necessary and accorded to the opposite
side for writing the indictment, and
claim that I must be given that same
amount of time. And they quoted exactly
when the indictment was signed and how
long it took them to prepare for the
Prosecution case to go ahead with the
trial. So it's no fluid category that
we're dealing with here, without
boundaries. They are talking and comparing
the time that the other side had at
its disposal and the time accorded to me
by you. And those six months, or barely
six months, cannot be compared to a
period of three years, let alone
compared to the fact that I am managing my
Defence myself, whereas Del Ponte and
Nice have an enormous machinery at
their disposal, including all their
services and experts and so on and so forth.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
And when I mentioned -- Mr. Robinson,
when I mentioned the NATO pact officers,
let me remind you, since Mr. Nice
is talking about proof and evidence,
I would like to remind you that their
military expert, Mr. Theunens, said
here on behalf of the whole group
working on the subject matter, that
they studied thousands of documents, and
I asked him here, "Do you have any
document of mine?" if you remember, Mr.
Robinson, and he said, "Yes, I do."
And I asked him to place it on the
overhead projector.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Do you remember that?
JUDGE ROBINSON: -- I can understand
the submission that an accused person
is entitled to sufficient time, but I
do not accept a submission that there
is no time limit for putting a defence.
You're entitled to a reasonable
time. If your Russian association of
lawyers said that there is no time
limit in putting a defence, and if
by that they meant that an accused person
would be entitled to put a defence
ad infinitum, I utterly reject that.
You're entitled to a reasonable time
to put your Defence. Continue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, in responding to your
question, I precisely said that that
is not what they claim, that the
accused has limitless rights. All
they claim is that the accused must be
given the same amount of time as given
to the Prosecution for preparing the
indictment. And they were able to
establish that time in quite exact terms
by comparing the date in which the
indictment was raised and the date when
the trial started here, and that was
a period of time that was exactly
established, let alone the fact that
before they actually wrote the
indictment, they had to have done
some preparatory work as well.
So you did not understand the explanation
and quotation that I read out to
you properly, so I suggest that you
take this report and read it for
yourself, because I think that they
are leading international lawyers who
took part in writing it, and I wish
to add to this that we are not only
speaking -- although this is a statement
by the International Russian
Federation legal minds, but of course
there is a series of broad circles of
experts for international law from
other countries, including those
countries who wrote the petition to
Kofi Annan with respect to your conduct
towards me from some 30-odd countries
that signed it and went to visit the
Secretary-General of the Security Council.
So this is a position that is
widespread in the world, and it would
suffice, if I were in your place, if I
were to read this position elaborated
by the experts from the Russian
Federation that rank among the top
professionals in the world in their
field. As I was saying - let me continue -
the present situation is the
direct result of a megalomaniac ambition
by the other side and most probably
by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and
evidence against me. Quantity over quality.
Because you cannot have evidence
and valid proof for untruths. And you
have supported the other side through
your tolerant relationship with them,
and asking them to be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been
bombed by various documents, material
witnesses, and so on, that the opposite
side has been allowed to present
with the go-ahead from you. I think that
this is a form of torture and a
form of cynicism to put that burden of
responsibility upon me, all the more
so if this is linked to my health
situation, which has been significantly
impaired because of the torture I
have been exposed to.
And I would like to remind you that
when General Stevanovic testified here,
in some context or other - it's not
important now; we can look at the
transcript if we want to see the
exact context - I said that the opposite
side served over a million pages of
material on me. Mr. Nice intervened at
that point and said it was only 600.000,
and with respect to the others it
was copies supplied twice.
Now, without entering into whether
I was served double copies, and would
have to read through all the material
to see whether that was true, and
there's no justification for that
either, but nonetheless it's an enormous
amount of material. And that every
participant in this trial had to read 500
to 1.000 pages per day every day over
the space of three and a half years,
without exception and without all
their other obligations. And a normal
human being is quite certainly not
able to read even a small portion of
that. And as I believe that nobody
could claim to be a superpowerful human
in any sense here, then we come to the
conclusion that the situation is
quite unrealistic and in this hall
for three and a half years we have had a
group of people taking part in something
that we can call or is called a
trial, whereas none of the participants
in the proceedings knows what it
says in the files on the basis of which
the discussions are being held here.
