Dobro dosli na J U G O I N F O !

JUGOINFO
e' il bollettino sulla Jugoslavia ed i Balcani curato dal
COORDINAMENTO NAZIONALE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA - https://www.cnj.it
(vedi archivio: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)
Per contattarci: <jugocoord@...>

La nostra attivita' di informazione via internet, che continua
ininterrottamente (seppur con diverse denominazioni) dal 1997
grazie allo sforzo individuale di pochissimi volontari, puo'
continuare solo con il vostro sostegno. Vi chiediamo pertanto di
SOTTOSCRIVERE SUBITO per JUGOINFO e per le
altre attivita' del Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
usando il:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo

JUGOINFO
is a bulletin on Yugoslavia and the Balkans edited by
ITALIJANSKA KOORDINACIJA ZA JUGOSLAVIJU - https://www.cnj.it
(see archive: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)
For contacts: <jugocoord@...>

Our effort to keep you informed through the net is continuing
without interruption (even if under different denominations)
since 1997 thanks to the voluntary engagement of very few people.
This has a chance to go on only if you support us, by
IMMEDIATELY SUBSCRIBING in favor of JUGOINFO and the other
activities of the Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
by giving your contribution through the Italian account:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo


GRAZIE / HVALA / THANKS

PRESERVATIVI

Dopo l'introduzione della religione negli asili e dopo tante pressioni,
da parte vaticana, per imporre i valori cattolici nelle scuole, e'
finalmente esplosa in Croazia la polemica sulla educazione sessuale e
sui contraccettivi.

(Si noti che la notizia che segue - segnalata su exju.org - non e'
stata finora ripresa da alcuna agenzia o organo di informazione
italiano, perche' del clericonazismo croato e delle sue implicazioni e'
bene non parlare.)

---

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jan04/hed6214.shtml

Reuters, January 31, 2004

Croatia Catholic bishops oppose "condom education"

ZAGREB, (Reuters) - Croatia's powerful Roman Catholic Church has
opposed efforts to promote the use of condoms among teenagers to help
prevent AIDS and launched its own sex education programme counselling
chastity and abstinence.
The church's programme, publicised in Croatian media this week, aims to
sideline MEMOAIDS, a course introduced as an optional subject in local
secondary schools to raise awareness about AIDS.
The Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms, which church officials
say "encourages promiscuity and raises the chances of HIV infection
while not being fully successful in preventing pregnancy".
AIDS activists reject this, saying condoms help prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS.
"Our programme has a different approach than MEMOAIDS, which suggests
the use of condoms as protection. The goal is to change the behaviour,
not to promote wider use of condoms," the widely circulated daily
Jutarnji list quoted bishop Valter Zupan as saying on Friday.
Zupan, who heads the Family Council of the Croatian Bishops' Conference
(HBK), added that "experts from Washington have recently proved that
the use of condoms enhances promiscuity and the possibility of HIV
infection".
The Catholic Church counsels chastity and marital fidelity and its
opposition to condoms has sparked growing criticism worldwide as the
number of AIDS victims soars.
The HBK said earlier this week that MEMOAIDS was also unacceptable
because it did not require approval from parents.
Dragan Primorac, Education and Science Minister in the new conservative
government, said his ministry would thoroughly review both programmes
before making any decisions.
Almost 90 percent of people in this former Yugoslav republic declare
themselves Catholics, although surveys suggest more than half approve
of abortion, which the Catholic Church rejects.

Milosevic "trial" synopsis

1. JANUARY 20, 2004: A PRIJEDOR WITNESS TESTIFIES
2. JANUARY 21, 2004: "EXPERT WITNESS" TESTIFIES ABOUT WHAT "GENOCIDE"
MEANS TO HIM
3. JANUARY 22, 2004: TUDJMAN'S CABINET CHIEF ADMITS CROATIA MASSACRED
ITS OWN CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR OPERATION FLASH
4. JANUARY 26, 2004: PROSECUTION CLAIMS 2,541 BODIES FOUND AND 70
IDENTIFIED FROM SREBRENICA

5. JANUARY 27, 2004: A NATO SPY EMPLOYED BY THE PROSECUTION TESTIFIES
AGAINST MILOSEVIC


=== 1 ===

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012003.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 20, 2004: A PRIJEDOR WITNESS
TESTIFIES
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 23, 2004

JANUARY 20, 2004 - Karem Misanovic, a Muslim from the National Defense
Secretariat of the Prijedor T.O. testified at the so-called "trial" of
Slobodan Milosevic on Tuesday.

He testified about the takeover of Prijedor, by the Bosnian Serb
Territorial Defense forces, on April 30, 1992. The takeover happened
without firing a single shot being fired. The Serbs were endeavoring
to prevent war from breaking out.

President Milosevic produced a telegram from Alija Mustafic of the B-H
Defense Ministry ordering the Prijedor T.O. to attack the JNA. The
telegram was sent on April 29, 1992 and it was the reason why the
Serbs took over the town the next day.

There were seven Muslims in the Prijedor T.O., including the witness,
and six of them kept their jobs after the take over. From this example
we can see that even after the Serbs took over there was no
discrimination against the Muslims.

The witness eventually left Bosnia and went to Serbia. He stayed in
Serbia until he could go to Germany. He didn't have any problems in
Serbia and he couldn't identify a single Muslim who did.

All in all he was a pretty insignificant witness. You would think that
with just a few days left to go to present their case that the
prosecution would try to come-up with something more than they
presented here.

After Misanovic withdrew Tom Zwann, a social scientist from the
Netherlands took the stand. Mr. Zwann wrote a report about genocide.
The point of his coming to testify was to try and broaden the
definition of genocide for the prosecution.

The prosecution seems to realize that Milosevic isn't guilty of what
most people understand genocide to be, so they are going to use this
witness in order to try and broaden the definition of the word.

Dr. Zwann bemoaned the fact that people measure genocide against the
Jewish experience during the Second World War. He thinks people set
the bar to high when it comes to genocide. He believes that genocide
doesn't have to be a large scale affair. More over he complains that
the legal definition of genocide is too restrictive.

Unfortunately, for the prosecution, Zwann put a caveat on his own
definition of genocide. If the supposed victim is armed and is
fighting a war with the other side then they aren't victims of
genocide.