Please, to a certain extent, it is
not only that that people don't know
about; they don't know what the other
side is prosecuting me for. I would
particularly like to highlight the
issue of a Greater Serbia in that
context. This was represented by the
other side four years ago when they
asked for a joinder of trials, that
that was the red thread bringing all
parts of the case together, and the
Trial Chamber agreed to that. So then
you cannot talk about severing the
case without dealing with the destiny of
that particular issue.
On the 25th of August this year,
Mr. Nice, after three and a half years of
trial, said that he was not prosecuting
me on account of a Greater Serbia,
and he ascribed that idea to me from
the very outset, from his introductory
remarks and then through the testimony
of almost half or even more than half
of his witnesses who -- his witnesses,
who spoke of a Greater Serbia as my
objective and answered questions put
by him to them in that context.
So how can you talk about severance,
then, before giving answers to certain
questions? What is the fate of these
proceedings that have been going on for
over three years where you and I,
and probably the other side, thought that
I was being tried for a Greater Serbia,
which was the objective of some kind
of alleged joint criminal enterprise.
So that was what we tried to deal with
when putting questions to the witnesses
and in dealing with all the
evidence, because that is what Mr. Nice
was alleging through his witnesses.
So, then, what is the legal validity
of that part of the proceedings, when
we were all being deluded into believing
that this was the main objective of
the Prosecution? So what's the point
of all these witnesses who talked about
a Greater Serbia as my primary goal here?
Are you going to take that out of
the evidence, the body of evidence,
or are you going to let me examine them
further?
Also, what about this joint criminal
enterprise? And what would its
objective be after this change? And
what is this phantom of a joint criminal
enterprise that is being discussed here?
And what is it that is exactly
being alleged? People who are sitting
here, including me, including you, on
the one hand, simply cannot know all
the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served -
a million pages, no less - and no one
knows what the Prosecutor is prosecuting,
including the Prosecutor herself.
She doesn't know it either. I think
that even Franz Kafka would feel that he
did not have great imagination compared to this.
So now, gentlemen, after almost four
years of a joined trial, after
omitting to exercise your own
responsibilities and duties and to bridle the
other side, as instructed by the Appeals
Chamber, so perhaps you could have
even severed the trial at some point
earlier on, but now you want to do it
four years later. Four years later. And
during those four years, this was a
whole, an entity, not only from the
point of view of process, but also from
the material point of view, where the
other side presented its own body of
evidence as a whole and then I based
my Defence case on that single entity.
And since there is this time pressure
that you've been insisting upon all
the time, the crossover that you say,
witnesses that testify about Kosovo
and Bosnia and Croatia, now I have to
make a selection, it appears, with a
great deal of effort, I must say.
Immediately, there is another question
that comes to mind: As for these
witnesses that, for the most part, pertain
to Kosovo, but some of them also
have to do with Bosnia and Croatia, include
witnesses that I asked you to
call: Clinton, Clark. And during his
testimony here, you did not allow me to
put questions in relation to the war
that he commanded and the book that he
wrote about it. And these are key witnesses.
For over a year, you've been in
correspondence with them. It is high
time for you to understand that they
will not come here without your order.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that,
again, is a matter in relation to
which you owe a great debt of gratitude
to assigned counsel. Through their
action, through their professionalism,
we are considering now a motion to
subpoena certain witnesses, and without
their intervention, without their
help, we would not have been considering this.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Yes, I know about that. I know about
that, Mr. Robinson.
So severance would create the following
situation: That they prosecute me
for one thing, and halfway, I start
defending myself from other things that
I'm being accused of. I have to defend
myself a bit from one and a bit from
the other, and then what I do here, when
presenting the truth, is being
sabotaged in practical terms; it is being
truncated. And the effect of the
fact that Mr. Nice changes his position
with regard to a Greater Serbia
halfway multiplies the effort involved.
What he said is true, that, as regards
Kosovo, then, you would be in a
position to decide, under the impression
of many years of having heard
senseless and totally baseless accusations
related to Bosnia and Croatia. He
talks about victims here. Let me see
one single victim of mine here. He
never established any link whatsoever
between what he presented and the
charges that he's bringing against me.
These victims do not deserve this.
They do not deserve having the wrong
people being accused of things done
against them.
Mr. Nice mentioned Annex B. I don't have
time to read it, but let's have a
look at it. The first witness here,
Stjepan Mesic, the current president of
Croatia, who testified here, the first
person mentioned in Annex B, the
famous Stjepan Mesic, who did his
very best to break up Yugoslavia, who
stated himself that he carried out his
job, that Yugoslavia was no more. And
he says here "[In English] ... where
he said ..." [Interpretation] and so on
and so forth, and so on and so forth.
Nonsense, sheer nonsense. And this
Mesic got that from this distorted and
forged BBC TV show which seems to be
Mr. Nice's lodestar.
Indictments should be based on facts,
not on comic books, TV shows, what
have you not. So this is kitsch, really,
the entire Prosecution case, both
in terms of the vehicles used and the
witnesses called. Kitsch.
So now, if you wanted to check this,
it would be as if somebody were
playing a game of football for 50 minutes,
and then in the second half he
starts playing basketball. It's even
worse, because the adverse effects are
only on my side. It is only the Defence
that has to deal with the negative
effects. So it becomes even more senseless
because the change of the terms
and conditions is only to my detriment.
And I wish to say --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
So the proposal to sever the trial is
so pointless, but I think that you
yourselves show the senselessness through
your own words: "[In English] ... for
the Trial Chamber to sever the Kosovo
Indictment, conclude that part of the
trial and render its Judgement thereon..."
Gentlemen, "part of the trial" are the
words that you clearly use here, so
the objective should be to conclude part
of the trial. But parts of the
trial cannot be concluded. Parts cannot
be concluded. Parts of the trial
cannot be concluded. Trials have a
Prosecution case and a Defence case and
then they can be concluded, but to
conclude part of a trial is basically an
abuse of trial. Or what would that mean,
to conclude part of a trial? [In
English] A mistrial.
[Interpretation] I think that this
Kafkaesque situation that I just
described, if there were to be a
severance, would make the entire situation
even more absurd and more incredible.
Of course, again, you're going to
decide as you wish, and then you won't
understand why, throughout the world,
this trial of yours is being treated
as an ordinary farce.
So, gentlemen, I'm opposed to your
order, and the first thing I ask you to
do is to return to me my right to
health, to make it possible for me to have
a break to recuperate.
And in relation to what Mr. Bonomy
said when he expressed his astonishment
when Mr. Nice was referring to what
the public was talking about, I wish to
remind you of the following: In all
the paragraphs of the Kosovo indictment
where alleged crimes are referred to
over the allegedly unarmed Albanians,
it says: "The forces of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic
of Serbia" did such and such a thing.
In all paragraphs, without exception.
All of Serbia, and everyone in the
international public knows that the
forces of the FRY of Serbia were
protecting, defending the country from
terrorism and foreign aggression.
That is what is perfectly clear.
Now, this phrase which is used in
every paragraph pertaining to the alleged
crimes, "the forces of the FRY and
Serbia," you are supposed to make a
judgement, when lo and behold, the
negotiations on the final status of
Kosovo and Metohija are about to
start, not to mention the fact that as a
precondition for bringing the war to
an end, we got the firmest possible
international guarantees for the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of
the country. So what a coincidence.
Is there anyone that you can dissuade
that that is not the aim of those that
you receive orders from, that it is
the forces of the FRY and Serbia that
have to be found guilty for defending
their own territory so that those who
really did this would not stand
accused but rather achieve their
geopolitical objectives.