The Bosnian Muslims were armed, and they were fighting a war that they
started themselves against the Bosnian Serbs. So even under Zwann's
excessively broad definition of genocide the Muslims still aren't
victims.

Zwann's examination in chief was completed on January 20th and
Slobodan Milosevic will cross-examine on January 21st.


=== 2 ===

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012104.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 21, 2004: "EXPERT WITNESS"
TESTIFIES ABOUT WHAT "GENOCIDE" MEANS TO HIM
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 24, 2004
 
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 21, 2004 - Dr. Ton Zwann, a so-called “expert
witness” from a newly established center for Holocaust studies in
Amsterdam was cross-examined by President Slobodan Milosevic on
Wednesday.

Zwann wrote a report about “genocide” of course he didn’t use any
legal definition of the word. Instead Zwann’s report concentrated on
his own ideas and personal feelings about what he considers genocide
to be.

President Milosevic observed that this witness’s evidence was totally
irrelevant because it constituted nothing more than an opinion that
wasn’t based on any legal definition. Mr. May repeatedly reminded
Milosevic that he wasn’t supposed to make legal arguments, apparently
Mr. May feels that his so-called “courtroom” is no place for making
legal arguments. We wouldn't want something so trivial as the law
getting in the way of this show trial would we Mr. May?

Zwann complained in his report that the legal definition of genocide
was too restrictive. Therefore, he made up his own personal definition
that he used for his report. I’m not sure what exactly Zwann’s
definition of genocide is, but in Dr. Zwann’s world the Partisan Army
of Josip Broz Tito committed genocide against the Ustasha, so that
should tell you something.

In Mr. Nice’s re-examination he asked Dr. Zwann if he could think of
any examples where Serbs engaged in genocidal activity and the witness
replied that the Partisan Army, which contained many Serbs, committed
genocide against the Ustasha.

In addition to claiming that the Ustasha was the victim of genocide at
the hands of the Serbs. Zwann sought to minimize the number of people
killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp by the Ustasha.

President Milosevic quoted data he obtained from the Simon Wiesenthal
Center stating that 600,000 to 700,000 Serbs, and 30,000 Jews and
Gypsies were massacred by Ustasha fascists at the Jasenovac camp, and
Zwann dismissed that data as being exaggerated. Zwann suggested that
the numbers were being inflated for propaganda purposes and that the
“real number” was between 100,000 and 120,000 victims in total,
including the Jewish victims.

Seeing as how the Simon Wiesenthal Center is the one of the most
respected institutions in the field of Holocaust studies in the world,
and has been studying the Holocaust ever since the Second World War.
In view of this fact President Milosevic asked the witness if, he
(whose institution has only existed for 4 months) considered himself
to be more competent than the Wiesenthall Center to assess the
holocaust, and the witness said that he considered their research to
be wrong.

Zwann never explained how come the Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human
rights organization, would be making propaganda for the Serbs. Nor did
Zwann explain where he got his numbers from.

At any rate, Dr. Zwann’s feelings don’t matter. As far as I am
concerned he can take his report and sit under a tree with a bunch of
dumb hippies; they can take some bong hits, they can sing “Kumbaya,”
and they can all discuss what “genocide” means to them. For all I know
that’s how he came up with his ideas in the first place.

Never mind that genocide already has a clear definition set out in
Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide as adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N.
General Assembly on 9 December 1948, and the definition is this:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

What happened here is obvious, seeing that they have not a single
shred of proof to accuse Milosevic of genocide, the prosecution has
decided to try and change the definition of genocide. They got some
jackass with a PhD. (Dr. Zwann) to come and put forward a bunch of
touchy feely psychobabble about what he thinks “genocide” is. This has
got to be one of the dumbest thing’s I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen
some pretty stupid things over the course of this fiasco they call a
“trial.”

After Zwann withdrew some administrative matters were discussed. Even
though they are nearly done presenting their pathetic excuse of a
case, the prosecution is still “unable” to provide Milosevic with the
documents for the upcoming witnesses. This is inexcusable, with only 11
days to go, that they can’t have the documents together.

Over two weeks ago Mr. Nice said that they had acquired a number of
documents from the Yugoslav Supreme Defense Council. Milosevic asked
for copies of those documents and still two weeks later he doesn’t have
them. All he wants are some lousy Xerox copies and the prosecution,
ignoring their own Rule 68, won’t give them to him.

After the break, Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman’s former Chief de
Cabinet, was examined by the prosecution. As one would expect, this
witness attributed God-like power to Slobodan Milosevic. This witness’s
basic claim was that every Serb everywhere was a mindless automaton
under the control of the all seeing and all knowing Slobodan Milosevic.

Slobodan Milosevic’s cross-examination of Sarinic was conducted on
Thursday and will be covered by this website in Thursday’s synopsis.   


=== 3 ===

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012204.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 22, 2004: TUDJMAN'S CABINET CHIEF
ADMITS CROATIA MASSACRED ITS OWN CITIZENS TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR
OPERATION FLASH
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 27, 2004

THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 - Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman’s, former
Cabinet Chief was cross-examined by President Milosevic on Thursday.

Mr. Sarinic believed that the Krajina Serbs were a “Trojan horse” that
had been sent to Croatia to enact the politics of Slobodan Milosevic.
Milosevic joked that his control must have been so great that he was
able to send this “Trojan horse” into the Krajina centuries before he
was even born. The term “Trojan horse” was used more than once by Mr.
Sarinic to describe the Krajina Serbs, so it wasn’t merely a one time
slip of the tongue.

Mr. Sarinic also attempted to say that Milosevic controlled Arkan. He
didn’t have a single piece of proof to back this up. To explain his
lack of proof he said that “Milosevic covers his tracks too well.”

Slobodan Milosevic gave Mr. Sarinic more than he bargained for in his
cross-examination. President Milosevic had procured the transcripts of
top secret meetings held in the office of Franjo Tudjman.

From these transcripts Milosevic observed that Tudjman was speaking
quite openly about his desire to ethnically cleanse the Serbs from the
Krajina. In 1991 Tudjman was talking about "the need to cleanse Western
Slavonia.”

It also emerged that Tudjman, together with this witness and other top
Croatian officials, on April 30, 1995 planned to stage a “Serb” attack
on Croatian vehicles traveling on the Zagreb-Lipovac highway. The idea
behind staging this attack was to provide a pretext for the launch of
Operation Flash. Sure enough, late on that same day this attack was
carried out, and Operation Flash was launched the very next morning on
May 1, 1995.

At first Mr. Sarinic tried to deny these facts, but then he gave in
and admitted that it was true. He said that it was only “military
tactics,” and that “Operation Flash was justified.”

The result of Operation Flash was that thousands of Serbs were killed
or wounded and hundreds of thousands more were made into refugees.
But, oh well, it’s only “military tactics,” right Mr. Sarinic?

To top this off, Zagreb carried out this “Serb” attack on its own
citizens, at the same time as it was negotiating a peace agreement with
the RSK authorities in Knin.

These same people who massacred their own citizens on the highway in
order to provide a justification for their ethnic cleansing operations
have provided the prosecution with some of the intercepts that it is
using as “evidence” against Milosevic.

I’m sure we can trust the authenticity of their tapes, Sarinic himself
even "authenticated" some of the tapes. So what if the Croats murdered
their own people on the highway so that they could have an excuse to
ethnically cleanse the Serbs? They’re much too honest to doctor some
tapes. I’m sure we can trust them.

Mr. Sarinic, told Mr. Nice during the examination in chief that the
RSK Prime Minister, Bora Mikelic and Slobodan Milosevic had a “master
and slave relationship” with Milosevic as the master. It turns out that
Mr. Mikelic watches the “trial” and he saw Sarinic saying this.

Mr. Mikelic wrote a letter which was exhibited by President Milosevic.
In the letter Mikelic explains that he and Milosevic had a
relationship of equality and mutual respect, and that Sarinic knew this
and was spreading lies.

Sarinic was more candid than one might expect. He admitted that the
former Croatian Defense Minister, Martain Spegelj planned the blockade
and attack on JNA barracks in Croatia before the outbreak of
hostilities.

Sarinic also admitted that the United States, and in particular the
Clinton Administration, gave Croatia the green light to carry out
Operation Storm, and that it was the Americans who called off the
operation when it began heading towards Banja Luka.

With a wink and a nod from the United States, Croatia launched the
operation, and because the Americans were the ones running the show it
was the USA who called the operation off when their objectives had been
achieved.

What was their objective? If the result is any indication, it was to
carryout the largest ethnic cleansing in the Balkans since the Second
World War, since that is exactly what happened.

Mr. Sarinic was of the opinion that Croatia was the victim. In his
opinion the Serbs, who had been living in the Krajina for many
centuries, were “occupying” Croatia. He insisted that operations
“Storm” and “Flash” were justified.

Another admission that Mr. Sarinic made was that a French General,
named DeBoul (phonetic) who investigated the shelling of the Markale
Market in Sarajevo told him that the fatal shell could only have come
from Muslim-held positions.

Slobodan Milosevic read out transcripts of Mesic’s remarks at his
meetings with Tudjman. On November 21, 1991 Mesic said that Croatia
should “paint the JNA” as an aggressor army. He said that Croatia
should go to the UN and argue that Yugoslavia no longer existed, and
ask the UN not to recognize Yugoslavia anymore. Mr. Sarinic looked at
the transcript and basically confirmed that it was all in the
transcript, and that it was in line with their position at the time.

It seems like Croatia had a pretty self-important view of itself.
Croatia leaves Yugoslavia; and so on the basis of that it concludes
that Yugoslavia no longer exists. If Delaware left would the United
States cease to exist?

After Sarinic withdrew some administrative matters were discussed.
Even at this late date, Mr. Nice still can’t make-up his mind about
which witnesses he will call. On Monday the prosecution will call, Dean
Manning, an investigator who has been employed by the Office of the
Prosecutor to investigate Serbreica.


=== 4 ===

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012604.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 26, 2004: PROSECUTION CLAIMS
2,541 BODIES FOUND AND 70 IDENTIFIED FROM SREBRENICA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 29, 2004

Monday, January 26, 2004 - Dean Manning an investigator employed by
the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY testified against Slobodan
Milosevic on Monday.

Prior to his employment in the Office of the Prosecutor Mr. Manning
was a detective for the Australian Police.

As an investigator for the prosecution, Mr. Manning prepared a report
about what he has found over the course of the exhumations of mass
graves connected to Srebrenica between 1996 until the present day.

Contrary to media reports the graves have not unearthed 8,000 bodies.
According to Mr. Manning 2,541 different bodies are confirmed to have
been found, and only 70 bodies have been identified by the ICTY.
Manning claimed that the B-H government may have identified more
bodies, but he didn't know how many.

According to Mr. Manning's report 1,175 bodies were killed by gunshot
wounds. 67 were killed by shrapnel or blast injuries. 11 were killed
by a combination of gunshot wounds and shrapnel or blast injuries, and
the cause of death for the rest is undetermined, meaning that the
cause of death for over half of the bodies is unknown.

All of the corpses are men, except for one woman. The youngest body
found is thought to be approximately 12 years old. The vast majority
of the cadavers are of military aged men.

President Milosevic asked Manning if there was any indication that
anybody from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was involved. Manning
said that there was no evidence that anybody from Yugoslavia was
involved with any of the killings.

Manning said that there are only two known perpetrators. One is a VRS
soldier who was later killed in the war, and the other is Drazen
Erdemovic, who is a Croat.

Erdemovic was sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking part in
executions, and was let out of prison after serving only 6 years.

Mr. Manning claimed that it was 30,000 men who had set out to
breakthrough the Serbian lines together with the B-H Army towards
Tuzla in July of 1995, and not the 15,000 that had been claimed by
earlier witnesses.

Mr. Manning knew that people were killed in the fighting around
Srebrenica, but he didn't know where they were buried. Manning held
the opinion that nobody in the graves had been killed in battle, even
though he didn't know how half of them had been killed.

Mr. Manning was only briefly examined by Mr. Nice. Rule 89(F) was used
and the examination-in-chief was over in just a few minutes. President
Milosevic was only given an hour and a half for his cross-examination,
and Mr. Tapuskovic was only given 15 minutes. It seems more than a
little odd that a witness of this nature would be examined so quickly.

The next witness was Reynaud Theunens. He holds the rank of commandant
in the Belgian army, and he works for the Office of the Prosecutor
too. He wrote a report for the Prosecution about the command structure
of the armed forces operating on the territory of the former SFRY. His
cross-examination will be covered in the summary of Tuesday's
proceedings.