So that is quite clearly present in
the public opinion. And this is a
coincidence that everybody noticed
immediately. It was not necessary for
anyone to explain it to them.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, I wonder
if you can help me and tell me how
these instructions are conveyed to me,
because I'm obviously missing some
part of the information that you seem
to consider as essential to my
judgement of this matter. How is it
I get my orders? Where do they come
from? You who so proudly denies the
allegations against you about conveying
orders to others on the basis of no
information, on no evidence, what is the
evidence you suggest indicates that
I receive orders from somewhere?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Bonomy, this entire Court was
envisaged as an instrument of war
against my country. It was founded
illegally on the basis of an illegal
decision and carried through by the
forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is
true here: It is true that there is a
joint criminal enterprise, but not in
Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its
center, but those, who, in a war that was
waged in Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards,
destroyed Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia did not disintegrate by --
JUDGE BONOMY: You fail to answer my
question. Please answer the question
rather than embark on a political diatribe.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson -- or, rather, Mr.
Bonomy, I'm not making political
speeches here at all. I think that you are
in the service of those who committed
crimes against my country and against
my people, and you're receiving a salary from them.
JUDGE BONOMY: You're refusing to answer
the question, are you?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
No, no, I'm not refusing. Do you want
to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a
salary from the United Nations? Who
finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy? Who
established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my
country, Mr. Bonomy? Your country.
And who am I asking to come in to
testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
JUDGE BONOMY: Are you suggesting
I am not paid by the United Nations?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I claim that, Mr. Bonomy, because the
United Nations are -- finance this
illegal Tribunal of yours. It's financed
from all manner of sources. I have
enumerated some of them.
Now, whether you, in formal terms,
whether you, in formal terms, receive a
salary via this institution which calls
itself a United Nations Tribunal is
quite immaterial as far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE BONOMY: Well, now you move on
to another issue when you're proved to
be wrong. So let's concentrate on the
issue that you're addressing; the
question of severance.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Therefore, gentlemen, as I've already
told you, I am opposed to severance
because I would say that was -- that was
a war, it was one war. I said Yugoslavia
did not disintegrate or disappear
in some manner, but it was destroyed
in a planned manner, forcefully,
through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one
of the instruments of this war is your
illegal Tribunal.
Let me say straight away, as far as
your judgements are concerned and
rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because
if you judge according to the law and
the truth, then there would never have
been this trial in the first place.
But as we do have a trial, it can end
only in one way: A decision on the
non-existence of culpability. And if you
don't rule based on justice and truth,
then your ruling will disintegrate
and will burst like a bubble of soap,
because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is
stronger than any other court. It is up to
each one of us, and each one of you
gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court
of history, and what its decision will
be. So don't harbour any illusions on
that score.
Therefore, as I said, I am opposed
to severance. I demand that I be given a
rest period to recuperate. I stress
that today, too, I came in in a very
poor state of health, extremely poor,
but I did come in so that we can
continue the proceedings. Therefore,
I demand that you consider my request
to give me a break, a period of rest.
And as for severance or non-severance,
I've stated my views on that matter, too.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. (.)
JUDGE ROBINSON: There are several issues
arising from the matters that we
have considered today. I wish to note --
Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Will I get an opportunity to say a
few words with regard to these questions
that Mr. Nice raised?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you've already
spoken, and we have heard you. Do you
have something that could be said very briefly?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
We heard him before me and now he
spoke, well, for a considerable amount
of time yet again.
JUDGE ROBINSON: That was a response to you.
That's traditional in these
matters. If you have something to say,
I'll hear it, briefly.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Before I speak in connection with
what Mr. Nice said, and he repeated
lots of nonsense that we have occasion
to hear from him here, I just wish to
provide a piece of information to Mr.
Bonomy because he asked me about this.