=== 5 ===

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012704.htm

MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - JANUARY 27, 2004: A NATO SPY EMPLOYED BY
THE PROSECUTION TESTIFIES AGAINST MILOSEVIC
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - January 30, 2004

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004 – Reynaud Theunens completed his
examination-in-chief and was cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic on
Tuesday.

The first thing you should know about this witness is who he is. Mr.
Theunens holds the rank of commandant in the Belgian army, where he
serves as an active duty intelligence officer. In other words he’s a
NATO spy whose area of operation is the Balkans, and he is currently
employed by the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal.

Mr. Theunens “expert report” was entitled “Armed Forces in the SFRY
and the war in Croatia.” Even the title of his report was misleading
because he didn’t talk about all of the armed forces on the territory
of the SFRY who took part in the war in Croatia. He didn’t mention the
Croatian forces at all. Practically no mention was made of the HVO,
HOS, or ZNG forces, and when President Milosevic would ask the witness
about these forces he would say that it was outside the scope of his
report.

Mr. Theunens only dealt with armed forces that the Serbs were part of.
He didn’t look at all of the warring factions. He tried to say that
volunteer units were the same thing as paramilitary formations. He
didn’t seem to, or want to, understand that a volunteer unit is
subordinated to the command of either the army, or the territorial
defense forces, whereas a paramilitary unit is an armed group that
isn’t subordinated to any legal command structure.

Mr. Theunens had the opportunity to look over many documents from the
JNA, VJ, VRS, and SVK forces. With this in mind President Milosevic
asked the witness if he had seen any document where either he or the
VJ main staff issued orders to the VRS or the SVK forces. Mr. Theunens
reply was “just because we don’t have these documents it doesn’t mean
that they don’t exist.”

The closest thing to an order that Mr. Theunens could come up with was
a request that Milosevic sent to Martic asking him to let UNPROFOR
pass through SVK territory, and the reason why Milosevic sent the
request in the first place was because Akashi had asked him to.

The Yugoslav Army’s 30th and 40th personnel centers came up again and
President Milosevic again had to explain that these centers existed to
pay salaries, pension, and health benefits to the former officers
Yugoslav People’s Army and their families. Nobody who didn’t first
serve in the JNA got a dime from these personnel centers, and this is
material that has already been confirmed and explained by the former
Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic when he came to testify.

There is no proof that these personnel centers issued any orders. They
were just personnel centers, and no army anywhere in the world is
commanded by the personnel department.

This was a wasted day for the prosecution. Not even this NATO spy who
works for the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal could say
that Milosevic or the VJ main staff issued any orders to the SVK or
the VRS or to any other soldier serving outside of the borders of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

(italiano / english)

WC : War Criminal : Wesley Clark

1. "Democracy Now" ha intervistato Clark
2. Clark placed career ahead of nation in Kosovo (G. Jatras)
3. General Wesley Clark - From Waco to Yugoslavia
4. Balkan failure is Clark's (Robert Novak)

5. Wesley Clark goes to the Hague (by Andrej Grubacic)


See also / vedi anche:

Michael Moore enlists with General Clark: the pathetic-and
predictable-logic of protest politics (by David Walsh)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/moor-j27_prn.shtml

The Democrats' idea of a general (by Ann Coulter)
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/
story.html?id=b08be3c5-26a4-4274-abcd-87c9a0ca988a


On war criminal Wesley Clark "testimony" at The Hague's ad-hoc
"tribunal", as well as on his biography and future aspirations, see in
our previous mailings:

Wesley Clark's Ties To Muslim Terrorists
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3078

Criminal Clark
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3074

On Criminal Clark's testimony at The Hague
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3043
Almost full transcripts of the "testimony" can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm

JAIL WESLEY CLARK! FREE MILOSEVIC!
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3031
STOP WAR CRIMINAL WESLEY CLARK FROM TESTIFYING IN SECRET
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3026
Un vero criminale di guerra all'Aia
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3017
War criminal Wesley Clark to testify against Milosevic
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3007

Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden e le elezioni Presidenziali del 2004
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2961
M. Chossudovsky: Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004
Presidential Elections
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2889

History of misinformation tarnishes Clark's military record
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2871

Wesley Clark farà domani il contrario di ciò che ha fatto ieri ?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2825
Wesley Clark fera-t-il demain le contraire de ce qu'il faisait hier?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2811
Wesley Clark War Crimes amply documented
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2822

War Criminal Wesley Clark for President?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2795


=== 1 ===

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlo Gubitosa"
To: <pace@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: La sinistra usa e le morti in kossovo

Negli Usa tra un po' ci saranno le elezioni presidenziali, e molti
pacifisti Usa si crederanno costretti a votare l'ex comandante della
missione nato in Kossovo, il generale Wesley Clark, che si presenta
come unica alternativa a Bush, cosi' come molti pacifisti italiani
premieranno con il loro voto molti politici colpevoli di crimini contro
l'umanita', strage e attentato alla costituzione durante i
bombardamenti del 1999.

Negli Usa, la catena radiofonica indipendente "Pacifica Network" ha la
memoria lunga, e il programma radiofonico "Democracy Now" ha
intervistato Clark con delle domande sulla guerra del 1999. In Italia
si annuncia una "dura campagna elettorale", ma state sicuri che le
bombe del 1999 sono un argomento morto e sepolto, come migliaia di
civili jugoslavi.

Il video e la trascrizione dell'intervista si trovano a questo
indirizzo:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

---

In the January 26th, 2004 issue of the american “DEMOCRACY NOW!”, Clark
Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia.

“DEMOCRACY NOW!” confronts Wesley Clark Over His Bombing Of Civilians,
Use Of Cluster Bombs And Depleted Uranium And The Bombing Of Serb
Television :

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

In a “DEMOCRACY NOW!” exclusive, General Wesley Clark responds for the
first time to in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia,
the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the
cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as
though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he
gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not
answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Yugoslavia.

Today candidate to the presidence of the USA, Clark portrays himself as
the antiwar warrior and his rhetoric against the war has escalated
significantly over the past week of campaigning. At his campaign stops,
he has been saying regularly, "The war is wrong."

This is not always what he said.

In February, Clark told CNN, "The credibility of the United States is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know,
we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to
get with us...The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on
this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on
the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the
world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this
evidence and decide who they line up with."

Immediately following the fall of Baghdad to US forces, Clark responded
to a question about finding the alleged weapons of mass destruction,
saying: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on
this."

But as Clark speaks out about the war in Iraq, his own record in a
different war is almost never examined. That is his role as the Supreme
Allied Commander of NATO during the 78 day bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999.Sure, the Clark campaign promotes this in its TV ads - but they
say that he liberated a nation and ended a genocide. Clark mentions it
often in his stump speeches and the debates. But as a qualification to
be commander-in-chief.

What is not discussed is what Clark actually did when he was running a
war.

“DEMOCRACY NOW!” correspondent Jeremy Scahill covered the 78 day
bombing of Yugoslavia from the ground in 1999, the war Clark was
leading as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.


GEN. WESLEY CLARK, BEING QUESTIONED

BY “DEMOCRACY NOW!” CORRESPONDENT JEREMY SCAHILL.


TRANSCRIPT:

JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium...

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure did.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I want to know if you are president, will you vow not
to use them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to
protect the men and women against force.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even against civilians in the Nis marketplace? Why bomb
Radio Television Serbia? Why did you bomb Radio Television Serbia? You
killed 16 media workers, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were-[in audible - Interview interrupted by
another questioner.]

That was Clark making an exit off the stage. We followed him as he left
the theater and walked down the streets of Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
shaking hands, signing autographs, talking to potential voters. As he
was entering a business establishment, Jeremy Scahill again approached
the General.

Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent
Jeremy Scahill.


TRANSCRIPT:

JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio
Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Excuse me -- I'm not --

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all
journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth
was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that
was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it
set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the
warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the
western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power,
and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the
fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people
who were killed, as I recall.

JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I recall six.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I was there at the time and I knew the families. They
do hold Milosevic accountable and they also hold you accountable, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were ordered to stay there.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And they were makeup artists, and they were engineers,
and they were technicians

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember reading the story, but I want to tell
you about it.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty International said you committed a war crime by
bombing that.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was all looked at by the International
Criminal Tribunal crime by Yugoslavia. All of my actions were examined
and they were all upheld by the highest law in the United States.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And you think a media outlet is a legitimate target?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, but when it is used as command and control,
it is. But then

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even if it kills…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Now wait a minute, you have to let me finish and
then I will let you finish.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Go ahead.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I said is, we would give them the warnings.
It was part of the command and control systems. It was approved as a
legitimate target under the laws of land warfare and went through the
U.S. Government. That was the basis on which we struck. We actually
called the bombers back one time, because there was still -- it was
still unclear to us that we weren't absolutely certain. What we know is
that Milosevic ordered them to stay there, and it was wrong, but I was
doing my duty, and I have been looked at by the law, so -- I mean, I
respect Amnesty International. I think they're a good organization, but
--

JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of
civilians that you essentially were overseeing?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And what about the bombing of the Nis marketplace with
cluster bombs, shredding human beings.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was terrible, but you know in that instance,
if we had got the same incident, there was a cluster bomb that opened
prematurely. It was an accident. And every one of these incidents was
fully investigated. All of the material from the Yugoslavian government
was given to the International Criminal Tribunal, plus as the NATO
commander, I made a full report to the International Criminal Tribunal.
It was all investigated. The pilots who did it, nobody could have felt
worse than the pilots who did it. And I got a letter from a man in
Serbia who said you killed my granddaughter on a schoolyard at Nis. I
know how he must have felt. And I felt so helpless about it. Every
night before I let those bombs go, I prayed we wouldn't kill innocent
people. But unfortunately, when you are at war, terrible things happen,
even when you don't want them to. You can't imagine what those pilots
felt like in those convoys when they struck the convoys. You remember
the convoys?

JEREMY SCAHILL: In Gurdulica were the 72 Albanians were killed.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In that place, too. And they had flown over it a
couple of times.You know, we just -- we were trying to establish some
kind of communications on the ground with the Albanians. The Serbs were
on the nets, and they were jamming all of the communications, and they
were doing imitative communications deception. And nobody could get the
truth about it. We saw the Serb vehicles around the place. And I didn't
make the decision, but they were following orders on my command. And it
was looked at, and so forth. The decision was made as a legitimate
target. It turned out that they had been ordered to stay in there by
the Serbs. The Serbs were surrounding the place to keep them penned in.
It was horrible. You never forget stuff like that. That's why when this
government has used force as it has, it makes me so angry. Because
these people in the White House don't understand -- you don't use force
except as a last, last, last resort.

JEREMY SCAHILL: On April 12th you targeted a passenger train, and then
you showed a video that was sped up at three time the speed. Why?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think -- first of all, the passenger train was
not targeted. The pilot's instructions were to go after a bridge, and
not the train. He felt, as he launched that missile, that all of a
sudden at the very last minute, the train suddenly came into his field
of view. I showed the tape. I did not know that the tape was
accelerated. I don't think it was three times. I think it was
one-and-a-half times. Whatever it was, it was going faster than the
actual speed. It made it look like it was --

JEREMY SCAHILL: But the Supreme Allied Commander, you are ultimately
responsible for all of the information that came out.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's true. I was.

JEREMY SCAHILL: What the actual in real-time speed showed is that the
pilot actually moved the target so that it would hit the train.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't have that information.

JEREMY SCAHILL: 12 people were killed, including an orthodox priest.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's terrible. But, I don't have the
information. When I looked at it, we didn't see that. All of the
material was sent to The Hague and they did not see that either.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think you owe the people of Serbia who died in
that war an apology?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I don't because I did my duty as the
commander for NATO and for the United States.I think Slobodan Milosevic
owes the people of Serbia an apology, because we acted to prevent
regional destabilization, and to be honest, when you take the kinds of
actions that he has done, he was the proximate cause. All we tried to
do was head off the ethnic cleansing through diplomacy, and basically,
he had a plan to go to war, no matter what.

JEREMY SCAHILL: But now the U.S. is supporting a regime of ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo where all minorities have been forced out,
including almost every single Serb.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, we are trying very hard not to
allow that to happen.And we have worked very hard with the Kosovo
Albanians and the Serbs, but to be honest with you that regime that's
north of the Ibar River is a regime that wants to prevent Serbs from
living peacefully with Kosovo Albanians. So, both sides have to share
the blame. They have been under the control of Seselj and also some
under Milosevic and their tactic in 1999 was to provoke the retaliation
by the Albanians to be able to blame the Albanians for reverse ethnic
cleansing. There were -- there were crimes on both sides and they
needed to be investigated. To the best of my ability as NATO commander
at the time, we did.