So, Mr. Bonomy, in relation to the
financing of this illegal Tribunal of
yours, according to your own Article 32
of your own Statute, the expenses
are covered from the regular budget
of the UN. However, they arrive from
very murky sources; the Soros Foundation,
various foundations from the
Islamic countries, with NATO being the
major financier.
On the 17th of May, 1999, Jamie Shea,
the spokesperson of NATO, said: "NATO
countries are those [In English] ...
the finest to set up Tribunal. We are
amongst the majority financiers.
We want to see war criminals brought to
justice. I'm certain that when Justice
Arbour goes to Kosovo and looks at
the facts, she will be indicting
people of Yugoslavian nationality, and I
don't anticipate any others at this stage."
[Interpretation] So the main financier
is NATO, and the others are the
Soros Foundation and foundations from
Islamic countries, and so on and so
forth. So that is perfectly clear.
And on page 35550 from these proceedings
here, I'm just going to quote Mr.
Nice, who talks about a witness, and
says: "[In English] If we go to page 2
of 11, halfway down the page we can see
that this is by no means written by
people who are friends of the ICTY or
any Western conspiracy, because the
author describes NATO's intervention
as the recent 'brutal, illegal, and
illegitimate intervention of the NATO
forces against the country.'
"So you would accept that this is a
Serb without any particular leaning
towards the forces and powers that
established this Tribunal ..." et cetera.
[Interpretation] So, Mr. Bonomy, for
Mr. Nice, obviously there is no
dilemma, the kind of dilemma you have.
So you can clarify it with him, what
he meant to say then. Since you say that
you don't know about this, I hereby
inform you of this. And I believe that,
as an honourable man, once you've
found out, and I can give you further
evidence, you can leave this story
that you got into without realising
what you got yourself into. And now as
for Mr. Nice and what he said, he said
the most senseless thing possible
about a Greater Serbia --
JUDGE BONOMY: I have to say I haven't
the remotest idea what you're talking
about now in relation to this. In fact,
the more I read it, the less
comprehensible it becomes.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
to say to you that you are not at
large here. I am giving you a chance
to comment on some issues if you
consider them to be issues of importance.
Although the Prosecutor did not
file a motion, I asked the Prosecutor
to begin. So in accordance with the
tradition in adversarial systems,
I allowed him to reply. In these
circumstances, I don't see you as
having any right to reply, but you
obviously have an interest, a
fundamental interest, in the outcome of these
matters, and it is for that reason
that I'm allowing you to say something at
this stage. But please don't abuse it.
Proceed, bearing in mind that we
are now almost seven minutes to two.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
As for what Mr. Nice said that
pertains to one of the key issues,
as for Greater Serbia, he explained just
now that I did not utter that word,
but I assume that he's trying to say
that there is something that was done.
I also think that deeds have to be
looked into first and foremost, and
the deed is the following, Mr. Robinson
and gentlemen: In this entire period,
from 1991 onwards, no one was expelled
from Serbia on account of ethnic
affiliation. There was no discrimination
whatsoever. No one from Serbia and no
one from the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was discriminated against
on account of his religion, race, or
beliefs. That is a fact, gentlemen.
And at that time that you are interested
in, I was president of Serbia and president
of Yugoslavia, and no one was
ever expelled from there. That is a fact.
Now, what Mr. Nice is trying to ascribe to me --
JUDGE ROBINSON: [B/C/S spoken on English
channel] I want to make it clear
I'm not interested in this. I'm interested
in the question of severance. I
am not clear. We are back to English now.
Did you hear what I said? I said
I'm not interested in a general discussion
on Greater Serbia. If you have
something to say about Greater Serbia
because it impacts on the question of
severance, then I'll allow you to say it.
But don't regurgitate the
arguments which we've heard ad nauseam
about this issue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, the question of time is
being raised here, and Mr. Nice devoted
due attention to that in the speech
he just made. According to Mr. Nice,
the best thing would be not to have
anyone testify in public but to do
all of it in writing, and Mr. Nice is
explaining to you how they abided by
that, that they were very economical,
very expeditious. And in spite of all
these heaps of paper and all these 92
bis and 89(F) testimonies, he used up
300 days. So please do not take into
account these things that are in
contravention of pure mathematics.