JEREMY SCAHILL: But then why -- you have a man like Agim Ceku in power,
a man who was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs at
Kraina, a man trained by MPRI in Virginia. Why put a man like that in
charge? What kind of message does that send to ethnic minorities in
Kosovo, when a man who is a basically a war criminal is in charge of
what is going to be the future army in Kosovo.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we looked at his record and it's not clear
that he's going to be in charge of the future army of Kosovo. He did
receive instruction from a contracted U.S. firm at MPRI. He received
basic information after he became there in charge of the Kosovo
protective corps. We thought that was the best way to maintain order
and security in the country.

JEREMY SCAHILL: He has been accused of hate speech by the United
Nations.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Lots of people in that part of the world have
been accused of hate speech, and they shouldn't do it. I met with Agim
Ceku a few times when I was over there, and I told him who I thought
about it. I don't accept that language.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Do you think that he should be in a position of power
in Kosovo?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I'm so far removed from the
issues right now --

JEREMY SCAHILL: But you know him.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But I can’t – yeah – I know him, but what I have
seen of him, he is the one of the more reasonable people in that region.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Because in your ads you say you liberated a nation. And
that’s why I am asking you this question.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The thing is I have got to talk to some other
voters. Is that okay? Can you excuse me?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I am trying to answer all your questions.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Thank you I appreciate it. Thank you for being patient
with me.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

---

See also / vedi anche:

Wesley Clark Admits Targeting Civilians In Yugoslavia
(by Jeremy Scahill) 

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/040126.html


=== 2 ===

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/
index.php?page=opinion&story_id=012304b5_guestw
es

Tucson Citizen
Friday, January 23, 2004

Guest Opinion: Clark placed career ahead of nation in Kosovo

GEORGE JATRAS
letters@...

The Dan Christman and Chuck Larson guest column published on Jan. 8 -
"Gen. Clark's stand vs. Milosevic praiseworthy" - was remarkable as
much for what it didn't say as for the distortions in what it did say.
In praising Clark's testimony against former Yugoslav dictator
Slobodan Milosevic before the International Tribunal at The Hague, the
authors failed to mention that Milosevic was not permitted to question
Clark on what the general had written in his book, "Waging Modern War."
Also, the U.S. government demanded and received the right to edit
videotapes and transcripts of the sessions before they were made
public. Following his secret testimony at The Hague, Clark, in answer
to an inquiry about what should happen to Saddam Hussein,
hypocritically stated that it was important that Hussein's trial not be
behind closed doors, so that the whole world could see justice done.
While the article had high praise in general terms for Clark's
leadership of NATO forces in the Balkans, a critical look at his
performance tells a different story.

In "Waging Modern War" Clark writes about his fury upon learning that
Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo,
before British or American forces.
In an Aug. 3, 1999, article, "The guy who almost started World War
III," The Guardian (UK) wrote: "No sooner are we told by Britain's top
generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's
war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander,
the American Gen. Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers
would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most
frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. 'I'm not
going to start the third world war for you', Gen. Mike Jackson,
commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to
have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault
troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of
Kosovo's provincial capital."

Gen. Clark's buddy in Kosovo was Hashim Thaci, the leader of the Kosovo
Liberation Army which, according to the July 30, 2002, Belfast News
Letter (N. Ireland), is engaged in sex slavery, prostitution, murder,
kidnapping and drugs.
The Daily Telegraph reported on Feb. 19, 2002, that "European drug
squad officers say Albanian and Kosovo Albanian dealers are ruthlessly
trying to seize control of the European heroin market ..." This is the
same Hashim "The Snake" Thaci with whom Clark was photographed in a
triumphal handshake after NATO forces occupied Kosovo.

As for his ability as a military leader, Gen. Clark failed on two
counts: the Kosovo air campaign and his plan for a ground campaign.
While the questionable effectiveness of the air campaign is not solely
his responsibility, his coverup of the results ("Kosovo Cover Up,"
Newsweek, May 15, 2000) are testimony to his dedication to power and
career.
As for a ground war, which Gen. Clark admits that he favored,
he insists that he could have conducted a successful ground war in
Kosovo by sending supporting Apache helicopters through the mountain
passes between Albania and Kosovo, a plan which was described to me by
an Apache pilot as "hare-brained" and "suicidal."

There is no doubt that a ground war with the might of 19 NATO nations
behind it eventually would have succeeded, but at what cost and why? To
feed Gen. Clark's ego and ambition.

Before accepting the judgment of Adm. Larson and Lt. Gen. Christman,
one should also consider the comments of two retired four-star
generals, Gen.Tommy Franks, who led the campaign to capture Baghdad,
and Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An article in the Jan. 12 New Yorker quoted statements they made
shortly after Clark announced his candidacy. When asked if Clark would
make a good president, Franks' short reply was, "Absolutely not." When
asked the same question, Shelton replied that "... the reason he came
out of [his NATO
command in] Europe had to do with integrity and character issues ...
Wes won't get my vote."

Such comments by retired four-star generals about another four-star are
almost unprecedented. They should not be taken lightly.
If Gen. Clark had had his way in Kosovo, we might have gone to war with
Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War, and we
certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an
ill-conceived ground war.

Clark's obsession with career and power is what we saw too often in
senior leaders during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in
those with positions of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the
security of our nation.


Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret.), of Camp Hill, Pa., flew 230 F-4 combat
missions in Vietnam, served for seven years with various NATO
designated units, was the senior Air Force attaché to the Soviet Union
('79-'81) and the senior Air Force advisor to the Naval War College,
where he also served as an instructor in the Strategy Department


=== 3 ===

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM

General Wesley Clark

From Waco to Yugoslavia:

The US military was at Waco

General Wesley Clark was involved in the siege and final assault near
Waco, Texas that killed, by a combination of toxic gas and fire, at
least 82 people including some three dozen women, children and infants.
As outlandish as this claim may seem, it's a reasonable conclusion that
can be drawn by any fair minded person who takes the time to examine
the evidence. Further, there is substantial circumstantial evidence
that, Clark, in addition to acting as a tactical consultant, may, in
fact, have been the prime architect and commander of the entire
operation.

If this is true, why is it important? First, it represents a clear
violation of US law. The military is banned from involvement in the
enforcement of US civil law except under certain carefully defined
circumstances. The incident at Waco did not come even close to legally
qualifying. Second, it casts light on some of the more outrageous
tactics used in the war against Yugoslavia, in particular the bombing
attacks on Yugoslavian news media, essential life support services, and
on civilians, the latter which were sometimes, but not always,
described as "accidents." Third, President Clinton began the year with
the statement that he is considering a Pentagon proposal to create a
new US military command, commander-in-chief for the defense of the
continental U.S., a first in peace time and an alarming move for
reasons described in "Bombing 'suspended' - and now, the future"

http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/61099a.html


=== 4 ===

Chicago-Sun Times | May 6, 1999 | Robert Novak

Balkan failure is Clark's

Who is responsible for an air offensive that is building anti-American
anger across Europe without breaking the Serbian regime's will? The
blame rests heavily on Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander.

After 40 days, U.S.-dominated NATO air strikes no longer even pretend
to aim solely at military targets. Pentagon sources admit that the
attacks on the city center of Belgrade are intended to so demoralize
ordinary citizens that they force President Slobodan Milosevic to
yield. That has not yet happened, but diplomats believe the grave
damage done to American prestige in Central and Eastern Europe will
outlive this vicious little war.

"The problem is Wes Clark making--at least approving--the bombing
decisions," said one such diplomat, who then asked rhetorically: "How
could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be [supreme allied
commander of Europe]?" Through dealings with Yugoslavia that date back
to 1994, Clark's
propensity for mistakes has kept him in trouble while he continued
moving up the chain of command thanks to a patron in the Oval Office.

In the last month's American newspaper clippings, Clark emerges as the
only heroic figure of a non-heroic war. Indeed, his resume is stirring:
first in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, frequently wounded
and highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow. He
became a full general about as fast as possible in peacetime.

But members of Congress who visited Clark at his Brussels headquarters
in the early days of the attack on Yugoslavia were startled by his
off-the-record comments. If the Russians are going to sail war ships
into the combat zone, we should bomb them. If Milosevic is getting oil
from the Hungarian pipeline, we should bomb it.

NATO's actual air strategy did not go that far, but increasingly, it
has reflected Clark's belligerence. Even the general's defenders in the
national security establishment cannot understand the targeting of
empty government buildings in Belgrade, including Milosevic's official
residence. Civilian damage and casualties in Kosovo and elsewhere in
Serbia are too widespread to be accidental.

Sources inside the U.S. high command say this week's disabling of
Belgrade electrical power facilities was intended to destroy civilian
morale. The Pentagon has announced NATO "area bombing" with "dumb"
bombs carried by B-52s--clearly an anti-population tactic. In a highly
limited war, Clark is using the methods of total war.

One American diplomat with experience in the Balkans, who asked that he
not be quoted by name, told me that ground forces are needed and he is
appalled by the bombing of civilian targets. "It has no military
significance, and it is pointless--utterly pointless," he added. "But
it has a terrible impact on us. This bombing in the heart of the
Balkans is costing us."

That cost is viewed by State Department professionals as the product of
Clark's deaf ear when it comes to diplomacy. His classic gaffe came in
1994 when he went off to meet Ratko Mladic, the brutal Bosnian Serb
commander now sought as a war criminal, at his redoubt in Banja Luka.
Mladic concluded
their meeting by saying how much he admired Clark's three-star general
cap. Impulsively, the American general exchanged hats with the
notorious commander, who has been accused of ethnic cleansing, and even
accepted Mladic's service revolver with an engraved message.

That escapade cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to
Bosnia. He was sacked partly for not exercising sufficient restraint on
the mercurial Clark and for not preventing him from gallivanting off to
Banja Luka. The sequel came at Belgrade a year later during the
diplomacy leading to the
Dayton peace conference. Milosevic, smiling broadly, humiliated Clark
by returning his hat to him. That helps explain the general's intense
personal animosity for the Yugoslav president.

Clark is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general.
Clark's rapid promotions after Dayton--winning his fourth star to head
the Panama-based Southern Command and then the jewel of his European
post--were both opposed by the Pentagon brass. But Clark's fellow
Arkansan in the White House named him anyway. The president and the
general are collaborators in a failed strategy whose consequences cast
a long shadow even if soon terminated by negotiation.


=== 5 ===

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/27grubacic.cfm

December 27, 2003

Wesley Clark goes to the Hague

By Andrej Grubacic

There are two reasons for which Wesley Clark found himself, mid
December, at the witness stand at the Hague. The first reason is that
the Bush Administration has, for state reasons, refused to prohibit his
being a witness. But, the real reason why Wesley Clark has finally
agreed, after two years of procrastination, to go to the Hague is
because he believes that his testimony against Slobodan Milosevic will
help him in his race for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic
Party.

Milosevic could not have wished for a better Christmas present. It has
been said that of all witnesses, Milosevic likes best the ones that
increase the TV viewer rating of the Hague "trial of the century", and
that he cares little what proofs these witnesses have against him. The
accused is anyway not too interested in the process aspect of the
lawsuit itself, rather in the unlimited access to the national and
international public.

He is not very anxious about Clark's testimony, especially since the
General has already made public all that he knows about Milosevic, and
judging by what we have seen in the courtroom thus far, Milosevic seems
to be entertained rather than worried by the prosecution's attempts to
prove the existence of his supposed intent or plans for genocide in
1991 with the help of testimonies of American and German Generals,
which met him for the first time only in the mid 1990s. This could be
an important point in favour of Milosevic, seeing that although he
finds himself in jail, he is a candidate on the list of his Socialist
Party of the Serbian elections. Do not ask me how.

Milosevic, however, seems not to realize that Clark too, will benefit
to the maximum from their confrontation at the Hague. Their new meeting
will be presented to the American public in the following way: The
American General is going to the Hague to accuse the Dictator whose
demise he accelerated, and whose Albanian subjects he saved though an
air campaign, during which not a single American soldier was killed.