I was not saying that no one worked
for five days. I was just trying to say
that no one sat for five days. Of course
I work for more than five days,
although we sit here only for three
days. And after all, Dr. van Dijkman
wrote that three days is what I do
here, and as for the rest of my time, I
have to prepare myself for here,
including the proofing of witnesses. And
that is what he knows full well and
that is what you know full well, so that
is an argument that cannot be used at all.
Mr. Nice's advice is that I collect
written statements from witnesses. The
basic aim of public testimony is to
hear the truth, because if we were to
stop at what Mr. Nice wrote, together
with his associates, that would be a
monstrous lie. So in order to have the
truth heard, there is a great
interest involved, a historical interest,
I should say, of my people, of my
country. But not only of my people
and of my country, of mankind in general
and of the times in general. Let us
hear what the truth is, and let the
actual perpetrators of what happened
in Yugoslavia actually be exposed,
although you said yourself, Mr.
Robinson, at one point in time, that you are
not in charge of trying NATO for what
they did, although you know what they
did and you know that the basic tenet
of any law in the world is that the
law that does not apply to one and
all is not law at all.
Therefore, I ask for adequate time to
be given to me.
JUDGE BONOMY: I, again, have to say
I don't understand this submission.
Because something is in writing does
not mean it is not in public.
Everything in writing here, submitted
in writing that's not confidential,
becomes public. And at this stage,
it's not, as you would see it, lies that
we're suggesting ought to be presented
in writing, it's what you claim to be
the truth, because it is you that would
be presenting the written material,
and you turn the argument on its head
and undermine your whole case. It is
the way forward if you want to submit
material in addition to the period
that's been allocated to you to complete the case.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I think, Mr. Bonomy, that you're the
one who's turned things upside down.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you finished now,
Mr. Milosevic?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Nice presented a great many other
things here too, that this will show
how I systematically did not observe
any laws, which is a lie. He has not
presented a shred of evidence to that
effect. That my role with the
paramilitaries will be shown. My only role
with the paramilitaries was to have
them arrested.
There was no other evidence to that effect.
So he is manipulating here --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, all of this
-- this is irrelevant to the
issue. If you do not have anything more
to say on the question of severance,
we'll stop now. We are 15 minutes beyond --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I'm talking about what he talked about.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And you don't have a
right to do that. I explained to you
the circumstances in which I have
allowed you to speak, and I explained why
Mr. Nice had a right to reply, because
he started. Do you have anything that
is pertinent to say, anything more? I'm
not interested in general issues. If
you don't, I'm going to adjourn.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I have presented what I consider to be relevant.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
I want to say that many issues arise
for consideration and decision by the
Trial Chamber in relation to this matter.
We still have outstanding a report
which we expect today from Dr. Dalal,
and also there is to be an examination
and a report by a neuroradiologist.
The Chamber would like to have all these
reports before it before it makes a
decision on these matters. So we'll give
a decision once we have all the reports before us.
******************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
President Milosevic has the truth and
law on his side. In order to use that
advantage to achieve his freedom, we
must fight this totally discredited
tribunal and its patrons through
professionally conducted actions.
The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only to cover the expenses of the stay and
work of President Milosevic's legal
associates at The Hague (one at the time).
After the unlawful attack of the German
financial authorities on the ICDSM
fundraising in Germany, that lead
to freezing of the ICDSM account in
Germany, the similar thing took place
recently in Austria, where the
account of the Yugoslav-Austrian
Solidarity was frozen. These unlawful acts,
aiming to undermine the President Milosevic's
defence, will be fought back legally.
***********************************************************
To carry on the normal defence work -
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Please send your donations to the following account:
Committee Intersol
Bank: 'Postbank', Amsterdam, Netherlands
Accountnumber 4766774
IBAN NL07 PSTB 0004766774
BIC PSTBNL21
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