Clark, however, has prepared in advance, with the help of the State
Department's lawyers and the goodwill of the Court, such conditions of
testimony which preclude any nasty surprises for him during the
cross-examination: the filmed cross-examination of his testimony will
be aired with a 48-hour delay, once the Americans have checked the
contents and are able to protect their national interests. Milosevic,
on the other hand, will not be given the opportunity to share his point
of view on the duel in the courtroom with journalists.

In the Serbian public it is speculated that a disastrous moment for
Wesley Clark and his presidential campaign would be when Slobodan
Milosevic presents photographs from summer 1994, of a smiling Clark in
the company of Ratko Mladic, fugitive Bosnian General and accused of
war crimes, wearing his hat. That photograph has, however, already been
circulated in America on Tim Rasert's highly viewed TV show.

Clark explained his controversial meeting with Mladic as the result of
his wish upon arriving to Bosnia, to meet all of those involved in the
conflict, adding that at the time, Mladic was not yet accused of war
crimes. In the worst case scenario, from that angle Clark looks like a
naïve and unaware Westerner, who having encountered the sly and
unscrupulous natives, was armed will only the best intentions.

As a guest on Dan Rather's CBS show "60 Minutes", he seemed on the
verge of tears as he talked of the Muslim victims of the Bosnian war.
"This is the first time that I have seen you so shaken up with
emotions", concluded Rather. The General explained that for him,
civilian victims of war are an unbearable sight.

There is another, more important, reason for Clark's visit to the
Hague. By taking the witness stand, Clark will be able to further
portray the difference between him, the soldier that has "freed a
people" from its tyrannical leader, and the current American president
who is also claiming to have "freed a people". That people, the Iraqis,
however, are killing American soldiers whenever the opportunity
presents itself, and "tyrannical dictator" was, until very recently,
still at large and free.

Because of the Iraq war, foreign policy has returned to the front stage
in America: Bush's first televised ad accuses the Democrats of
"attacking the President for fighting terrorism". If patriotism and
defense are the key words in the presidential campaign, then the
Democrats need a candidate who, as a soldier, seems more convincing
than Bush.

Fifty years have passed since the Oval Office was occupied by a General
(Dwight Eisenhower). While Bush managed to avoid being drafter during
the Vietnam War, Clark returned from the war with serious injuries and
a medal for his "bravery". Clark's electoral standing has lost some of
its shine compared to the early weeks of his candidacy, but the Hague
could give it renewed and permanent brilliance.

His visit to the Hague will be news and will most certainly serve to
remind voters that Clark's Kosovo war, in contrast with Bush's war in
Iraq, was not only successful, but also painless (for the US of
course). Clark's electoral campaign has landed its first electoral TV
ad. At the moment when he is shown surrounded by delighted Albanian
Kosovars, the narrator says "and in the Balkans he led a multinational
force that stopped a campaign of terror, freed a people and brought
peace without a single American casualty."

Clark is aiming at several vulnerable spots in Bush's posture. Both
Bush's and Clark's wars have been based on the pretext of "freeing"
Muslim populations. Clark's advantage, however, is that "his" Muslims
are infinitely grateful to him: in Bosnia and Kosovo they are erecting
statues and naming streets and him and Bill Clinton.

Of late, the General has been insisting that his war was more moral
than Bush's, he was stopping genocide, whereas Bush just wanted to get
his hands on the Iraqi oil (CBS "60 Minutes"). Furthermore, in his war
against Yugoslavia, Clark commanded a NATO alliance of 19 member
states, while Bush acts unilaterally and as a bully, with only the
British for allies, and has managed to alienate the rest of the world.
Clark's opponents have admitted openly in the New York Times that they
wished they could find a way to make Iraq resemble Bosnia. It seems
that only to someone in Baghdad, an impoverished and ethnically
cleansed Sarajevo could appear as a success story.

And so overnight the Balkans are back on the political map of the world
once again, having become a convenient trump card in American foreign
and domestic policy. Therefore we should not be surprised at Richard
Holbrooke's and Bernard Kouchner's sudden visit here. Nor should we be
surprised at Morton Abramovitsch, whose article in the Wall Street
Journal a few weeks ago, advocates the independence of Kosovo even
before the Albanians meet any international standards.

Abramovitsch is also insisting on the "contrast" between Iraq and
Kosovo. From the point of view of this Albanian lobbyist, the biggest
problem in Kosovo is that the International Community has not as yet
handed over full control of the province to the Albanians. He does
admit the "Kosovars" (Albanian citizens of Kosovo) are "partly
responsible" for the situation in the province. This is what he holds
against them: "they are very slow in stopping" the violence against the
Serbs, "they are slow" in expressing serious interest in the return of
Serbian refugees, organised crime is "a problem" and the rule of law
still needs to be "firmly established".

This is the talk in Washington. In Belgrade, of course, very few people
believe that there is any significant moral difference between Clark
and Bush, and their wars. From the Belgrade perspective, the difference
between the foreign policies of the Republicans and Democrats is barely
visible. Here the "contrast" of which Morton Abramovitsch writes is not
so self evident.

Why is Clark against the war in Iraq? Because it's Bush's war, not his.
When compared to Saddam, Milosevic was, in the worst case, a small time
authoritarian thug. As the Guardian writes these days: America, like
all empires throughout history, has a consistent approach in
international politics. That approach is not morally consistent;
rather, it is strategically consistent.

The Belgrade perspective is that there is not too much of a difference
between Clinton's supposedly enlightened multilateralism and
"humanitarian intervention", and Bush's wars of terror. This conclusion
is pointed to by the statement of Leslie Gelb, President of the US
Council of Foreign Relations, who is these days arguing in the pages of
the New York Times for the division of Iraq into three separate states
(in 1991 he was supporting the division of Yugoslavia and the
independence of Croatia).

He remembered us in Yugoslavia when he made a demand that the US should
abandon the policy of an "artificially united Iraq" and should break it
up into "the Kurds in the North, the Suniis in the centre, and the
Shiites in the South". "There exists", says Gelb, "an encouraging
precedent" for the strategy of breaking up Iraq into a number of
states. That precedent is called Yugoslavia.

There where the Americans see sharp contrasts, the Serbs see only dark
shadows. This is the context in which Slobodan Milosevic confronted
once again Wesley Clark. One should not be surprised if both of them
leave the courtroom satisfied: they will be playing to an entirely
different public.


* Andrej Grubacic is a historian and social critic from Belgrade, New
Europe. He can be reached at zapata@...